Equinox complete carbon-fiber shaft system (PICTURES ADDED -- ADDITIONAL PICS, PROTOTYPE #2)...

Hi all;

Just wanted to give a heads-up that while lower rod sales continue at a brisk pace, I'm also nearing completion on the design of the complete carbon-fiber shaft system (that I've hinted about before). I will have two prototypes (using two similar, but slightly different clamping cam-lock systems) built in about 2 weeks (parts are in production now), and then, after some final testing, I'll be ready to ramp up to production mode.

I think these will be really nice shafts; my main focus over the past couple of months has been the cam lock system -- specifically the strength/security/stability of the cam lock. The goals are two-fold -- 1.) to eliminate ALL wobble issues experienced by some users with the factory shaft, and 2.) to HOPEFULLY eliminate the spring button/button hole design.

While I will continue to offer my lower shafts WITH the spring button (so that my lower rods will remain compatible with Minelab's middle shaft), my expectation is that the clamping cam locks on my shaft will meet the design spec for strength/stability -- which would mean NO BUTTON HOLES REQUIRED in the shaft. The intent of the design has been with an eye toward the final result being somewhat akin to the CTX 3030 type of shaft -- i.e. a secure cam lock, permitting "universal" adjustment lengths for the lower rod.

Anyway, I expect to have these shafts ready soon; shortly thereafter, I expect to have a rather unique counter-balancing system available as an optional add-on accessary, to achieve perfect balance for the machine (through the availability of several different weights, each one appropriate for each of the different coils, and for different lower rod adjustment lengths). Finally, a custom arm cuff may also be an optional add-on accessory in the not-too-distant future.

I'll offer more information later -- and I also have a more detailed post up on my business Facebook page at www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods, if anyone wants more information.

Thanks!

Steve



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2018 03:19AM by steveg.

I like having the holes as I can quickly lock into the 3rd hole (for example) and have my proper length. seems like a hastle to
adjust each time without the hole, but heck what do I know. You could send me one of the prototypes and I'll let you know what I think.

Steve as much as I love your lower rods I would love to try you full shaft.. I use a carbon one piece shaft now from plugger and love it.. however if you made one with a deus like shaft for easy transport then I'm in..

canslawhero -- Because I build the rods (and eventually the complete shafts as well) as custom items, tailored to the individual, I would be glad to produce the upper with button holes, for anyone who prefers it that way. My reason for trying to eliminate the button hole/spring button design, is that I have heard from many customers who say they hate those buttons/button holes, and the limitations one incurs as a result -- with respect to adjustment length. But I can see how you might like knowing that every time, adjusting to the "third button hole" position, or whatever, gives you the length you prefer.

I can say that for me personally, I much prefer the CTX shaft style (unlimited adjustment, with a secure/high-quality cam lock), versus the button holes. BUT -- you are right in that you "lose" that ability to know EXACTLY where to adjust to, to arrive at that length that you prefer. Sometimes I do have to "un-clamp" my cam lock a few times and re-adjust the length slightly, to arrive at proper position (when using my CTX), so I get what you are saying.

Bottom line is, everyone has different preferences of course, and as such, I'm more than happy to produce a shaft with OR without button holes, whatever one prefers. I appreciate your comments, as it lets me know that some might actually WANT the button holes, and it is no problem at all to build someone a "custom" shaft that includes button holes. As I said, the lower shaft WILL have the spring button installed, so drilling the appropriate holes in the upper is easy enough to do, for any customer who would prefer that...

basstrackerman -- Thanks for the kind words! Once I have the prototype shafts built, I'll post some pictures, and additional details, and I'd love to build one for you if you are interested!

Steve



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2018 03:12AM by steveg.

Do you have a price point yet, and will the rods break down as small as the factory rods?

The adjustable length shaft with the clamp type camlocks is no problem.----The user can simply make a mark on he shaft for his preferred adjustment---easy peasy-------Steve, if this works out I would be interested in a couple for my wife & I for use with the 11" coil.-----Guess I better find out what the price will be before I say too much.----As you & I have discussed earlier----the balance (adjust) situation with the 11" coil is of much importance also.--------Del

Silverfiend --

I do not have a definite price point yet, as I am waiting on one more minor/small -- but hard to acquire -- part to be procured. Once I have a supplier for that part, and a price for it nailed down, I'll know for sure. I can say that at this point, I expect my shaft to be VERY competitively priced, as compared to the other options available.

