Redesign UFS

[jakeordie]

Cutting quote from Kaltik thread, to discuss pros & cons of UFS without hijacking;


The UFS standard was created around small skates. Because of that any time you move the middle wheels out farther then most frames you have to make the frame alot taller to clear the UFS bolts. That is why this type of frame is rarely made and never gets popular.

If some skate company had the balls to move from UFS and make a soul plate and frame then we could have a perfect flat set up with out the rediculous frame height. I think the Carbons would be perfect for this and just have a 1 piece frame and soul like the old fifth elements did. With the wheels pushed out you may not get as much extra control but all the speed, comfort and grip will still be there.
When you take the average foot size (US9) and corresponding wheelbase (250mm) and centre the mounts between the wheel pairs you get 167mm.....UFS wasn't designed to allow for splitting the middle wheels. When I started making frames, the mounts were designed using the same lateral mounting principle as Roces 5th Elements and the bolts holding the frame walls were split 180. Not only did this allow for a low-capital construction method, the mounts were adapters between the UFS standard's 167 and my preferred 180 (let's call it FSU for this discussion).

First we have to understand why UFS hasn't been changed. We were told the purpose of UFS from an industry perspective was to allow core skater-owned companies (Fifty-50 is the perfect example) to make a frame that would fit all corporate-owned companies' boots.....it was a chance for the little guys to play their game in the same ballpark. What happened instead is the boot companies created "brands" (Ground Control, Kizer) to produce their own frames, and as before companies like Fifty-50 didn't have the power to compete.

I have drawn the conclusion that skate companies design hardware that sells as first priority, and hardware that works as second (call this good business sense if you like, but I won't). I see this as the reason why certain designs are either not introduced (FSU flat frame with ideal groove), or are done in such a half-assed way as to discredit the design itself (Hi-Lo, Diamond, Armortech, Element, Slimline, Switch). They're not gonna spend money to change UFS and make hardware they believe will earn them less money.

So the boot companies won't change UFS, and since they own the major frame companies how can it happen? There are three questions I want your input for;

1. What changes (if any) do you think our mounting standard needs to be truly "Universal"?

2. What changes (if any) would you make to the mounts for your ideal frame?

3. If a frame was made using your ideal mounts, would you be willing to do the mod work to bolt this frame to your UFS boots?

[Mudhut Jollyrancher]

I'm for FSU since it seems it would make better frames but it would be difficult for a switch to happen. You would definitely need a large company like sunshine or the conference to start something like that and because of the reasons you've already said that probably wouldn't happen. Either way i would do the mods necessary if the frames were good enough. Any ideas in mind?

[Special ED]

yeah, there is nothing universal about UFS. all of the hardware is completely different and it is designed around a specific size. but nothing will happen, there isn't enough money in the industry to change a system that is pretty well planted in skate design. shit was so much better when parts were specific. 5050s were adapted to fit razors, usd, salomon, it was expensive and it was great.

[jakeordie]

Let me clarify what I'm getting at here, I'm not looking to replace UFS as the premier standard. I'm asking if you had the option of buying frames custom made to a better mounting standard for your skating, would you do the work to retro-fit them to UFS boots? You the individual, not "We" the rollerblading community as a whole.

And if so, what changes (if any) would you make to the mounts?

[Chinaski]

I would totally be willing to add some adapters and redrill holes. When ufs came out it was a HUGE change to how frames were mounted and everyone went along with it. I feel like mounts are a lot more similar now and the mods needed would be totally doable with a drill and some grinding.

[zacharias]

1)frames should be the symmetrical on the front and back axels and positive and negatives so sides can be rotated for less wear and tear.

2)Personally, the mounts do not bother my foot size (7.5, its the boots that do) Depending on the groove of the boot I would like my frames less centered some times(favoring towards the toe) Flat set-ups have never given me issues with the current frames mounts if I have the proper hardware.

Skating a frame with anything from 60 to 65 flat would be amazing if i could have them rockered into the boot, not worry about frame height or groove tricks.

