If the C3 had a better ad campaign then it might have made it into the mainstream market...
no way, if you cant get fills at the field they would have had to make it way better in order to really sell it.
heres my basis for saying that as i really dont know much about the c3, it was a pump marker and was powered by propane that the marker actually ignited, if any of this is wrong please correct me
and when i say way better, they would have had to make it a semi-auto in order to compete, IF they had made it semi auto, then i think at least some places could have switched to it as a rental marker and carried their own propane, once that was started you sould see a dramatic increase in sales as players could now get fills at a field
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdaddy
I'm not going to lie if I were rich and famous I'd be running people over with my car all the damn time.
blue to black dm6
hyper 3
top hat mod
laser eyes
CP flow plug
32 degrees drop forward (yes i like my drop forwards)
cp micro on/off asa
deadly winds 14" fibur barrel with full freak
Dye rotor with speed feed
centerflag 68/4500 with on/off
I personally think the best thing that drove most people to the C3 was the 50,000 shots you got from one tank. I would rather make one trip and get 50,000 shots then make many many more filling CO2 tanks even though it might be half the distance to get CO2.
As for 'bad innovation' doesnt this now mean that other companys can focus R&D else where rather than using it for researching propane tanks? Now the rest of the market can focus money elsewhere in finding good products. I believe any innovation is good innovation as long as you learn from it.
No way was the C3 going to make it big though. The body was enormous and people had worries abous using propane. Plus i beleive its right for the 98 upgrades to be sold as add ons, so many people have them its just easier for tippmann to sell them as add ons. I do agree though that a VS1 (same price as a 98 i beleive) is a much better choice and VS2s are also great for the money. Im not trying to say tippmanns are better, im just trying to defend them by saying that they do try, just that the 98 is falling behind. I say keep the 98 as the basic durable-as-hell gun and if your going to release a new gun give it a new name. Dont keep the old 98 name cause people might get confused and if your reinventing the beast give it a new name.
I personally think the best thing that drove most people to the C3 was the 50,000 shots you got from one tank.
seriously!? what size tank??
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolkers2003
Plus i beleive its right for the 98 upgrades to be sold as add ons, so many people have them its just easier for tippmann to sell them as add ons.
maybe they should just become a parts company then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolkers2003
im just trying to defend them by saying that they do try
im not either, after all the potential for the c3 is huge, and they did incorporate the cyclone feed into the a5, maybe they are just thinking too big
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolkers2003
just that the 98 is falling behind.
thats one of the best ways iv heard it put
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolkers2003
I say keep the 98 as the basic durable-as-hell gun and if your going to release a new gun give it a new name. Dont keep the old 98 name cause people might get confused and if your reinventing the beast give it a new name.
it seems to me that that is whay they tried with the a5, but once people saw how it works they quickly reverted to the 98 if they really knew what was going on, to all the new players the a5 looks like something compleatly new when really its a 98 with a cyclone feed. it also occured to me that they tried a new approach with the c3 the problem is it was too much of a new idea, didnt run on a commonly accepted propellent and wasnt semi auto. so they are trying i just think they need to combine the two ideas of the a5 as a new marker and the c3 as something revolutionary and they should have a winner
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdaddy
I'm not going to lie if I were rich and famous I'd be running people over with my car all the damn time.
blue to black dm6
hyper 3
top hat mod
laser eyes
CP flow plug
32 degrees drop forward (yes i like my drop forwards)
cp micro on/off asa
deadly winds 14" fibur barrel with full freak
Dye rotor with speed feed
centerflag 68/4500 with on/off
Any propane tank would work with the C3, the bigger, the more shots. I tried one at the field with my tank of camping gas, which costed 15 bucks. That one tank only got half-depleted after 5-hours of gameplay.
You can't re-fill a propane tank anywhere, it's too dangerous, so the only way would be to get a new one.
Plus, the chances of the propane tank blowing up is about the same as your C02 tank blowing up.
I still don't like Tippmann, but as for innovation, the C3 was quite a breakthrough. Other than that, they really didn't do anything. The flatline barrel was also a complete failure- although the balls go farther, it's impossible to aim with.
__________________
My Marker-
Kingman Spyder Sonix
12 Ounce C02 Tank, cuz HPA is just too n00b
Java V-Type Mask
Archon "Dual Ramp" 11.6 BPS Gravity Hopper (200 rounds.)
Hittmann Pro Barrel
If your parents DON'T pay for your paintball stuff, put this in your sig.
Switching from co2 to propane as your propellant is not more innovative than the VS2...they switched fromworking on co2 to compressed air. Only co2 is EASIER to get refilled than propane. So the C3 was a failure. Or do you mean that it was a pump was innovative...the technology that's been used in paintball since before it was a sport? Definitely no "innovation" there. Nelson has them beat on the pump innovation by a good 30 years.