As for your question about the "breakdown" of the machine...what my shaft will consist of, is a lower rod (which I am currently selling as a stand-alone rod for anyone wanting simply an extra lower rod), and then a ONE-PIECE "upper." In other words, TWO shaft sections (an upper and a lower rod), versus the "three-piece" shaft that comes stock with the unit. In other words, my "upper" shaft will, relative to Minelab's stock shaft, consist of the middle and upper shaft sections combined into one. If you measure from the butt end of Minelab's upper shaft section to the lower end of the middle shaft -- i.e. the "bottom" end of the lowest cam lock, where the lower and middle rod connect -- you end up at about 35 1/2". My "upper" rod will be essentially that same length. So -- with the lower rod removable, disassembly of my shaft system would leave you with a roughly 36" upper, and a roughly 26" lower.

The reason for combining the middle and upper shaft sections into one, is that this allows for a very stable/secure shaft system (i.e. the fewer "connectors" or "cam locks," the more stability one can achieve).

BUT -- with that said, I am pondering a TWO-PIECE upper shaft, to be offered as an option in the future. In other words, with the lower rod included, a "three-piece travel shaft." The reason I have this pegged as a "later" project, with the "one-piece upper shaft" released first, is that many folks have said that if they NEED a "travel shaft," they will use the Minelab stock shaft for that purpose. But, when they want a "wobble-free" shaft option, that is as stable/secure as possible, they would prefer a "two-piece" setup -- a one-piece upper shaft, and then the adjustable lower rod.

So, you would be more interested in a "three-piece" option -- a "travel shaft" of sorts, I presume?

Steve

Del,

Thanks for your interest!

As I mentioned to silverfiend, my intent is to keep the cost of this shaft VERY competitive. I'll know more about pricing soon, and will let everyone know -- and will update my website and Facebook page accordingly.

As for the counterbalancing....without "spilling the beans" too much yet, the counterbalance system would be released AFTER the shaft system. Reason being, I need the shaft IN HAND, and attached to the control box and coil installed, before I can calculate proper weights for counter-balance purposes. So, I need to have the shaft completed, so as to finalize the counterweight system design and associated proof-of-concept testing.

The plan is that each shaft sold will include the necessary "attachment point" at the butt end of the rod, for future attachment of the counterweight system IF one wishes to utilize that accessory. That "attachment point" will be achieved through installation of a female-threaded coupling into the butt end of each shaft during final assembly of each shaft -- and coupled with a male-threaded "end cap" that will screw into that female coupling and "cap off" the end of the shaft. Later then, when the counter-balance system is completed and available, any user who wishes to utilize the counterweight system would simply unscrew the end cap, and then "screw in" the appropriate counterweight (and then the "end cap" would be screwed into the end of the counterweight). So, my point is, while the counter-balance system won't be available until after the shafts are in production, each shaft will nonetheless be designed to be compatible with the future/planned counterweight system.

THANKS!

Steve
www.stevesdetectorrods.com
www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2018 03:07AM by steveg.

Problem with one piece is you have to pretty well make your own to fit you. Steve.....are those locks able to be removed and replaced? If so are u going to sell them separate for those who make their shafts. If you take your two piece shafts apart you might find it to be a hassle with out spring clips....but I doubt it. It will be important the ID and OD match well and you have enough lower shaft inside the upper. Mine I set and rarely take it apart for beach hunting. Shafts look very good Steve

I am eagerly awaiting the development of your project Steve. I like the small business aspect and wish you well. I think the spring clip is a plus to easily keeping the coil aligned as well as indexing the length, but perhaps just having some indexing lines would do the same? Anyway, I signed up to follow on Facebook and hope others will too.

Past(or)Tom
Using a Legend, a Deus 2, an Equinox 800, a Tarsacci MDT 8000, & a few others...
with my beloved, fading Corgi, Sadie

dewcon --

Yep, proper fit is important when dealing with a one-piece upper, and indeed the fit is different from person to person. To account for that, I do my best to give customers as many customization options as possible -- so that the rods/shafts are produced according to a customer' specific desires. For instance, while I will have "standard" hole positions for, say, the control box handle, as just one example, it's easy for me to drill an additional hole to "customize" it for a position that any one user might prefer.

YES, the cam locks are removable/replaceable. That has been an important part of the design. I did NOT want cam locks where the upper portion, that connects to the upper shaft, is permanently epoxied in place. Reason being, if any issues should ever arise with someone's cam lock (especially those who use them heavily in salt water/sand applications), allowing the cam to be replaced entirely was very important in my mind. So that's a part of the design -- a very secure cam-locking system, but one that is easily replaceable for my customers, in the event that should ever become necessary. And yes, I will sell them separately, as a replacement part.

Regarding the spring clips -- as I mentioned, it is EASY for me to produce shafts WITH spring-clip holes, for anyone who wants their shaft designed that way. Ocean hunters who deal with heavy surf might be one customer in particular that may decide they WANT the button holes, whereas your average turf hunter might not. Again -- customizable options are, I feel, something that is a benefit with my rods/shafts; I can tailor them to individual needs.

Finally, I TOTALLY agree with you on the I.D./O.D. thing, and on having enough lower shaft available to remain inserted in the upper. Keeping tight tolerances on the O.D. and I.D. of the tubes is something I stress with my suppliers, and they do a pretty good job of it; I also build my lower rods a bit longer than the Minelab standard, for the reason you specified (more lower shaft remaining inserted in the upper, for added stability). Thanks, Dew!

pasttom --

Thanks for the kind words! And as stated above, I can see the logic why some may want the button holes. I am hearing this enough, that if enough people start asking for "custom" shafts WITH the button holes, perhaps I will need to consider producing them either way -- with or without -- as two different "standard" configurations.

Thanks for "following" my Facebook page; this helps to "get the word out," and I really think these shafts will be well-received. At least, that's been my intent, through the design process!

Thanks!

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2018 06:17PM by steveg.

Hi, all!

I am happy to announce that parts for one of the two prototype Equinox complete shafts arrived today, and I finished assembly. I am VERY pleased with the quality of the parts -- especially the clamping cam lock, which was a large portion of the focus for the design. I have done a small amount of testing/evaluation of this prototype, and I am happy to say that the strength/security of the clamp is impressive, and at this point in my testing, definitely seems to meet the design intent. Overall, I see nothing about the shaft that needs to be changed/tweaked at this point. I plan to build the second prototype when parts arrive for it on Tuesday, and then will do more testing and evaluation of both shafts. Soon thereafter, I expect to place a "first order" for parts, from one of the two suppliers, so that I can FINALLY begin offering the shafts for sale!

Here are a few pictures...

Thanks!

Steve

Nice looking Steve.

Very nice! Love the camlock system!

Steve, I like it a lot. PM price & details to me Thanks.

Looks Great Steve. Was Happy with the lower rods so pencil me in for 2 complete rod systems. Shoot me a pm when you get the details worked out. Thanks Don ><

Very nice!

Dean

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi, all!
>
> I am happy to announce that parts for one of the t
> wo prototype Equinox complete shafts arrived today
> , and I finished assembly. I am VERY pleased with
> the quality of the parts -- especially the c
> lamping cam lock, which was a large portio
> n of the focus for the design. I have done a smal
> l amount of testing/evaluation of this prototype,
> and I am happy to say that the strength/security o
> f the clamp is impressive, and at this point in my
> testing, definitely seems to meet the design inten
> t. Overall, I see nothing about the shaft that ne
> eds to be changed/tweaked at this point. I plan t
> o build the second prototype when parts arrive for
> it on Tuesday, and then will do more testing and e
> valuation of both shafts. Soon thereafter, I expe
> ct to place a "first order" for parts, from one of
> the two suppliers, so that I can FINALLY begin off
> ering the shafts for sale!
>
> Here are a few pictures...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


very nice! quality for sure! brings me to my question!
"why do i NEED this?..if i buy a equinox,i get the 3 year warranty on the rods!..the standard rods are not good enough? cheap garbage!?..talk to me!..thanks!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

Jt, you don't need this, you swing a Tesoro and will never purchase an EQ.

As with anything, it's all about customizing. Why do people drop $20,000+ on a new Rzr side by side, and then the first thing they do is put new tires and wheels on it? And then go drive it through the biggest mudhole they can find.

The stock Equinox rod is fine for most people. Some don't like the cam locks...me included when it comes to any hunting near sand. Sand can and will get in the cam lock and bind it up. This is an ongoing issue with all manufacturers of water proof beach machines. I don't think there's a single one on the market that was great out of the box. All of them have aftermarket shafts to address the problems. Minelab machines just seem to always need them more than the others....an Excalibur is practically useless on the stock rod configuration. The Sovereigns were too, up til the GT version. The after market Equinox shafts seem to be addressing the cam locks. Taller people that extend the lower rod out to the last couple of holes also experienced shaft wobble/twisting on the stock lower rod. This is because there's not enough lower rod material left up inside the upper shaft. Steve's carbon fiber replacement is longer, but the push button lock is in the same place as the Minelab... thus allowing it to be fully extended for tall people, while allowing more material up inside the upper rod and eliminates the wobble.

ozzie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jt, you don't need this, you swing a Tesoro and wi
> ll never purchase an EQ.


never say never!..just askin'
looks quality though! suspect would have to
get a "raise" (large) or float a second on the house?

(h.h.!)
j.t.

THANKS, all, for the kind words and comments! They are appreciated, and I also appreciate the patience. I've been "teasing" about this shaft for a long time, and it's taken longer than I had hoped to get here.

Also some questions were asked in the thread, which I'll try to answer...

FIRST -- I've been getting a lot of questions about price. Most recently, "ecris" has asked about price. Instead of a PM, ecris, I'll post my current thinking publicly, as others have been asking the same thing.

I don't have pricing fully nailed down yet, but here are my initial, preliminary thoughts...

I'm thinking that my "standard" shaft will include an upper shaft with cam lock, plus holes drilled for the arm cuff and the control box, and a non-threaded, permanent "end cap" on the upper "butt" end. Preliminary pricing for this "standard" shaft will be $75-ish plus shipping without the lower rod, and roughly $119 or so plus shipping, with the lower rod included.

For the same upper shaft, but with the inclusion of a threaded insert installed in the butt-end of the shaft (for future compatibility with the planned/optional counterbalance system), and a threaded "end cap," $85-ish plus shipping without the lower rod, and $129-ish plus shipping with the lower rod included.

I also will add, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, that the shaft is designed NOT to require any "button holes;" that was a huge focus of the project all along -- to design/procure a strong/stable/secure cam lock, sufficient to eliminate the need for the spring button/button clip design. I wanted to "emulate" the type of universally adjustable shaft, via a secure, clamping cam lock, such as is the case with the E-Trac, CTX 3030, etc. I believe this design accomplishes that very successfully. However, with that said, the lower rods already include the spring buttons, of course, so it's quite possible to permit the shaft to also utilize that spring button, just by drilling appropriate holes in the shaft. As such, any customer who WANTS the button holes included on the shaft for any reason, so as to utilize the spring button on the lower shaft, will be able to request that as one of the custom options. For that option, that would add $5 to $10 to any of the above prices.

These are my initial thoughts on pricing.


Now, to address a few other specific folks...

DJW-OR -- thanks Don! I have marked you down on the list!

jmaryt -- thanks for asking! I understand why you'd ask, and it's a good question. I think Daniel Tn summed it up well. First, I'd like to reiterate one of the things he said, which I fully agree with -- the Minelab stock shaft is a decent shaft, suitable for many. In particular I feel it is especially valuable to have, if for nothing else, than to be utilized as a "travel rod" due to it's "collapsibility." For me, however, I got "spoiled" with the shaft design of the Explorers, and now, the CTX 3030, after many years of use of these machines. Bottom line is, I have really learned to appreciate carbon fiber shafts, but more importantly, I have come to LOVE the idea of a good, solid, secure clamping cam lock, that therefore allows easy, quick, universal adjustability of the shaft; a simple flip of a lever to "unlock" the shaft, an adjustment up or down on the lower rod, and then another flip of the lever to lock the lower rod in place, and you are all set (on the Minelab FBS machines). My goal was to effectively "emulate" this "Minelab FBS" style of shaft, as I personally do not like the twist-lock cam design, which ALSO then REQUIRES the use of the spring button/button hole system (as you generally won't get enough shaft stability with JUST a twist-lock). So -- for me, the desire for the aesthetics of carbon fiber, AND the desire for the elimination of the twist-lock and spring button/button hole system -- in favor of a clamping cam lock with universal adjustment length capability, is my PERSONAL reason for considering doing this.

HOWEVER, I was "coerced," so to speak, into actually DOING this (actually moving forward on the project), by several folks -- for several different reasons. In other words, there was DEMAND for me to do it, from customers. As far as I can tell, there are at least four main reasons why customers want such a product (and note I said WANT, not NEED, LOL! You don't "NEED" such a shaft at all, j.t. -- but you might WANT one! )

Reason 1. Shaft wobble. Some users have experienced some wobble in the stock shaft, and don't like it. They prefer a more solid, secure shaft.

Reason 2. The twist lock and spring button design. YES, this design is partially at fault for the shaft wobble, but even for folks who haven't noticed "wobble," many -- as Daniel said, and as I noted above -- simply do not like this design. Many prefer a more "CTX-like," universally adjustable shaft system that is more stable or "stout," and basically just of higher quality than that included with the Equinox.

Reason 3. Many folks, from the "desire to customize" perspective that Daniel mentioned, simply prefer carbon fiber's aesthetics.

Reason 4. Nose-heaviness. Many find the nose-heaviness of the Equinox bothersome. For me, it's minimal, and not an issue, but for others, it's enough to cause issues after long hours of use. While counter-balancing of the stock shaft COULD be done, of course, building a custom shaft that addresses the first three reasons mentioned above ALSO allows for a counter-balancing system to be integrated into the shaft during the design stage (which is what I've worked to achieve).

So, to answer your question -- these are a few reasons why you might WANT (not NEED) one of my shafts! LOL!

Thanks all!

Any more questions, fire away!

Steve



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2018 08:38AM by steveg.

Ok I would have to have the holes in the shaft for the lower rods alignment push pin. My thoughts are this ... It will take longer to align the coil and set length without an alignment hole using a round shaft system.. an odd shaped shaft, triangle shape for instance would work but a round one seems to me like you now would have 2 steps to get coil aligned rather than one.. now I know infinity adjustments are gone with holes but it removes a step in order to hunt. With holes in the shaft you can still accomplish a quick system for travel as you would just loosen cam then push button and twist lower shaft and slide in further. So yes I'd want alignment holes.. would they be drilled in perfect alignment? If so definitely ad me to the growing list.

basstrackerman --

Sounds like you are one who would like the button holes -- which is no problem at all! Yes, the holes would be in alignment. I'll have them drilled by the factory (hence the extra charge).

Just FYI -- I have messed around a bit more with the prototype, and for what it's worth, it seemed to be no problem to me to align the coil without the button holes, and in fact, it allowed me the very nice option of turning the control box "toward me," just slightly -- while the coil was flat to the ground. The slight inward turn to the control box, with the coil flat, allowed me to see the screen a bit better.

Here's all I did to align the coil. 1. open the cam lock. 2. place the coil on the ground, and then place my toe on the back edge of the coil, pressing the coil to the ground with my toe, to hold it there. 3. Pull the detector "toward me," keeping the coil pressed to the ground with my toe, until I found the adjustment length I liked. 4. Turn the control box just a bit "inward" (my preference). 5. Reach down and clamp the cam lock. 6. With the coil STILL pressed to the ground, tilt the shaft upward or downward, as needed, to get the coil "flat" to the ground relative to the angle of the shaft I like to hunt with. 7. Lift my toe off the coil.

