mh9162013

So the Vanquish will run off a USB wall wart, but not a power bank?

The reliability is debatable.

I got the impression that one of the issues with the F-Pulse was that it glitched/froze when the batteries couldn't provide enough power to it at certain times. I think I remember reading that someone had issues when using regular alkaline batteries, but when using primary lithium (like Energizer), it worked perfectly.

As long as they are user replaceable common cells, I would definitely agree.

Besides rechargeability, that's an awesome benefit, right there.

I could see something like this...but I don't think it would result in a Vanquish Pro. Instead, there might be an new and improved Equinox (Equinox 1000?) and/or maybe a "cheaper" version of the Equinox line, such as an Equinox 400 or something. This Equinox "400" might be the equivalent of what you call the Vanquish Pro.

Huh, I wonder what would happen if you applied the same logic to insurance. To be fair, I get what he's saying. But I think there's a lot more to the desire for waterproofing than just detecting underwater. And yes, I'm sure he knows that. But he's spinning the best he can (and I don't blame him; he's just doing his job).

Ugh

To add on to what Steve said, it could have been cheaper to use a miniUSB port instead of something else. But more importantly (in my opinion) is that Garrett didn't want to require a proprietary plug/cord to charge the Apex in the field. Just bring a typical battery bank that many people already have (which will almost assuredly come with a micro or mini USB plug, as well as possibly other plugs, such as USB-C).

That's funny!

I love the Apex look as well, especially the fact that it's an s-shaft.

Eagle eyes! Good catch. I'm betting those require a regular phillips head screwdriver, too.

I'm guessing it's a little of both. Perhaps Garrett, if necessary, can recall and update the software on all the Apexes and eat the cost. But they're so confident in their software development that they doubt this will happen. Your beancounter explanation makes a lot of sense, and when tweaking it from a movie quote from Fight Club: The cost of doing software updates on an ad hoc basis X the probability that a software update will be necessary. If this ends up being less than the increased development costs of building in updateable firmware, Garrett won't provide this feature.

I hope you're right! We will find out soon enough.

That may be something I end up doing. But it's not a dealbreaker for me. No single feature in a metal detector is...so far, at least. I've been mulling the idea of getting a used AT Pro and a Vanquish 340 or some similar combo.

Assuming you're right, that's even worse news. Nothing like a non-standard battery to make it harder for customers to do their own battery replacements.

In the below picture, I figured it's what's right of the white thing (speaker?) and left of the circuit board. At least, I figured it was the battery.

If this is the sole option besides a built-in lithium, then by all means, let's encourage companies to create tech with built-in cells. But that's not always the case. There are so many high quality rechargeable AA and AAA options out there, that the only reasons I see for a built-in battery are: easier waterproofing, slightly increase volume efficiency and modest weight savings. The easier waterproofing is the most important feature (for me). I'm willing to take a 25% or 33% drop in run time to use easily replaceable AA cells in my metal detector (assuming weight and size remains the same). I'm sure I'm in the minority here, though.

Yes, at least I have made that suggestion. If I had to bet money, would I say that's what's going on here? No, but unless we get an official statement saying otherwise, I will assume it's possible.

It may be tired, but the process of making self-repair more and more difficult is still ongoing, across all product lines, not just metal detectors. And it's not just cost (a set of high quality 4 AA NiMH batteries should cost less than $15 and easily last 1,000+ cycles), but waste (lithiums often have shorter life cycles than nickel based cells) and time (having to send off your machine for a few days or weeks to get its battery replaced) considerations, too.

Do we know that for sure about the Apex? I know the Equinox battery can be replaced on your own pretty easily, although I know not all users will be confident enough to replace the cell on their own (and I don't know if it affects the warranty). I wasn't of the belief that the Apex could be opened as easily. From the pics it seems like opening the control box will be similar to opening up an AT Pro or Max.

So is forced obsolescence. Hopefully, this is not Garrett's goal, but if the Apex becomes a legendary machine (which it very well may), the battery configuration is a nice little "cash cow annuity" they have established when people have to send in their machine for battery replacement several years down the line.

He secretly hunts with a CTX 3030 and a 17" coil.

Hmmmm, yeah, it definitely kinda makesya wunduh. I don't think Garrett would cheat, so I'm guessing either: 1) A business arrangement between Minelab and Garrett 2) There are only so many efficient and practical ways to engineer a simultaneous multifrequency machine and the similarities are a scientific coincidence, kind of like the Space Shuttle and Buran. Perhaps the "juice" is in doing it efficiently, both from a financial and power consumption perspective.

I was wondering the same thing. Seems like a nobrainer, to build a DD coil like the Viper. But why haven't other companies done it more often? There must be a reason.