Stock Water Blaster Analyses

[isoaker]

For those who haven't visited iSoaker.com in awhile, I've been pushing up a number of articles looking at stock water blaster statistics.

- Diving into water blaster statistics: The beginning
- Diving into water blaster statistics: Part 2 – Lengths
- Diving into water blaster statistics: Part 3 – Weights
- Diving into water blaster statistics: Part 4 – Statistical Relationships

While the conclusions drawn so far may not be surprising to most here, having graphs to back up out feelings is nice to have. Simply put, true CPS-class blasters are great. Unfortunately, these findings, alone, don't solve our current lack of readily available higher-powered stock water blasters. What it does, hopefully, is objectively show why the community feels that even the best of the current crop of water blasters still feel like a downgrade from what was once available. It also puts into perspective how things perform to those who have not had the opportunity to handle a true CPS-class water blaster and shows why CPS-blasters remain highly sought after and coveted.

[the oncoming storm]

It's a shame you never range tested (or weighed) your 300 I would like to have seen It's range & capasity vs weight

Or this one's

[isoaker]

It's a shame you never range tested (or weighed) your 300 I would like to have seen It's range & capasity vs weight

Or this one's

I'll look into weighing my SS300 before year's end, but it'll involve doing some digging into my deeper storage. As for its range, I'd guess between 11m-12m based on how it felt and its stream thickness, but don't think I'll be doing range tests on it for awhile.

[soakinader]

Very interesting but I had to do a double take once I realized that the scales were .... "Messed up".... or something.
What I am talking about is how on screen, the bottom measurement scale is different than the side, so it ends up initially looking as though, for example, blasters have the same dry weight as filled weight. I would guess you did this to make it fit nicely, but it can be misleading.
Very interesting to see. Oh! The facts! Oh! The madness!

[isoaker]

Very interesting but I had to do a double take once I realized that the scales were .... "Messed up".... or something.
What I am talking about is how on screen, the bottom measurement scale is different than the side, so it ends up initially looking as though, for example, blasters have the same dry weight as filled weight. I would guess you did this to make it fit nicely, but it can be misleading.

For dry vs filled weight, the scales are different, but not "Messed up". If the spacing was kept the same, the vertical axis would need to be extended ~400% and that would make for a rather awkward-looking graphic that would not fit well on many screens. If one is easily misled due to not reading the numbers clearly visible on each axis, especially after one has to read the title for what each axis is referring to, can't help much there.

All in all, though, should be noted that the various relationships seen cannot be used to forecast what could be made; they merely show some trends based on existing models.