If frames came out with different mounts I would have no problem experimenting with em.

3)Usually I mod my skate out of the box so sanding frame numbs and drilling new holes is no problem.

If FSU frames come about I suggest having templates with pre drilled holes so you can screw down the template to the existing UFS holes and drill through the boot with the new template holes.

The frames should also come with no nub-receiver or should come with washers to fill in the receiver.

[jakeordie]

1)frames should be the symmetrical on the front and back axels and positive and negatives so sides can be rotated for less wear and tear.

2)Personally, the mounts do not bother my foot size (7.5, its the boots that do) Depending on the groove of the boot I would like my frames less centered some times(favoring towards the toe) Flat set-ups have never given me issues with the current frames mounts if I have the proper hardware.
This is another thing the FSU mounts allowed for. Rather than rockering both out for 180, you could rocker either one out for 6.5mm (about 1/4") offset forward or back on the boot. And the frame plates would still be symmetrical.


3)Usually I mod my skate out of the box so sanding frame nubs and drilling new holes is no problem. The frames should come with no nub-receiver or should come with washers to fill in the receiver.
Yeah I wish the nubs were on the frame and the holes in the sole, there's 6mm less stack height and enough to clear any flat split. I've been experimenting with different UFS hardware for awhile, and from an engineering perspective this might cause problems.

[john doe]

I would do just about anything to have the flat frames I want short of making my own frames again. Just getting rid of or inverting the 3x20 plug could open up 5mm more of split for a flat 56mm set-up. I've never wanted larger wheels then that for a flat set-up. Larger is just more weight and more leverage to damage bearings, wheels and frames.

My ideal frame would be 260 wheels base with the inner wheelbase at 196. With height set to clear a 60mm wheel on a flat bottom boot. Then the sidewalls coming down far enough to scrape just a tad at full lean. Then the H-block would be skinny enough to fit a 8mm thick shaped piece of UHMW between it and the inner wheel.

[jakeordie]

I would do just about anything to have the flat frames I want short of making my own frames again. Just getting rid of or inverting the 3x20 plug could open up 5mm more of split for a flat 56mm set-up. I've never wanted larger wheels then that for a flat set-up. Larger is just more weight and more leverage to damage bearings, wheels and frames.

My ideal frame would be 260 wheels base with the inner wheelbase at 196. With height set to clear a 60mm wheel on a flat bottom boot. Then the sidewalls coming down far enough to scrape just a tad at full lean. Then the H-block would be skinny enough to fit a 8mm thick shaped piece of UHMW between it and the inner wheel.
Seriously, you could do this with Fifty-50 Cores and some UHMW scraps real easy. Great frame for 56 flat with a 60 max frame height, all you'd need to mod is the UHMW hitch-hikers.....and there's plenty of room between the block and inner 56s to wedge 'em in there.

Your quote from the Kaltic thread made me think of original Salomon frames, with sole wings attached and the frame mounted through the wings and not the frame channel. At least this mounting standard allows the wheels to be anywhere in the frame, even their super short non-UFS frames had a great split & decent groove.

[john doe]

The problem I personally have with any current type of frame is the wheel wear. The way I ride the rear wheel wears from the way I coast and the front wears from the way I push. If I don't rotate the wheels every 2 sessions then I completely ruin the base I have for landing. Massive pain. Thats why I want the wheels moved out to minimize this effect. Oddly I just measured my old 50/50 freestyle core frame and they have a 270mm overall wheel base.

As far as the UHMW h-block additions. I did that on my old Salomon UFS frames. It worked rediculously great at keeping my groove from spreading into my antirockers. It's so simple and works so well there is no reason it isn't in any frames.

[killinemsoftly]

i think all boots thate have a raised heel should have a frame that is made like the older frames that are tall in the rear... but make them more so where they appear like a UFS frame from the bottom but they have more strength in them because they are more up in the boot of the skate... and im sure it would feel more solid... and also with this... skate companies that made this could have a good adaptor plate for their skate to be able to use UFS frames like many of the other boot companies use...

[al dolega]

Haven't we been over most of these things before?


First we have to understand why UFS hasn't been changed.

Changing UFS is not some willy-nilly, easily-implementable decision that the big bad skate companies have refused to do because of some nefarious down-with-flat-rocker conspiracy. UFS hasn't been changed because you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars of mold changes, difficulties or impossibilities with producing small wheelbases and thus cutting out an entire age and even sex demographic from the market, an inventory and logistical headache, and huge market confusion, just to satiate a tiny minority's desire for an optimized version of their wheel setup.


We were told the purpose of UFS from an industry perspective was to allow core skater-owned companies (Fifty-50 is the perfect example) to make a frame that would fit all corporate-owned companies' boots.....it was a chance for the little guys to play their game in the same ballpark. What happened instead is the boot companies created "brands" (Ground Control, Kizer) to produce their own frames, and as before companies like Fifty-50 didn't have the power to compete.

Oh jeez... more conspiracy theory. Kizer, Senate, and hell, even OUT produced frames well before UFS, remember? So did Fifty50. Guess whose was the most popular by far? FIfty50's, the little guys. BUT, those little guys weren't making squat from it because they were taking a loss on all the adapters they had to produce to accommodate even a small number of the boots at the time. Now, they don't have to do that and have been able to do three sizes, two molds, an aluminum core, etc.... despite rollerblading being 1/10th the size it was back then.

If Fifty50 doesn't have a dominant market share nowadays, it's not because of UFS.

Do you really think Kaltik and Create Originals and Fiziks and even Able would/will/would have existed without a universal frame-mount standard?


certain designs are either not introduced (FSU flat frame with ideal groove), or are done in such a half-assed way as to discredit the design itself (Hi-Lo, Diamond, Armortech, Element, Slimline, Switch). They're not gonna spend money to change UFS and make hardware they believe will earn them less money.

Why would they believe it would make them less money? Wheel sales from wheels lasting longer on flat setups? Last I checked, Undercover was the only wheel company owned by one of the skate/frame "corporations." Why would Powerslide or Sunshine purposely tank or handicap their new frame designs, that they just invested a sizeable amount of money into creating? What benefit does this gain them, and if there is one, does it even come close to breaking even with the cost of creating those new frames? I think not.


1. What changes (if any) do you think our mounting standard needs to be truly "Universal"?

Our mounting standard IS "truly universal" right now; all the boot and frame companies use it. Accomodating to all wheel setups (meaning low-stance super-split flat)? No.


2. What changes (if any) would you make to the mounts for your ideal frame?

Well, ideal in what way? My personal dream setup, completely detached from real-world/business concerns? Created for me and me alone? Yea, I'd probably have a one-piece soul/frame setup... because I know exactly what I want, and money would be no limit in this fantasy world.


3. If a frame was made using your ideal mounts, would you be willing to do the mod work to bolt this frame to your UFS boots?

Meaning if you make a super-split low-stance flat frame, will I be willing to shave my UFS buttons and drill new mounting holes and Dremel new countersinks inside the boot for the t-nuts, in order to try it out? Sure. I'm a lot more capable with that stuff than most rollerbladers, though.

[jakeordie]

I accept the points you've made Al (except the one about small sizes.....I have a file "Al.dwg" that I post to prove you wrong everytime, but you keep using your flawed argument like it never happened). I guess what I hope to find in this thread is people who are willing to question the UFS standard's potential shortcomings, and hopefully have drawn different conclusions than I.

Is it safe to assume you're voting for UFS?

[Village Idiot]

Even though I spent the best years of my skating career riding flat 56 mm on 5th elements (or I might just remember skating being most fun when I was 17), I voted UFS.

I don't see the need for a super low frame setup. I can handle a higher frame if I want to skate flat, I skated kizer elements, and apart from the fact that the groove was too deep even with the h block upside down, I had no trouble doing royales and front fahrvergnuegens on ledges.

[s.]

3. If a frame was made using your ideal mounts, would you be willing to do the mod work to bolt this frame to your UFS boots?

Meaning if you make a super-split low-stance flat frame, will I be willing to shave my UFS buttons and drill new mounting holes and Dremel new countersinks inside the boot for the t-nuts, in order to try it out? Sure.

[al dolega]

I accept the points you've made Al (except the one about small sizes.....I have a file "Al.dwg" that I post to prove you wrong everytime, but you keep using your flawed argument like it never happened).

I've addressed that before too. I believe it was a 235mm wheelbase with 180mm mounts with 56's and a 30mm channel-to-axle-center height, correct me if I'm wrong. 235mm is still generally too long for <size 7, and limiting the outer wheel size of all the people riding 235mm or less who don't ride flat is pretty wack too. Littlefoot can't ride 60's with that setup, at least not without hiking the ride height up.


I guess what I hope to find in this thread is people who are willing to question the UFS standard's potential shortcomings, and hopefully have drawn different conclusions than I.

That's cool. I'm not hating on the idea of this thread, nor do I think UFS is 100% ideal either. But it's what we have and realistically it is not going to change any time soon.


Is it safe to assume you're voting for UFS?

I didn't vote because I think pinning the two up as an either-or proposition is a little silly. UFS is going to remain the standard but hopefully you produce an alternative that's fairly easy to custom-mount. Any momentum for changing UFS is going to come from things like that doing well and making a big splash, not from a poll on Be-Mag.

[jakeordie]

You're contradicting yourself Al.

First you say UFS is "truly universal", yet you acknowledge it doesn't cater to skaters who want anti grindability with flat setups.

Then you say these skaters are a tiny market unworthy of consideration in the "Universal" standard, but skaters who wanna run bigger wheels than 56s flat on a shorter than 235mm wheelbase represent a market big enough to veto any changes.

And finally, I don't expect you to vote either/or.....I hoped you would have some valuable input. Truth is I'm considering a different construction method for one-off custom frame designs, and I wanna make sure it's as accommodating of radical designs as possible. If the potential to make our standard "more universal" exists, I wanna hear from skaters that aren't 100% satisfied with UFS.

If you're not one of 'em, vote UFS and :arrow:

[Retard4Eternity]

I don't really care, I go out and have fun. Fuck frames, make new boots.

[KillerCucumber]

I think this is a little silly, but to be honest what I would love to have back is classic thrones with classic fifty fiftys and the 1999 throne liner. Best skates ever made,all parts only made for the skates without trying to make them work in other boots as well. UFS is amazing if you like changing your set up every now and then (and I am one of those that does) but if they still sold the old thrones (minus the new crap wrap front soul and shit liners) I would buy them exclusivly. As for the FSU thing or whatever, not interested.A lot of work for what probably will be a minnimal change in proformance. The only way to make a big change is to make a system where you can perfectly line up every boots bs groove with the frames groove, and with UFS it is possible but its just not done to the same level you are wanting. Blah I say.

[al dolega]

You're contradicting yourself Al.

First you say UFS is "truly universal", yet you acknowledge it doesn't cater to skaters who want anti grindability with flat setups.

UFS is universal. Show me a current "real" aggressive skate that doesn't use it- hell, even some of the generic skates are using it now- show me an aftermarket frame that isn't UFS. This is really just a semantic argument at this point I suppose- you know what I mean and I know what you mean.

Also, I firmly believe that this idea of "anti grindability with a flat setup" is a pipe dream, at least when presented in such plain absolutes. Could a perfected super-split low-stance flat frame make riding flat easier? Sure. Maybe even significantly easier. But it's never going to make it as easy as riding antirocker, never.


Then you say these skaters are a tiny market unworthy of consideration in the "Universal" standard, but skaters who wanna run bigger wheels than 56s flat on a shorter than 235mm wheelbase represent a market big enough to veto any changes.

I said not flat.... meaning, antirocker or freestyle. Of course over-56 flat on a <235mm wheelbase is a miniscule demographic. Everyone who I know that rides anti/freestyle, however, prefers a 58mm or bigger wheel, and as you know anti/freestyle is the vast majority of the market.


If the potential to make our standard "more universal" exists, I wanna hear from skaters that aren't 100% satisfied with UFS.

Again, your idea about lengthening UFS doesn't make it "more universal." It swaps one demographic for another.

[jakeordie]

Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of this thread Al.


I'm considering a different construction method for one-off custom frame designs, and I wanna make sure it's as accommodating of radical designs as possible.
This method accommodates UFS, and it accommodates my idea of stretching the mounts out to 180. I wanna make sure it accommodates new ideas other skaters may have before I get into the finer details. So if you're happy with the frames available today and you think UFS is fine the way it is, just say it & don't bother with the walls of text against an alternative.


UFS is universal. Show me a current "real" aggressive skate that doesn't use it.
I'm working on it. Don't mistake monopoly for universality, if there are people who want what UFS doesn't allow for then it's not universal.


I said not flat.... meaning, antirocker or freestyle. Of course over-56 flat on a <235mm wheelbase is a miniscule demographic. Everyone who I know that rides anti/freestyle, however, prefers a 58mm or bigger wheel, and as you know anti/freestyle is the vast majority of the market.
So what you're saying is, there's no shortage of frames for anti or freestyle skaters to choose from.....so I needn't bother making frames that'll just be more of the same. Ten four buddy.

But for the record, I made 225mm frames that were 60 max for the outer wheels.....the catch is they were anti only. And if you do the math, 60s flat on 225 doesn't leave you much split to work with regardless of where the mounts are.

You say anti & freestyle is the vast majority of the market, but how many skaters would switch tomorrow if they could buy & bolt on a flat frame that grinds like anti. You say it's a pipedream, but the force in your argument against it tells me you know it can be done.

[Gonzalo]

UFS is universal. Show me a current "real" aggressive skate that doesn't use it.
I'm working on it. Don't mistake monopoly for universality, if there are people who want what UFS doesn't allow for then it's not universal.

Stop being a stubborn ass about this. It's quite obvious Al is talking about universality in terms of mounting method and you're talking about universality of application. Apples to oranges. You're not dumb enough to insist with a semantic argument as pointless as this. We all got what both of you were saying and neither of you is wrong.

[Freddy White]

I can't really vote for an option or the other.

All I want is Fiziks frames with a little more plastic on the walls to cover the pins.

[jakeordie]

Gonz, I'm taking issue with Al implying that because no one in the universe has made non-UFS frames since the standard was introduced, this is proof the standard is in fact "Universal".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I am in the universe, and I have made non-UFS frames since & will again (that's the reason I started this thread, and its intended purpose). And other people in the universe will need dremels & drills to mount 'em because the current UFS offerings are not "Universal"

Why does Al need to argue when UFS is so perfect? Just say it's perfect, call me a dumbass and move on. Or perhaps argue FOR something (like your precious wheel-wells) instead of arguing AGAINST something.

[Gonzalo]

Gonz, I'm taking issue with Al implying that because no one in the universe has made non-UFS frames since the standard was introduced, this is proof the standard is in fact "Universal".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

By that logic, nothing can ever be universal since there will always be a method or application that doesn't fit the standard.

And I don't see where Al is saying that UFS is perfect. He's just saying that modifying it to cater to flat skaters is unrealistic and that it makes perfect sense for companies to stick to it since it causes no problems to anti/freestyle skaters, who comprise the majority of the market.

On the other hand, I do see your point that if those anti skaters had the option of skating flat with a similar grinding performance to anti they would probably be willing to switch en masse. However, making that happen is going to be extremely difficult and it is completely unrealistic to expect boot and hardware companies to embrace the change any time soon.

