Jump to content

Fisher Has A Lot Of Models Marked Discontinued On Their Site And Teknetics Has 3 Models


Recommended Posts

On 10/11/2021 at 7:18 PM, phrunt said:

Quest have something they call float resin inside their coils, it's super light and floats, a good idea to lower the coil weight while maintaining strength.

I know First Texas was also experimenting with a resin with little beads in it or something, I can't remember...   They could just run the resin through their Soda Stream 🙂

FloatResin chemical technology is specially designed for metal detector coils filling to make it lightweight thus rugged to last long.
...

Yes I noticed that the Quest X5 11X6 (Blade) stock coil is extremely light ( 290g without coil cover ), this is actually a world record ... I understand now better the reason ... FloatResin 🙂.  For example the Apex 11 X 6 Viper weights 400g , a Vanquish V10 10X8 360g , even the small Deus 11X5 HF elliptical ( 310g ) is heavier than the X5 Blade.    

btw I have done a Quest X5 full test a few months ago , I will post it on the forum as soon as I have a little time ...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Steve had it right attributing much of the lag to arrogance. That arrogance is steeped in delusions about where the current lineup stands relative to the competition and what features they can neglect in the future. Excuses are also an issue, as they were at whites. “Minelab is part of a large corporation and can afford to invest more in R+D.” “Nokta Makro is government subsidized and can afford to invest more in R+D.” “Most people who say they want waterproof will never set foot in water.” “Built in updates lend to hacking.” “Wireless headphones are not the best performance option.” On and on. The idea that many of our asks are unnecessary or extraneous is pervasive. I don’t accept that the financial advantage some companies have can’t be outthought. They have to be, or there’s no sense continuing on. 

The Simplex needs an answer. It can’t be in continuing to charge more for less no matter how much they personally think their F75 is worth. Equinox needs an answer. So did the E-trac and CTX. It wasn’t the CZ-3D. Deus, ORX and now whatever XP is cooking up next need answers. First Texas has no single selectable machines after watching XP climb from below the radar to sharing the top with Minelab. How did they do it and FT can’t or couldn’t. Even AT Pro needed an answer, but it seems like they struggle to develop waterproof housings they don’t think are necessary anyway.

How do you compete by sitting out on the competition? Eventually you have to dig in, bite the bullet, decide to rip off the band aids and just facilitate implementation of features fast becoming industry musts. To get back on top they have to go further than that. Inertia is powerful. Much of the base tech is maxed out. It’s all about innovative features and peripheral enhancements now. People aren’t giving up an equinox unless you’re bringing an equinox and then some to market. People aren’t giving up a Deus unless you’ve got a Deus and then some. Same with Simplex and Vanquish. Competition is really heating up right now. I hope these moves FT is making means they are ready to really get in the ring. 

  • Like 5
  • Oh my! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ☠ Cipher said:

Much of the base tech is maxed out. It’s all about innovative features and peripheral enhancements now.

I've heard this before, and I am inclined to concur with this sentiment. But I have a question that you and maybe some others here can answer.

Wouldn't another way to make a significant advancement in metal detecting technology, without creating a new type of technology (a la MIQ, FBS, BBS, etc.) is simply speed up the processors in metal detectors?

I've read countless times how FBS and BBS are slow. Or how even older "flagship" detectors aren't as fast as an Equinox or Deus. But why?

Do Minelab's FBS/BBS detectors or Garrett's AT line of detector require such high end CPUs that simply speeding up the processing ability is cost or design prohibitive?

Imagine an E-Trac, Safari or Explorer II with a max recovery speed of say...an Equinox on a 4 recovery speed setting. With NOTHING ELSE CHANGED, wouldn't this be a massive improvement that could result in a jump in the popularity of those older machines? This same question applies to a Garrett AT Pro/Gold/Max or other similarly situated or capable machines.

I'm no metal detecting engineer, but you'd need a CPU upgrade, plus a few other chips, I imagine. Power usage would go up too, but this could be offset with newer battery tech (like a built-in lithium battery *gasp*). Then you'd need to rewrite its programming too. But all of this is doable for a reasonable cost...or maybe not?

Is what I'm describing not happening becuse of business or engineering considerations? Maybe I'm misunderstanding how metal detectors work, which wouldn't surprise me. So I'm open to being instructed on what I'm missing. But it's my current understanding that a major limitation of older machines isn't just their limited discriminating ability (compared to SMF tech), but also their target separation ability.

For example, let's say a Fishr F75 with a stock coil can "see" an iron nail and silver dime as distinct surface targets as long as they're 2 inches apart. But due to the physical limitations of the stock coil, the closest the nail and dime can be and still be seen as 2 separate targets is 1.25 inches. Then why hasn't Fisher boosted the processing power of the F75 so that it can see the nail and dime when they're say...1.33 inches a part? Going from 2 inches to 1.33 inches in target separation/recovery speed improvement would be a dramatic boost to the F75's performance, would it not? It would easily make the F75 competitive again in locations it had to yield to machines like the Equinox.

I guess what I'm saying is, metal detecting companies don't have to develop MIQ's replacement to create another great detector. There are ways to dramatically improve current VLF technology (without adding bells and whistles) to still make them competitive machines today...right?

TL;DR: If you have a sailboat and want more speed, you don't need to develop steam power. But maybe designing a clipper ship would be a viable option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A newer faster processor would likely use less power not more.  The faster processors were getting the more heat they were generating so it became vital for processor developers to lower the power draw of CPU's to try keep them cooler though new technology, CPU speeds stopped increasing at dramatic rates and size and heat became a focus for some time.  Now some ARM CPU's run without a heatsink that have the clock speeds of older CPU's that needed a massive copper heatsink.

I wish it was as simple as banging in faster processors, surely it can't be or they would have done it.  Although the code for the software is likely written based on the processor in the detector so would need ported over or rewritten/highly modified. 

Employees move on, so in the case of some detectors like the older Fishers are the people who wrote the code even there? are they capable of modifying the code to modernize the detector?  Maybe they didn't keep up with the times themselves.

The GPZ seems like it could desperately use a faster processor right from new, you'd think they'd be able to get a higher clock speed CPU for it now without a dramatic code adjustment, it's menu system really lags while navigating, especially if the GPS is turned on putting further load on the processor.

I don't think we give the engineers enough credit though as we armchair engineers think they can just buy a faster processor for $20 and make a whole new better detector by just switching the part order.  Although ideal it's unrealistic, it has crossed my mind many times why they don't take advantage of newer processing technology in older detectors though.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ☠ Cipher said:

“Minelab is part of a large corporation and can afford to invest more in R+D.” “Nokta Makro is government subsidized and can afford to invest more in R+D.” “Most people who say they want waterproof will never set foot in water.” “Built in updates lend to hacking.” “Wireless headphones are not the best performance option.”

You put those sentences in quotes.  I'm curious as to whom specifically you are quoting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, phrunt said:

I don't think we give the engineers enough credit though as we armchair engineers think they can just buy a faster processor for $20 and make a whole new better detector by just switching the part order.

Oh, I can completely relate to that sentiment. I used to work in a field where most people were ignorant to how it worked and would often scoff at certain results that they didn't understand. I imagine that applies here to me and my understanding of metal detecting design. I'm all ears to learning more about what I'm missing and the challenges engineers face.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

You put those sentences in quotes.  I'm curious as to whom specifically you are quoting.

I've seen similar excuses many times from various brand defenders on forums. No need to point fingers at specific people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think we can have multi frequency,multi reactivity,multi sensitivity

 

RR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Something else that may warrant consideration!

   Bankruptcy is a business plan! Albeit generally not a good one, but it does have some financial advantages, if done before unrecoverable debt!! Especially after the last two years of Covid changing the marketplace!!

   I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but it could be a factor going forward, when weighing a product overhaul, against potential returns!!👍👍

   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joe D. said:

   Something else that may warrant consideration!

   Bankruptcy is a business plan! Albeit generally not a good one, but it does have some financial advantages! Especially after the last two years of Covid changing the marketplace!!

   I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but it could be a factor going forward, when weighing a product overhaul, against potential returns!!👍👍

   

But during bankruptcy proceedings, don't companies have to take warranty claims into account? But even if that's the case, perhaps doing this with a bankrutpcy judge or trustee overseeing the debt reorganization is better financially for the company than not going into bankrtupcy...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By phrunt
      Codan/Minelab's share price of $9.81 today when it reached $19.35 in June and has been in free fall ever since would indicate something is up.    I hope it doesn't affect them releasing new detectors as they tighten the belt.  I am guessing the Deus 2 and Legend won't be a good thing for it either.   What I don't get is why they didn't ride a high with the GPX 6000 release, normally any detector release shoots up their share price, instead it went down.
    • By kac
      My detecting buddy found this Ma Coin.
      https://garrett.com/apextopfinds/winners
    • By Tahts-a-dats-ago
      I received an email (from ML) asking me to go to a link and fill out a survey. The survey mostly consisted of questions regarding thoughts on competitors, Minelab itself, what I'm looking for in a metal detector, and how Minelab could improve.
      I have never (previously) received such an email from Minelab, and took it as an indication of several things:
      1. Minelab is paying attention to the competition and to the consumer.
      2. Minelab sees challenges coming and plans to meet those challenges head-on.
      3. Minelab sees room for improvement and is taking steps to make those improvements.
      I did find it a bit odd that Minelab's survey included Whites as a competitor, but I suppose that's due to there being a lot of Whites machines still in use. It is possible that ML thinks it possible that Garretts will release machines under the Whites label at some point in the future.
      From the USA standpoint it was a bit odd that ML also included Quest as a competitor, but that inclusion makes a lot of sense in other markets (where Quest seems to have a decent share of the market).
      Minelab's survey does include Fisher and Bounty Hunter, but no mention of Teknetics. Is that indicative of something, or a simple oversight?
      It is no surprise that ML is eager to protect/grow its market share; however I am still pleased in knowing that ML clearly intends to rise to the challenge presented by the competition. That is great news (though expected news) for all who enjoy metal detecting.
      I do wonder what caused the survey. Was it the new teaser from XP? The tease from NM? Something else, or just business as usual?
    • By phrunt
      Well, Nokta are having an end of year promo, a little while until the end of the year yet so they're starting early 🙂

      Some pretty good deals really, more so the Anfibio and Multi deal but I guess they're not selling at the moment with the anticipated multi freaker coming, and judging by this promo sale the multi is not coming out before Christmas.... a long wait gets even longer.
×
×
  • Create New...