Are Minelab Gpx-6000 Coils On Same Path As GPZ 7000 Coils?

[Chet]

When will GPX 6000 17” Mono Coils be available?

Will Minelab produce any other coils for the GPX 6000?

Smaller Mono and Double D elliptical coils would be useful in gullies and brush. 

Minelab may again do a disservice to both their dealers and customers by preventing other coil builders from providing competitively priced custom coils for the GPX 6000. While at the same time they may again not provide additional Minelab coils that are desired by customers.

Short time materials shortages or small ID-chip shortages may not be a valid excuse for not having relativity small numbers of coils to be manufactured by Minelab subcontractors.  

Minelab should provide the dealers and customers a reasonable path ahead for additional coils.

If they don’t have a clear and timely path within the company then they should open the door for competitive coil manufactures to produce them.

The fastest and most cost effective way to do this would be for Minelab to patch the software to not test for an ID chip within the coil. Instead only test for an existing Double D receive coil winding. If the Double D receive winding is not detected then it is a Mono coil.

This software patch would allow coil manufactures to go into production quickly without additional wiring, ID-chip programming and testing and associated electronic equipment. This would also reduce production cost and reduce final cost to dealers and customers.

[flakmagnet]

Chet, you have added your clear and educated viewpoint to a large and growing chorus of customers who have been asking questions on this topic literally for decades. Why the logic of your questions is not put into use is opaque. Too bad for MineLab customers.

 

[Gold Catcher]

1 hour ago, Chet said:

When will GPX 6000 17” Mono Coils be available?

Will Minelab produce any other coils for the GPX 6000?

Smaller Mono and Double D elliptical coils would be useful in gullies and brush. 

Minelab may again do a disservice to both their dealers and customers by preventing other coil builders from providing competitively priced custom coils for the GPX 6000. While at the same time they may again not provide additional Minelab coils that are desired by customers.

Short time materials shortages or small ID-chip shortages may not be a valid excuse for not having relativity small numbers of coils to be manufactured by Minelab subcontractors.  

Minelab should provide the dealers and customers a reasonable path ahead for additional coils.

If they don’t have a clear and timely path within the company then they should open the door for competitive coil manufactures to produce them.

The fastest and most cost effective way to do this would be for Minelab to patch the software to not test for an ID chip within the coil. Instead only test for an existing Double D receive coil winding. If the Double D receive winding is not detected then it is a Mono coil.

This software patch would allow coil manufactures to go into production quickly without additional wiring, ID-chip programming and testing and associated electronic equipment. This would also reduce production cost and reduce final cost to dealers and customers.

All good points. I just don't think having any competitor involved (i.e. coils) would be aligned with ML's vision going forward, aiming to be exclusive. You are supposed to stick what they offer, or with what they allow on a very selective basis (see NF-ZSearch). At least the 6000 has 3 coils from the get go (IMHO a good package) and availability is the only issue at the moment (for both detector and separate coil for that matter). Being exclusive as a strategy, and not allowing others to eat some of their lunch, is their prerogative as being the only real player in town. Like it or not.  Demand for ML products appear to be stronger than ever, so what's wrong with their business concept? You can always go somewhere else if you think you can remain competitive in the gold fields... ?

If I could swing a magic wand I would want them to purchase one of the leading Au coil manufacturers, beef up the manufacture capabilities and then seriously engage in offering more coils for their fleet, all protected by chip that would be fine by me. This will take some investment but would play out well in the long run IMO. Some may say that this would also make a more compelling argument to buy their detectors to begin with (if they would need any more arguments for that matter-but I can see the point).

[Jonathan Porter]

The 6000 is barely released and people are already disgruntled? ??  Manufacturing enough of them is the current dilemma and like it or not COVID is having a huge impact on that closely followed by component shortages. The 17” elliptical mono is a standard coil in the African pack out, that market is huge so it should be no surprise that that specific coil is not yet available in our markets. ? 

I do not speak for ML but do know the GPZ 7000 and GPX 6000 are very tight tolerance ultra specific electronic designs, especially the GPX 6000. ML know this and have acted accordingly in limiting aftermarket access to their latest detectors. The 6000 is pushing the electronic envelope extremely hard, as such the coils were a nightmare to GET right, at least 30% of the time I spent on R&D was focused on coil testing. So if so much attention was required in coil development would you, after throwing so much money at R&D, allow unfettered access to uncontrolled outside sources on a product you’re trying to get established and get a return from? ? 

Even if ML had 10 coil choices there would be someone wanting something else, it’s just endless. Yes they deserve some criticism on the GPZ7000 and took way to long to do something about it but we DO have choices now. I did considerable testing for NuggetFinder on the Zsearch 12” and I can assure you it had to go through a lot of revisions and changes to meet very strict requirements which was extremely time consuming. Hopefully ML have learned from past experiences and speed things up this time around COVID permitting ? 

JP

 

[Gold Catcher]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan Porter said:

I can assure you it had to go through a lot of revisions and changes to meet very strict requirements which was extremely time consuming.

The strongest argument to be skeptical for any non-ML endorsed aftermarket coils IMO

[Gold Catcher]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

I do not speak for ML but do know the GPZ 7000 and GPX 6000 are very tight tolerance ultra specific electronic designs, especially the GPX 6000. ML know this and have acted accordingly in limiting aftermarket access to their latest detectors. The 6000 is pushing the electronic envelope extremely hard, as such the coils were a nightmare to GET right, at least 30% of the time I spent on R&D was focused on coil testing. So if so much attention was required in coil development would you, after throwing so much money at R&D, allow unfettered access to uncontrolled outside sources on a product you’re trying to get established and get a return from?

This is my viewpoint 100%. The coil and detector are one integrated part that are synchronized by fine-tuned engineering. This is different to the old days (5000) as the electronics get more and more sophisticated. I don't think any competitor has ML-level engineering capabilities to come up with their own after-market versions that are at par with ML-quality. 

[Norvic]

There is no debate ML has the superior detector smarts brought about by R&D money that comes from us the customer. The explanation that fine tolerances needed for todays electronics whilst true is a lame excuse just ask most X coil users, in fact the closest detector in my armory to compete with a 6K/11" mono combo is a a Z/X small coil combo in ability not in weight or "swingability" of course. Obviously the X coil manufacturer has the superior smarts not to just produce coils for the Z but better performing coils, as does Coiltek and NF also as ML pre 6K PIs users will attest. ML knows this thus the prime reason/excuse for the chips.

Ingenuity and Innovation brings us MLs superior gold detectors as it will bring us superior coils, accept you don`t make superior coils ML and allow the aftermarket fellows to do their thing.

[schoolofhardNox]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

 

 

 

Even if ML had 10 coil choices there would be someone wanting something else, it’s just endless. Yes they deserve some criticism on the GPZ7000 and took way to long to do something about it but we DO have choices now. I did considerable testing for NuggetFinder on the Zsearch 12” and I can assure you it had to go through a lot of revisions and changes to meet very strict requirements which was extremely time consuming. Hopefully ML have learned from past experiences and speed things up this time around COVID permitting ? 

JP

 

I think they pick the best size choices this time around. A DD coil will probably not be very popular for nugget hunting, but for me it is the size I would want if I could only get one DD coil. As for the mono coils, the 11" still has enough meat on it to get decent depth while being very maneuverable. The 17" is large enough to punch deep but at it's limit for size as far as I would want. If the price is decent I will get the 17" coil when they get here just for deep coin hunting...... but not until they get the second batteries here.

[araratgold]

I agree wholeheartedly with Norvic, and I'm sorry JP, but I cannot agree with you on this one. ?

It is a lame excuse to allow anti competitive behaviour. You think Minelab are the only ones that have smart engineers in the world ? The Russians have already proved with the X Coils that they can not only meet the technical requirements but also far exceed the performance of the standard Z coils. And I'm tipping that they would be able to with the 6K as well.

Minelab are doing everything in their power to stifle competition, even if it is only aftermarket coils to allow us LOYAL customers to have more choice ! They may make the best detectors in the world, but their ethics stink ! ?

Rick