Paintball

[drg]

Originally Posted by russc

Jeeze CP I think you just really, really want to see this one filed under "busted."

That has been the problem with CP and Bryce's approach from the beginning. The two are basically tackling issues that are long thought settled with the idea in mind that it would be easy to 'scientifically' demonstrate falsehood, and thereby gain internet fame from it.

It's pretty transparent from the commentary what the attitudes of the testers are toward the various myths in question, and the motivation behind the testing.

[russc]

Well, nobody else is doing it!

[drg]

Originally Posted by russc

Well, nobody else is doing it!

True and that makes the attitudes all the more dismaying. It's an opportunity to demonstrate a real scientific impartiality and even a little bit of professionalism to such testing and verification/nonverification of claims. But you listen to the commentary and discussion, and the snarkiness, both in tone and content, comes through so strongly it both damages faith in the testing and promotes attitudes best left out of science.

[c6quad]

Originally Posted by drg

That has been the problem with CP and Bryce's approach from the beginning. The two are basically tackling issues that are long thought settled with the idea in mind that it would be easy to 'scientifically' demonstrate falsehood, and thereby gain internet fame from it.

It's pretty transparent from the commentary what the attitudes of the testers are toward the various myths in question, and the motivation behind the testing.

Originally Posted by drg

True and that makes the attitudes all the more dismaying. It's an opportunity to demonstrate a real scientific impartiality and even a little bit of professionalism to such testing and verification/nonverification of claims. But you listen to the commentary and discussion, and the snarkiness, both in tone and content, comes through so strongly it both damages faith in the testing and promotes attitudes best left out of science.

i couldn't agree more. give this man a cigar.

the arrogance displayed in these last videos is what gets me. the i know it all, everybody else is stupid, i'm a M.E. student attitude totally turns me away... and now your asking for donations to help support this attitude of testing. that blows me away.

[brycelarson]

You guys are too crabby.

Sure, CP was dismissive of the results of our test, and he's got an attitude. He's the first to admit that he's got that attitude of superiority.

I try to be impartial, I could care less if backspin bolts work or not - I just call it the way I see it.

If I'm only out to prove my theory and gain fame - what was my ulterior motive on the barrel to paint match test?

barrel test v 2.0

I shouldn't be exacerbating this line of conversation - but I can't help it. Show me where I've been impartial. I don't think it's there (and please dont' bring up the snarky comment about flatline barrels, for the last time - it was a joke).

I'm interested in testing things because it hasn't been done. I like facts, I like data - and I want to see more of those in paintball. If my interpretation of the facts doesn't line up with yours - this forum is just as much your place to soap-box as it is mine. Thanks to Mr. Brown we're all allowed to rant and rave to our hearts content. If you need to make grandiose claims about a certain technology - that's your right, but I don't discount your experience, I just ask you to back it up with data.

peace,

[russc]

See, Bryce is the good cop and Mr. Gergelmuff is the bad evil monster, kind of like Jamie in Mythbusters!

drg, at least they are good about releasing their raw numbers. CockyPunk is entitled to make his own conclusions, as are we. Fortunately they provide us with enough data where we can actually question that conclusion. I think there's a disparity between what some of us want to see studied and the "myths" that CP decides to bust. Deciding how much backspin affects engagement range can get pretty subjective as we can see from Smith's posts.

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by drg

It's pretty transparent from the commentary what the attitudes of the testers are toward the various myths in question, and the motivation behind the testing.

I have the same feeling towards Tygers videos.

They did a test, and declared backspin bolts myths. Those of us that have used them, and knew otherwise cried foul. The response was "We didn't know about them....".

That does hurt credibilty, as they will use superlatives in calling something a myth, when the item itself is not explored very deeply. Clearly they already new exactly what they were going to say BEFORE they ever fired the first paintball.

But, to there credit, they agreed to revise the test. The test confirmed what we already knew. It is not a myth, when done correctly. But its a complex system, with many variables. The limited dataset is not completely conclusive, but that only implies more should be done to find the optimal spin rate.

Unfortunetly, it seems a bit too much like they are just in "saving face" mode.

[fasteddy]

Ouch...

"Dearly beloved, here lies paintball mythbusting..."

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by fasteddy

Ouch...

"Dearly beloved, here lies paintball mythbusting..."

nope, some people always disagree with anything.

we've got a ton of other tests in the works. Impartial, interesting and hopefully helpful to the community tests.

[Chris Nathan]

Holy Cow! You guys are really taking this personally. I was present at this test, fired every single test ball, and called out the X/Y coordinates of each shot. I had the clearest view of the trajectories of the test shots.

I have no reason to prove or disprove the theory behind backspin bolts, I was just helping out my friends.

That being said, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the backspin bolt did not make a useful difference. While it did give a slightly higher average vertical placement on the target the horizontal placement was all over the place. So, what good is a bolt that might be able to reach slightly further if you miss your target by two feet to the right? This test was conducted as impartially as possible, the test rig was the best we could come up with, and the target range was as far as we could shoot without having to rearrange my warehouse.

The impression I get from this thread is that those of you who bought into the backspin bolt theory are more biased towards believing that it works then we were in proving whether it did or not.