Maybe interested in a Blazer?

Selling, buying, shopping for and/or trading water blasters.
DX
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:20 pm

I don't know. People have said that the Blazer performs like a CPS 1000. If that is true, it may be worth *gasp* buying. :goofy:

The world will shake on its axis when/if I do walk into a store and walk out with a Blazer. It is tempting though...

Knowing the type of guns I have/use, do you think it would be worth it to buy a Blazer? Even though it would lower the average range of my arsenal, the APWL will bring that back up, so I don't care as much about that. Would you recommend a Blazer or not? [Put yourself in my shoes, personal bias aside].
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
Adrian
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: WI, USA
Contact:

Post by Adrian » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:34 pm

I'd recommend the Pirahna, so the Blazer has to be at least as good. The Pirahna is the perfect CQC gun, and bigger PCs, a bigger tank, and 2 more nozzles are definitely good add-ons.

Go for it!

Adrian
“To achieve a World Government it is necessary to remove from their minds their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogma.”…..Brock Adams, Director, United Nations Health Organisation.

DX
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:47 pm

I've used a Pirahna, and had a few issues with the range and capacity. Then again, that was a while ago, the capacity issue is gone due to the tap/pump, extension of tank ideas. The main problem with Pirahnas is that they have trouble standing up to "certain other guns". I might buy a Blazer as a team gun rather than for my own use, since I have become kind of a powerholic. Whatever gun I use in the upcoming war needs to be good enough to protect me while I pump up the APWL. :laugh:
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

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

Post by ZOCCOZ » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:46 pm

Well, if you have bought a Defender, you might aswell buy a Blazer. With around $20 CAN, Blazers are relatively cheap and if you haven't owned or shot one, its worth buying just to brighten intellectualy your experience in what WW's state of the art is like. 40 feet distance on its 3.5X nozzle isn't that low when comparing it to what other contemporraies are dishing out. People should keep in mind that I have only used the original Blazer from 2003, with less nozzles and different colours. The newer version is supose to be even better.
And if you buy it, the world should get over the soaker purchase and revolve just the same. :;):

Now having said that, I still prefer the CPS 1000/1200/2100 due to their power.




Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1151034769

sbell25
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:45 am

Post by sbell25 » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:43 pm

I never really liked the Blazer. Sure, it may shoot 40 feet, (the one I tried only made 35) but what good is that if it takes ages for the stream to get there? The CPS 1000 is far better in my opinion.

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:53 am

sbell25 wrote:I never really liked the Blazer. Sure, it may shoot 40 feet, (the one I tried only made 35) but what good is that if it takes ages for the stream to get there? The CPS 1000 is far better in my opinion.

This speed issue for streams is something I'm having a hard time to accept.

When dealing with fairly coherent streams, if two streams fired level to the ground achieve the same range, the streams MUST be travelling at the same speed. If one was travelling faster than another, it would achieve GREATER range.

In the case of the CPS1000 vs Blazer, at least from my test results, the Blazer actually achieved better range fired level than the CPS1000 (See CPS1000 vs Blazer) This actually suggests that the Blazer's stream is faster than that of the CPS1000's stream.

Speed of streams comes more into place when discussion streams that break apart more quickly. When discussion spreading blasts, the initial speed of the blast must be faster at first to achieve the same range of a solid stream since it slows down at a much higher rate due to air resistance. If a spreading blast and a solid stream both achieve the same distance when fired level, both streams' average speed are equal, but the spreading blast's speed was initially faster.

For the above not to be true, gravity would have to be behaving differently on different types of streams. As far as I know, the shape of the streams produced (solid or spreading) do not confer any significant 'lift' properties to the stream, thus gravity should affect both streams equally. If gravity is equal, that means there is a set amount of time it takes for any stream fired level to hit the ground no matter how quickly it is travelling (unless you're dealing with speeds that are nearing those needed to attain planetary orbit). Using good ol' math, based on gravity accelerating at 9.8m/s/s and assuming a height of 1m, it takes ~0.45s for things to hit the ground.

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

wetmonkey442
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:36 am
Location: Connecticut

Post by wetmonkey442 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:43 am

^Sorry, but I've got to agree with sbell25. In my experience with my Blazer (the 2003 model), the stream seems to be very slow. While this may seem impossible in the realm of fluid physics (a realm I am not well versed in), I can assure you that when fired side by side, the 1000 has a lot more power behind it's stream. The Blazer's stream semms much more coherent which is possibly why it can achieve the same/better range than a 1000.
Join the fight! Support water warfare in your area today!

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:25 am

I can assure you that when fired side by side, the 1000 has a lot more power behind it's stream.

The CPS1000 has basically a 5x stream while the Blazer (the model I'm using for comparison) has only a 3.5x stream, thus the CPS1000's stream definitely has more power. It pushes out more volume faster, but overall stream speed is the same if not a little slower. Perhaps coherent streams give the illusion of moving slower?

At any rate, I try to avoid the subjective 'feel' of stream speeds and prefer having measurements. If someone starts measuring stream speeds and notices a difference, I'd be much more believing and would like to know more about how things were measured so that I, too, would also agree with the findings. However, if we're just talking about how different people estimate a stream speed to be, that's not a good point of comparison, IMO.

Side thought: a good example of similar output, but different speeds would be comparing the large nozzles of the Blazer versus the WW Hydrapak/Aquapak. See Blazer Vs. Hydrapak

The measured output of the largest nozzles (Nozzle 5 on the blazer and Nozzle 3 on the Hydrapak) are similar; actually, the Hydrapak is a little more. However, the Blazer's level range is a lot more than the Hydrapak's range. The Hydrapak's largest stream is quite coherent (I'd say better than the Blazer's), but is noticably slower.

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

sbell25
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:45 am

Post by sbell25 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:48 pm

Unfortunately I don't have access to a Blazer anymore so I can't really compare the two at the moment. However, my CPS 1000 always seemed to shoot about 4-5 feet further than the Blazer, yet the 1000's stream is also more spread out by the time it hit the ground. Also in battle, I noticed that opponents can dodge a Blazer's stream a lot easier than a CPS 1000's stream.

Perhaps a way to measure a gun's stream speed would be to take a video of someone shooting at an object from a set distance, and then counting how many frames it takes for the stream to hit the object?

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

Post by ZOCCOZ » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:15 pm

I always thought that the Blazer's stream shot farther due to a better laminar flow. Personaly I have not tested if the stream itself is actualy faster or slower. I do know that the CPS 1000 has superior power with its 5X-7X. The new Blazer's largest nozzle which is around 5X-7X does not shoot past 30 feet. So personaly I would say that in general the Blazer would have a slower stream, and if the 3.5X nozzle is as fast or faster than the CPS 1000 stream, then it is mainly due to the smaller output.



Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1151104577

DX
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:25 pm

At any rate, I try to avoid the subjective 'feel' of stream speeds and prefer having measurements. If someone starts measuring stream speeds and notices a difference, I'd be much more believing and would like to know more about how things were measured so that I, too, would also agree with the findings. However, if we're just talking about how different people estimate a stream speed to be, that's not a good point of comparison, IMO.


Having an absolute mathematical scale would render the stat completely useless in wars. If one insists on mathematical purity [modern society seems to be helpless without it] it has to be relative to be of any use to the common fighter. Knowing that x stream shoots .xx of a second faster is pointless and has no impact on the field of battle. I'm not against using math, but it would be better to have the math come in a useful form.

The difference in stream speed is not too great among stock soakers of the same type and class. It gets noticable when crossing type [Blazer vs CPS 1000 [hydropower vs normal CPS]], crossing class [CPS 2000 vs any pistol], and extreme when crossing tech [CPS 21K vs CPS 2100]. A simple relative system would bridge the divide by having a universal foundation while being useful in real-time action.
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
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:05 pm

The difference in stream speed is not too great among stock soakers of the same type and class. It gets noticable when crossing type [Blazer vs CPS 1000 [hydropower vs normal CPS]], crossing class [CPS 2000 vs any pistol], and extreme when crossing tech [CPS 21K vs CPS 2100]. A simple relative system would bridge the divide by having a universal foundation while being useful in real-time action.

Sure, a pure objective number may not be too meaningful, but unless someone can accurately measure things, I'd be surprised if there is any true difference in stream speeds between stock soakers capable of firing the same distance in a level shot. Heck, even add in modded and homemade soakers into this statement. If the stream reaches the same range on a level shot I seriously doubt one stream is particularly faster than another. This isn't to say that some soakers don't have faster streams. Many soakers have faster stream than others, but these faster streams translate into greater ranges (unless dealing with poor stream cohesion; in that case I'd accept that a stream may exit faster, initially moving faster than a typical solid stream, and is more greatly slowed by air resistance as it breaks apart.)

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

sbell25
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:45 am

Post by sbell25 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:23 pm

This isn't to say that some soakers don't have faster streams. Many soakers have faster stream than others, but these faster streams translate into greater ranges (unless dealing with poor stream cohesion; in that case I'd accept that a stream may exit faster, initially moving faster than a typical solid stream, and is more greatly slowed by air resistance as it breaks apart.)


Every soaker has a different 'amount' of stream cohesion, i.e the Blazer has better stream cohesion than a CPS 1000 thanks to it's ball valve trigger, conical nozzles etc. Yet the 1000 still shoots at least as far as the Blazer, so the 1000 must have a faster initial stream speed than the Blazer to do this.




Edited By sbell25 on 1151119539

User avatar
Peter MJ
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 2:34 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Peter MJ » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:07 am

I recently purchased a Blazer (old 2003 version) out of curiosity and to test it out. The range is good, but in my opinion, ALL the streams lack any type of power in comparison to older CPS models. They are however far more consistent than most other streams I have seen, and as a result, are able to slice through the air with far less resistance than the disintegrating streams on many CPS weapons. The gun therefore does not require as much power as a CPS weapon to reach the same distance. The streams of the CPS guns really need to punch their way through the air, wasting a lot of energy and losing cohesion when the velocity of the stream falls below a certain threshold. If the streams on the CPS weapons were more cohesive and concentrated, the range would probably be higher. As such, the initial power and velocity of the CPS guns need to be higher in order to obtain the same results, giving the impression of more explosive power.

There are also some structural issues that plague the Blazer. First of all, the grip area is far too small. Especially if you have larger hands, the ridge on the bottom pump housing will become VERY annoying VERY quickly. Also, the electronic pressure switch is in the worst place imaginable, resulting in an almost constant battery drain. Buzz Bee Toys added something that can best be described as a stock to this gun, but in my opinion they did not extend it long enough. This is probably a personal preference, but the gun would be a lot more comfortable to hold and use for larger people that way. Also, the smallest nozzle on my gun is so small, it regularly gets clogged, resulting in a 2 feet cloud of mist if one pulls the trigger. What I do like on the gun is the pump. It probably has the most comfortable pump of any gun I have used. So while I consider the Blazer a reasonable gun, it could have been much better, had they improved on the trigger and grip area. A normal sized, more shaped grip, without the annoying ridge, (like the ones designed by Larami/Hasbro for Super Soakers) would go a long way in improving my opinion on this weapon. Unfortunately Buzz Bee Toys consistently makes this mistake, as can be seen on the Scorpion, where the grip area is also far too small with a clumsy and bulky trigger. They really need to focus some attention on that if ever hope to become a favorite with older crowds.

:cps1000: :blazer:
People get to observe me once, right before they are hit by twin water beams...

Don't believe me..? Look behind you...

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:12 am

Yet the 1000 still shoots at least as far as the Blazer, so the 1000 must have a faster initial stream speed than the Blazer to do this.

I can agree to this point. The initial velocity of the CPS1000's stream may be quicker, but falls off rapidly due to poorer cohesion and air resistance. However, that then suggests at the latter part of the flight, the stream of the CPS1000 is slower than that of the Blazer if they achieve similar ranges.

As much of general water combat tends to occur at 1/2 to 2/3 max range, this could give the CPS1000 a slight advantage in getting water to a point faster. However, I'd still feel more comfortable seeing either a true side by side stream comparison or having stream velocities measured somehow.

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

DX
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:45 pm

I typically engage at 3/4 to slightly over my max range. When using a modded gun at under that range, the speed of the stream can get a kill before the enemy even has time to pull their trigger. Knowledge of stream speeds can give one an advantage by stepping closer or back further to score a kill without losing a reciprocal kill.

I would like some system of measurement, but I don't know how it could be done in order to bridge the divide between math and logic.
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
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:03 pm

I would like some system of measurement, but I don't know how it could be done in order to bridge the divide between math and logic.

Need a way to time how long a stream takes to reach a point in space. Perhaps a volunteer willing to be soaked by two soakers holding a time to try to time the difference between when the first shot hits versus when the second shot hits. :goofy: I suspect, though, that the time difference will be very short and hard to measure (though this split-second difference may account for the 0wnage using a faster initial-firing stream).

Thinking a bit, perhaps the simplest thing would be to have a side-profile of the stream picture taken. If one can trace the path of a stream flight, one can start estimating when/where the stream starts slowly and where the stream is performing its best. A smooth, cohesive stream should trace out a nice arc when fired level. A faster-firing, less cohesive stream will appear more level at first, then arc more sharply downwards at the latter end of the stream due to the increased air resistance. If two streams can be fired parallel at the same time and photographed, the difference in overall stream shape should be obvious.

Granted, taking such pictures would definitely be tricky. These pictures are likely only possible with soakers with decent shot times (unless one has much better photographic equipment).

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

DX
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:04 pm

I still like the 0-30 in x seconds idea. Of course that could still yield insignificant differences, but at least it would be a whole lot easier to do. 0-50 would be a better distance, but that wouldn't work since not all streams can reach 50. Almost all streams reach 30.
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
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:52 pm

The main problem with the 0-30 in x seconds is just a matter of accurately measuring it. I'm open to people trying to get some numbers, though, and seeing if they record notable differences in times measured.

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

DX
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:22 pm

Does anyone want to try it? No one is going to want to try the other ways unless they have a professional, high-speed shutter camera lying around. 0-30 can be done accurately enough if you have a good sports stopwatch, and the patience to do it well.
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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests