2006 soakers

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
DX
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:48 pm

The Splat Blaster is a step toward specialized soakers, which is a great idea if implemented. We need to see more of that kind of stuff. Different soakers designed for different uses [in this case a shotgun] have very good potential popularity.

Like several others ^, I'm not thrilled about battery operated soakers, as manual pressurization gives the user the most control over the gun.

Any range improvements in sight for 2006 soakers? That is probably the biggest factor for determining whether or not I buy manufactured water guns this year. I have not bought any 2003, 2004, or 2005 stock guns at all mainly because range was poor and has continued to be poor. I know that I am one of toughest customers in soaking right now and most likely will continue to refrain from buying until stock soakers somewhat approach what I build/mod. Even a mere 45ft of range would be a small step in the right direction.

If you can convince me to buy a 2006 soaker, then that is a sign to others that it's really worth buying!




Edited By Duxburian on 1131065363
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
LIGHT ANNIHILATOR
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by LIGHT ANNIHILATOR » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:08 pm

The Splat blaster already seem's to be over hyped. A shotgun style soaker is of little use to me. Of course, I will have to see the finished product before I make my final judgement. :cool:

Also Duxburian, I think 45ft range is a little to much to expect from a stock gun. 40ft is more reasonable :soakon:




Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1131075510
E3:2006: Tune to G4 for live E3 coverage in May for info on the hottest new consoles and games.

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:43 pm

The Splat blaster already seem's to be overrated.
5 people say the like the sound of the Splat blaster and you already consider that overrating it? More hyped in people's minds, perhaps, but not overrated.

I believe all of us here would like to try these blasters before giving any sort of real rating. Right now, at best we can only try to imagine what things would be like when they're released.

As for acceptable ranges on stock soakers: manufacturers are restricted by strict guidelines regarding how much power a water blaster can achieve. What that limit is I believe hovers somewhere close to Monster XL power. If anyone can shed more light onto this, please do! Of course, I'm referring to power here, not range. Ranges can be improved using the same power if stream size and lamination are optimized. I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum range would be assuming Monster XL power as the limit, but part of me feels that 50' should be within reach (though a few feet further may begin surpassing the limit).

.:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

m15399
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:51 pm
Contact:

Post by m15399 » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:12 pm

The Splat blaster already seem's to be overrated.


How would you know if it's overrated if you've never used it?

Anyway, I think with the power limits, 45 foot range could be reached. I duno about 50...

Big Bee
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:47 pm
Location: Hong Kong

Post by Big Bee » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:43 am

For increased distance, I think 2006 will leave you all a little flat, there has not been much improvement in this area. The good news is, Ben has offered us a suggestion that might work and increase distance substantially, but would be a 2007 offering.

User avatar
LIGHT ANNIHILATOR
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by LIGHT ANNIHILATOR » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:34 am

isoaker_com wrote: What that limit is I believe hovers somewhere close to Monster XL power. If anyone can shed more light onto this, please do! Of course, I'm referring to power here, not range. Ranges can be improved using the same power if stream size and lamination are optimized. I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum range would be assuming Monster XL power as the limit, but part of me feels that 50' should be within reach (though a few feet further may begin surpassing the limit).

:cool:

This all depends on what your definition of power in a super soaker is, some say output, some say range, some (like myself) say a combination of both. If you look at the two most powerful soakers (the cps 2000 and cps 2500), they both have the highest range and the higest output.

Anyway, I think with the power limits, 45 foot range could be reached. I duno about 50...


There is only one stock gun that can shoot over 40 ft, the cps 2000, all other stock guns shoot less than that. Sure there are exeptions to the general statistics, but those are rare and hard to come by. So with the exeption of the gun's that don't follow the general statistics, and the cps 2000, no stock gun shoot's over 40ft, and never willl shoot over 40 ft, unless things change in the coming years, and as Big Bee just said, 2006 will not be that year.




Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1131107947
E3:2006: Tune to G4 for live E3 coverage in May for info on the hottest new consoles and games.

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:58 am

This all depends on what your definition of power in a super soaker is

Uh, I'm referring to actual Power, not a loose definition.
Power is actually defined by physics to be defined as Work done divided by the Time it took to do the Work.

* * * * PHYSICS ALERT!!! * * * *

Force = mass * acceleration
Work = Force * distance
Power = Work / time = (mass * acceleration * distance)/time

Also, Output = volume / time =~ mass / time

Therefore: Output * distance = Power / acceleration

==> Power = Output * distance * acceleration

If Power levels are fixed and you want a soaker to fire farther, you'll need to reduce Output and adjust Acceleration (though, in some respects, Output and acceleration affect each other so things are a little more complex to work out). Soaker builders also know that stream lamination/consistency allows for better stream range by reducing friction/deceleration due to air resistance.

As for the range business, actually the Max-D6000, CPS 1000, CPS 1500, Monster/Monster X, and WW Blazer were able to shoot over 40' during my tests (if you're going by the stats on iSoaker.com, I should note that they are averaged rounded down, not up). Only the CPS2000 was able to clear 50' though I know some report that they've seen some other stock soakers shoot further as well.

Big Bee, also, is only speaking for the Water Warriors lineup when it comes to distance. We've still yet to learn any regarding next year's Super Soaker line as well as any other new or old player that may appear on the market.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

User avatar
Wild Boys
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:56 pm
Contact:

Post by Wild Boys » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:50 am

A lot of my stock guns shoot 40ft or more, my CPS 1000, 1500, 2500 and CPS 4100 shoot 40ft or more. As a matter of fact, my 2500's shoot as far, or maybe a little bit further than my CPS 2000.

I just hope Big Bee has read my comment about getting the guns I want from them in the UK in local stores like Toys'R'Us, I'd be buying one every week if that happened.

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:32 am

If Power levels are fixed and you want a soaker to fire farther, you'll need to reduce Output and adjust Acceleration (though, in some respects, Output and acceleration affect each other so things are a little more complex to work out). Soaker builders also know that stream lamination/consistency allows for better stream range by reducing friction/deceleration due to air resistance.


This is completely correct. Power doesn't necessarily mean range. We all are working on ways of getting more range with less power, which increases shot time and saves pumps. The suggestion I made to Big Bee was about a nozzle that reduced the effect of air resistance. The nozzle is yet to be tested in a water gun, but should be tested soon. I don't understand much about the nozzle, so I left it to the experts. :cool:

Some Guy
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: DC suburbs

Post by Some Guy » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:03 pm

The 2006 line seems to be another step forward. I really hope that the scorpion works, then I might be able to find one. I plan on picking up a splat blaster or two, sounds fun to use in a charge also. It's nice to know that in the world at least one company will listen to us.



Edited By Some Guy on 1131138360

DX
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:56 pm

There is only one stock gun that can shoot over 40 ft, the cps 2000, all other stock guns shoot less than that. Sure there are exeptions to the general statistics, but those are rare and hard to come by. So with the exeption of the gun's that don't follow the general statistics, and the cps 2000, no stock gun shoot's over 40ft, and never willl shoot over 40 ft, unless things change in the coming years, and as Big Bee just said, 2006 will not be that year.


I've seen a CPS 2000, 2500, 1500, 1700, 2700, 4100, 100, MX, and MXL clear 40ft. I've seen a CPS 2000, 2500, 1500, and 1700 clear 50ft. When I test for range, the resulting ranges are made only by actual observations and measurements, no mathematical calculations or formulas, which I find do not reflect actual ranges very well.

As for range improvement, 2007 may be my year, but 2006 so far doesn't sound promising. As long as 60+ ft shooting modded guns are available, why turn back? Continued 40ft and lower shooting stock guns keep getting outclassed by what one can mod themselves.
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

marauder
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Charleston
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Post by marauder » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:53 pm

Wow... I'm digging all of this. I have to admit Big Bee, I am gaining alot of respect for your brand. Keep it up. Thanks so much! I'm very curious about the scorpion. I already have a battery charger, so this will not be a problem as long as I can test how long the battery will last.
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.

ZOCCOZ
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:09 pm
Contact:

Post by ZOCCOZ » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:19 am

isoaker_com wrote:
This all depends on what your definition of power in a super soaker is, some say output, some say range, some (like myself) say a combination of both. If you look at the two most powerful soakers (the cps 2000 and cps 2500), they both have the highest range and the higest output.


Uh, I'm referring to actual Power, not a loose definition.
Power is actually defined by physics to be defined as Work done divided by the Time it took to do the Work.

* * * * PHYSICS ALERT!!! * * * *

Force = mass * acceleration
Work = Force * distance
Power = Work / time = (mass * acceleration * distance)/time

Also, Output = volume / time =~ mass / time

Therefore: Output * distance = Power / acceleration

==> Power = Output * distance * acceleration

If Power levels are fixed and you want a soaker to fire farther, you'll need to reduce Output and adjust Acceleration (though, in some respects, Output and acceleration affect each other so things are a little more complex to work out). Soaker builders also know that stream lamination/consistency allows for better stream range by reducing friction/deceleration due to air resistance.

As for the range business, actually the Max-D6000, CPS 1000, CPS 1500, Monster/Monster X, and WW Blazer were able to shoot over 40' during my tests (if you're going by the stats on iSoaker.com, I should note that they are averaged rounded down, not up). Only the CPS2000 was able to clear 50' though I know some report that they've seen some other stock soakers shoot further as well.

Big Bee, also, is only speaking for the Water Warriors lineup when it comes to distance. We've still yet to learn any regarding next year's Super Soaker line as well as any other new or old player that may appear on the market.

:cool:

Another basic way to explain power in waterguns is: Power=Pressure.
One can drill a bigger nozzle for more output, but it sure won't mean that the soaker has more power after the drill. Same like doing a nozzle mod on a K-modded CPS increases the distance, but won't mean that the soaker has more power now.

Personaly, I like the concept of rating a soaker's power by FPS. A multi-adaptable chronograph with a 1X test hole would be cool. That way we know which soaker has really more juice by comparing its 1X stream speed. Who knows, it might be something Big Bee might make one day.




Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1131171623

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:12 am

^ I don't think the idea of limiting nozzle size to a "1x" test nozzle is a good means to compare different soakers' power level. Small models don't even have "1x"-size nozzles while larger soakers likely operate at similar pressures that, when restricted to a small nozzle, will appear to perform the same. What makes one soaker more powerful than the next is a soaker's ability to push out more water more quickly to a given distance. Your test of looking at a fixed diameter stream speed is more related to a soaker's pressure, but pressure is not power. Simply put, two CPS1000s have twice the power of one CPS1000, but the operating pressure of two or one CPS1000 is the same. One does not need to double operating pressure in order to double available power.

Back on topic, while part of me want to know more, the other part of me wants to wait a little longer to find out about next year's line since,well, it's only November and it's still a good 6 months or so before I'd be able to get any good use out of them (let alone find them in stores). Early bits of info are cool to keep the forums chatting over the winter months, but finding out too much too soon will make it an even longer wait until finding out about the 2007 line! :goofy:

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

ZOCCOZ
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:09 pm
Contact:

Post by ZOCCOZ » Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:42 pm

isoaker_com wrote: Simply put, two CPS1000s have twice the power of one CPS1000, but the operating pressure of two or one CPS1000 is the same. One does not need to double operating pressure in order to double available power.

But its like comparing 400 horses with 1 horse. Its a theoretical power comparison instead of a performance power comparison. Yes, they are more powerfull. But they are seperate, so it won't make a difference. Two 300 HP cars don't ride as fast together than One 600 HP car. The power of a car is determined by its HP. Same like the power of a soaker is determined by the pressure. In other words its the singular form that matters. How many HP is in "1" car. 400 horses are not as fast as a 400 HP car.
If you have a CPS 1000 with a bladder twice the retraction strength of the original, it will have equal the power of 2 CPS bladders, yet will hurl water at a farther distance than both models together without lamination improvement. The MXL has 2 Chamers, but is not as powerfull as the CPS 2500 since it does not have the retraction strength to create a similar pressure.

Why wouldn't pressure be power? The point of a k-mod is to increase the retraction strength to increase the pressure. Increasing the AirPressure PC in size will increase the ...well air pressure supplying more power.
To take your definition:
What makes one soaker more powerful than the next is a soaker's ability to push out more water more quickly to a given distance.

You need more pressure to do that.




Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1131234534

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:05 pm

^ You're mixing up things in your statements.

Since you're not quite grasping the 2 vs 1 power comparison, let's just use a single soaker comparison. Take the CPS2500. On its 20x nozzle, it will spit out more water faster than it will on its 5x nozzle. The 20x yields a more powerful stream despite the fact that the pressure supplied to both the 5x and 20x nozzle are the same. Increasing available pressure for a fixed nozzle size will show an increase in power, but pressure, alone, is not equal to power. A powerful soaker will operate at both higher pressures as well as larger nozzle openings combined with better stream lamination. However, one can still increase a soaker's power without needing to increase the available pressure so long as the pressure available can feed a larger nozzle (the advantage found by those who do nozzle drilling on some soakers). If it were just up to pressure, air pressure soakers should be more powerful than CPS-based soakers since they usually operate at higher starting pressures.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

ZOCCOZ
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:09 pm
Contact:

Post by ZOCCOZ » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:23 pm

I do consider the SS300 more powerfull than the CPS 1000.
We might then be talking about different interpretations of power(even scienece is not imune to subjectivity).It would be open to debate if the increased output with a distance decrease would imply power increase of the soaker. I would say that the power of the CPS 2500 does not change regardless which nozzle it would use since its always the same energy buildup in the PC.
I like the equation you mentioned when it comes to impact power. When the stream hits the object. But I would say that the power buildup in the soaker would be a different animal. In other words, how much energy/pressure does it produce to hurl the stream out of the nozzle. If people want to drill bigger nozzles to get more impact power using more mass, that would be fine. But the energy buildup in the soaker would be of more relevance to me when determining power.

If we are talking about what is the more powerfull stream, then you are correct and I am mistaken by talking about the actual soaker energy buildup that I consider the actual power of a soaker. :goofy: But I sincerely disagree with the concept that a soaker itself can be considered more powerfull all of the sudden purely by switching to a bigger nozzle. In other words, "soaker power" to me is the engine or muscle of the model that can be seen on its pressure.




Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1131256427

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:37 am

^ then what you are referring is pressure, not power.
But I would say that the power buildup in the soaker would be a different animal. In other words, how much energy/pressure does it produce to hurl the stream out of the nozzle. If people want to drill bigger nozzles to get more impact power using more mass, that would be fine. But the energy buildup in the soaker would be of more relevance to me when determining power.


Yup, what you're describing there is pressure. However, I don't agree with using pressure alone to rate a soaker's power simply since it suggests potential, not actual performance. Sure a car with a 600hp motor may have more potential than one with a 300hp motor, if you only gave the 600hp car 1st gear while giving the 300hp alll 6 gears, the 300hp car would go faster despite having less horses under the hood.

You are definitely correct in your disagreeing with the concept that "a soaker itself can be considered more powerfull all of the sudden purely by switching to a bigger nozzle". If that's what you're taking from what I said, I've failed to explain things well. Soaker power comes from a combination of things including internal pressure, nozzle sizes, and stream lamination. The true optimal performance of a soaker is often a far cry from its actual design specs (not sure how long the builders take balancing pressure, nozzle sizes, and lamination to achieve optimal stream performance).

It's like garden hoses with a variable nozzle. Some settings yield much better streams than others despite having the same water pressure feeding them.

If you still wish to consider pressure alone, well, that's your call. However, I believe that those who can measure internal pressures on soakers can say that the available pressure within many air-pressure-based blasters at full pump are very similar, but actual stream performance varies a lot due to the rest of the soaker's build.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

User avatar
LIGHT ANNIHILATOR
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by LIGHT ANNIHILATOR » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:11 pm

This is a very good argument between the to of you, but it would be nice if you to could just come to a resoloution already, this pressure to nozzle output ratio stuff is starting to confuse me. :cool:
E3:2006: Tune to G4 for live E3 coverage in May for info on the hottest new consoles and games.

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:49 pm

Getting back to the original topic, I'm hoping to be hearing more news and info regarding the Water Warriors 2006 line sometime in early December if not sooner. As for the Super Soaker line, perhaps some may be lucky in early December finding them, but we'll probably know more info in late-Dec, 2005 to early-Jan, 2006.

For the Water Warriors line, the two new blasters mentioned so far sound intriguing. I'd also assume the return of older models with new colours or some tweaks to improve them.

As for Super Soaker, I hope that they'll be continuing upgrading the CPS-arsenal and perhaps releasing a blaster at least along the size and power of a CPS1000/CPS1200. I also hope they've looked into the Max-D trigger problem and that triggers next year are more durable.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests