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

I use a 36" now and lower rod is on 3rd hole so your 34 7/16" should be fine.

basstrackerman --

Sounds good, thanks! It sounds like it will work fine for you at 34 7/16".

Steve

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> j.t. -- gotcha! Sounds like you were asking more
> "rhetorically," and maybe more indirectly aiming t
> hat question toward Minelab (i.e. sort of asking i
> ndirectly "why are we even DEALING with wobble iss
> ues?") 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 want
> ed to make it roughly the same length as the Minel
> ab middle and upper rods, combined. That turned o
> ut 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 refe
> rence the specs based on "distance from the end of
> the tube."
>
> Rick N. Mi. -- I am not sure yet, but I will let y
> ou know. Reason being, I'm not sure which of the
> two "prototypes" will end up becoming the producti
> on model, and the two may weigh a slightly differe
> nt 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 co
> unter weights. This may not apply to you, Rick, a
> s you may not intend to use any counterweights, in
> which case, the "absolute weight" of the two shaft
> s -- mine, vs. Minelab's middle and upper rod sect
> ions -- is relevant to you. However I am going to
> include the text from another post I made, on anot
> her forum -- dealing with "absolute" shaft weight
> versus a "balanced" shaft. If this is not interes
> ting to anyone, ignore what I'm about to write. B
> ut, 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 a
> n issue with the "nose-heaviness" of the Equinox.
> YES, it's there; but it's not of a degree that bot
> hers my arm or shoulder in any way -- even after h
> ours of EQX use. HOWEVER, with that said, when I
> was doing the testing, and arrived at the proper a
> mount of weight needed at the butt end of the shaf
> t to bring perfect balance, I was SHOCKED at how d
> ifferent, and how GOOD, swinging the machine felt.
> It was truly "night and day!" It was a DREAM, a P
> LEASURE to swing! The unit basically "floated" in
> your hand! One thing I quickly learned through th
> at was, while EVERYONE is so focused on how LIG
> HT a machine is (and I TOTALLY AGREE that "as ligh
> t as is humanly possible" is a good thing), BALANC
> E is EQUALLY important, in terms of comfort!!!
> Sure, a 50-pound machine, even if perfectly balanc
> ed, would be WAY TOO HEAVY to swing comfortably.
> BUT, on the other end of the spectrum, a 3-pound m
> achine, improperly balanced, is not comfortable ei
> ther, for some. SO -- achieving the lightest w
> eight possible is MOST important, INITIALLY (from
> a detector design perspective). But once you hav
> e the machine literally AS LIGHT AS YOU CAN MAKE I
> T, the proper next step, if you wish to maximize e
> rgonomic comfort, is to turn around and begin to (
> somewhat counter-intuitively) ADD weight -- as lit
> tle as necessary, and in the proper strategic loca
> tions -- but ADD weight nonetheless! And that's a
> n especially hard paradigm, I think, to get across
> to some detectorists, as everyone right now is foc
> used on OVERALL WEIGHT of the machine. It's h
> ard 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 e
> xactly the right place, I can PROMISE that the fou
> r pound machine can feel SIGNIFICANTLY more comfor
> table than the 3-pound machine...
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Steve


you are right steve! at the price point of the equinoxes.the correct question would be WHY?..hopefully minelab will tackle this head on and solve it.i'll bet you are hoping they don't!..(lol!)

(h.h.!)
j.t.

j.t. -- LOL!

Honestly, though, I think there is a market for these shafts even aside from any "wobble" issues. I think if Minelab would have offered an Equinox 650/Equinox 850, with the only change being a fully adjustable carbon-fiber shaft system, including an integrated, strong/secure clamping cam lock, they would have sold quite a few of the 650/850 models priced at $749/$999 respectively...

Steve

sure! why not? as mentioned,looks like a very nice,quality
set up.seems there is a ''ton" of interest. no disputing the quality of carbon fiber.

(h.h.!)
j.t.

Personally im impressed that ML heard some of us whine about them not making a good travel shaft. They did it....... now we whine for a one or two piece. Most 3 piece shafts arent intended for everyday use especially in the water..... theres going to be movement and wear and this was their first attempt. MLs mistake was NOT offering a 1 or 2 piece accessory shaft. Steves got a good product..... well thought out and discussed with a lot of hunters.

Rick, N. MI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How much weight do you save changing the complete
> rod to graphite.


Rick,

While I have not yet assembled prototype #2 (parts arrive Tuesday), I went ahead and did some weight comparison for you -- my prototype #1, versus Minelab's stock middle and upper rods.

Minelab's middle and upper rods -- 189g
My one-piece, prototype #1 -- 129g

So my prototype #1 is about 33% lighter; it looks like using carbon-fiber, and only one cam lock versus Minelab's two, saves about 60g as compared to the stock shaft.

Steve

dew --

Thanks for the kind words!

Steve

Impressive. Good work.

Rick

Wow, it is going to be harder than I anticipated to decide which supplier to choose! I received the parts for the second prototype today, and WOW! Another very high-quality, extremely strong/secure cam lock, and very nice tubes...I am EXTREMELY pleased, and encouraged. These are going to be really nice shafts...

Time for some side-by-side testing and evaluation, of the two prototypes!

Steve

Hey, all!

Just a quick update. Things are proceeding "nearly" on schedule; I expect shafts to begin shipping within the next 14 days. Some production progress has already occurred, with the rest of the shaft-building process to occur once the remainder of the parts arrive next week.

If you have mentioned interest in the past, please expect contact from me soon, so I can provide detailed information, and "shore up" my wait list. If you haven't contacted me in the past, and are interested, please let me know and I can put you on my "need to contact" list.

I am REALLY pleased with how the project has turned out! I think folks are going to really like these shafts!

THANKS!

Steve

Wrong the wobble in the equinox shaft was because the where made cheap, it did not matter if you kept the lower rod extended or not you still had wobble first they had me send the middle rod in to fix the cam lock which they did but the lower rob was to small in diameter sent it in and they replaced it that was the fix




Daniel Tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 machine
> s eat batteries and performance drops off big time
> if the batteries aren't fresh. The knobs on the ma
> chine were so loose you could barely touch them an
> d 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 ho
> using. Not good when you get dirt and stuff up in
> there.
>
> First batch AT Pros wobbled and leaked. That's wh
> y they went to the twist cam locks on those, to el
> iminate the wobble problem.
>
> MX Sports had the cracked face plate and leaked an
> d some software bugs.
>
> First run Nokta/Makros had the coil ear breaking p
> roblem.
>
> Once the machines have been on the market for a li
> ttle while, they all seem to fix the issues. No m
> anufacturer is exempt from it. Anything that is m
> ass produced is going to have problems from time t
> o 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 ho
> le down on the stock rod. I've never had a proble
> m with wobble with that coil on. With the 12x15 c
> oil, I prefer extending the rod out to keep the co
> il 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.

u2robert --

I agree that the "twist-type" cam locks are not ideal, especially for heavy-duty use.

If you are interested in a complete carbon-fiber shaft -- with a HEAVY DUTY clamping cam lock, that will NOT wobble, let me know. I'm 10-14 days from being ready to ship, and I'd love your business...

Thanks!

Steve

Hello

I worked a lot on carbon shaft for métal detector and the best clamp is this one :



You can find it here :

[www.wintecs.co.uk]

Hello from France

Magus.

Magus Detection Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello
>
> I worked a lot on carbon shaft for métal detector
> and the best clamp is this one :
>
>
>
> Hello from France
>
> Magus.

Magus,thats a tremendous link for those clamps.many thanks for that,will get a couple for my new TDI Pro shaft that i am looking at making especially for when using big heavy coils.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2019 03:38PM by Junk and Disorderly.

Magus,

That is definitely a nice-looking clamp. It's one of the styles I considered, during the design process...

Thanks!

Steve

Hiya Steve,
Put me down for one with the balancing feature. I would like two separate weights one for the stock 11" and one for the 15" coils please.
looks to be a top notch product Steve, congratulations on getting it into production.
(& the CTX travel rod).
Cheers,
Drew.

Drew --

Thanks for the kind words! I have marked you down on my list -- I appreciate your interest.

I'll send you a PM shortly...

Thanks,

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2019 12:11AM by steveg.