[RealtorTommy]

Many companies BS on products. Nothing new there. If you've been around long enough you can figure out what works and what doesn't.

Stand your ground....I have and companies do change their practices....just takes time...Just look into my sig....

Only thing I can say is get a time/date media stamping device and hook it up to all cameras and no matter what editing you do from any camera they will show the time and date...But then the nay sayers will still complain.

[brycelarson]

MikeW, on Jul 10 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

People keep saying "do the test yourself". Well, not everyone who doesn't believe is apparently rich like you and can't just up and go test a 600$ gun whenever they feel like it.

We're certainly not rich. Gordon is in college - I just bought a house. That means we're both technically broke all the time.

Sure, you may not be able to replicate every test we do - but the only response we can give to those that refuse to admit that our tests are valid and that our data is good is - "try it yourself".

There are those that will refuse to consider that - but take it for what it is, confidence in our testing procedures and methods. We fully expect that people who replicate and attempt our tests again will get similar results.

[brycelarson]

my conclusion:

[Troy]

This video looks a lot better than Gordan's videos... lol

Anyways, good job.

[Spitlebug]

Bryce = The man for A/V stuff.

[brycelarson]

Spitlebug, on Jul 13 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

Bryce = The man for A/V stuff.

Technically I work in theatre now - but I did make a good living for a number of years doing corporate events and concerts - audio video and lighting.

[dylanm]

yeah use different paint but if u get that paint for free paint it black cuz it must even be a little hard for u to

[brycelarson]

dylanm, on Jul 13 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

yeah use different paint but if u get that paint for free paint it black cuz it must even be a little hard for u to

??

[Spitlebug]

Wow, that was random.

[Russ]

nice testing. i knew from the beginning this technology wasnt going to make a HUGE difference.

[AbRa KaDaBrA]

why does it seem like the actual testing is always missing from the video's you show what your going to do. then you show what happend......but not the entire thing

[brycelarson]

AbRa KaDaBrA, on Jul 14 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

why does it seem like the actual testing is always missing from the video's you show what your going to do. then you show what happend......but not the entire thing

because the actual testing is fucking tedious - and we're not making documentary films.

we make the video of the setup because that's the most common question we get. We can show how we tested in just a few minutes - which would take pages of text to describe.

Here's a sample test:


here's the data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pym...nK7eA&gid=0

That was one barrel - we did 23 barrels in that test. The sample was about 5 minutes long. That means that to show you the whole test we would have had to do about two hours of that - edited down. The test took more like 5 hours to complete with cleanup, etc.

If you doubt out data a three camera shoot of the whole test wouldn't matter. The important part of what we do is in the numbers - not the video of us collecting those numbers.

that's why.

[AbRa KaDaBrA]

brycelarson, on Jul 14 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

AbRa KaDaBrA, on Jul 14 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

why does it seem like the actual testing is always missing from the video's you show what your going to do. then you show what happend......but not the entire thing

because the actual testing is fucking tedious - and we're not making documentary films.

we make the video of the setup because that's the most common question we get. We can show how we tested in just a few minutes - which would take pages of text to describe.

Here's a sample test:


here's the data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pym...nK7eA&gid=0

That was one barrel - we did 23 barrels in that test. The sample was about 5 minutes long. That means that to show you the whole test we would have had to do about two hours of that - edited down. The test took more like 5 hours to complete with cleanup, etc.

If you doubt out data a three camera shoot of the whole test wouldn't matter. The important part of what we do is in the numbers - not the video of us collecting those numbers.

that's why.

no need for all that. set it up. put the cam behind the gun. shoot the gun. done. take 10-20 shots like you did with the high speed. and just put it in a video. ya dont need 3 cams. just 2 min of extra footage.

[Ced]

AbRa KaDaBrA, on Jul 15 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

no need for all that. set it up. put the cam behind the gun. shoot the gun. done. take 10-20 shots like you did with the high speed. and just put it in a video. ya dont need 3 cams. just 2 min of extra footage.

For what? So you know they actually shot the gun and didn't pull the data out of their asses?

[FailureElite]

I'll tell you what. I was in thermal chamber, chemical, force, and sound testing for 2 years. Testing vehicle components in some of those categories with several different test samples took me weeks. Just the setup for each test was a chore. Not to mention all the brain farting I did with Excel and the wishy-washy engineers I worked with. If I recorded just one set of tests you would be sitting and watching the same thing, over and over again, for hours. I would rather gouge out my eyes with a spork and pour salt on my brain.

I'm not going back and doing 6 hours of video editing to show an abbreviation of every test, nor did my employer doubt my data unless they had proof that my data could be skewed. Hell, I don't even know these guys or agree with how they do everything or their theories, but I sure as hell have a hard time finding fault with their tests.

If people want to slam Punkworks bring the testing and the data analysis, since you are the ones who need to prove the world is still flat. If you make a product with an untested claim, shame on you. If you have proof that your product does what it claims, then shut-up and put-up. I don't give a rats ass what you have to say about the character of these two guys, they have actual testing data and the best anyone can come up with to counter their work is lofty claims and video trickery. Not good enough.

[Troy]

FailureElite, on Jul 15 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

I'll tell you what. I was in thermal chamber, chemical, force, and sound testing for 2 years. Testing vehicle components in some of those categories with several different test samples took me weeks. Just the setup for each test was a chore. Not to mention all the brain farting I did with Excel and the wishy-washy engineers I worked with. If I recorded just one set of tests you would be sitting and watching the same thing, over and over again, for hours. I would rather gouge out my eyes with a spork and pour salt on my brain.

I'm not going back and doing 6 hours of video editing to show an abbreviation of every test, nor did my employer doubt my data unless they had proof that my data could be skewed. Hell, I don't even know these guys or agree with how they do everything or their theories, but I sure as hell have a hard time finding fault with their tests.

If people want to slam Punkworks bring the testing and the data analysis, since you are the ones who need to prove the world is still flat. If you make a product with an untested claim, shame on you. If you have proof that your product does what it claims, then shut-up and put-up. I don't give a rats ass what you have to say about the character of these two guys, they have actual testing data and the best anyone can come up with to counter their work is lofty claims and video trickery. Not good enough.

I agree, I didn't have the kind of burden of proof these people require when working in a genetics lab... why would I require such a stringent burden of proof here? It's just knitpicking... repeatability is the hallmark of science, not video proof.

[cockerpunk]

AbRa KaDaBrA, on Jul 14 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

brycelarson, on Jul 14 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

AbRa KaDaBrA, on Jul 14 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

why does it seem like the actual testing is always missing from the video's you show what your going to do. then you show what happend......but not the entire thing

because the actual testing is fucking tedious - and we're not making documentary films.

we make the video of the setup because that's the most common question we get. We can show how we tested in just a few minutes - which would take pages of text to describe.

Here's a sample test:


here's the data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pym...nK7eA&gid=0

That was one barrel - we did 23 barrels in that test. The sample was about 5 minutes long. That means that to show you the whole test we would have had to do about two hours of that - edited down. The test took more like 5 hours to complete with cleanup, etc.

If you doubt out data a three camera shoot of the whole test wouldn't matter. The important part of what we do is in the numbers - not the video of us collecting those numbers.

that's why.

no need for all that. set it up. put the cam behind the gun. shoot the gun. done. take 10-20 shots like you did with the high speed. and just put it in a video. ya dont need 3 cams. just 2 min of extra footage.

that "two minutes" ends up taking us about ... an hour to do. two barrels ... yeah thats at least 45 minutes of shooting and measuring.

this stuff is long and boring, we dont film a lot of it, and we dont post a lot of the stuff we do film becuase its not interesting and does not matter. it wont solve any problem, skeptics will still be able to yell fraud.

[brycelarson]

thank you - exactly.

The real reason this has popped up in this thread is that Jack Rice, in an attempt to defend his product over on PBN stated that he "wasn't even sure they shot my gun".

To anyone who questions this test - how do you feel about our other tests? Did we make up the numbers on the barrel break test? Did we skew the data on the barrel accuracy test? Did we imaging shooting over multiple chronographs and just put some numbers in there that looked right?

This test tickles some people the wrong way because it has a well designed test disproving something that a manufacturer claims, and in an attempt to continue to claim that - the manufacturer has started bad mouthing our methods.

We knew that some of our testing would piss off manufacturers - but not the ones that make good claims.

as you said - you don't have to agree with us to decide if our methods are good. That's one of the great hallmarks of testing ANYTHING. If you're open about your methods - then you can have a healthy debate about real issues. We've provided our methods (on video) - so if anyone sees anything in there that they think is unfair - they can address it directly.

FailureElite, on Jul 15 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

If I recorded just one set of tests you would be sitting and watching the same thing, over and over again, for hours. I would rather gouge out my eyes with a spork and pour salt on my brain.

I'm not going back and doing 6 hours of video editing to show an abbreviation of every test, nor did my employer doubt my data unless they had proof that my data could be skewed. Hell, I don't even know these guys or agree with how they do everything or their theories, but I sure as hell have a hard time finding fault with their tests.

[RealtorTommy]

Put it this way Bryce,

Until Jack or someone else does a test that has different results from cockerpunk and your findings....
The test stands on it's own....

I haven't questioned any results so far and you know I would if I seen or heard something that didn't sit right...
Can Jack or someone else make the paintballs spin consistantly shot after shot and reach the claims stated. Time will tell. But if theses results can only be completed in a lab and not in real world playing..It's no use to make the claim.
But it's a nice well built marker and that alone should bring sales...but in my opinion some of the claims is what has make some buyers bypass on purchasing...

I would make one suggestion that I do for our team sponsors when we are beta testing new or prototype products....Give them a heads up of what the results was and let them try to work with you or advise you on further testing before results are released. Then blood vessels won't pop out of their heads.....

[brycelarson]

RealtorTommy, on Jul 15 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

I would make one suggestion that I do for our team sponsors when we are beta testing new or prototype products....Give them a heads up of what the results was and let them try to work with you or advise you on further testing before results are released. Then blood vessels won't pop out of their heads.....

If it was a prototype - or new product, then yeah, that's great. In this case the claim has been in their materials and on the web for 5 or so years. That's plenty of time for Jack to get some data together.

But yes, in this case, things were exacerbated by other circumstances. CockerPunk already had some previous history with Jack. Their conversations of a few months ago were what prompted this test. The internet is a great place for things to get out of hand. CockerPunk and Jack were both a bit on the edge - which, in turn led to fanboys on both sides taking things to really inappropriate places.

Neither Jack nor CockerPunk ever stepped over the line, but the overall tone of the conversation was poor because of the other participants. CockerPunk and I have both had extensive phone conversations with Jack - before, during and after the test. They were all very cordial and professional. The thing that we didn't and won't to - is hold results because they don't agree with what the manufacturer claims. Which, in effect, is what Jack wanted us to do. That would simply be dishonest work on our part - if we chose to withhold data because it was going to make someone mad. If we are confident in our procedures (which we are), open about our methods (which we are) and trust our results (we do), then the onus has to be on the other person to step forward and produce better data and a better test to refute ours.

Now, if someone asks us to help in product development, that's something else and we would have to make some decisions about whether we even want to get into that. The moment we are tied to a product competing in the market - our credibility when talking about competing products has gone down the shitter.

We want people to call us on stuff if they see a problem - that's how we'll improve our testing. Smart people like you should be watching us like hawks - jumping on us for any problems you see in what we do. The criticism leveled at us about not documenting our tests is simply a smoke screen for people who don't like our results. And that's fine. I'll continue to use the gear that we find to be best though our work - and in the end, I'll have an advantage over people who don't. Which is what this is all about.