RPG ULE Bolt

[latches109]

I have to ask, why the venturi? I thought that they were pretty much proven to be useless and a restriction on airflow..

The stock proto matrix 2005 bolt is ventui. (Pictured above)

A lighter bolt will reduce recoil; Orange & lucky Bolt did in the matrix. If I can remember correctly the orange bolt rep at nppl San Diego, claimed you would gain a cycle every 6 cycles. Which I think is irrelevant since I can only pull the trigger so fast and do not max out the cycle rate ever.

lighter is good, I'm on the band wagon.

[warbeak2099]

That's wierd. I thought most companies were switching to open face bolts because of their higher flow. It's common sense when you think about it, venturi just restricts airflow.

[slade]

That's wierd. I thought most companies were switching to open face bolts because of their higher flow. It's common sense when you think about it, venturi just restricts airflow.

but you often have to think about the design. for many bolt designs venturi is the most practical, not for the perceived advantages but because with a matrix, freestyle, or mag bolt (unlike a spyder, cocker, or other stacked tube ram bolt) you need to have the bolt connected in the center, and the air flow around that connection. the easiest way to do that, as you can see with that proto bolt, is to just drill holes. or it could be done as with the lvl10 bolt, with three points that connect the outer part of the bolt to the shaft while the air flows through the larger openings, but i think that is a two piece construction. it would be much harder to make from one piece of metal, such as with a matrix bolt.

since a bolt such as one on a spyder, cocker, or ram driven marker does not require a construction like that and can easily be open face, there isnt much of a reason for venturi.

[warbeak2099]

Why not connect those holes to make one big opening? Er, like a ring around the front of the bolt face.

[latches109]

Why not connect those holes to make one big opening? Er, like a ring around the front of the bolt face.

B/c the metal between the holes keeps the back "shaft" on. The front is hollow.

[hardr0ck68]

How can you compare the efficancy of a bolt you have never used? People commonly say bolt X is better than bolt Y for autocockers mostly based off of assumptions like the ones you are making right now. When clever players wanted to find out the truth (when paintball was a sport not some kiddy game) they would take 4 or 5 different bolts to the chrono and shoot some paint. The bolt that produced the highest velocity was the most efficent; often times it WAS NOT the one with the largest hole.

I believe this was because the large holes actually allow the air to slow down, maybe hitting the paint with "less force" however when the velocity was turned up to match the most efficent bolt the forces acting on the ball were just about (if not exactly) the same. I have no proof to back this up, however i m not supporting one bolt over another (players in those days were clever enough to realize the best bolt in one setup may NOT be the best for other set up's).

However the general doppyness of todays players lends itself to blanket statements, such as the ones found in this thread without any other information than a picture and no logic other than "i think a bigger hole is always better".

[warbeak2099]

The idea that a bigger hole is better is supported by logic. An open face allows a higher volume of air to hit the ball. A venturi style bolt constricts air heading towards the ball. Your line of thinking isn't making much sense. How could an open face bolt "slow" the air down if it's allowing it to pass through unrestricted???

[slade]

How can you compare the efficancy of a bolt you have never used? People commonly say bolt X is better than bolt Y for autocockers mostly based off of assumptions like the ones you are making right now. When clever players wanted to find out the truth (when paintball was a sport not some kiddy game) they would take 4 or 5 different bolts to the chrono and shoot some paint. The bolt that produced the highest velocity was the most efficent; often times it WAS NOT the one with the largest hole.

I believe this was because the large holes actually allow the air to slow down, maybe hitting the paint with "less force" however when the velocity was turned up to match the most efficent bolt the forces acting on the ball were just about (if not exactly) the same. I have no proof to back this up, however i m not supporting one bolt over another (players in those days were clever enough to realize the best bolt in one setup may NOT be the best for other set up's).

However the general doppyness of todays players lends itself to blanket statements, such as the ones found in this thread without any other information than a picture and no logic other than "i think a bigger hole is always better".

...youre complaining about people conversing about the theoretical efficiency of a bolt without solid proof or at least evidence, and then in one paragraph:

I believe this was because... maybe... I have no proof to back this up...

youre the most guilty of what you accuse others of. and dont try to get out of what youve said with:

i m not supporting one bolt over another (players in those days were clever enough to realize the best bolt in one setup may NOT be the best for other set up's).

youre just supporting the classic "venturi" view with its logic, that the small holes make the air "speed up". even if that is true, that air is still hitting a smaller area of the ball when it is resting against the bolt, and when the ball is farther forward the air will expand to fill the chamber (you know, gasses tend to do that) and there will be a lower pressure of air. if you are trying to argue that the velocity of a paintball is created by the air moving fast through the venturi and hitting the ball at a high velocity instead of the air expanding and forcing the ball out of a barrel (the first would have to be true for the venturi hypothesis to be correct) try taking off your barrel and putting a ball right up against the face of that venturi bolt on your autococker, and pull the trigger. it wont really go anywhere. you want actual testing? there it is. the velocity of a paintball is NOT created by the acceleration of air through the venturi.

How can you compare the efficancy of a bolt you have never used? People commonly say bolt X is better than bolt Y for autocockers mostly based off of assumptions like the ones you are making right now. When clever players wanted to find out the truth (when paintball was a sport not some kiddy game) they would take 4 or 5 different bolts to the chrono and shoot some paint. The bolt that produced the highest velocity was the most efficent; often times it WAS NOT the one with the largest hole.

even thats not correct. the efficiency does not depend only on the velocity you get with each bolt. what youre thinking is that each bolt uses the same volume of air at the same pressure with each shot, and the one with the highest velocity will be the most efficient, because you can then lower the pressure, using less air. however each bolt does not necessarily use the same ammount of air, since a certain bolt design may restrict the flow of air, and when the poppet closes less air will have left the marker. however that air will have delivered less force to the ball, so it will theoretically both use less air and have a lower velocity, and not necessarily be less efficient.

that is assuming it is a cocker or spyder. with a marker that is ram driven with an adjustable dwell, you can control how long the cup seal is open, and the best efficiency will come when you use an open face bolt (to not restrict airflow), raise the pressure a bit, and lower the dwell (over what is most likely the stock settings). the air will flow quickly at a high pressure and deliver the most force to the ball, and then the poppet will close and no air will be wasted. with a lower pressure/higher dwell setup, the air will deliver less force over a longer period, and some of the air will be lost, since as the ball is father down the barrel the air will be much less effective, especially with porting. very high pressure setups could be less efficient, because you wont be able to shoot far enough into your tank, and for best efficiency you should have your tank output set at a few hundred PSI above your air pressure. if you want any proof or testing for that (besides logic, which seems to be in my favor...) talk to simon/manike, the NPS engineer. or, you can just look at matrices. how do you increase the efficiency? top hat mod. decrease the volume of air used per shot, and increase the pressure.

for mag efficiency... ill leave that up to testing. a more open face bolt could be more efficient, or maybe with a venturi bolt face the marker will use less air. a mag with paint will be more efficient than one dryfiring, because there is still air remaining in the chamber when it is resealed... a venturi bolt may have the same effect, although (as i said) it will also have a lower velocity vs. a non venturi bolt at the same pressure. part of the problem with mags is that the velocity (and efficiency) will be affected by the bolt spring.

i probably would have been nicer if you werent so elitist.

[hardr0ck68]

i probably would have been nicer if you werent so elitist.

woah there skippy, i really dont give a rats boney butt for what you said, i only read half of it. But the point is if you do something that raises your velocity, with all other things equal, that means you have made a more efficent system. If you change bolts and notice a 25fps loss then thats pretty hard to argue is "better"

my point was not about what bolt is better, just that there is alot of little annoying kiddies cluttering up a thread with speculation and their paintball qusiphysics. I also dont give to sqirts of urine if you are "nicer" to me or not, i think you have trouble understanding the basic logics envolved with a paintball gun and WAYYY to much time spend justifying manufactures claimes without any verification of the validity of those claimes. In short you are a tool.

[slade]

woah there skippy, i really dont give a rats boney butt for what you said, i only read half of it. But the point is if you do something that raises your velocity, with all other things equal, that means you have made a more efficent system. If you change bolts and notice a 25fps loss then thats pretty hard to argue is "better"

my point was not about what bolt is better, just that there is alot of little annoying kiddies cluttering up a thread with speculation and their paintball qusiphysics. I also dont give to sqirts of urine if you are "nicer" to me or not, i think you have trouble understanding the basic logics envolved with a paintball gun and WAYYY to much time spend justifying manufactures claimes without any verification of the validity of those claimes. In short you are a tool.

i always find it funny when i run into someone like you online...

maybe if you read my post, you would understand a bit better what i said.

woah there skippy, i really dont give a rats boney butt for what you said, i only read half of it. But the point is if you do something that raises your velocity, with all other things equal, that means you have made a more efficent system. If you change bolts and notice a 25fps loss then thats pretty hard to argue is "better"

that would be true if all other things were equal. but my point was (if you had the brain power to comprehend my post) that all things are not necessarily equal. a higher flow bolt will increase the FPS of your marker, but also increase the volume of air used. if you take the venturi out of a spyder bolt (as i have done before) you can see the FPS increase. however, i dont see why you are arguing with that, since that is just about the only piece of evidence at all in support of venturi... which you seem to favor.

my point was not about what bolt is better, just that there is alot of little annoying kiddies cluttering up a thread with speculation and their paintball qusiphysics. I also dont give to sqirts of urine if you are "nicer" to me or not, i think you have trouble understanding the basic logics envolved with a paintball gun and WAYYY to much time spend justifying manufactures claimes without any verification of the validity of those claimes. In short you are a tool.

first of all you would sound smarter if you could spell adequately. at least youre better than team magfiea, ill give you that. on to what you actually said though. im not sure if theres even any point in arguing with someone who cant even read or comprehend my posts. lets leave this up to someone who actually read my post... because they would have seen that it actually involved more logic, thought, and understanding than your posts have. i fail to see anywhere where i tried to justify a manufacturers claims, in fact im often the first to argue against such claims... like that venturi is better.

i just love it when someone undermines himself with his own arguments... especially when its the same person that called me a tool.

[GT]

first of all you would sound smarter if you could spell adequately. at least youre better than team magfiea, ill give you that. on to what you actually said though. im not sure if theres even any point in arguing with someone who cant even read or comprehend my posts.

<---- just did that with my morning green tea

[hardr0ck68]

all i have been saying is that no one here has offered any proof that one bolt design will be more efficent than another. You can go after my spelling, frankly for a thread like this i dont care enough to spell check. I have nothing to prove to you. However i am not the one saying venturi designs will inherantly (oh no that could be spelled wrong, maybe if i cared i would check) be less efficent than other desgins with no conclusive data.

What i have been saying all along is that simple tests can be used to find out if this design is more effictive than another, and im sure Rouge is doing at least that much (although i would be intrested in seeing data before i purchased one). In the old days players would do these tests themselves instead of relying on blanket statements such as larger holes flow more air, and so are more efficent.

[slade]

all i have been saying is that no one here has offered any proof that one bolt design will be more efficent than another. You can go after my spelling, frankly for a thread like this i dont care enough to spell check. I have nothing to prove to you. However i am not the one saying venturi designs will inherantly (oh no that could be spelled wrong, maybe if i cared i would check) be less efficent than other desgins with no conclusive data.

What i have been saying all along is that simple tests can be used to find out if this design is more effictive than another, and im sure Rouge is doing at least that much (although i would be intrested in seeing data before i purchased one). In the old days players would do these tests themselves instead of relying on blanket statements such as larger holes flow more air, and so are more efficent.

thats better. but still, the method you mentioned in testing autococker bolts (which you said old school players did) is not accurate. the only accurate method of testing would be to install the bolt, chrono the marker, fill the tank (cold fill) and then drain the tank, counting the shots until it stopped firing. although even then, efficiency can depend on other factors. with a mag, mainly the bolt spring. with a cocker, efficiency would also have a lot to do with the HP pressure versus the force the hammer hits the valve with (spring tension) which would change depending on how you chrono it. it also depends on other (less adjustable) factors like the valve spring. cockers have much more adjustability than mags.

with rogue i would like to see a chart of the shots from each version bolt along with a L7 or L10 (depending on which it is compatable with), stating the spring used, tank size and pressure from cold fills.

[warbeak2099]

Actually, slade is proving it using science and facts. You are trying to prove your point using speculation and anecdotal evidence. Neither of those are reliable sources for information. Your entire posts basically illustrate the fact that you are ignorant and don't have a clue about paintball technology. Using physics IS the right way to explain this. You are the one cluttering up this thread with conjecture. Please leave, there are intelligent people here who wish to discuss the matter in an intelligent and scientific way. Why don't you go and teach intelligent design to a biology class somewhere, you ignorant neanderthal.

[slade]

Actually, slade is proving it using science and facts. You are trying to prove your point using speculation and anecdotal evidence. Neither of those are reliable sources for information. Your entire posts basically illustrate the fact that you are ignorant and don't have a clue about paintball technology. Using physics IS the right way to explain this. You are the one cluttering up this thread with conjecture. Please leave, there are intelligent people here who wish to discuss the matter in an intelligent and scientific way. Why don't you go and teach intelligent design to a biology class somewhere, you ignorant neanderthal.

<---- just did that with my morning green tea

im lucky my green tea isnt ready, i decided to get some after GT's post.