Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Ye Olde Rocket Forum (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/index.php)
-   Model Rocket History (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Bob's Collection of Products that were never released (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showthread.php?t=15898)

LeeR 04-10-2016 07:49 PM

Idiotic decision definitely. If you've got the product, why not offer it up perhaps as a free kit if you place a sizable order -- maybe $50-75? I'm not sure when the "Clearance" section on the website came about, but clearancing the kits seems like a pretty good option, too.

rocket.aero 04-12-2016 05:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeR
Idiotic decision definitely. If you've got the product, why not offer it up perhaps as a free kit if you place a sizable order -- maybe $50-75?


I can think of one really good reason why a company would spike a product: it was potentially unsafe, and a risk management review decided that it would be best to cancel the kit. This model was designed to release simulated strap-on boosters, recovered by streamer. What would happen if a kid forgot or neglected to attach the streamers to these parts, allowing them to come in hot after ejection?

Yeah, we live in a litigious society, and that kinda sucks. Still, I'd rather that Estes kill a product for potential liability issues rather than be sued into oblivion.

James

luke strawwalker 04-12-2016 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket.aero
I can think of one really good reason why a company would spike a product: it was potentially unsafe, and a risk management review decided that it would be best to cancel the kit. This model was designed to release simulated strap-on boosters, recovered by streamer. What would happen if a kid forgot or neglected to attach the streamers to these parts, allowing them to come in hot after ejection?

Yeah, we live in a litigious society, and that kinda sucks. Still, I'd rather that Estes kill a product for potential liability issues rather than be sued into oblivion.

James


I can see your point. Dr. Zooch (Wes) has flown some kits that drop the simulated SRB's at staging without streamers-- when the two stages blow apart they release the SRB's pinned between them. Standard BT-20 tubes with balsa nosecones shouldn't pose too much risk, BUT, as you said, it's a litigious society now and maybe that's why he never offered the kit for sale.

Later! OL J R :)

Don Altschwager 04-13-2016 04:10 PM

Another thing may have happened: Estes may have taken a big tax write-off for the tooling development, production costs, etc. This may have been a bigger value to the company than any profits from selling the kits.

I wonder if the tooling was destroyed or if it still exists.

ManofSteele 04-14-2016 08:11 PM

To set the record straight, the Zenix SSRV was not released due to a problem with the motor mount mold. When we were doing acceptance testing of the final production parts, it was discovered that there was too much slop in the way the parts in the motor mount went together. The result is that the ejection charge would blow back out the aft end by the engine (and fail to deploy the parachute). Since it was a safety issue, we could not release the kit.

The mold could have been modified to make acceptable parts, but the cost exceeded what Estes wanted to spend, so the kit and the parts were scrapped instead.

Dave Talbot did the kit design, and Ron McClaren did the mold design. The design was correct, but the mold was not manufactured to the drawing tolerances.

Matt

Initiator001 04-15-2016 01:09 AM

Matt,

Thanks for the inside story on what actually happened to the Zenix SSRV kit.

So, what would I have to do to the kit I have to make it operate correctly... ;)

Don Altschwager 04-15-2016 09:17 AM

Thanks for the update, it is always interesting to learn the true reasons why things happened.

The correct decision was made; Safety should always trump everything else in our hobby.

Don A

ManofSteele 04-15-2016 10:09 AM

To make the current parts fly correctly, we had to wrap masking tape around the forward and aft end of the motor to shim up the gap between the motor and the plastic motor mount, preventing the ejection gasses from leaking out.

Matt

Doug Sams 04-15-2016 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManofSteele
To make the current parts fly correctly, we had to wrap masking tape around the forward and aft end of the motor to shim up the gap between the motor and the plastic motor mount, preventing the ejection gasses from leaking out.
At the risk of going off topic...

For what it's worth, that's not a bad idea on any rocket. I learned that (the hard way) on a level 2 attempt several years ago. The ejection charges work much better when there's a good seal on each end of the rocket. (Plus it gives the motor a little bit of extra retention.)

I've seen many rockets over the years, built with good parts, that had loose fitting motors. A stiff charge will still get the motor out. But a wimpy charge, which happens often enough, combined with a leaky rocket, can result in major disappointment. A couple wraps of tape on the motor can keep the tears away.

Doug

.

tbzep 04-15-2016 02:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Sams
At the risk of going off topic...

For what it's worth, that's not a bad idea on any rocket. I learned that (the hard way) on a level 2 attempt several years ago. The ejection charges work much better when there's a good seal on each end of the rocket. (Plus it gives the motor a little bit of extra retention.)

I've seen many rockets over the years, built with good parts, that had loose fitting motors. A stiff charge will still get the motor out. But a wimpy charge, which happens often enough, combined with a leaky rocket, can result in major disappointment. A couple wraps of tape on the motor can keep the tears away.

Doug

.

Especially with Quest motors in Estes motor tubes.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.