Review Of Steve's Detectors Rods Non-Conductive Lower Rod For Manticore

[Gerry in Idaho]

I was fortunate to have Steve’s Detector Rods send me a sample lower rod to test on my Manticore.  I hope it’s because he values my honest opinion as a detector user more than just being a detector dealer? Also, since I reached out to him about an option of a non CF lower shaft before all this blew up, that probably had some play into it as well. The rods address the issues discussed here.

To me, part of metal detecting is a way to unwind and walk away from todays worldwide issues, politics and pressures we all allow to build up in our bodies and minds.  Swinging a detector is my Therapy.  One thing about my detector preference, is the ability to tweak and fine turn it to get most depth on bigger gold, best sensitivity to smaller gold or specimens and smooth operation when swinging the detector in my desired locations.  When I do swing a detector, I also want to have peace of mind knowing I’m getting best results. Now with the factory setup of Equinox 900 and Manticore,  I no longer have the confidence that I’m getting best performance.  I no longer feel I’m hearing all targets and or especially potential targets (iffy’ s) when I’m hearing the signal response of my detector as it beeps on the carbon fiber shaft.

Side note - One of the reasons I don’t use Minelabs advertised VLF gold detector, the old technology Gold Monster 1000?  The Equinox 800, 900 and Manticore are more capable detectors, with added features and better performance.  Those 3 models of detectors are not advertised by Minelab as Gold Prospecting capable detectors and to this day I have no clue?  I guess the Marketing Team working behind a desk, knows better than real genuine gold prospector detectorists?  Anyway, the 800/900/Manticore all are better VLF gold detectors than GM-1000.  So, I’m going to take advantage of my knowledge and put them to use.  When doing so, I prefer to set up my detector to run best results and smoothest operation.  The EQ-800 was great and new improved EQ-900/Manticore models should have been even better and for many reasons are.  But that Carbon Fiber shaft is a mistake and a thorn in my buttocks (both of them). 

Here’s my 1st impression of in the field use.  I ran my Manticore in Eastern, OR at an old Prospect site that’s produced good gold in years past with VLF detectors. This area recently burned and so I desired to swing where it’s now more open and not thick with brush.

Here’s my findings and some other info of importance to me.

Detector is more quiet when bumping into rocks and stumps, which is the majority of my Gold Prospecting VLF detecting style.

I turned Gain/Sens up to 25 on detector and it ran ok with more False Chatter but not as much as I expected.  So I turned it down to 21 and it really smoothed out. 20 seemed to be a little better.  Interestingly, my go to on GAIN for dredge tailing piles is 19.  So, yes I was happy with added  Gain of 20/21 but at the same time, this was not dredge tailing piles and so maybe at that location, I’ll be back at 19?  Reall hard to say until I get there.

Noise during target Recovery - When laying detector down and lifting it up off the ground during target recover.  This was the biggest difference I noticed. Detector was much more quiet and reminded me of using the Equinox 800 with hardly any issues.  The reason?  Each time a person lays detector down and picks it up, the stock CF shaft is seen and makes the Manticore scream.  This new non CB shaft takes care of that issue.  Just having a more quiet detector during operation is worth the value spent on a non CF shaft, in my opinion.  Realize, my hunting in ore dumps, side banks in placer digs and tailing piles are all steeper terrain and so the detector can easily move, slide, rock back and forth…which used to drive me nuts.  The non CF shaft alleviates most of that.

Quality - built of the non CF shaft.  Certainly ranks high and I even like the silver color as it separates my unit from those around me.  The diameter of the shaft is just as great as the stock shaft from Minelab and maybe even a hair thicker when I put it in the clevis, hardly any need to adjust the back screw.  It feels a little more snug, which I prefer.

Texture of the shaft, is on par with the factory shaft provided.  To me, that’s important because when I hunt in saltwater, some materials will easily wear and mar up from the find sand (early CTX 3030 shaft for example).

Weight of Steve's non CB lower shaft is 2.2 oz

 

Weight of stock lower rob by Minelab that makes all the extra noise, is 1.8 oz

 

The difference of .4 oz.

 

Length = Steve’s rod is 23 ½” vs stock lower rod from Minelab at 22 ¼”. 

 

Now, I myself prefer the smaller 22” and in fact hope Steve cuts them down to 22” as an option.  I take trips all the time and get n planes and fly with my Manticore.  The airlines carry on size dimensions are 22” x 14” x 9”.  This is a big thing to me since I fly with detector at least 6 times a year.  Also realize, the Manticore has a lithium Ion Battery, so it’s illegal to have in normal luggage under the plane.

Cool Factor = Tops.  Why be the same and have your detector looking like everyone else you hunt with.

Overall, I’m quit sure the majority of guys who use the Equinox 900 and Manticore detectors for Gold Prospecting, will in fact enjoy the benefits of the non CF shaft.  I also feel just like I do with a new detectors as I’ll start getting more time on it in a variety of detecting situations and see other benefits as well.

Minelab, are you listening?  You dropped the ball this time.  Having some Engineer guy tell Simon all the excuses why you used a CF shaft is a bunch of BS.  The better option would have been to reach out to those who originally mentioned the issue and provide us an option of fix of the error made.  Telling us the EQ-900 and Manticore are not advertised as gold detectors is weak and the rest of the excuses made, I’m not even going to waste my breath/time with rebuttal. 

At least we have other metal detector manufactures and accessory businesses out there that provide a more responsive approach to helping get it right and keeping the end user (customer) happy with the product they purchased. 

Thank you Steve’s Detectors Rods for doing what should have already been done by Minelab.  You my friend, understand the importance of Customer Satisfaction.

Steve, you'll need to update your business card with the new and hot selling non CF rods as well.

[phrunt]

This is fantastic, I was hoping the rod would work out well and be suitable for the purpose.  I must get one!!!!    Thanks for the testing post Gerry.

Cutting the rod slightly shorter to match the ML might be a good idea, might shave off a smidge of weight for those that care.

The results are as expected, I've always wondered if someone was using tracking and they put the detector down and it goes nuts on the shaft would that throw tracking out and when they start detecting again would it take time to catch up thereby missing targets? This might be made even worse by the fact the Manticore can't even track out the shaft or ground balance it out even if you try.

A big thanks to @steveg for coming through with the goods, as soon as you've got one ready for me, I'll zap the money across to you for mine.  I don't care about the colour, I'd be happy with silver, black, anything.

[Lynk]

A really wonderful write-up, Gerry. Thank you.  And thanks @stevegfor creating a great solution.

What a great example of this forum's potential for feedback, analysis, and a resolution that can advance the industry. 

[Chase Goldman]

6 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

The airlines carry on size dimensions are 22” x 14” x 9”.  This is a big thing to me since I fly with detector at least 6 times a year.  Also realize, the Manticore has a lithium Ion Battery, so it’s illegal to have in normal luggage under the plane.

Great review of the new non-CF ML lowers from Steve G, Gerry.  Great job Steve G.

But just wanted to clarify that it is NOT necessarily illegal to check the Manticore or any other detector with internally installed Lithium Ion batteries in your checked baggage if the batteries are less then the maximum 100 W-h limit (note that Manticore batteries are 23 W-h) provided the batteries remain installed and precautions are taken to prevent the detector from being inadvertently turned on per FAA regs.  You can also remove the batteries from the checked detector and carry them on board with you..

That being said, it's still probably the best move to keep your detector in your carry-on for a number of reasons.  

Even though US FAA regs permit it, it's still ultimately up to the airline which can enforce stricter rules at their discretion.  Also, FAA regs don't necessarily apply to international air travel which can also have stricter rules on Lithium batteries.  I prefer to keep my detector with me on board to prevent theft or damage during handling or random TSA luggage inspections.

So if Steve can shave the length of the rods, it's worth it.

[Gerry in Idaho]

12 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

But just wanted to clarify that it is NOT necessarily illegal to check the Manticore or any other detector with internally installed Lithium Ion batteries in your checked baggage if the batteries are less then the maximum 100 W-h limit (note that Manticore batteries are 23 W-h) provided the batteries remain installed and precautions are taken to prevent the detector from being inadvertently turned on per FAA regs.  You can also remove the batteries from the checked detector and carry them on board with you..

That being said, it's still probably the best move to keep your detector in your carry-on for a number of reasons.  

Even though US FAA regs permit it, it's still ultimately up to the airline which can enforce stricter rules at their discretion.  Also, FAA regs don't necessarily apply to international air travel which can also have stricter rules on Lithium batteries.  I prefer to keep my detector with me on board to prevent theft or damage during handling or random TSA luggage inspections.

So if Steve can shave the length of the rods, it's worth it.

I'm just going off what I get told each time I fly.  So I did a search and on TSA.gov website it says below.

At the same time, I do know the batteries in my detector are small enough, but the people screening and scanning have no clue.  All it takes is one person to pull it and my metal detecting trip could be compromised and that's not a risk I'm willing to take.

When I called TSA.gov with technical questions, nobody will give ok, they just say "bottom line, it's up to the inspecting agent at that location and they have final say".  That's too risky for me for allow someone to make their choice if it goes or not.

I'll just keep carrying it on the plane and keep them all happy.  

But, you are correct...until some TSA screener says you are not.

[Chase Goldman]

Gerry,

Yep, I agreed with you that detector carry on makes most sense for all the reasons both you and I stated.  It's not worth it to risk leaving it up to some individual in a position of authority who doesn't want to hear otherwise or the airlines who have the autonomy to enforce stricter rules than the rule of law.

I was only clarifying your "its illegal" statement by providing the link of the actual FAA regulations in my post.  If you click it, it clearly states:

"Portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries may be carried in either checked or carry-on baggage. When carried in checked baggage, portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries must be completely switched off (i.e., not in sleep or hibernation mode) and protected to prevent unintentional activation or damage, except portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries with lithium..."

Not worth going back and forth further, but just wanted people to know what the law actually says and where to find it.  Even TSA's simplified guidance is unclear and leaves a lot of open questions and partially contradicts the actual law.

Yes, as always, your actual mileage may vary so it's best to minimize your chances of a mixup causing you to lose possession of the very tool you need for your trip and keep it with you.

Hope that makes sense.

[Gerry in Idaho]

1 hour ago, Chase Goldman said:

Gerry,

Yep, I agreed with you that detector carry on makes most sense for all the reasons both you and I stated.  It's not worth it to risk leaving it up to some individual in a position of authority who doesn't want to hear otherwise or the airlines who have the autonomy to enforce stricter rules than the rule of law.

I was only clarifying your "its illegal" statement by providing the link of the actual FAA regulations in my post.  If you click it, it clearly states:

"Portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries may be carried in either checked or carry-on baggage. When carried in checked baggage, portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries must be completely switched off (i.e., not in sleep or hibernation mode) and protected to prevent unintentional activation or damage, except portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries with lithium..."

Not worth going back and forth further, but just wanted people to know what the law actually says and where to find it.  Even TSA's simplified guidance is unclear and leaves a lot of open questions and partially contradicts the actual law.

Yes, as always, your actual mileage may vary so it's best to minimize your chances of a mixup causing you to lose possession of the very tool you need for your trip and keep it with you.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for clarification and you are correct my friend.

[steveg]

Gerry,

Thanks for the write-up, detailing your experience with the non-conductive glass-fiber lower rod.  Yes, I sent one to you because you were the first one who brought this issue to my attention.  That, plus your extensive experience, and the fact that you were one of the louder voices wanting to see this to completion, led me to conclude that you were a perfect candidate for testing.

I will be sending one to Steve H. in the next few days.  I would have sent one earlier, but I inadvertently sent the second prototype it to a customer who ordered a regular CF Manticore lower (it's black, and I simply grabbed the wrong one, LOL).  In any case, I'll have it back in my hands today, and it will be headed to Steve tomorrow.

MEANWHILE, yesterday I received the other shipment of sample tubes, from my other supplier -- two (black) glass-fiber tubes and two (yellow) Kevlar ones.  I was pleased to find that the Kevlar tubes from this supplier have much less "flex" than those from the other supplier.  In fact, the flex was similarly low as compared to the glass-fiber tubes.  This makes either of those a viable option, from that perspective.

With that said, both of these materials are a little more difficult for the suppliers to work with, than carbon fiber.  Apparently, more care needs to be taken when cutting and drilling these tubes, and particularly in the case of the Kevlar, cutting is apparently difficult due to the material itself, requiring some specialized techniques.  Overall, I'm thinking that glass fiber is going to be the way to go, and I just assembled two more Mancticore lowers today, using the two glass-fiber tubes.  Gerry, if you know of anyone else here stateside, involved in your type of detecting, that you feel would be a good person to do some testing, let me know, and I'll get them taken care of.  As soon as I hear back from all testers, and assuming no issues are raised (I'm not expecting any), I'll be placing a large order for glass-fiber tubes soon, to get these into production ASAP.

Now I'd like to address the one negative that was brought up -- length.  The reason that these are a bit longer than stock, is due to the design of the "clevis" -- it being longer, due to those "ears," than an Equinox yoke.  I purchase these tubes to be interchangeable between the two machines (MC and EQX), and at this tube length, an Equinox 700/900 lower rod ends up at 22", while the Manticore ends up closer to 23 1/2" (as you noted).  

I CAN order these tubes in two slightly different sizes -- the Manticore ones about 1 1/2" shorter so that they also end up at 22", or a hair under.  One other thing I'll mention though is that for a standard carry-on (22" x 14" x 9"), and dredging up some high-school trigonometry in my brain, the "hypotenuse" of a 22" x 14" rectangle is 26".  As such, the 23 1/2" lower rod would easily fit into the carry-on, as long as it were placed a bit diagonally.  Even with a slightly smaller-than-standard carry-on, say, 21" x 12", that yields a 24" hypotenuse which suggests that the MC lower would still fit easily, at 23 1/2". 

SO -- I'm looking for feedback here.  Given that at the current 23 1/2" length, they will fit (diagonally) into a carry-on, should I still change the tube length for the Manticore to make them 22"?  OR, given this information, is the 23 1/2" length OK?  The reason I'm asking is, the negative in making the MC lower at 22" is that I try to keep the number of different tube sizes I work with as minimized as possible, so that mistakes are not made (which is easy to do with tubes of nearly the same size, and identical appearance).  It's not that this issue cannot be overcome, but it does make things a bit easier logistically to limit tube sizes as much as possible.  SO -- is 23 1/2" (to be stowed diagonally) acceptable, or is there a strong preference for 22" (to be stowed "straight")?

Thanks, all!

Steve

[Hunterjunk]

Good to see your observations of the non conductive rod are similar to mine . It really does make the machine more pleasant to use when so much of that extra noise is not there .  I think you will settle on a little higher sensitivity as a side benefit .