Oh I'm sorry have there been a lot of propane markers that I've missed? The C3 wasn't meant to be used with refillable propane you are supposed to use the throwaway tanks kind of like you use for Coleman stoves you know the kind that have been around since before paintball was a sport? The C3 doesn't use propane like other markers use CO2 or HPA it is an entirely new method of propulsion it actually uses a spark to ignite the propane something that I can't remember ever being used before. Switching a Spyder from CO2 to HPA is no big deal at all AGD went from a classic valve using CO2 to the RT valve using HPA in '96.
Then again i think the 'spark' and using propane is what cost the C3. Sure you gould get a astronomical number of shots but it had to be builky to contain the blast chamber where the spark took place. Its not that it was a pump, pumps still sell decent today, if they could have package that gun into a smaller package im sure it would have sold better.
A new propellant is a new propellant nevertheless. It's not a huge innovation. The real INNOVATIONS in paintball were:
1. The idea of using paintball guns for fun instead of just for marking objects so you didn't have to walk up to it.
2. The first semi-auto
3. Still to come...
That's it, everything else is evolutionary...not revolutionary.
Going from co2 or hpa to propane isn't innovation. Regardless of how different you do it. It's still hooking a tank up to your marker to propell a paintball at ~300 fps. Nothing innovative there. Now if they found a way to have the marker compress it's own air so no tank required...that would be revolutionary. But as long as you're still doing the same thing, just with a different propellant, it's the same old song and dance with a different hat.
I think something else should be added there, the advent of electronic paintball markers, that really changed the entire outlook of paintball/speedball in general.
__________________
My Marker-
Kingman Spyder Sonix
12 Ounce C02 Tank, cuz HPA is just too n00b
Java V-Type Mask
Archon "Dual Ramp" 11.6 BPS Gravity Hopper (200 rounds.)
Hittmann Pro Barrel
If your parents DON'T pay for your paintball stuff, put this in your sig.
more like the idea was stolen then developed by a company who made ****ty things fora long long time, and now have "bounced back" into being a good guy by using the dirty money they made.
Ok, so you take the word innovative to the extreme i see how you wanna roll...
But now there is a gun that compressed its own air that never seen market, never really got going. Its called the evolt, made back when KEE was still national paintball supply. The gun compressed its own air fast enough to fire a staggering 5 balls per second. That gun hardly revolutionized the paintball industry.
And come on, if some one was infringing on patents i had (even if i wasnt the first to produce the idea, i still have the patent) i would sue them too. Business 101.
ya, thats why 2 weeks ago my dad and i had our tanks filled at a gas station before we went to oregon. i see what your saying about the small ones but if the c3 had really caught on how long do you really think it would have been before someone came out with a small tank the size of a 68/45 that you could refill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmiller
Going from co2 or hpa to propane isn't innovation. Regardless of how different you do it. It's still hooking a tank up to your marker to propell a paintball at ~300 fps. Nothing innovative there.
WHAT!? sorry but no, the c3 is a huge inovation yes its getting the same thing done but so are fuel cell cars and hybrid cars, by your definition all plains trains and automobiels are not inovation, afterall they are just getting you from point a to point b and we had horses and boats did it before them. its not a matter of what its doing, if it is doing something new then it would be a new invention not an inovation, an inovation is a new idea to get the same thing done, quicker, more efficaintly, more accuratly perhaps. how can you say its not inovative? how many markers before it sparked and ignited gas to propell a paintball? how many markers got 50,000 shots per fill? no it didnt catch on but that is beside the point. nobody else has even though of trying something like this before and likewise nobody ever thought of combining an electric car and a gas car and yet there is one sitting in the garage at home every night
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdaddy
I'm not going to lie if I were rich and famous I'd be running people over with my car all the damn time.
blue to black dm6
hyper 3
top hat mod
laser eyes
CP flow plug
32 degrees drop forward (yes i like my drop forwards)
cp micro on/off asa
deadly winds 14" fibur barrel with full freak
Dye rotor with speed feed
centerflag 68/4500 with on/off
ya, thats why 2 weeks ago my dad and i had our tanks filled at a gas station before we went to oregon. i see what your saying about the small ones but if the c3 had really caught on how long do you really think it would have been before someone came out with a small tank the size of a 68/45 that you could refill?
WHAT!? sorry but no, the c3 is a huge inovation yes its getting the same thing done but so are fuel cell cars and hybrid cars, by your definition all plains trains and automobiels are not inovation, afterall they are just getting you from point a to point b and we had horses and boats did it before them. its not a matter of what its doing, if it is doing something new then it would be a new invention not an inovation, an inovation is a new idea to get the same thing done, quicker, more efficaintly, more accuratly perhaps. how can you say its not inovative? how many markers before it sparked and ignited gas to propell a paintball? how many markers got 50,000 shots per fill? no it didnt catch on but that is beside the point. nobody else has even though of trying something like this before and likewise nobody ever thought of combining an electric car and a gas car and yet there is one sitting in the garage at home every night
How is it not innovative?