[jakeordie]

Gonz, I'm taking issue with Al implying that because no one in the universe has made non-UFS frames since the standard was introduced, this is proof the standard is in fact "Universal".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
By that logic, nothing can ever be universal since there will always be a method or application that doesn't fit the standard.
Not exactly. The standard can be universal as long as it accommodates all methods or applications. When one arises that is not supported by the standard, the standard needs updating in order to do so.....that is, only if the standard did not exclude a method or application upon conception.


And I don't see where Al is saying that UFS is perfect. He's just saying that modifying it to cater to flat skaters is unrealistic and that it makes perfect sense for companies to stick to it since it causes no problems to anti/freestyle skaters, who comprise the majority of the market.
Although Al & I have argued on modifying the UFS standard in the past, that is not the purpose of this thread. I have a new idea for the construction method of custom frames that will allow a wide range of mounting options, and I wanna make sure I am not excluding people the way I was excluded when UFS was mandated.


On the other hand, I do see your point that if those anti skaters had the option of skating flat with a similar grinding performance to anti they would probably be willing to switch en masse.
Exactly.....The Industry and Al and everyone who's happy with the way things are can have the standard, and I'll be the alternative for DIYers.


However, making that happen is going to be extremely difficult and it is completely unrealistic to expect boot and hardware companies to embrace the change any time soon.
I'm not expecting The Industry to do any such thing. I am asking the skaters if they want it and are willing to buy it.

[Gonzalo]

I'll buy it if it really works. I don't even need huge wheels. I'd be more than happy to be able to skate 56-58mm wheels flat without catching.

[jakeordie]

I like starting with 60ish and wearing them down to 55ish, but the method I'm talking about will allow for whatever wheels the skater wants to use.

[zacharias]

Universal shell sizing for boot molds made from now on...all in single size shells...no more guessing on what fits...

I dont care if my skates grind like they have anti-rockers but if there was a frame that you could skate 60's flat like they where 56's then that would ideal.

[Alex Coe]

Back on topic, I would be willing to customize, and in fact, intend to customize as much as possible to give me a new skate setup to try out. Anything to perhaps enhance or at least gain more perspective on the feat of skating is desired.

As for the move towards a new UFS or a new non-UFS system, I think it would be an easy switch with a new system already researched and marketed to the big companies. People are looking to change things because that's what sells! If Razors kept putting out the same skate over and over again people would stop buying it, right? (gulp!)

[zacharias]

Frames and frame channels should have two empty strips instead of two holes so you can shift them forward or backward and mount the screws in any direction. Or a series of holes...That would more stable but a little less customizable.

[jakeordie]

Frames and frame channels should have two empty strips instead of two holes so you can shift them forward or backward and mount the screws in any direction. Or a series of holes...That would more stable but a little less customizable.
I know racing boots use a series of holes, and the frame mounts are slotted laterally to ensure the frame is precisely centred. What if frame rockers were used with the mounting bolts? You shave the UFS nubs and could rocker the frame forward or back just like you'd rocker axles.

[salomonskater]

http://www.netskate.com/images/catpg/ifr008b.jpg

Multiple mounting possible: 165, 190 (not sure but I think something like this), right, left, center, etc. Which is particullary important if you have problem with feets (e.g. flat feets).

[zacharias]

Frames and frame channels should have two empty strips instead of two holes so you can shift them forward or backward and mount the screws in any direction. Or a series of holes...That would more stable but a little less customizable.
I know racing boots use a series of holes, and the frame mounts are slotted laterally to ensure the frame is precisely centred. What if frame rockers were used with the mounting bolts? You shave the UFS nubs and could rocker the frame forward or back just like you'd rocker axles.

The multiple holes dont have to even move the frame forward or back, You could have a centered frame with the screws mounted closer, farther, etc so you can have the wheels clear the bolts.

[KillerCucumber]

Ok, who is actually having this problem of wheels not clearing the frames bolts? I have been skating for over 12 years and have NEVER had this problem in any frame with any wheels.

[jakeordie]

Ok, who is actually having this problem of wheels not clearing the frames bolts? I have been skating for over 12 years and have NEVER had this problem in any frame with any wheels.
Skaters who like these;

http://www.highrollaz.org/facewheel.jpghttp://www.highrollaz.org/facewheel.jpghttp://www.highrollaz.org/facewheel.jpghttp://www.highrollaz.org/facewheel.jpg

and these;

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DYVNVlQ2Xw8/Sp-Pwl3S9UI/AAAAAAAAAdg/m3EhrFDvyJI/s400/prelim-ledge.jpg

I know it's a minority, and anyone who skates anti is cool by me no hate.....I just want to skate big wheels flat and not pay the price on grinds. And I'm at the point where the UFS standard is the weak link in designing the ideal frame to do this.

[KillerCucumber]

Ive skated flat all most the whole time Ive skated, its never been an issue. remember when the brown Shimas came out? 60mm wheels FLAT. All you needed to do was use the FRAME SPACERS. No crazy ass new system, just rockered framed system. Your trying to "re-invent the mouse trap" using nuclear physics when all you need is a peice of cheese and a spring loaded trap.

[jakeordie]

Putting those wheels flat on the Shima pro skate was just a trick to double the 4x4 wheel order and Brian's 4x4 royalties.....I don't know anyone who skated 'em like that and I'll hazard a guess that he didn't.

I don't get the hate on what I'm proposing, custom making frames to the mounting standard of each skater's choice. If you're happy with the way things are, good for you.....I'm not trying to convert anyone against their will. Improving on current rollerblade design principles is hardly rocket science....."Dark Ages" is a term used only in hindsight.

[zacharias]

Im for ya Jake and would love to try a pair of frames you made even if I have to mod my skates.

What if frames kept the UFS spacing and had threaded frame numbs? You could screw through the boot into your frame so that the inner wheel area has no disturbances from extra material/screw heads.

[salomonskater]

Personnally the ideal frame for me would be the best compromise between speed, shock absorbtion/comfort and grind space ( already put them in order of priority).

I love freeskate/freeride which is even more unpopular then aggressive, and a lot of the aggressive scene believe that freeskates are rec/speed skates :( and would love to incorporate grinds in it without loosing too much speed.

[KillerCucumber]

Putting those wheels flat on the Shima pro skate was just a trick to double the 4x4 wheel order and Brian's 4x4 royalties Yeah...God forbid a skate come with 8 of the same wheels, and then some crazy bastard try and ride them that way...
Listen, its not hate on you, I just dont see the need. And on top of that, it just seems that all you really want to do is just show us all how much more you have thought about it than us. Its like you have all ready convinced your self of how great this is and are just looking to argue how great it is with out actually listening to any of the feed back you are getting. If you want to do this, please do and lets see some pic's so we can get a real look at what you are talking about. Like I said on the first page of this post, my favorite frames EVER to this day are the classic non-UFS fifty-fiftys size small BECAUSE the were NOT symmetrical. I think that is part of what made them skate better, and definetly looked better. Im all for different ideas and what not, but I just dont see anything new or anything that is not all ready available comming from this right now.

[KillerCucumber]

Oh yeah, just for the record I was one of those crazy bastards that did ride them that way. Forgot to type that.

[jakeordie]

it just seems that all you really want to do is just show us all how much more you have thought about it than us. Its like you have all ready convinced your self of how great this is and are just looking to argue how great it is with out actually listening to any of the feed back you are getting.
Yeah I know there's truth to this, I just wanna ensure I can cover as many options & requests as possible before committing to making custom frames. A lot of it I have listened to and just not needed to respond because I know I got it covered with this new method (like asymmetric frames is easily do-able).

[Blade Psycho]

Can you ballpark how much these custom frames are going to cost? Just curious

[jakeordie]

Can you ballpark how much these custom frames are going to cost?
Probably not in the same ballpark as current frames. The idea is to give the skater as much freedom of choice over the design & dimensions of the frame as possible, and I expect this will appeal to a very small number of skaters who are willing to pay more to have a frame that fits them & their skating style perfectly.

[marvinc02]

if the new frame design are that much of an improvement, people will mod their skates and if it really takes off then companies will make the switch. E.G. fiziks hitch hikers, Night salomon soul plates, Elliot backslide plates on salos, all skates nonufs to UFS (UFS adapters on "cult" boot,)
modifications are easy, people make mods and Frankenstein skates all the time. the only way to prove your design is to make a product.

[bobgross]

I apologize for topping this again, I just wanted to add my input.

Have something like a 50/50 core with no receiver for the soulplate nubs, with multiple holes so you can move the frame mounting bolts inward/outward as you please (obviously you'd have to shave down the soulplate nubs and drill new holes for this)
You could then have a sidewall where the groove and the position of the inner wheels is adjusted for flat and another sidewall where everything is set up for antirocker. The multiple options for the position of the frame mounting bolts means that you never have to deal with wheels touching bolts.

I don't know much about frame design, so I can't really include any specifics, but I'm pretty sure that this would allow for 60mm flat setups while keeping the frame height low and making the frame pretty UFS compatible (you would have to shave down those nubs to use them though, but that's relatively simple to do.)

I'm not sure if it would work as an industry-wide standard, since i'm not sure whether soulplate molds could be altered to remove the nubs (I would think that it would be possible since so little material is being removed) or if entirely new molds would have to be made. If it did not catch on with skate manufacturers, I'd envision people removing the soulplate nubs right out of the box, and then they can use any frame (including the modified core design) and have the ability to slide their frame into a position that works well for them.

I'm sure Al or Jake will be quick to point out the flaws in this, I just can't see any other than the initial cost to alter the soulplate molds.

[Monday]

I've repositioned UFS frames on my skates for years. The nubs do exactly nothing. Frames sit in their position very securely if you drill holes that match the UFS bolts in size. Larger holes would raise the chance of movement though.

Edit: filling room up in a mold is usually easier than milling new stuff into it. The problem is to make the bond of the patch stick with the mold for a large number of injections. If you want to zero out the chance that something goes wrong and fucks up the production process you'll need to make new molds though.

[Monday]

I thought about something like you state here before and the only problem other than the need to alter soulplates is to create a 'receptor' that sits in the sole of the skate which has plenty of screw threads in it, which of course will weaken it if they're too close together.

Oh, wait... You could just use one receptor and move it to a matching positing with the position of the bolts in the frame. That way only the soulplate gets weaker... :lol:

I like the concept of the sawtooth-patent that (I believe) got posted in this thread before... :cool:

[lim]

FSU
http://thegameowl.com/images/fsu.jpg

[Dr. Zaius]

I skate anti.

[bostonsk8er]

everyone wants different things out of their frames. and i like the IDEA you're proposing. sure i'd like to skate flat wide rockered. i'd also like to skate twelve wheels flat with a gap a foot wide so i can treat most ledges like rails. lol. won't happen though. or skate 80's flat. that'll give me some extra speed. show us what you are thinking of. them ask us if we like it. you'll get more of the kind of response your looking for. i'm not against, but i'll believe it's better only when i see it.

[danjama]

UFS is in place for many reasons. Let's keep it that way.

[salomonskater]

UFS is in place for many reasons.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/61056391_31343afdc6.jpg


Let's keep it that way.

No.

[Mudhut Jollyrancher]

money rules everything around me
DOLLA DOLLA BILL YALL

[danjama]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/61056391_31343afdc6.jpg


No.

Oh, so you're the person in charge? Come on then, do your worst.




idiot

[salomonskater]

money rules everything around me
DOLLA DOLLA BILL YALL

Did you said "money" instead of "cash" on purpose?

[RobFromFlint]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/61056391_31343afdc6.jpg


No.

Because everyone knows there is so much money to be made in rollerblading.....

[salomonskater]

Because everyone knows there is so much money to be made in rollerblading.....

If the popular brands still exist today, maybe there is enough. Don't immediately believe the "omg we are struggling, halpz !!1!!!" thing.