MINELAB MANTICORE: DATA & PERFORMANCE

basstrackerman --

I guess the only thing I'm not following, is what the problem is that needs solving. I may be missing it (after all, I'm on the night shift right now, so my brain is not functioning at 100%, LOL). But, what I'm saying is, if someone has an older EQX coil, then they would most likely have an older Minelab lower rod, too -- probably already installed on that older coil. Take myself, for instance. I have an Equinox, with all three coils, and all three coils have a lower rod attached. So, if I were to buy a 900, and it were to come with the "Manticore-style" lower rod, and "Manticore-style" connection point on the new 11" coil, I would use that coil, and that lower rod, when I wanted to swing the 11". Meanwhile, I'd use my OLD-style lower rod, with my old 6" coil, if I wanted to swing that one, or my old-style lower rod, and 12" x 15" coil, if I wanted to swing that one. Since I, like many others, keep the lower rods permanently attached to the coils, I wouldn't even have to change anything...just grab the coil/lower rod combo I want to use, slide the lower rod into the middle shaft section, and lock it down. None of my coils become "no longer usable," if Minelab uses the "new" style lower rod and the "new" style coil connection point, and so, as far as I can tell, no "adapter" is needed -- unless I'm missing something -- is the appropriate (old-style) lower rod. If I am a 900 user, I just use the appropriate lower rod (new style or old style) for whichever coil (new style or old style) that I am wanting to hunt with, no? Am I missing something, or misunderstanding something?

Steve



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2022 02:18PM by steveg.

Something that folks may not think to ask....... and may not (initially) be intuitive:

Ferrous Limits Upper. (The area where all iron resides...... with the exception of flat/sheet steel). An Upper setting of '6'...... is equiv to a EQX Fe '0' setting. This is how aggressive Manticore is. ALSO.......... the Ferrous Limits settings are not incrementally 'linear' to the EQX Fe (nor F2) adjustments. There is also..... 'other' engineering (and performance/operation) in the functionality of Ferrous Limits ..... that make it a bit different from EQX.
Another example: an Upper setting of '8'...... is somewhat close to a EQX Fe setting of '1'.

Manticore (entire) shafts are smaller in diameter than EQX-600/800.

"I'm not familiar with the way the AQ coil attaches, unfortunately."
The rod end splits into a C shape, with a hole through each end of the C. There are two bolts/nuts, one for each ear/half of the C shape.
Edit: Photo on Steve H's forum:
[www.detectorprospector.com]

"So .. swinging the coil and accidentally smacking into a tree, or whatever, would STILL put "stress" on the coil ears, right?"
Of course, but that's not the stress that kills original Equinox ears. They fail by being under constant tension for months on end. This is exacerbated by wear on the rubber washers, wear of the inner surface of the ears ( and plastic part of the lower rod ), which permits the ears to be bent in even more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2022 06:33PM by Pimento.

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm not familiar with the way the AQ
> coil attaches, unfortunately."
> The rod end splits into a C shape, with a hole thr
> ough each end of the C. There are two bolts/nuts,
> one for each ear/half of the C shape.
>
> "So .. swinging the coil and accidenta
> lly smacking into a tree, or whatever, would STILL
> put "stress" on the coil ears, right?"
> Of course, but that's not the stress that kills or
> iginal Equinox ears. They fail by being under c
> onstant tension for months on end. This is exa
> cerbated by wear on the rubber washers, wear of th
> e inner surface of the ears ( and plastic part of
> the lower rod ), which permits the ears to be bent
> in even more.

Pimento --

Separate bolt and nut for each side of the "C-shaped" lower rod "yoke..." Interesting.

Yes, I agree that wearing down of the washers, over time, then requiring additional tightening of the coil bolt/nut, is probably a big reason for the eventual failures. But my point was just that since the adapter would likely not TOTALLY solve the potential for the ears to break, why not just use one of the "old-style" lower rods -- and thus the older coils can be used with the new Equinoxes without NEEDING an adapter.

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, though, LOL!

Steve

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm not familiar with the way the AQ
> coil attaches, unfortunately."
> The rod end splits into a C shape, with a hole thr
> ough each end of the C. There are two bolts/nuts,
> one for each ear/half of the C shape.
>
> "So .. swinging the coil and accidenta
> lly smacking into a tree, or whatever, would STILL
> put "stress" on the coil ears, right?"
> Of course, but that's not the stress that kills or
> iginal Equinox ears. They fail by being under c
> onstant tension for months on end. This is exa
> cerbated by wear on the rubber washers, wear of th
> e inner surface of the ears ( and plastic part of
> the lower rod ), which permits the ears to be bent
> in even more.

Common sense and knowledge now....
It CLEARLY is stress, as beach hunters have more failures than dirt fishers. The specification of the plastic is NOT thick or tough enough>>>PERIOD!

I can't comment on the beach vs. dirt failure rate. Here in the U.K , dirt-hunting is by far the most common style, and so most of the failures occur to dirt-hunters. But the failures typically occur when the machine is not in use .. "I took the machine out of my vehicle, and both coil ears were broken" .. "I had my machine on charge ready for tomorrows session. When I came to pack it away, I noticed one of the ears had failed"

You are in part correct about the plastic being ill-suited to the job. I recall it's a PC / ABS blend , and this stress failure is something I associate with PC ( polycarbonate ) , so perhaps there's too much PC / not enough ABS in the mix?
But design plays a part, too. Having longer ( taller ) ears would mean they have to bend slightly less, stressing the lower parts of the ear less. Drilling the ear hole afterwards, rather than moulding it in, would eliminate the ear failures that start where the plastic flow rejoins around the pin that produces the hole. And many other design tweaks.

Quote
Pimento

the ear failures that start where the plastic flow rejoins around the pin that produces the hole.

I always tghought this the problem. Cold flow as the plastic oozes up and around that area.
Thx

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> basstrackerman --
>
> I guess the only thing I'm not following, is what
> the problem is that needs solving. I may be missi
> ng it (after all, I'm on the night shift right now
> , so my brain is not functioning at 100%, LOL). B
> ut, what I'm saying is, if someone has an older EQ
> X coil, then they would most likely have an older
> Minelab lower rod, too -- probably already install
> ed on that older coil. Take myself, for instance.
> I have an Equinox, with all three coils, and all t
> hree coils have a lower rod attached. So, if I we
> re to buy a 900, and it were to come with the "Man
> ticore-style" lower rod, and "Manticore-style" con
> nection point on the new 11" coil, I would use tha
> t coil, and that lower rod, when I wanted to swing
> the 11". Meanwhile, I'd use my OLD-style lower ro
> d, with my old 6" coil, if I wanted to swing that
> one, or my old-style lower rod, and 12" x 15" coil
> , if I wanted to swing that one. Since I, like ma
> ny others, keep the lower rods permanently attache
> d to the coils, I wouldn't even have to change any
> thing...just grab the coil/lower rod combo I want
> to use, slide the lower rod into the middle shaft
> section, and lock it down. None of my coils becom
> e "no longer usable," if Minelab uses the "new" st
> yle lower rod and the "new" style coil connection
> point, and so, as far as I can tell, no "adapter"
> is needed -- unless I'm missing something -- is th
> e appropriate (old-style) lower rod. If I am a 90
> 0 user, I just use the appropriate lower rod (new
> style or old style) for whichever coil (new style
> or old style) that I am wanting to hunt with, no?
> Am I missing something, or misunderstanding someth
> ing?
>
> Steve


So are you saying the new shafts are the same diameter as the original equinox? And that the lowers will work in both? I have read that the shaft on the manticore was smaller in diameter. Honestly it don't even matter as I don't own an equinox.

"I always thought this the problem. Cold flow as the plastic oozes up and around that area."
It's not a common failure, by a long way, most go at the bottom, at the high-stress point where the thickness suddenly changes from thin to filleted. But it is a very distinctive and identifiable failure mode, often with a 'pizza-slice' chunk missing from an ear. If you carefully examine your ears, you may well see the thin line where the plastic flow re-joins.
There's a few threads on Steve H's forum on the topic, including this one:
[www.detectorprospector.com]

(( we're getting a bit off-topic here, sorry ))



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2022 08:05PM by Pimento.

Floridason..... I don't think I answered your question!
The ML105 bluetooth/wireless earcup pads ...are foam. On a windy day with crashing waves....... gel-filled earpads would be better suited. . . . . . to block out noisy environmental conditions.

Beach hunters beware: Targets in the wet-salt that are 5-bars deep (on the LCD screen)....... actually......... the bars are now chevrons,.,.,.,.,.,., 5-chevrons deep....... these targets (ferrous or non-ferrous) WILL bounce into the iron ID range. The trick is........ if the target does not move when you rotate your body around the detected target....... and the target is fairly short/sharp......... it is probably a non-ferrous target that is out of Manticore ID range ..... (and completely out of range with all other detectors).
On normal-conditions beach days...... I am able to run Sens on 26 whilst in Beach Low Conductors Mode.

Thank you Tom,,

Always worth the wait, you are so busy I appreciate it!

RE: Depth indicator of 5 chevrons, is the depth per chevron semi log scale similar to the 1”, 3”, 5”, 7”, 9” of old?

Regards

basstrackerman --

I am not sure on that; I was ASSUMING the lower rods are the same size. BUT -- you may very well be right in that they may NOT be. So, now I see where we were miscommunicating. If the lower rods on the NEW EQX and the Manticore are smaller in diameter than the ones on the old EQX, then I totally understand why you were talking about an adapter of some sort....

Steve

basstrackerman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > basstrackerman --
> >
> > I guess the only thing I'm not following, is wha
> t
> > the problem is that needs solving. I may be mis
> si
> > ng it (after all, I'm on the night shift right n
> ow
> > , so my brain is not functioning at 100%, LOL).
> B
> > ut, what I'm saying is, if someone has an older
> EQ
> > X coil, then they would most likely have an olde
> r
> > Minelab lower rod, too -- probably already insta
> ll
> > ed on that older coil. Take myself, for instanc
> e.
> > I have an Equinox, with all three coils, and all
> t
> > hree coils have a lower rod attached. So, if I
> we
> > re to buy a 900, and it were to come with the "M
> an
> > ticore-style" lower rod, and "Manticore-style" c
> on
> > nection point on the new 11" coil, I would use t
> ha
> > t coil, and that lower rod, when I wanted to swi
> ng
> > the 11". Meanwhile, I'd use my OLD-style lower
> ro
> > d, with my old 6" coil, if I wanted to swing tha
> t
> > one, or my old-style lower rod, and 12" x 15" co
> il
> > , if I wanted to swing that one. Since I, like
> ma
> > ny others, keep the lower rods permanently attac
> he
> > d to the coils, I wouldn't even have to change a
> ny
> > thing...just grab the coil/lower rod combo I wan
> t
> > to use, slide the lower rod into the middle shaf
> t
> > section, and lock it down. None of my coils bec
> om
> > e "no longer usable," if Minelab uses the "new"
> st
> > yle lower rod and the "new" style coil connectio
> n
> > point, and so, as far as I can tell, no "adapter
> "
> > is needed -- unless I'm missing something -- is
> th
> > e appropriate (old-style) lower rod. If I am a
> 90
> > 0 user, I just use the appropriate lower rod (ne
> w
> > style or old style) for whichever coil (new styl
> e
> > or old style) that I am wanting to hunt with, no
> ?
> > Am I missing something, or misunderstanding some
> th
> > ing?
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> So are you saying the new shafts are the same diam
> eter as the original equinox? And that the lowers
> will work in both? I have read that the shaft on t
> he manticore was smaller in diameter. Honestly it
> don't even matter as I don't own an equinox.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2022 04:59AM by steveg.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Floridason..... I don't think I answered your ques
> tion!
> The ML105 bluetooth/wireless earcup pads ...are fo
> am. On a windy day with crashing waves....... gel-
> filled earpads would be better suited. . . . . . t
> o block out noisy environmental conditions.
>
> Beach hunters beware: Targets in the wet-salt that
> are 5-bars deep (on the LCD screen)....... actuall
> y......... the bars are now chevrons,.,.,.,.,.,.,
> 5-chevrons deep....... these targets (ferrous or n
> on-ferrous) WILL bounce into the iron ID range. Th
> e trick is........ if the target does not move whe
> n you rotate your body around the detected target.
> ...... and the target is fairly short/sharp.......
> .. it is probably a non-ferrous target that is out
> of Manticore ID range ..... (and completely out of
> range with all other detectors).
> On normal-conditions beach days...... I am able to
> run Sens on 26 whilst in Beach Low Conductors Mode
> .