1. It's more expensive than co2
2. it adds a significant amount of weight when paintball is about REMOVING weight
3. It's still using a compressed gas to propel the paintball, just igniting it first.
NOTHING innovative. If anything, it's a step in the WRONG direction, more expensive (co2 fills are included at MOST fields with your entrance fee) than co2 and heavier due to the extra parts. Of COURSE noone else thought of it. How many companies that are trying to improve paintball would get the idea: "hey, lets go use something that adds a bunch of weight to the marker, AND makes it more expensive to play with, yet doesn't actually give any true advantage!!". Well, other than Tippmann none that I'm aware of.
And a hybrid IS innovative (the battery part). You're not filling a tank with a liguid to propel the car. You're using batteries. Totally different concept from a liquid filled tank.
1. It's more expensive than co2
2. it adds a significant amount of weight when paintball is about REMOVING weight
3. It's still using a compressed gas to propel the paintball, just igniting it first.
NOTHING innovative. If anything, it's a step in the WRONG direction, more expensive (co2 fills are included at MOST fields with your entrance fee) than co2 and heavier due to the extra parts. Of COURSE noone else thought of it. How many companies that are trying to improve paintball would get the idea: "hey, lets go use something that adds a bunch of weight to the marker, AND makes it more expensive to play with, yet doesn't actually give any true advantage!!". Well, other than Tippmann none that I'm aware of.
And a hybrid IS innovative (the battery part). You're not filling a tank with a liguid to propel the car. You're using batteries. Totally different concept from a liquid filled tank.
your really going to criticize it for the size and weight when it was the first of its kind?! its not like the wright brothers built a 747 its taken decades to get where planes are same with cars or trains, anything that has been inovation did not start off better than what it eventually replaced. the first cars were by no means faster or more convienient than horses.
and how much was a co2 fill when painball first came around? or COURSE propane will be more expensive now, its a new concept and is not yet on the paintball market because nobody needs it, go look for a hydrogen fill to fill a fuel cell car, not only are there none anywhere close, where they are close its not going to be cheap. at least they are looking at the big picture whereas other companies are playing it safe and adding 1bps each year.
so your argument really doesnt make sence, your saying that a hybrid car is an inovation because it is using a different way to propel the car forward than what is commonly used but the c3 is NOT an inovation because it....well uses a different way to propel the ball out the barrel than what is commonly used
we are not looking at size/weight, those are improvements to a devise that is already around, we are looking at the basic function of the marker/car/whatever
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdaddy
I'm not going to lie if I were rich and famous I'd be running people over with my car all the damn time.
blue to black dm6
hyper 3
top hat mod
laser eyes
CP flow plug
32 degrees drop forward (yes i like my drop forwards)
cp micro on/off asa
deadly winds 14" fibur barrel with full freak
Dye rotor with speed feed
centerflag 68/4500 with on/off
your really going to criticize it for the size and weight when it was the first of its kind?! its not like the wright brothers built a 747 its taken decades to get where planes are same with cars or trains, anything that has been inovation did not start off better than what it eventually replaced. the first cars were by no means faster or more convienient than horses.
and how much was a co2 fill when painball first came around? or COURSE propane will be more expensive now, its a new concept and is not yet on the paintball market because nobody needs it, go look for a hydrogen fill to fill a fuel cell car, not only are there none anywhere close, where they are close its not going to be cheap. at least they are looking at the big picture whereas other companies are playing it safe and adding 1bps each year.
so your argument really doesnt make sence, your saying that a hybrid car is an inovation because it is using a different way to propel the car forward than what is commonly used but the c3 is NOT an inovation because it....well uses a different way to propel the ball out the barrel than what is commonly used
we are not looking at size/weight, those are improvements to a devise that is already around, we are looking at the basic function of the marker/car/whatever
co2 is a gas. propane is a gas. They're using the SAME thing...just in a different way. saying that it's innovative is like saying going from co2 to compressed air is innovative. It's not. It DOES happen to be better, but it's not innovative. I don't care what you're doing to the gas, you're STILL using a compressed gas to propel a paintball. So no, I'm not saying it's not innovative because it's doing it different. I'm saying it's not innovative because it's doing the EXACT SAME THING in the same manner. Both use a compressed gas to propell the paintball. You're lighting it first, big whoop...it's still a compressed gas.
The market for the C3 were the players that don't have ready access to CO2 or HPA fills the small propane tanks are available at hardware stores, grocery stores gas stations pretty much everywhere.
