I mean should the plates be touching the ends of both ends or should there be a 1/4 inch gap?
Traditional boot makers specify a blade length 1/4" shorter than the toe-to-heel length of the bottom of the boot. When I looked into this, I never found a reason, given that there doesn't appear to be any standardization for either boots or blades; boot designs, in particular, are more varied than they used to be (such as degree of overhang between the toe and heel of the uppers and the toe and heel of the bottom). One advantage of a slightly shorter blade is that you can adjust the position of the blade along the toe-to-heel axis of the boot without having a mounting plate overhang the toe or the heel of the boot [not every tech chooses to mount the front tip of the toe plate of the blade flush with the front tip of the sole of the boot]; also, consider what happens if you move the blade to the inside or to the outside. When I checked out manufacturer's charts and boot tech's websites, I didn't find agreement on what length to pick when your boot is in between sizes. Some recommend a gap of at least 1/4"; others are OK with a minimum gap of 1/8". E.g., suppose the boot length is 10-1/8". Most blades these days come in 1/4" length increments. So it's a choice between a 10" blade or a 9-3/4" blade.I mean should the plates be touching the ends of both ends or should there be a 1/4 inch gap?
I don't get this rationale. If you mount the front tip of the blade sole plate flush with the front tip of the bottom of the boot (or a slight overhang of the sole plate in front)), then it doesn't matter whether the heel of the blade is flush with the heel of the boot or a 1/4" shorter: the toe geometry is the same.With us, the blades go the entire length of the boot and sometimes a smidgen longer than the boot.
We know of one coach that like his skaters to have blades shorter than the boot. The issue there is that with the bigger toe jumps, the boot toe (not the blade toe pick) contacts the ice. The reason we know this is we are friends with a skater that recently left the coach. When the new coaches looked at the boots/blades and they said the skater needed longer blades ASAP.
I don't get this rationale. If you mount the front tip of the blade sole plate flush with the front tip of the bottom of the boot (or a slight overhang of the sole plate in front)), then it doesn't matter whether the heel of the blade is flush with the heel of the boot or a 1/4" shorter: the toe geometry is the same.
OK. Then it's likely that (a) the blade wasn't mounted properly, (b) the blade length was shorter than the boot length by substantially more than 1/4", or (c) both (a) and (b).My impression was the blade and the front tip of the boot were not flush. The blade was set back from the tip of the boot.
Given the variables involved, and given that the proper blade length is not a hard go/no-go value but a soft range, then, for a young skater with growing feet, it makes financial sense to start with a blade length close to the full boot length. Assuming that (a) the young skater outgrows her boots before she wears out her blades and (b) she does not need to upgrade her blades when she gets new boots, then it might be possible to reuse her old blades on her new boots. This assumes of course that (a) the length of her old blades are within a 1/4" or so shy of her new boot length and (b) her tech does not insist that the blade length must be at least as long as the new boot length [again, special consideration for Edeas].All I known is the guy that put blades on my skater is one of the highest volume sellers on the East Coast. He went to Worlds in Boston compliments of them so I assume he knows what he is doing.
Maybe you blade a young skater with growing feet different from an adult?.
Given the variables involved, and given that the proper blade length is not a hard go/no-go value but a soft range, then, for a young skater with growing feet, it makes financial sense to start with a blade length close to the full boot length. Assuming that (a) the young skater outgrows her boots before she wears out her blades and (b) she does not need to upgrade her blades when she gets new boots, then it might be possible to reuse her old blades on her new boots. This assumes of course that (a) the length of her old blades are within a 1/4" or so shy of her new boot length and (b) her tech does not insist that the blade length must be at least as long as the new boot length [again, special consideration for Edeas].
OK. Then it's likely that (a) the blade wasn't mounted properly, (b) the blade length was shorter than the boot length by substantially more than 1/4", or (c) both (a) and (b).
That's what I was referring to when I wrote in my Post #4: "One advantage of a slightly shorter blade is that you can adjust the position of the blade along the toe-to-heel axis of the boot without having a mounting plate overhang the toe or the heel of the boot [not every tech chooses to mount the front tip of the toe plate of the blade flush with the front tip of the sole of the boot]; also, consider what happens if you move the blade to the inside or to the outside."I feel like having a blade that’s touching the toe and heel all the way to end is too long. I really regret not getting 1/4 inch shorter. It’s making me feel like I have to be so much further back on the blade to be normal. Or I feel like my weight is too far forward. Could this happen by having blades that are too long?