Angry Board - Why Bother...

[SlartyBartFast]

Why bother getting an Angry Board for a HALO if it only adds one BPS to its feed rate?

http://www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/loaders/angryhalo/

[Conversekidz]

I still think the v35 is better

[Soopa Villain17]

because people are ignorant

[TheTramp]

My Halo (V35) will already break paint if it's fragile. No need for even more pressure on the ball stack IMHO. Considering that even local tournaments are switching to some form of the 15bps rules spending even more for a faster board is a waste of money for me.

[Chronobreak]

because some people are REALLY dumb, and will buy it.

if you could make a chip like that would you? i know i would just to make $ off the agg kids

[cdacda13]

I wanna see a test done on the cheetah board.

[A-Tach-One]

I wanna see a test done on the cheetah board.

What kind of test?

[Lohman446]

But, but thats one more ball per second higher still than I will ever pull the trigger. I put victory boards in my Halos, to set the feed to 17BPS and be as gentle on paint as I could

[Blazestorm]

Guarentee an empire-b could feed much faster.

I've shot 25 on an A4fly with an empire-b... :P

[SlartyBartFast]

I've shot 25 on an A4fly with an empire-b... :P

How did you measure bps?

[yakitori]

warpig is stupid. You are taking a 10 ball count at 17bps? wtf. Thats an incomplete second. Usually that feeding done by the first second or so is done by the spring tensions of the balls being preloaded. you could attain similar results w/ NO BOARD, and a rip drive only.

I gotta give it to warpig for coming up with some poor experimental design.

The angry board is faster, and it is also gentler on paint.

I remember warpig saying that halos only feed about 15bps based on a drop test. ya thats real cool.

[Blazestorm]

Red Chrono and the LCD...

[SlartyBartFast]

warpig is stupid. You are taking a 10 ball count at 17bps?

Real intelligent input. Stupid is the description to use for anybody who considers a drop test valid or who beleives the readout on their marker for bps.

How would you design the test?

It's shooting out a real marker at a fixed speed. If it can't feed, it can't feed.

About the only thing I see open for debate is how they calculate 'max feed rate'. Should perhaps be a percentage of missed shots over a 100 or something of that nature.

But, WARPIG's max is perfectly reasonable if you want to know the max reliable feed with no eyes on the marker.

Plus, it's a comparson test. So, redesign the test and put all the hoppers through the new test and the relative differences should remain the same.

[TMAXXKING1]

heh

did anyone else notice the mag on the left side of the screen on there site..

[yakitori]

copied from warpig

As per Warpig Ballistic Labs standard hopper testing protocol, the Matrix was fired under electronic control in 10 shot bursts, with increasing rates of fire. Three bursts were fired at each rate, and the loader was tested at the next highest rate if all ten balls were fed properly for at least two of the three attempts.

In speed trials, the standard board missed one ball in the second attempt at 16 balls per second, and one each in two of the trials at 17, giving it a ranking of 16 balls per second In comparison, the Angry HALO missed two balls on its third trial at 16 balls per second, but fed two out of three properly at 17, and began missing consistently at 18 balls per second. The end result is that the test criteria ranked the Angry HALO a ball per second faster than the HALO-B with Z Code. For test data, click HERE.

right there in bold. AS MANY HAVE DONE ON VARIOUS MESSAGE BOARDS. And I dont have any inteligent input.... You are doing exactly what they say others have done, right there on their OWN website. Hows that for intelligent.


they took 10 shot bursts at different ROF settings on the matrix. That means a 10 shot burst at ROFs from 10bps through 17bps. Three trials each. They recorded the number of balls fired in out of that 10 balls. They even say in their own test results that this should not be mistaken for the maximum ROF the loader is capable off. Yet you are claiming that the angry is 1bps faster. Those two statements in the same sentence conflict each other, the only thing that makes them capable of saying that is the phrase "the test criteria".


They basically did a good job of measuring the varience between two loaders w/ different springs and measured the acceleration of each spring after being preloaded. Its funny to me that they replaced the motors in both loaders to measure the spring tensions/drive cones acceleration. Way to go warpig.

If that is good design, then I dont know what to tell you. If you are going to try and dispell hype about a product, you need to provide better test criteria than that. Some ppl just believe anything that looks halfway scientific.

Im sorry you fail to see that or disagree, but its true.