Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Water blaster concepts and dream designs for water guns and related equipment.
User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7109
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Here
Contact:

Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby isoaker » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:53 am

While akin to the water blaster wishing pool thread, consider this also a dream/wish-thread, but with a closer-to-current-reality limit. In this case, what sort of specs would you want for an average-class water blaster?

Let's leave the higher-powered cannon dreams for another thread (unless, somehow, you can argue that everyone should be using high powered water cannons for all their fights, regardless of age).

Too offer at least some physical constraints on specs, these dream blasters really should not be much larger than a CPS1500 (preferably not larger than a Gorgon/Expedition or CPS1000/1200). The reason for this size limit is to open up blaster usage to those ~10-12 years of age or higher. This, of course, also results in some sheer physical limits regarding how much water a blaster of that size could possibly carry.

For now, we'll leave the current limitation set to overall blaster size of a CPS1500 as max, but, of course, if your dream average blaster is smaller, that's even better!

That said, how much water? How far would you expect it to shoot? Preferred pressurization system? Pump type and volume? What other features would you want to see?

Describe your ideal "typical" water blaster below!

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com | iSoaker Warriors: (Facebook) .:

User avatar
SEAL
Posts: 2404
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:37 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
WWN League Team: Catskill Mountain SEALs
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby SEAL » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:52 pm

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly am not a big fan of huge cannons.
My ideal battle-rifle would be, yes, about CPS 1500/1700 size, with a 3L reservoir, 50 feet of range with a 0.75L 2000-class CPS chamber (Not sure if I'd want spherical or cylindrical.). and a semi-tracked pump such as those found on the WW Vanquisher, Vindicator, etc. Also should be able to hook up to a CPS 3000-size backpack.
Image

User avatar
atvan
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 5:19 pm
Location: A place you've never heard of

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby atvan » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:59 pm

Mine would be a light 21k in power and size, but a nozzle selector akin to a 1500 and improved grips.

Second would be like a slightly larger FF with a semi-tracked pump and a smaller 2k-ish bladder. The main nozzles would be in line with the bladder, and would have a classic selector with 1.5x, 5x, 10x, and 20x. The riot blast would remain the same, but with the boosted power.
DX wrote:In the neanderthal days of K-modding, people would lop off the whole PRV

Well, not that much soakage.

Beware the Purple

User avatar
DX
Posts: 3445
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby DX » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:12 am

I need at least a 500mL PC backed by at least a 2.5L reservoir in this class of gun. The type of bladder doesn't matter as long as it has modding potential. Perhaps stronger rubber in the PC could save some space for a larger reservoir. Range has got to be high, 45ft at the bare minimum. The selector should have a nozzle for skirmishing (~5-8x), a nozzle for range (~11-16x), and a full bore riot blast (20x+). Pump type doesn't matter as long as the stroke volume is good, 25mL minimum and up to 50 preferred. The pump grip should also offer a firm grip, especially for a larger stroke volume. The overall gun should be longer than it is tall, yet maintain good balance in the front vs back.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers

User avatar
marauder
Posts: 3821
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Clayton, NC
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby marauder » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:42 am

I'm going to try to be as realistic about this as possible, like isoaker requested. So here is a blaster that I think, could be produced one day:

Capacity: 70 to 85 oz (2.1 to 2.6L) with the ability to connect to a backpack which could be sold seperately and or with the gun itself.
Nozzles: 2.5x, 5x, 10x, shotgun. The nozzle aperture would be operated by a ball valve for optimal range. The entire firing mechanism, including springs, would be made from top quality parts to ensure maximum durability.
Trigger: Like the XP 75's
Pump: Like the XP 150's, including a clear pump duct, that way you can see water being pumped. 9 to 11 pumps to full pressure, according to a pump volume ~ that of XP 150 and a 25-30 oz PC.
Firing Chamber: 25 to 30 oz (0.74 to 0.8L) CPS and cylindrically shaped. The plastic PC cover would be translucent, preferrably a neon color like green or blue. As with all tranclucent cylindrical PCs it'd have an orange marker on the back of the actual PC, so you'd be able to track how full it is. Estimated shot time would be between 3 and 10 seconds depending upon the nozzle selected.
Shape: No sharp angles. Very rounded like the Super Charger series. The weapon would have greater length than height or width, IE dimensions would be more similar to a 4100 than a Flash Flood. The pistol grip would be positioned under the front of the reservoir for optimal weight balance - not at the extreme back of the gun like the Vindicator.
Etc. Black body. Comes with strap.
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/

SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.

User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby the oncoming storm » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:24 pm

vague requests and unrealistic wishes gave us the Colossus 2, Am I the only one who saw this thread for what really was?
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7109
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby isoaker » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:32 pm

the oncoming storm wrote:vague requests and unrealistic wishes gave us the Colossus 2, Am I the only one who saw this thread for what really was?

The request for insight was far from vague and the wishes above were definitely not unrealistic from a feasibility point-of-view. Not sure what point you're trying to make with your post.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com | iSoaker Warriors: (Facebook) .:

User avatar
HBWW
Posts: 4076
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: MI
WWN League Team: Havoc

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby HBWW » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:02 pm

Heh, I never even posted here.

I concur with DX on this one after some experience at community wars. Need that baseline capacity, but I haven't experimented with high backpack capacities in ground wars. Perhaps the most crucial feature on CPS is a strong bladder; I can fight with a 1200, better with a 12k, and from there, it's the 12k vs. the 2000, the latter which gets me that extra range.

I think our ideal combat blaster has 3 nozzles: 5x, 10x, and 20x-30x, driven by a powerful bladder like the 2000's, and can come in the form factor of the 2000 or perhaps the 1500 with the spherical bladder to shorten things out. At least 50ft range is ideal, although 45ft can be worked with since it produces less water per shot and requires fewer pumps, but this advantage gets diminishing returns very quickly. The blaster still needs to stay competitive with the 2000, but without the range, it simply isn't going to happen.

I would argue that our needs do not appear to be currently unfeasible for the market, with a few exceptions. The Gorgon and Vindicator pushed limits and almost reached a point where they could become widely accepted options for any water war that doesn't ban the CPS 2000. However, other blasters are more competitive with XP's or stock small-end CPS's. We simply need those higher flow components and internals or it's not going to work. The capacity is there, the necessary blaster size is there, but the flow and power are not. However, performance requires pumping and using more water at once, which considerably restricts the usable audience of a blaster. Nerf SS takes the performance vs. usability balance to one extreme, and PVC water cannons take it to another. However, the best balance for us is different than the best balance for the majority of those who buy, and they appear to have reached mutual exclusivity.

Would love to have my cynicism of the stock water blaster market proven wrong, but this is the way things have been. I love BBT's efforts; the obvious listening of feedback, the recent ergonomic improvements, the high-performing blasters, etc. but that Python 2 isn't going anywhere in most standard water wars of ours. The Vindicator and Gorgon are the best for certain restricted rounds, but they're beat by k-modded small CPS's and don't really stand a chance against 2500's and other CPS's. (And there's also the issue of Hasbro's anti-competitive practices. Air pressure works, but CPS works better at that form factor.)

Anyway, the purpose and intent of this thread was very clear. This was asking for specific stats and characteristics (which community wars have shown them to be), not a "direct BBT what to make" thread. The fact that BBT is able to serve our community at the level that they currently do is not something to be taken for granted. That said, the need for a profitable product strategy goes far, far above any community needs. Neither are easy, and one benefits them much more tangibly than the other.

User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby the oncoming storm » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:21 pm

To clarify

The only real reason I posted was because it was clear to me that you were asking as a proxy for buzz bee (Why can't they just use their big bee account?)
.
.
.
I feel strongly that an AP blaster that can go head to head with a CPS 2000 or 300 would sell well in and out of the community, and should be made. The gorgon frame left lots of space for improvement without growing the blaster and while not the best in terms of ergonomics is a good start in a generation of CPS killing AP guns. (Call me biased but I think a nozzle drilled gorgon can already go head to head with a 1200k.) At duelfest a gorgon proved = to light CPS's stock and even beat a 4100. and anyone who reads the stats knows that M4 dominated combat with his 300 and 275 vs heavy CPS's last year and his sister Laura held her own against them as well with his first Gorgon.
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

User avatar
HBWW
Posts: 4076
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: MI
WWN League Team: Havoc

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby HBWW » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:30 pm

I don't think it matters whether he was doing so for that reason or not, as the thread was clearly about feedback/info, not about what said info is for. That said, I'll let him speak for himself.

As for performance, I'm the one who's more biased, since I haven't used a Gorgon myself. (I tried to dry-fire it once, but the pump was too stiff.) Still, if the Gorgon was that effective, I think we'd see it way more often in our standard battles. So far I haven't seen a Gorgon take on a CPS 1500, 2500, or 2000. That said, I never properly took my chance to get one and now it's too late. I wonder what BBT does with all the unsold ones that are returned; I can't think of anywhere they'd go other than getting scrapped for parts/materials.

User avatar
marauder
Posts: 3821
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Clayton, NC
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby marauder » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:05 pm

CA99, I disagree with your assessment that the Vindicator and Gorgon are beat by small k modded CPS. At Frozen Fury Scott used a Vindicator to great affect vs 2 k modded CPS 2100s, a CPS 1200, and a CPS 1000. The Vindicator was owning our k modded guns until the wind shifted. I still remember the moment the wind shifted favorably in our direction and my shot went sailing 5 feet over his head. At that point we were able to push him back, but k modded stream performance is highly volatile.

Oncoming Storm, you are right about the Gorgon. The 4100's trigger broke mid battle, so there's no way of knowing if the Gorgon still would have won, but it was at least equal. In regards to the 275, yes I've had great success vs CPS caliber blasters, but I wouldn't say everyone would be able to do that. It's rather difficult to use right and I don't think that's what BBT needs right now - although I do get your overall point, that AP guns can compete.

Whether or not this thread was made for suggestions for BBT, the fact of the matter is that CPS is not going to be an option for the next few years, and size constraints, whether valid or not, are a real issue. So, I'll keep that in mind as I reanswer this thread.

If we are limited to mid sized air pressure blasters they need to be able to recharge quicker. This is something I didn't think so much about before, but it's definitely critical - both for the community and for the average consumer. BBT is competing with Nerf for the average consumer. LinWarrior's recent post about the giant NYC soakfest is perfect evidence that a blaster with a quicker recharge time would be highly desirable. In our own wars the XP 150 torched the Colossus 2 when DX and I fought each other this spring, no matter who was using which gun. Although the Colossus 2 had great range, to which I tip my hat to BBT, you had to pump it about 6x as often as the 150. The 150 user would use cover to get in range and then would fire at such a rate that the Colossus 2 would have to break contact. In a soakfest the 150 would just rush the C2 and hit from close range. This happened again at MOAB when Scott was using a Colossus 2 against SEAL who was using a Colossus. It was actually kind of hilariously epic because Scott charged, but his Colossus 2 drained pressure so fast that once he had outmaneuvered SEAL it was actually falling 5 feet short and SEAL got the hit.

I'm a huge fan of what BBT has been able to do with their blasters range and power, but a 20 ml pump with a 290 ml PC is just not enough on a blaster that size. Yes, 15 pumps to full pressure is good, but that doesn't matter if you drain water so fast that you're constantly having to make several pumps to get back to full pressure. An 80 ml pump like the 150 would be incredible, but if that's not feasible, even a 45 ml pump like the XP Pool Pumper Blaster would do, and there's no reason BBT can't use pumps of that size, they aren't that big. I would personally love to see translucent pump tubing used, like in the 150 and 75, but that's just a preference, not a necessity.

Also, no big PR guns. I personally even think the Python 2 is borderline too large not to have a PC. I'm going to get a pen and paper out and draw up my ideal gun that would fit the current market standards.
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/

SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.

User avatar
soakinader
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:10 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby soakinader » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:22 pm

If you guys are looking for Gorgons, there are still two or three on shelves at my local Walmarts. They are 20$ a piece; does anyone want one? Assume a 35-40$ price tag if I add shipping and tax.

And if you are looking for a good "typical" water blaster, I would like to see more guns with larger (>200mL) separate air pressure chambers, good pumps (volume and tracked/untracked depending on the size of the gun) and a good grip (plenty of hand space, smooth trigger), a decent size water-visible reservoir (3-5 times the size of the chamber) with at least 3 nozzle settings. Add a strap for the bigger guns, and I am happy.
My friends call me Nader. My foes just run.
http://nad3r.minus.com/
I find 'em, I fix 'em.

User avatar
HBWW
Posts: 4076
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: MI
WWN League Team: Havoc

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby HBWW » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:48 pm

Eh, heck, I gotta try more combos of blasters against blasters. I always figured the Vindicator's stream was too slow and "fragile" to really push the small K's. Then again, I rarely deal with high wind while using a small K since I may be using a 2500 or something else.

I think size constraints primarily pertain to capacity, however, I think we have plenty of room to work with. The Orca encumbers me almost as much as a 2500, and their capacity stats are very competitive. The 2500/2000 trades some height and bulk for lots of length. Either form factor is effective and has its advantages and disadvantages. (i.e. More space for PC, accommodates cylindrical PC, longer tracked pump, vs. more compact and easier to maneuver with.) I don't think anyone here is looking for another Monster XL; our general upper limit on size/encumbrance seems to be just a step above BBT's, and for good reason: water warfare is a very mobile game.

Thus, this constraint will have the effects of pushing water wars to be more mobile. If BBT can throw something together with very good performance in a smaller package, it'll be able to outmaneuver a 2000.

That said, I don't know what I can offer or suggest. If it costs too much money to make high flow internals, what else can possibly be done? We have great handling and great lamination and range-per-output factors, although both have not quite been combined yet. I think what we want to see that's possible to do is not difficult to figure out: Air performance of a Gorgon at the very least (pushed by smart internals design to accommodate for the flow limitation, which IMO has already been done), with the handling quality of a C2 or P2 (the P2's pump position with vertical respect to the firing handle is excellent: perfect spot for leveraging as much control over the pump as possible (the same reason recoil is more managable when the barrel is lined up with the stock on firearms), if only it wasn't so short.)

Pump volume goes without saying IMO. Should use at least 1/2" diameter. Larger diameters do cost more and require more force, but there's less overall pumping. This will have to be worked in with the age limit, since we can't expect everyone to pump 2000's easily.

Agreed on the large PR's. 700mL-1L are good limits for them.

There are a variety of factors that could help recharge times. We can try swappable reservoirs again, hoping their cost and design isn't prohibitive. We could try switching to large valves instead of caps. Regardless of what we try, it's going to cost money and in some cases, capacity and performance. Nerf SS markets as being very quick to recharge, but when you think about it, they're actually very slow. You have to fill up all the mags separately when you're empty, but even putting that aside, it's about as quick to fill up a 2L tank as it is to switch 300mL mags 6-7 times. The thing is, any reload mechanism short of directly dumping water in a reservoir is going to have its cost. In addition, you won't be able to use partially depleted water reservoirs very effectively; they will have to be dumped into other reservoirs to be made use of.

With that said, I think the current system works out quite well. We don't have to worry about compatibility, about whether this brand of water bottle fits into that brand of blaster to refill. (Save for the rare exceptions.) Technically, a Stream Machine is fastest to refill; just draw out the pump. Of course, this means very little if you easily run out of water as quickly.

User avatar
DX
Posts: 3445
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby DX » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:12 am

If we don't have the space for a true primary (meanwhile Nerf's Mega Centurion continues a long tradition of making a mockery of the so-called shelf space limit), then I'm downgrading what I want to see. I'd be content with a newer XP 150. BBT need not change much of anything about its current AP designs except the pump. Give me a mid-sized AP gun with a reservoir the size of a Colossus 1 and a 70 mL pump and it's lights out in that class. I know that iSoaker has told us BBT thinks large pumps are too difficult for kids to pump, but in all honesty, show me a 10 year old kid who can't pump an XP 150 8 times. Or, show me how that's more difficult than pumping a CPS 2000 over 20 times. Those 8 pumps may be a bit stiffer at the end, but it's still 8 vs 20. Do 8 slow push ups vs 20 a bit faster and see what's more difficult. Also, a 150 pump is on the higher end of the scale. Just 50 mL is enough. A large pump needs to be accompanied by a fast-repeating trigger. Doesn't need to have the XP 150's ridiculous rapid firing trigger, but should be completely free of lag.

