General

[Poe]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

...
yeah, there should be a curve of some sort in there from large underbore to dry fire - but we were asked specifically about dry firing vs shooting paint. so we tested that.

It was understandable to use a Mag in the dry fire tests. Revealing too.

Although it's these barrel tests I am commenting/worrying about. As I already suggested in the original "barrel test part 1 data and videos", a marker that changes operating characteristics based on back-pressure might not be the best test mule since ball-fit changes back-pressure.

Although in the Mag's case, ball-fit changes the marker characteristics in a good way (more consistent) an Ion might be better (at least initially) since its operation is independent of back-pressure. Don't get me wrong, I think the overall direction will be the same for all guns (more control bore = more efficiency). It's just that a less dynamic marker would offer a better baseline.

Just my tuppence worth.

[drg]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

most of our tests are here:
PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball -

compression test is here:
PunkWorks Paintball - The Science Side of Paintball -

we're working on a search feature.

Okay then I can make the comment I was going to make before ... the ball may also react differently given even constrictive pressure around the circumference of the ball vs. point or biased compression.

I still wish you guys would forgo the videos in favor of photos and words.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by drg

Okay then I can make the comment I was going to make before ... the ball may also react differently given even constrictive pressure around the circumference of the ball vs. point or biased compression.

I still wish you guys would forgo the videos in favor of photos and words.

yup, exactly.

as to the vid vs other - we hear exactly the opposite when we don't do videos.

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by ITSPB-Rogue

I don't have anything against TechT and especially their customer service, but it does kind of irk me that Todd has spent so much time bitching about other companies ripping off his designs but he's blatantly done the same thing before. And before anyone jumps me I'm referring to them using the notches on the Squishy paddles that Wargear had in production first, not the insert kit as that's clearly a partnership situation.

^^ This. TechT is actually one of the worst companies for blatantly ripping off designs. On the plus side, the stuff TechT sells is pretty good.

P.S. Bryce you are way behind the 8 ball on this...

Originally Posted by MondoMor

iIs ianyone ielse igetting itired iof ithe i-everything igimmick? iPlease icome iup iwith isomething ielse.

The Python guy was at a local scenario a while ago. Really nice guy. I hope he's rich now.

The "i" standsfor "insert" if I recall.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

P.S. Bryce you are way behind the 8 ball on this...

?? what do you mean?

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

?? what do you mean?

The info on the kit was posted up the same day as Extravaganza.

[brycelarson]

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

The info on the kit was posted up the same day as Extravaganza.

yup, I know - but I didn't see anything on MCB - so I stuck it here. lots of pumpers who might be interested.

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by brycelarson

yup, I know - but I didn't see anything on MCB - so I stuck it here. lots of pumpers who might be interested.

Mhm. I am not sure about the 1.75" of control bore idea though.

You know my theory on bore diameter, length and paint sizing though and this doesn't jive at all.

[Beaux@TECHT]

This thread is moving pretty quick.

We will be making a "conversion" kit for the Python that will include the other 5 inserts and the new box, for those that have asked. I am not positive, but I believe it will retail for about $90.00...which would put it in the same price range as a full iFit.

A few posts up someone mentioned the Wargear Paddles. I generally don't validate such comments with a response. But here is my two cents on that...We produced the first Squishy Padddles (no one is denying that...as well as QEPH, Vortex Mod, and Lighening Rod for that matter...all of which have about 20 knockoffs each. Some people even sell things under our name that are not ours. I cannot tell you how many "TECHT" products I have received from someone that was not actually one of our parts, but one made to look like ours and sold under our name), after many went out we started to receive calls about them slipping. At that point we began discussing ways to solve a problem with OUR PRODUCT. Well, Wargear also decided that they wanted to copy and fix OUR PRODUCT by releasing a paddle that interlocked. They didn't come up with a design...they quite literally fixed the issue with ours and sold it under their name. Can we not fix a problem with our own product? How do you think they knew it would slip and needed to interlock...if not having copied ours?

I just wanted to throw out a little more info on that matter. Feel free to make your own decision about who copied who. I just wanted to tell the other side of that story so that one may make an informed decision.

-Beau

[PistolRogue]

Claiming squishy paddles was a techt only idea is sort of a joke when the X7 stock paddles were already being marketed as softer than the original cyclone paddles, don't you think? So basically, you just fix what was wrong with tippmann's stock stuff, and thats ok, but its not when someone adds a feature or improves on your product and sells it for their own? A direct copy is one thing but an improvement or innovation is not the same thing as a "rip-off".