That was it -- very quick, very easy. Just wanted to let you know; I actually found it to advantageous not to have the button holes for a reason I hadn't anticipated (turning the screen slightly inward, toward my body), and really didn't notice any difficulty without using button holes for alignment. BUT -- that's the beauty of the ability to customize! If you would like the button holes, I can make them that way, no problem!

Thanks!

Steve

How much weight do you save changing the complete rod to graphite.

Ok sweet. All pre drilled and just a standard end cap in butt end.. 36" mark me down with lower rod.

OK, you convinced me, skip the holes, I'll take one with rod and counterweight please. I also posted on your facebook page, Steve's Detector Rods but I only want one for now. Maybe after I get a 600...

Past(or)Tom
Using a Legend, a Deus 2, an Equinox 800, a Tarsacci MDT 8000, & a few others...
with my beloved, fading Corgi, Sadie

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THANKS, all, for the kind words and comments! The
> y are appreciated, and I also appreciate the patie
> nce. I've been "teasing" about this shaft for a l
> ong time, and it's taken longer than I had hoped t
> o get here.
>
> Also some questions were asked in the thread, whic
> h I'll try to answer...
>
> FIRST -- I've been getting a lot of questions a
> bout price. Most recently, "ecris" has
> asked about price. Instead of a PM, ecris, I'll p
> ost my current thinking publicly, as others have b
> een asking the same thing.
>
> I don't have pricing fully nailed down yet, but he
> re are my initial, preliminary thoughts...
>
> I'm thinking that my "standard" shaft will
> include an upper shaft with cam lock, plus holes d
> rilled for the arm cuff and the control box, and a
> non-threaded, permanent "end cap" on the upper "bu
> tt" end. Preliminary pricing for this "standard"
> shaft will be $75-ish plus shipping with
> out the lower rod, and roughly $119 or so p
> lus shipping, with the lower rod included[/
> b].
>
> For the same upper shaft, but with the inclusion o
> f a threaded insert installed in the butt-end o
> f the shaft (for future compatibility with the
> planned/optional counterbalance system), and a thr
> eaded "end cap," $85-ish plus shipping w
> ithout the lower rod, and $129-ish plus shi
> pping with the lower rod included.
>
> I also will add, as I mentioned earlier in the thr
> ead, that the shaft is designed NOT to require[
> /i] any "button holes;" that was a huge focus of t
> he project all along -- to design/procure a strong
> /stable/secure cam lock, sufficient to eliminate t
> he need for the spring button/button clip design.
> I wanted to "emulate" the type of universally adju
> stable shaft, via a secure, clamping cam lock, suc
> h as is the case with the E-Trac, CTX 3030, etc.
> I believe this design accomplishes that very succe
> ssfully. However, with that said, the lowe
> r rods already include the spring buttons,
> of course, so it's quite possible to permit the sh
> aft to also utilize that spring button, just by dr
> illing appropriate holes in the shaft. As such, a
> ny customer who WANTS the button holes included on
> the shaft for any reason, so as to utilize the spr
> ing button on the lower shaft, will be able to req
> uest that as one of the custom options. For that
> option, that would add $5 to $10 to
> any of the above prices.
>
> These are my initial thoughts on pricing.
>
>
> Now, to address a few other specific folks...
>
> DJW-OR -- thanks Don! I have marked you do
> wn on the list!
>
> jmaryt -- thanks for asking! I understand
> why you'd ask, and it's a good question. I think
> Daniel Tn summed it up well. First, I'd li
> ke to reiterate one of the things he said, which I
> fully agree with -- the Minelab stock shaft is a d
> ecent shaft, suitable for many. In particular I f
> eel it is especially valuable to have, if f
> or nothing else, than to be utilized as a "travel
> rod" due to it's "collapsibility." For me, howeve
> r, I got "spoiled" with the shaft design of the Ex
> plorers, and now, the CTX 3030, after many years o
> f use of these machines. Bottom line is, I have r
> eally learned to appreciate carbon fiber shafts, b
> ut more importantly, I have come to LOVE the idea
> of a good, solid, secure clamping cam lock, that t
> herefore allows easy, quick, universal adjustabili
> ty of the shaft; a simple flip of a lever to "unlo
> ck" the shaft, an adjustment up or down on the low
> er rod, and then another flip of the lever to lock
> the lower rod in place, and you are all set (on th
> e Minelab FBS machines). My goal was to effective
> ly "emulate" this "Minelab FBS" style of shaft, as
> I personally do not like the twist-lock cam
> design, which ALSO then REQUIRES the use of the sp
> ring button/button hole system (as you generally w
> on't get enough shaft stability with JUST a twist-
> lock). So -- for me, the desire for the aesthetic
> s of carbon fiber, AND the desire for the eliminat
> ion of the twist-lock and spring button/button hol
> e system -- in favor of a clamping cam lock with u
> niversal adjustment length capability, is my PERSO
> NAL reason for considering doing this.
>
> HOWEVER, I was "coerced," so to speak, into actual
> ly DOING this (actually moving forward on the proj
> ect), by several folks -- for several different re
> asons. In other words, there was DEMAND for me to
> do it, from customers. As far as I can tell, ther
> e are at least four main reasons why customers wan
> t such a product (and note I said WANT, not NEED,
> LOL! You don't "NEED" such a shaft at all, j.t. -
> - but you might WANT one! )
>
> Reason 1. Shaft wobble. Some users have experien
> ced some wobble in the stock shaft, and don't like
> it. They prefer a more solid, secure shaft.
>
> Reason 2. The twist lock and spring button design
> . YES, this design is partially at fault for the
> shaft wobble, but even for folks who haven't notic
> ed "wobble," many -- as Daniel said, and as I note
> d above -- simply do not like this design. Many p
> refer a more "CTX-like," universally adjustable sh
> aft system that is more stable or "stout," and ba
> sically just of higher quality than that included
> with the Equinox.
>
> Reason 3. Many folks, from the "desire to customi
> ze" perspective that Daniel mentioned, simply pref
> er carbon fiber's aesthetics.
>
> Reason 4. Nose-heaviness. Many find the nose-hea
> viness of the Equinox bothersome. For me, it's mi
> nimal, and not an issue, but for others, it's enou
> gh to cause issues after long hours of use. While
> counter-balancing of the stock shaft COULD be done
> , of course, building a custom shaft that addresse
> s the first three reasons mentioned above ALSO all
> ows for a counter-balancing system to be integrate
> d into the shaft during the design stage (which is
> what I've worked to achieve).
>
> So, to answer your question -- these are a few rea
> sons why you might WANT (not NEED) one of my shaft
> s! LOL!
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Any more questions, fire away!
>
> Steve

thanks for the explanation steve.i wasn't really asking for one,as i know it's a quality accessory,and will have many wanting it.
i have read reports of issues regarding the "wobble" in the shaft of the equinoxes.i am finding this difficult to relate to,as this detector(s) has a price point ranging from 649.00-899.00 since "other" makers of quality detecting equipment have incorporated the spring steel button,along with the cam lock design for "years" with virtually no issues over time.my point being that minelab cannot,for some quality control reason,assure a "solid" wobble free shaft,even though their detectors are among the highest priced detectors on the market
that said,IF this is a recurring issue with the equinoxes,then minelab needs to address this going forward.this situation DOES
allow enterprising individuals,such as yourself to offer a "value added" accessory that i am certain,will be welcomed in the present market.

(h.h.!)
j.t.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2018 07:52PM by jmaryt.

j.t. -- gotcha! Sounds like you were asking more "rhetorically," and maybe more indirectly aiming that question toward Minelab (i.e. sort of asking indirectly "why are we even DEALING with wobble issues?") Gotcha!

Pasttom -- sounds good! I have you on the list! Thanks!

basstrackerman -- I have you marked down as well, with button holes -- thank you! Question -- when I made my prototype shaft a few nights ago, I wanted to make it roughly the same length as the Minelab middle and upper rods, combined. That turned out to be 34 3/8" to 34 1/2", from the butt of the rod to the end of the cam lock. So, 875mm is the length I plan to have my shafts made to (34 7/16"). Is that good with you? I need a "standardized" length, so that when I give the factory the specs on where to drill all the button holes, I can reference the specs based on "distance from the end of the tube."

Rick N. Mi. -- I am not sure yet, but I will let you know. Reason being, I'm not sure which of the two "prototypes" will end up becoming the production model, and the two may weigh a slightly different amount. But, I'll let you know weights, soon.

BUT -- I would like to raise an interesting point here, about weight of shaft, an the addition of counter weights. This may not apply to you, Rick, as you may not intend to use any counterweights, in which case, the "absolute weight" of the two shafts -- mine, vs. Minelab's middle and upper rod sections -- is relevant to you. However I am going to include the text from another post I made, on another forum -- dealing with "absolute" shaft weight versus a "balanced" shaft. If this is not interesting to anyone, ignore what I'm about to write. But, I think it is interesting, and relevant. So, for those who wish to hear the thoughs, read on...


I will say this...I personally have NEVER had an issue with the "nose-heaviness" of the Equinox. YES, it's there; but it's not of a degree that bothers my arm or shoulder in any way -- even after hours of EQX use. HOWEVER, with that said, when I was doing the testing, and arrived at the proper amount of weight needed at the butt end of the shaft to bring perfect balance, I was SHOCKED at how different, and how GOOD, swinging the machine felt. It was truly "night and day!" It was a DREAM, a PLEASURE to swing! The unit basically "floated" in your hand! One thing I quickly learned through that was, while EVERYONE is so focused on how LIGHT a machine is (and I TOTALLY AGREE that "as light as is humanly possible" is a good thing), BALANCE is EQUALLY important, in terms of comfort!!! Sure, a 50-pound machine, even if perfectly balanced, would be WAY TOO HEAVY to swing comfortably. BUT, on the other end of the spectrum, a 3-pound machine, improperly balanced, is not comfortable either, for some. SO -- achieving the lightest weight possible is MOST important, INITIALLY (from a detector design perspective). But once you have the machine literally AS LIGHT AS YOU CAN MAKE IT, the proper next step, if you wish to maximize ergonomic comfort, is to turn around and begin to (somewhat counter-intuitively) ADD weight -- as little as necessary, and in the proper strategic locations -- but ADD weight nonetheless! And that's an especially hard paradigm, I think, to get across to some detectorists, as everyone right now is focused on OVERALL WEIGHT of the machine. It's hard to convince someone that a 4-pound machine can be WAY MORE COMFORTABLE than the VERY SAME MACHINE, at 3 pounds. If that extra weight is added in exactly the right place, I can PROMISE that the four pound machine can feel SIGNIFICANTLY more comfortable than the 3-pound machine...

Thanks all!

Steve

I remember the first batch Tejons that you had to put rubber bands on the battery doors to keep them closed. The battery door hinges were thin plastic and you had to change batteries in the machine so much that you'd break the doors off..those machines eat batteries and performance drops off big time if the batteries aren't fresh. The knobs on the machine were so loose you could barely touch them and move them...that prompted a trip to the hardware store for rubber O rings. On top of that, some of the units had very big gaps on the face plate. My first one had about a 9 to 10 mm gap in which you could see the wires and circuit board under the housing. Not good when you get dirt and stuff up in there.

First batch AT Pros wobbled and leaked. That's why they went to the twist cam locks on those, to eliminate the wobble problem.

MX Sports had the cracked face plate and leaked and some software bugs.

First run Nokta/Makros had the coil ear breaking problem.

Once the machines have been on the market for a little while, they all seem to fix the issues. No manufacturer is exempt from it. Anything that is mass produced is going to have problems from time to time. The Equinox wobble seems to be because of the length that people are extending the lower rod. The taller people notice it because they extend the lower shaft to the end hole. I'm only 6 foot tall so my spot for the 11 inch coil is the 3rd hole down on the stock rod. I've never had a problem with wobble with that coil on. With the 12x15 coil, I prefer extending the rod out to keep the coil away from my feet. In the extended holes, that is the only time I notice any kind of play in the rod. It's really not an issue for performance.