They could call it the WW Swordfish or WW Marlin, or any water creature that's very fast. Colossus 1 reservoir capacity. Single large PC or smaller dual PCs. 50-80mL clear/translucent pump. Quick, durable trigger. Less than 10 pumps to full. I don't even care what the range or output is, although at least 38ft and a nozzle setting of at least 3x is desirable. It should not be outperformed by a Max-D 4000. 3 nozzle choices would be fine, but it could make do with 1 nozzle if it's the 3x. I've found that I rarely switch between more than 2 nozzles. Large or reasonably large internal tubing would help. I was shocked to discover that the Vindicator has the same size internal tubing and valve as a Hornet. That's like putting a v4 engine in a sports car.

If we get to play with a design space that's Gorgon-sized, I still want to see a Gorgon 2 with an all-new design. The Gorgon has so much wasted space from being an Orca adaption. It could easily have bigger PCs, a bigger pump, or even more capacity without being made an inch larger. It does not exactly need more capacity, so the PCs and pump could be improved instead. There is huge potential there for a top level primary that is small in size, but packs a punch. The Gorgon is so close, but not quite there. A larger pump would have made the Gorgon competitive with top level CPS. Seeing how the XP 150 wrecks things larger than itself, and can surprisingly inflict quite a bit of damage to things Gorgon-sized, I have no doubt at all that a big pumped Gorgon 2 would shake up the "anything goes" scene, and probably for just $20.

So, we have the WW Gorgon 2. Gorgon 1 reservoir capacity. Dual PCs at least 1/3 larger than the original. 50-80 mL clear/translucent pump. Quick, durable trigger. Less than 20 pumps to full. I don't even care what the range or output is, although at least 42ft and a nozzle setting of at least 10x is desirable. It should not be outperformed by a CPS 1000. 10x is pretty high, but we already know that a Gorgon 1 is capable of sporting a drilled 10x nozzle at 37ft, with horrible stream lamination, and off a not optimal section of the nozzle selector plate. So, BBT might as well just put a 10x on it and advertise its massive soakage (not sure how large that would be in N* rating style, at least N15 prolly). A manufacturer-intended 10x would have the good lamination to hit at least 40ft, even more if BBT really focuses on lamination the way the CPS 2000 nozzle was perfected. 3 nozzle settings on the plate like the N# equivalents of 2.5x, 5x, and 10x or 4 settings of 2.5x, 5x, 7.5x, and 10x) would secure the Gorgon 2's place as an ass-kicking, top level primary.

Imagine that, a soaker that brings the incredible pumping and shooting capabilities of the XP 150, the ability to tangle on a level playing field with CPS 2500s and 1500s, the high field life that BBT guns are known for, the long term durability of plain air pressure PCs, yet in such a small package that it can be marketed on modern shelves like the original Gorgon, and sell 10,000 units, all for a price point around $20-25! **** me, I'd have to ditch my CPS 2000s for that, or at least all except #5. Would I actually do that? YES. Why? Personal fighting style...be very afraid if something like this is ever made. The 2000 is an acquired taste. This gun would sync with me naturally and instantly. Even if it only has 40ft of range and my 2000 #5 has 53ft, it would be superior to that 2000, given its other attributes. Range is no longer everything.

So, I guess this is my new "challenge" to Buzz Bee Toys. I've touted the Gorgon 2 before as a dream gun, but right now I think it's really possible to build this. Take a really good look at a Gorgon and you'd see what I mean. There can be less casing, more PC, and more pump, without changing the dimensions whatsoever. It would still conform to BBT's shelf space limitation. At a price point of $20, I would buy 10 of them, using profits from sold 2000s. So, the sale goal is 9,990 units, if that helps at all. Imagine this beast next to a Nerf SS model at similar price points. The Gorgon 2's stream art would not even need to lie, the stream image can appear on the box as-is and would still look several times larger than the Nerf SS stream, cause it IS that much larger. It would murder the competition on the shelf for older, nostalgia-starved kidults and younger kids not too stupid to know that 40ft at 10x is better than 25ft at 0.25x.

Of course, this still depends on BBT's appetite as a company to become #1. As an ex-sprinter, I can't understand the Colossus 2 and the direction that represents. You go out to win, not to settle for less. The world is supposed to become better with each new attempt, not backpedal. I know they have guts over there at BBT from the risks they've taken in the past. But, where is the drive? They don't even have an official presence on social media. Hasbro is running away with this game. BBT's fan base is practically entirely fan-made and mostly through word-of-mouth. There is opportunity being wasted. Nerf's FB has tons of engaged users and even more that we don't see post. Those users are free money when something new is coming. BBT is like the solid, but shy kid that could own the playground during a power vacuum, but is too unsure of himself to step in. The dominant bully is losing his head and grip, you can own the playground right now if you would only just take it.

It makes me so frustrated to see all this potential go to waste. This is such a better chance than the reaching of the past, the 50ft range crap and unreasonable sized form factor requests. This thing is actually doable...Only takes one person who wants to change the world, one kid at a time.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers

User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby the oncoming storm » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:45 am

Way to go DX, you spelled out very well what we need/want in a top level primary in a clear format I still think Buzz Bee is working on the Gorgon 2 as requested back in march, but Isoaker isn't going to say anything I'm afraid.
.
.
.
Another thing I would like to see is a 300 equivalent blaster with a soft pack (Less shelf space) but nothing to large, the blaster portion would only rival the Outlaw for size.
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7109
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby isoaker » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:07 am

the oncoming storm wrote:To clarify

The only real reason I posted was because it was clear to me that you were asking as a proxy for buzz bee (Why can't they just use their big bee account?)
.
.
.
I feel strongly that an AP blaster that can go head to head with a CPS 2000 or 300 would sell well in and out of the community, and should be made. The gorgon frame left lots of space for improvement without growing the blaster and while not the best in terms of ergonomics is a good start in a generation of CPS killing AP guns. (Call me biased but I think a nozzle drilled gorgon can already go head to head with a 1200k.) At duelfest a gorgon proved = to light CPS's stock and even beat a 4100. and anyone who reads the stats knows that M4 dominated combat with his 300 and 275 vs heavy CPS's last year and his sister Laura held her own against them as well with his first Gorgon.

Actually, no, this assumption is quite incorrect. While I do have good relations with BBT, this thread was created simply to get community feedback on what people want irrespective on which manufacturer could/would be willing to try to meet the suggestions. Soliciting for ideas on an open forum for a specific manufacturer doesn't make any sense since anyone can view the ideas. I would welcome any manufacturer to take on and build better stock water blasters for us consumers to use which is why this thread is open.

I also wouldn't consider the Colossus 2 an end-result of the above ideas - if anything, a lot of the desired traits did not appear in that model particularly in terms of its performance.

As for what you think would and would not sell, unfortunately, your feelings don't match consumer spending. Add on increased materials, manufacturing, and transportation costs in recent years and one will have a better sense why stock water blasters have been shrinking in average size in the recent years. I'm all for seeing higher performing water blasters, but have also grown to appreciate the challenges to not just developing them, but selling them. All that said, CPS/elastic tech is much more efficient at producing better performing streams from smaller packages since the force applied to the water is more consistent than most air-pressure-based systems. It's a shame that Hasbro is currently sitting on the CPS patent, but not doing anything with it, while all other manufacturers can't use the technology currently without needing to license it which would likely drive up the cost too much.

All that said, it is apparent from the various posts in this thread that different members have slightly different takes on what would make a good, typical water blaster. The hope here is to get some general specs down, then see what can be done to turn our hopes into reality.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com | iSoaker Warriors: (Facebook) .:

User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby the oncoming storm » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:48 am

I see a few numbers that keep popping up in these, to summarize

Name Gorgon 2
Range 42' or higher
Nozzles 10x, 5x, 2.5x, and Burst (All should be listed on box by the X rating to justify to parents buying a more expensive blaster)
Capacity 95oz tank,
PC capacity (Pressurized) 25oz
Pump Volume 1oz or higher

and a tip

TV ADD's!
the only add I've EVER seen for water warriors was an ultimate system add on their youtube channel.
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7109
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby isoaker » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:11 am

for the size limit of a Gorgon/CPS1000/CPS1500, an air pressure set up with 25oz (~750mL) pressurized would be tough considering you also need space for the 85-95oz (~3L) reservoir. The Gorgon (AP version) pressurizes only ~17oz (~510mL) while the Colossus gets ~18oz (540mL). Even the CPS 1000 holds only ~20.6oz (620mL) The CPS1500 holds most in its PC (~30oz / 900mL), but that's for a CPS-based system.

As for who should make it, I'm beginning to fear that the membership is getting too hung up on BBT. While they seem to try to appease the community within their limits, at the same time, I don't want our community to become biased, either. We should be wanting all manufacturers to create better stock blasters; more competition means better products for the consumers.

Sidenote: TV advertising is extremely expensive. Unless you have deep pockets (i.e. lots of money to burn), the cost of the commercial can easily exceed the additional profits made from the advertising. In the current tougher economic times, Tv advertising for smaller companies is much more of a gamble than a sure-fire way to increase revenue.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com | iSoaker Warriors: (Facebook) .:

User avatar
marauder
Posts: 3821
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Clayton, NC
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby marauder » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:07 pm

The reason we are so hung up on BBT is because they are really the only ones out there. Tell me another manufacturer that comes remotely close to their performance or has any remote interest in what we have to say. Yes, we want more competition, but unfortunately that is out of our control. If we are just going to dream then we might as well talk about board members making their own company. Although it's fun to dream, I've always felt it's best to channel most of your energy on things you actually have a chance of effecting.

The fact of the matter is, tv advertising or not, BBT can improve their marketing better. They need to launch a Water Warriors/Air Warriors facebook and hit up youtube. You could put together some good youtube commercials for very cheap or even free if the right people are willing to step in. I get that they want to keep at least some space between their company and us as a board. We don't need to know everything. But at the same time, there are several members on here who would gladly do some of that for free, and have the skills to pull it off. There are very few things I'd work for as an unpaid intern at this point in my life, but I would have no problem making an official facebook. I did advertising for the Afghan government and army (recruiting) last year with radio ads, posters, meetings, etc. I know that's not what we're looking for here, but I had to go through a lot of marketing classes before getting that position. I'm not saying it has to or even should be me, but the point is that there are people out there with skills who would gladly help out for free if asked, and we're cool with the fact that there's only so much info we'd be able to be given.

There's actually a lot we agree on in this thread. It's just overlapping and we need to do a better job of picking those things out. I'm going to draw up some designs in my free time just for fun, and just in case they get some ideas from them that they like. Isoaker, I get what you're saying about appreciating the challenge of putting out a good stock gun with the current restraints. I would imagine that could make designing them more fun and more frustrating at the same time, but that in the end you'd appreciate the end result even more.
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/

SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.

User avatar
DX
Posts: 3445
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: Specs for a good, "typical" water blaster

Postby DX » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:27 pm

Almost everyone gave up on Hasbro. Nerf Super Soaker has moved to the Nerf business model, which is making them tons of money on accessories. They can charge more for drums, mags, shoulder stocks, and then again when larger capacity ones are released. The typical Hasbro shareholder probably holds that stock to make as much money as possible, they don't care about the performance of the products. Just show them the money. There is no reason to change that model, and no reason to believe that they would, given what we've seen since the brand merger. Meanwhile, BBT is still a private, surprisingly small, company. They can do pretty much whatever they'd like, within economic reason. BBT is far more likely to deliver products with higher performance and listen for improvements, as the past indicates.

While I'd love to not be biased, I know a hopelessly lost cause when I see one. You can only burn me so many times before I jump off the bandwagon. There is absolutely no reason to lie at the foot of Hasbro's table and wait for scraps that are never going to fall, since there's nothing on the table. It's well past time to move on and just forget about Hasbro.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers


Return to “Concept & Dream Water Blasters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron