if it looks like BS, smells like BS, then its............. New shocker

[frgood]

So ..aahh.. based o this thread. What should SP have called it?

They are a business that needs a new product out the door. and it requires some marketing to sell it.

What should thet have called it? And how is it going to make money?

[cledford]

Originally posted by hitech


I'd say they were trying to push the better accuracy. While they are insinuating that it is more accurate, not saying it, they are certainly expecting you to infer that it is more accurate because they seal the breech.

They are not *insinuating* more accuracy, they POINT BLANK SAY IT, from the first page you get to when browsing their gun catalog comes the following statement:

"NOT YOUR DADDY'S SHOCKER> as you can see, the only feature we kept was the accuracy. Available now."

Not much guess work here - but then again what can you expect from the guys who drill holes in a tube and suggest that they would spin paintballs.

-Calvin

[JEDI]

Let me ask you guys a question. Is any marker allowed to have accuracy? Can I say, "My marker is accurate"? So, all you physics geniuses that regurgitate the same proof you heard- If all markers with the same velocity and same bla bla bla... have the same Accuracy, why can't a company claim to have accuracy? Why do you guys get all hot and bothered every time the word accuracy pops up.

Big deal, so they say they kept the same accuracy as the old shocker... well I would think so... Its a marker capable of producing a puff of air at a controlled velocity...

ACCURACY!!! Oh my god I said it... ACCURACY! Oh my God, I said it again...

[cledford]

Well, if Smart Parts hadn't claimed that the closed bolt operation of the Shocker 4x4 was MORE accurate, maybe there wouldn't an issue. Since they did, one must assume that based on their recent statement (quoted above) they still are peddling the same misinformation that the Shocker is MORE accurate then other markers. You can look at the one statement and make the arguement that what I just said isn't the case - but judging the quote based on the big picture, well you get the picture...

-Calvin

[No sKiLLz]

Originally posted by frgood
So ..aahh.. based o this thread. What should SP have called it?

They are a business that needs a new product out the door. and it requires some marketing to sell it.

What should thet have called it? And how is it going to make money?

This is NOT a new product or idea. The internals (and now this O-ring on the end of the bolt) are almost an identical copy of the Matrix design. Now the O-ring thing on the end of the bolt obviously wasn't originally Airtech Designs idea, but Smart Parts is suing people for copying them, then turning around and copying others. Absolutely ludicrous.

The picture I have of the 03 shocker internals didn't have such an O-ring, so I didn't realize, until now, just how bad they were ripping off Airtech. Their hippocracy knows no bounds.

[Dave_Z]

No its not a new idea. But the implementation is different. SP has moved the oring from the tip of the bolt to a stationary position in front of the breach. I don't know of any other marker that has an oring there so they probably can claim that they are the first to do it. Is it any different? Not really, but they are trying to sell their product so the marketing people created SFT in order to have a unique feature to the gun.

Saying the new shocker is a matrix rip off would be just like saying the matrix is a rip off of the nova or the mayhem. They both use the same principle to move the bolt back and forth. Just like most other electros(Angels, Timmys, Bushmasters, ect...) operate basically the same way. The new shocker, in my opinion is much simpler than the matrix and accomplishes the same task (shooting a paintball) with less kick and an incredibly small package.

[frgood]

From a company standpoint this is a new product. at various intervals a manufacturer must come up with something else to sell. This is how they attempt to increase profits from quarter to quarter. The '03 Shocker is not an '02 shocker. There is a new bill of materials. new sets of part numbers new product numbers, etc, This is now something that they have to sell. IT is not a question of an idea or concept. This is a purchase of a batch of raw materials, assembled, packaged and now on the street for consumption.
Marketing is now needed to boost sales. Claims are a dime a dozen. Since there is no definitive proof (no industry accepted standard) regarding accuaracy of a paintball marker, regarding air consumption, regarding efficiency one can make any claim they want at this point.

We are debating windmills since even amongst ourselves we cannot agree by what standard to apply when questioning manufacturers claims.
All SP has to do is entice us and sucker us in to buy something newer, different, flashier thatn yesterday.

I include myself in getting caught up in the hype. I find my self trying to dump old stuff every once in awhile. It is not a good feeling.

[frgood]

From a company standpoint this is a new product. at various intervals a manufacturer must come up with something else to sell. This is how they attempt to increase profits from quarter to quarter. The '03 Shocker is not an '02 shocker. There is a new bill of materials. new sets of part numbers new product numbers, etc, This is now something that they have to sell. IT is not a question of an idea or concept. This is a purchase of a batch of raw materials, assembled, packaged and now on the street for consumption.
Marketing is now needed to boost sales. Claims are a dime a dozen. Since there is no definitive proof (no industry accepted standard) regarding accuaracy of a paintball marker, regarding air consumption, regarding efficiency one can make any claim they want at this point.

We are debating windmills since even amongst ourselves we cannot agree by what standard to apply when questioning manufacturers claims.
All SP has to do is entice us and sucker us in to buy something newer, different, flashier thatn yesterday.

I include myself in getting caught up in the hype. I find my self trying to dump old stuff every once in awhile. It is not a good feeling.

[cledford]

AO is not your typical paintball forum. There is a strong desire in many of the members here to seek out and dispel myth and BS. Marketing has many shades of gray - some darker then others. Smart Parts has not only skirted the line between artfully worded fact and out-right deception, they've blatantly crossed it on a number of occasions. Everyone here has a right to question their claims, and I'd dare say (based on their prior poor choices with regard to the truth) the responsibility to debunk their crap. We don't need "industry standards" to tell us whether something works, works well, or doesn't. We are smart enough to figure it out for ourselves, and with the gentle prodding of Tom have "found the light" on a number of issues.

Although marketing is often one of the "darker" sides of a business and one that will always exist, Smart Parts makes themselves an usually appropriate target based on THEIR history - produced by their own choices. No one asked them to fabricate pseudo-facts to sell products - that was their choice. If people want to take them to task for this behavior that is their right.

OK, now let's look specifically at this issue. In short SP screwed up ROYALLY - let's just get it out on the table. They told people for years (in an effort to sell an out-dated, inefficient marker) that "closed bolts" and "low pressure" made markers "more accurate", "flatter shooting" and gave "longer range." They backed themselves into a corner with these statements. No one else put them into that corner - they did it all to themselves. Why, because selling things and making money was more important to them then their ethical obligation to "not cross the line on the truth." The sold out their honor for the almighty buck - period. Then they went and decided to redesign the Shocker. Through an engineering and MARKETING debacle they got themselves into an even worse jam - they released information about the new Shocker (marketing problem) before it was even functional. (engineering problem) Literally a month before the original expected release they went back to the drawing board (maybe it happened before then - but that was when the info surfaced) after having realized that they just couldn't make the closed bolt (new) Shocker work. They then redesigned the gun again, made it open bolt (solving the engineering problem - make a gun that functions) and left themselves jammed up twice as bad on the marketing issue. All of the sudden all of that "Shocker accuracy" that they had promised, which they'd previously attributed to the closed-bolt myth was coming back to bite them in the behind. So they put an oring on the bolt of their new open-bolt gun, call it SFT and pass it off as a closed bolt.

They are the architects of their own misery on this one, why defend them from their just rewards for stupidity? (The stupidity being that they starting marketing a product before it actually worked) Most of the paintball public believes anything they hear, especially if some goober at a shop tells him it's true. The goober at the shop will believe anything he hears as long as it can help him sell markers - and so it goes 'round. 95% of the paintball world is going to believe that SFT is something different the what it is and that SP "did it again." Tese dupes will believe that SP just developed some new, cutting edge technology "just for them" - while the whole time the only thing SP actually "invented" was a load of BS to separate that customer from his dollar. So, my question is, why bust the chops of the few who see the Emperors new cloths for what they are?

-Calvin

[frgood]

Cledford,
With regard to your SP statement, I believe you and what you are saying is correct. It smack of truth in every direction.

I do believe that companies make unsubstantiated claims all the time. Perhaps I've become jaded over the years since I rarely hear them anymore. Yes, It is the responsibility of members of groups like AO to bring those claims to light.

Perhaps my surprise i just in the amount of indignation that seems to follow these rude awakenings. People seem so surprised when these things come to light. As I think now, I'm thinking that I've been around too long and it is easy to forget the naivety of the mass public. I do believe that many companies (SP included) do not intentionally conspire to lie, they are usually the victims of poor planning, internal politics and what not. They fin themselves cleaning up a lot of messes. I find that this type of thing happens quite regurlarly in most of the companies I've dealt with. It's the marketing cleanup that is always difficult.

In other words, It's not a personal thing. This is what happens when you get a bunch of people together to get something done. Unless the business is an extreme dictatorship, then thing get done with consistency. But the employees are miserable.

I would like to keep and paraphrase your "We don't need no stinkin' industry standards". - It works for me.
I would like to add that I was referring to standards that all the manufacturers agree amongst themselves. If 60% of the manufacturers had the same method (by choice or chance) of evaluating a claim it would make things a little easier to discuss.

If I am honest with myself. I like the cocker for the following reasons (I'm trying to be honest here)

• It looked cool
• After the hype, I had a chance to be first at the field - I was popular for a day
• I enjoyed the lightness (not so much with halo added and tank)
• I alway wanted a max-flo air system.
• I was curious about the close/open bolt thing and want to see the difference

Probably not the best reasons. But my logic escapes me when talking about paintball.
I did enjoy it. I played better with a new level of confidence. I ran out of air alot and cursed whenever I walked back.

So you're right we are victims of hype.
I do not know if you agree or not regarding SP is a company and will play by corporate rules.

[frgood]

I just had another though! along the line of the better mousetrap theory.

Engineering snafus notwithstanding (closed/open bolt announcement) Was the change SP did to the matrix bolt design an improvement?

[JesseB]

according to SFT then there is no "open bolt" cause seriously if you look at how a gun operates the bolt always seal with the breech in some way and air is always dumped behind the ball. If the bolt was actually open then the ball wouldnt even move (air will move from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure) so it must be closed by some means against the ball so that the gun will fire.

That's why closed bolt and "open" bolt guns have the same accuracy if the same volume/psi of air is dumped behind the ball. accuracy is a myth get over it. consistency is the key if your gun will do the same thing every time you will be able to instinctively shoot where you want to. or you can just play it by ear. Either way its just a game get a life...

[Toxic Dave]

frgood;

Whether or not the shocker bolt is an improvement on the Matrix bolt design is kinda hard to answer. People's statements that the shocker design is a complete ripoff of the Matrix are false, the bolts do similar things in a different manner while looking fairly similar, but they work differently to an extent. Both are pretty much a ram with a valve attached to at one end and the bolt at the other.

Is it better? We thought it was pretty cool. Simple and well thought out, better though? Time will tell, once the aftermarket companies get a hold of the shocker it will get better and better, as did the Matrix.

dave/ generation-e

[frgood]

It seems amazing that new product introductions can have so many aftermarket improvements to the core process so soon after release.
Having a bolt improvement this soon really does make me wonder what the original engineers were doing all this time.

[No sKiLLz]

Originally posted by Toxic Dave
frgood;

Whether or not the shocker bolt is an improvement on the Matrix bolt design is kinda hard to answer. People's statements that the shocker design is a complete ripoff of the Matrix are false, the bolts do similar things in a different manner while looking fairly similar, but they work differently to an extent. Both are pretty much a ram with a valve attached to at one end and the bolt at the other.

Is it better? We thought it was pretty cool. Simple and well thought out, better though? Time will tell, once the aftermarket companies get a hold of the shocker it will get better and better, as did the Matrix.

dave/ generation-e

Well. Maybe not a ripoff since the concept/design has been around for a while, but I think what spurs people to make comments like that is the blatant hippocracy Smart Parts is engaging in. They would sue to protect a design they did not originally concieve, but utilize other peoples designs freely. It's like the Japanese trade restrictions in the 80's that wouldn't allow American goods into Japan, but Japan was free to export everything from cars to paper lamps.

But I recognize this as an uninformed assumption on my part. I am assuming Smart Parts isn't paying anyone for the rights to use a spool valve design, but I am also not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because of their recent actions. Unless someone knows where I could find out if Smart Parts is paying someone to have this bolt...?