35 points of sensitivity and you can only run 26 on white sand beaches? Hummm.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom --
>
> So, as I continue to read what you've posted, and
> ponder the MC, and try to apply some of what I kno
> w about FBS units, and THEIR 2-D screens, I want t
> o ask a clarification question.
>
> On FBS units, one way to deal with iron was to adj
> ust your "iron mask." On my Explorer, I used to r
> un with iron mask set at "20" -- which would have
> the effect of "graying out" the bottom portion of
> the 2-D smart screen. I think it's called "Iron M
> ask" on the CTX as well (if I recall), and again -
> - I set my CTX up to "gray out" the bottom 1/4 or
> so of the screen.
>
> Looking at the Manticore, and the "Ferrous Limits,
> " you are doing something similar -- in terms o
> f "graying out" sections of the screen. So, o
> n Ferrous Limits -- Lower, if I "gray out" the low
> er 1/4 of the screen, the screen would APPEAR fair
> ly similar, visually, to what my Explorer or CTX s
> creen would look like.
>
> BUT -- you said you set up your machine with certa
> in levels of "Ferrous Limits," BUT that you also r
> un "all metal" or, "no discrimination." Which the
> n says that ferrous limits IS NOT discrimination.
> Lightbulb moment!
>
> SO -- I am left to conclude something that I DID N
> OT realize until you started the "data dump," WHIC
> H IS -- ferrous limits are NOT discrimination. On
> FBS units, "grayed out" areas on the screen mean t
> he target is discriminated (i.e. NO target
> report, just a "null" in your threshold). Meanwhi
> le, on the MC, grayed out screen (via Ferrous Limi
> ts adjustment) seems, based on what I'm now unders
> tanding, to only change the target's tonal r
> eporting. In other words, if a target fal
> ls in a grayed-out section of the screen on a CTX,
> the target has no audio tone report (but a
> "null" in the threshold). On the MC, however, if
> a target falls in a grayed-out section of the scre
> en, it DOES report, audibly -- as IRON. Is
> this a correct understanding? (As an aside, I ass
> ume that just like FBS and EQX, if you are running
> DISCRIMINATION on the MC, a discriminated target w
> ould result in a null in the threshold?)
>
> And IF this is a correct understanding, then what
> does the screen look like when discrimination is a
> pplied? I would assume you could glance at the sc
> reen, and see NOT ONLY where you have your "Ferrou
> s Limits" set (grayed out), but also what t
> argets you are discriminating?
>
> Finally, restating my understanding, just to be cl
> ear -- ferrous limits is ACTUALLY an adjustment th
> at decides which portions of the screen would c
> orrespond to an iron tone, for targets plottin
> g in "grayed out" locations, and which portions
> of the screen would correspond to conductive tones
> , for any targets plotting in "white" areas.
> Correct?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve




Steve - excellent catch, and awesome synopsis! Clearly stated and easy to follow!

Tom

Correct, I absolutely would NOT like an edge/side key for long press noise cancel. I dont like the side buttons on the EQX already as is. Whatever hot key KEYPAD position is most convenient is how I would set up the long press key as that will get used most.



In regards to your inland settings, when you said "Sens 2-points higher than EMI. 2-points INTO the EMI. THEN..... a LONG PRESS Noise Cancel"

Do you mean "Increase the sensitivity level to the point of hearing EMI chatter, and then add 2 more points sensitivity, BEFORE doing a long press noise cancel"? In other words, cause the machine to just begin to chatter, add 2 more points of sensitivity, and then do a long press cancel.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Manticore (entire) shafts are smaller in diameter
> than EQX-600/800.

OH -- I missed this post entirely (both the part about Ferrous limits, AND this part about the shafts).

So, "old" EQX lower rods WILL NOT work with the new EQX 700/900...hmm...

Steve

FloridaSon......... what the chevrons really 'feel like' to me (in the real-World). , . , . , . , . , and may help folks better:
1-chevron depth = 1" deep (surface)
2-chevrons depth = 2"
3-chevrons depth = 3"
4-chevrons depth = 6"
5-chevrons depth = 9"
This is the real-World "feel".

midalake........ yes. I can only run Sens on 26 in the WET salt. Dry sand...... and I can run Sens on 31.,.,if there is minimal/no EMI.,.,.,.,.,.,., which............. usually on a beach........there's very little EMI (as compared to 'in town').

philber........... yes. Set sens to JUST where you start to hear EMI. Then bump the Sens 2-points higher INTO the EMI. THEN perform a LONG PRESS Noise Cancel.

TnSharpshooter somehow got his hands on a Manicore and is doing videos on it.

Yeah. I got one. Long distance flying stork came from Australia and dropped it in my yard. Lol
I am sharing info via YouTube. Didn't want to cluster up NASA Tom's thread here.

1”, 2”, 3”, 6”, 9” (feels like setting) that’s what I was going for…
Roger

Thanks Tom!

On EQX 700/900 = Coil ears..... it will be!

Will they break like the ones on the 600 & 800?-----NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On EQX 700/900 = Coil ears..... it will be!

philber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NASA-Tom --
> >
> > So, as I continue to read what you've posted, an
> d
> > ponder the MC, and try to apply some of what I k
> no
> > w about FBS units, and THEIR 2-D screens, I want
> t
> > o ask a clarification question.
> >
> > On FBS units, one way to deal with iron was to a
> dj
> > ust your "iron mask." On my Explorer, I used to
> r
> > un with iron mask set at "20" -- which would hav
> e
> > the effect of "graying out" the bottom portion o
> f
> > the 2-D smart screen. I think it's called "Iron
> M
> > ask" on the CTX as well (if I recall), and again
> -
> > - I set my CTX up to "gray out" the bottom 1/4 o
> r
> > so of the screen.
> >
> > Looking at the Manticore, and the "Ferrous Limit
> s,
> > " you are doing something similar -- in terms
> o
> > f "graying out" sections of the screen. So,
> o
> > n Ferrous Limits -- Lower, if I "gray out" the l
> ow
> > er 1/4 of the screen, the screen would APPEAR fa
> ir
> > ly similar, visually, to what my Explorer or CTX
> s
> > creen would look like.
> >
> > BUT -- you said you set up your machine with cer
> ta
> > in levels of "Ferrous Limits," BUT that you also
> r
> > un "all metal" or, "no discrimination." Which t
> he
> > n says that ferrous limits IS NOT discrimination
> .
> > Lightbulb moment!
> >
> > SO -- I am left to conclude something that I DID
> N
> > OT realize until you started the "data dump," WH
> IC
> > H IS -- ferrous limits are NOT discrimination.
> On
> > FBS units, "grayed out" areas on the screen mean
> t
> > he target is discriminated (i.e. NO targe
> t
> > report, just a "null" in your threshold). Meanw
> hi
> > le, on the MC, grayed out screen (via Ferrous Li
> mi
> > ts adjustment) seems, based on what I'm now unde
> rs
> > tanding, to only change the target's tonal
> r
> > eporting. In other words, if a target f
> al
> > ls in a grayed-out section of the screen on a CT
> X,
> > the target has no audio tone report (but
> a
> > "null" in the threshold). On the MC, however, i
> f
> > a target falls in a grayed-out section of the sc
> re
> > en, it DOES report, audibly -- as IRON.
> Is
> > this a correct understanding? (As an aside, I a
> ss
> > ume that just like FBS and EQX, if you are runni
> ng
> > DISCRIMINATION on the MC, a discriminated target
> w
> > ould result in a null in the threshold?)
> >
> > And IF this is a correct understanding, then wha
> t
> > does the screen look like when discrimination is
> a
> > pplied? I would assume you could glance at the
> sc
> > reen, and see NOT ONLY where you have your "Ferr
> ou
> > s Limits" set (grayed out), but also what
> t
> > argets you are discriminating?
> >
> > Finally, restating my understanding, just to be
> cl
> > ear -- ferrous limits is ACTUALLY an adjustment
> th
> > at decides which portions of the screen would
> c
> > orrespond to an iron tone, for targets plott
> in
> > g in "grayed out" locations, and which portio
> ns
> > of the screen would correspond to conductive ton
> es
> > , for any targets plotting in "white" areas.
> > Correct?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
>
> Steve - excellent catch, and awesome synopsis! Cl
> early stated and easy to follow!

Thanks, philber! Glad someone found my long-windedness somewhat helpful!

Steve

NASA Tom, have you done any in water beach testing yet with the Manticore? One gripe I had with my Equinox 800 was that when using it in salt water I had to lower the sensitivity quite a bit to keep it from being overly chatty. Curious how the Manticore behaves in the wash / 1st drop off area on the beach? For water hunting now I strictly use my Excalibur 2, wondering how it compares to to the Manticore in the water?

kwalenciak..........Yes...... but very little. We are still having 7'-8' waves. I have tried Beach Seawater Mode....... and Beach Low Conductors Mode....... IN the ocean. The waves have been SO rough...... that I am unable to get accurate data. So far....... it does appear that Beach Seawater Mode presents a very slight edge in depth performance IN the water....... over Beach Low Conductors Mode (with a reduced Sens setting..... so as to ascertain 'stability'). What I CAN say..... due to in-the-water observations ...... Manticore is indeed a formidable amount deeper than EQX in the water. To "what" exact amount??......I do not have this data (yet). The 'salt mitigation' enhancements of MC...... is the rationale behind this extra performance.

