Water Warriors Renegade: Internal Pics

[isoaker]

Opened up a Water Warriors Renegade recently. Here are the Water Warriors Renegade's Internal Pics. While most of the design and layout were expected, I did find two surprises: the actual shape of the pressure chamber and the connection between the PC and the nozzle valve. Not quite sure why that particular design was chosen; may have some slight angle advantage over a single-opening PC, though it also means that there are two points to seal as well.

Still neat to see and hope you guys find it interesting as well!

Soak on!

[HBWW]

The intake tube has no advantage, but every possible disadvantage in comparison to plain PC's that have an opening on the bottom. The best-performing setup would've been to have the nozzle on the bottom, along with a connection to the PC and nozzle.

They could've simply raised the PC upwards and have it stick out upwards slightly in the front. I guess for whatever reason, they decided not to.

The main problem with the intake tube is the diameter constraints. However, I guess the problem is not as bad on WW's because they already use very low-diameter tubing from the PC to nozzle anyways. Also, this particular intake design is actually not that bad; the tube extends to the bottom where the water comes in, which maximizes water usage as long as that area is submerged when using the blaster.

[isoaker]

For the layout of the Renegade, the intake tube shortens the amount of tubing needed from the PC to the nozzle while still allowing the nozzle selector to remain in position. Sure, the PC could be raised more such that a bottom-connected set-up would be more in line with the nozzle, but the PC can't be raised too high, otherwise it will interfere with the trigger rod that runs along the top of the blaster's shell. Of course, they could have flipped the nozzle position to the bottom, though that would mean that a longer arm would be needed for the nozzle valve and that would be another point of strain. Thankfully, the tube does extend pretty much into the base of the PC where the water from the pump enters so it is almost as good in terms of water use as a purely bottom-attached PC. The tubing used inside the PC is the same stuff used from the pump to the PC so there's no loss in tubing diameter.

[GJIV]

But it is to say that it works better and smother if the PC got a big whole at its base, such as lots of Air pressure guns(for example XP 270 or XP 310). If you do not hold the blaster totally vertical there will always stay some water in it. The power and flow of water is also reduced because of limited diamter of the inner hose. In opposite to this XP 310 brings the whole pressure directly to the trigger. The trigger is the first pieces that reduces the power and water flow.

Aparted from that this gun works just fine

[HBWW]

The PC can still be raised slightly, and the nozzle moved to the bottom of the nozzle selector. And while we're at it, there's plenty of room for a larger PC as well, which is critical in air pressure systems until you get to a certain point. In that case, the tubing from PC to nozzle would be roughly close the same length as far as I can tell.

[isoaker]

True, the PC could be pushed up a bit and the nozzle valve flipped which would cut down the tubing needed, maybe even making the needed length shorter overall. However, for the trigger to work, the arm on the ball valve as well as the other arm would need to be extended and this may mean more force is required to pull the trigger to open the valve. Not likely a huge increase, but may be enough to push the target age up a bit. May not make a real difference, though; Hard to say for certain.

Nevertheless, definitely would hurt to see if BBT had any other specific reasons for this tubing layout (might even be some funny patent-related issue) or whether they'd consider for future models to stick with the simpler one-opening design.

[GJIV]

Hopefully BBT comes out with great guns again Does anybody know what came up with the lawsuit in the end ?

[HBWW]

They still have the Pulse Master and Orca as the largest blasters, but availability is still unknown at the time. Once more and more blasters start appearing in stores, if the Vanquisher and Vindicator are mysteriously absent, or are the only blasters without new packaging (that is, stores put them out to sell them from last year's stock), we'll know with good chance that the issue was over CPS.

[martianshark]

It wasn't! They made an Ultimate Vanquisher!!!!!!!!!!!

[HBWW]

Yeah, real funny. Link or at least tell us you saw it at a store. =p

If that is indeed true, then that makes the whole lawsuit much more perplexing. Not just on what the lawsuit was about (perhaps over a particular design), but that it probably didn't hurt BBT too much if they're able to continue on as they are right now. Just today I saw more BBT's dart blasters at WalMart than I've seen Nerf blasters in the past. They seem to also be re-releasing the Orca and Lightning so if they can put all those options out there, they must be doing well. (It also means I'll have to apologize for my annoying, cynical rants I've made earlier, heh. =p)

[martianshark]

Look at the thread at SSC!

[HBWW]

Ack, today is really not my day. =/

Edit: If anything, the Vanquisher, which is being re-released as air pressure (either that or BBT made a mistake on their packaging, which seems too unlikely for them to do), suggests even more strongly that the patent issue was over CPS. That said, I don't think BBT had to go through monetary compensation (or at least a significant amount) as they're releasing a lot of blasters this year. I still think the statement that Hasbro released about "vigorously pursuing companies who misappropriate our intellectual property for their own profit" is a bad joke anyhow. Hasbro could easily release something on the level of the CPS 1000 if they wanted to, and I think it would be fairly popular. (Though I certainly can't complain about the HC given what's been around lately.)

Now, for an attempt to steer this discussion back on topic. I had a look at the Explorer the other day, and it is indeed an air pressure vessel nested inside the reservoir (which Martianshark noted the possibility of before, and which I dimissed). The design does save a little space from being unused in the shell, but I wouldn't think to any significant degree. If Ben is still around, he may be able to shed some light on air pressure patents, as I think that is a significant block to BBT's continuation of their air pressure blasters. These are the same people who designed the wonder that was the Max-D 6000; excellent traditional air pressure layouts. It just doesn't seem right that they would design the Renegade as they did after all of their previous experience and the way they do things.