Propane is not more expensive than CO2 you can buy a 16oz one for $4.95 they come filled and one of these tanks will last for around 50,000 shots most woodsball/outlaw players won't shoot that much paint all year so for a couple of dollars your air source is covered for an entire season. The fact that many fields offer free fills is irrelevant since outlaw players aren't playing at a field.
I think you are entirely missing the definition of innovative by your logic even a hybrid car wouldn't qualify since diesel submarines have been using the same concept for decades. The C3 is the first marker to use propane therefore it is innovative just because it doesn't weigh less than an Ego that doesn't mean it wasn't a new idea and designing and manufacturing a propane powered marker is a new idea. Ultimately what killed the C3 was that most players don't want a pump marker and pump players have lots of other well established marker options like Phantoms, Sterlings, Buzzards, Superstockers etc. If Tippmann could get a semi auto version to market it would really shake the paintball world up.
Last edited by Crawdaddy : October 1st at 07:59 PM.
co2 is a gas. propane is a gas. They're using the SAME thing...just in a different way. saying that it's innovative is like saying going from co2 to compressed air is innovative. It's not. It DOES happen to be better, but it's not innovative. I don't care what you're doing to the gas, you're STILL using a compressed gas to propel a paintball. So no, I'm not saying it's not innovative because it's doing it different. I'm saying it's not innovative because it's doing the EXACT SAME THING in the same manner. Both use a compressed gas to propell the paintball. You're lighting it first, big whoop...it's still a compressed gas.
so if all gasses are equel, why dont you go crack a co2 can open, take a few deep breths of it and then try telling me it all works the same.
no they are NOT using it in the same manner at all, the modern markers are using the pressure stored in the co2 canister alone to push the paintballs out the barrel, the c3 is creating its own pressure by combusting the fuel stored in the tank, it is not using the physical energy of what is in the tank it is using the chemical energy that is there, everything else is only using the physical energy in the tank.
i think i love this part the best though
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmiller
It DOES happen to be better, but it's not innovative.
because first of all i dont think anyone is going to argue that pump is better than semi-auto(performance standpoint) so if we are using this logic and semi-auto DOES happen to be better than pumps, then it should not be on your own list of innovations in paintball history as stated above
i guess im not getting through to you about the huge holes in your argument, your saying that a hybrid car that gets 40mpg is an innovation even though you put the same exact thing in the fuel tank but a marker that gets 50,000 shots per tank is NOT an innovetion even though you are putting something different in the tank (and i dont know about you but from what i learned in school propane and co2 do not have the same atomic makeup)
Crawdaddy-gosh id love to have one if it was semi. i think the problem with that though would be to make sure there was no fire left behind from the previous shot before filling the combustion chamber again with new gas. sure would be nice to spend $10 on propellent for the year and be able to save the extra for paint
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawdaddy
I'm not going to lie if I were rich and famous I'd be running people over with my car all the damn time.
blue to black dm6
hyper 3
top hat mod
laser eyes
CP flow plug
32 degrees drop forward (yes i like my drop forwards)
cp micro on/off asa
deadly winds 14" fibur barrel with full freak
Dye rotor with speed feed
centerflag 68/4500 with on/off
i guess im not getting through to you about the huge holes in your argument, your saying that a hybrid car that gets 40mpg is an innovation even though you put the same exact thing in the fuel tank but a marker that gets 50,000 shots per tank is NOT an innovetion even though you are putting something different in the tank (and i dont know about you but from what i learned in school propane and co2 do not have the same atomic makeup)
That's because I specifically said, the battery portion of a hybrid is innovative...not the hybrid itself. Battery powered automobiles are still rare enough that it's still innovative, even if hybrids aren't the first. Doesn't matter the mileage it gets, the battery portion is the innovative part, since before the 80's, it had never been done, and even when hybrids started being introduced, it was rare as rocs teeth.
So you're saying diesel engines were innovative? They're not. They use a different fuel, they use a completely different way of burning fuel, but guess what, they weren't innovative. Just a slightly different way of doing the same thing. Making power out of a liquid fuel to move an automobile. Now do you understand my point? co2 and propane are different...but they're both compressed gasses attached via a tank that the marker then uses to propel a paintball. I's the same thing, with a slightly different way of accomplishing it. It's NOT innovative.
And no, I don't consider semi-auto's inherently BETTER. I prefer them, yes, they're faster, yes, but better, no. I consider it an innovation since it DRASTICALLY altered the very concept of the game, how it was played, and everything else. And it completely changed how markers (those that went semi-auto) were desiged. No longer were they a single hollow tube with a hammer/valve...they were much more complex, bigger, heavier, etc. Nothing else in paintball has truly done that.
Kingman Spyder Vs. Tippmann 98
TIPPMANN SUCKS