Someone asked: Why didn't we just send out the new updates to the owners of EQX 600/800's........ and these new updates would create the new EQX 700/900 equivalent.....instead of trying to make money out of the whole ordeal?
First = You cannot electronically send out a software update ..... to update to the better (more bulletproof) carbon/carbon shaft for EQX-900.
Second = You cannot send out a better waterproof control pod.... through an electronic software update.
Thirdly = Some of the new software is not compatible with EQX 600/800 Operating System.
Some of these updates..... we really wanted to do..... because we all saw the 'need'.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., like a: even more robust....much better waterproof control pod. This needed to be addressed.

ALSO....... to put things into (a different) perspective: For example: If you sink $1.7M U.S.D. into a project.... with 3-years of laborious R&D.... time, labor, effort, engineering, resources......etc........... Don't you think the wise decision would be....to try to recoup this large undertaking? Or should this simply be sent out to customers for free....... (and..... in OUR case) as a Minelab Update Utility (MUU) software update.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. and financially collapse the corporate entity?
Somewhere along-the-line...... these funds need to (critically) be recouped. (Years ago)..... when I went into business........ I did not go into business to lose my money.

Tom

"For example: If you sink $1.7M U.S.D. into a project.... with 3-years of laborious R&D.... time, labor, effort, engineering, resources......etc........... Don't you think the wise decision would be....to try to recoup this large undertaking? Or should this simply be sent out to customers for free."

I agree it would be foolish yo upgrade for free. However, a "trade-in program towards the purchase of" would do wonders for the buyer base and community as a whole and still would make them a ton of money. I am getting a Manti, and I would of gladly traded in my Nox 800(clean, working, undamaged) counting as $600,00 off toward the nox 900. They would of made an addition $400.00 from the nox 900 sale. I am sure there would of been a ton of people to do that.

Think how Nox saturated the market is right now, why not convert them into $400 each?

"It's only when we lost everything, that we are free to do anything"

Tom,

I have another 800-Manticore comparison question. My soil is pretty tame in Central Texas and 99% of the time I ran my GB
at 0. Every now and then I would do a manual GB just to see where the 800 hit. It usually would vary from single digits to the low to mid teens. My question is.... is the GB on the Manticore as forgiving as the Nox or is it more critical to do a manual or run tracking to get maximum performance? Thank you for taking the time to share with all of us your knowledge on all the various topics!!!

I would think if a company spent $1.7 M on a product that had a poor record of dependability and build quality the ethical course of action would be to recall the faulty product. The recourse for the victims of that poor initial investment would be a class action lawsuit.

Beyonder......... I couldn't imagine having about 5000 'traded-in' EQX's in inventory!!!! I'm not saying this could not be done .... (as dealers often DO take trade-ins); yet, the feasibility would be low.

shoveler........... The percent of EQX failures is truly not that high. EMPLOY THE WARRANTY!!!! That's what it is for!!!

Dan.................. You should see the MC perform just the same (maybe a bit better).... with its Ground Balance abilities AND mineralized dirt handling abilities.......,,,,,,,,as compared to EQX. I would indeed perform a Ground Balance..... as this allows for better ID (at depth). My gut says...your Central TX mineralization is mild/medium. Approx 3-bar dirt.

I feel like I am not answering questions to their fullest.

Dan NM...... Yes...... Target Recovery Response on '3' is about the sweet-spot for EQX....... in many places. Here in Florida....... with near-zero mineralization........ even though it just barely starts to get out of Max-Q on EQX..... I would always run EQX TRR on '2'. Same with Manticore!

Also. MC in "carpets of nails"....... compared to Deus-2 in same "carpets of nails". D2 = 4% better at lateral separation. MC = 23% better depth in SAME carpet of nails. If there's even a chance for MC to 'see between' nails....... it takes advantage of it.... the the fullest.

EQX-600/700/800/900 coil ears ....and coil yoke will remain compatible/same-size.,.,.,.,.,., even though the shaft diameter will be more hydrodynamic/smaller-diameter.