New for the 2011 Season

[RLBagley]

With the Idaho Season now ending tomorrow, it might be a little early to be talking about (or even thinking of) gear for next season, but we're kind of compelled to be making little improvements all the time.

So here's a curious little detail many might not have thought even necessary (that is, until you think about it), a tiny change made to the new Tail Pieces for the coming season, seen in more detail under the scope.

You can see the pics here.

RB

[FredFogg]

Shouldn't the last photo say "For 2011" instead of 2010?

[Tanner]

Continual improvement is a good thing! I like the thinking behind that prototype looking version that looks like it would put the transmitter up higher on the tail. (I think?)

Just a thought...how about a tail mount system that has a single slot for the transmitter clip integrated with two of your style of feather clamp, one for each deck feather. Like a one-piece improvement on the traditional leather and plectrum set-up. You'd have to make multiple sizes - but that's the kind of stuff you guys are good at. It may be simply my personal bias, but the idea of mounting a transmitter on a single deck feather is a "heck no!" for me. It sets up a scenario where the feather has to support not only pull from the transmitter, but also torque around it's axis. With two decks involved, there's no axial twist/torque and you double the anchoring power.

My 2 cents.

[RLBagley]

Continual improvement is a good thing! I like the thinking behind that prototype looking version that looks like it would put the transmitter up higher on the tail. (I think?)

Just a thought...how about a tail mount system that has a single slot for the transmitter clip integrated with two of your style of feather clamp, one for each deck feather. Like a one-piece improvement on the traditional leather and plectrum set-up. You'd have to make multiple sizes - but that's the kind of stuff you guys are good at. It may be simply my personal bias, but the idea of mounting a transmitter on a single deck feather is a "heck no!" for me. It sets up a scenario where the feather has to support not only pull from the transmitter, but also torque around it's axis. With two decks involved, there's no axial twist/torque and you double the anchoring power.

My 2 cents.

Yes I believe you are right with the observation that it's much better to "spread the weight" over two feathers, rather than one, and there are many that successfully do this.

Our thinking has been to instead recommend a lighter transmitter (3 grams) nowadays as a tail mount, rather than putting 9-10 grams there on one follicle. And we've sort of resisted the idea of making something that would connect to the two decks together up high, and thus restrain them from being spread out as needed during flight.

So, our design push, in terms of mounting methods, has been to minimize what's on the tail, move the heavier transmitters up a few inches higher with the TrackPack, and free up the feet completely . . . where possible.

But, having admitted that, we've also learned that it's advisable to avoid debating three subjects with customers: politics, religion and mounting methods.

RB

[Tanner]

But, having admitted that, we've also learned that it's advisable to avoid debating three subjects with customers: politics, religion and mounting methods.

RB

I hear you - I've had serious arguments with friends about transmitter mounts and later realized how ridiculous that is! Thanks for the feedback.

[Saluqi]

I hear you - I've had serious arguments with friends about transmitter mounts and later realized how ridiculous that is! Thanks for the feedback.

You're still wrong Tanner!

[falcon56]

Continual improvement is a good thing! I like the thinking behind that prototype looking version that looks like it would put the transmitter up higher on the tail. (I think?)

Just a thought...how about a tail mount system that has a single slot for the transmitter clip integrated with two of your style of feather clamp, one for each deck feather. Like a one-piece improvement on the traditional leather and plectrum set-up. You'd have to make multiple sizes - but that's the kind of stuff you guys are good at. It may be simply my personal bias, but the idea of mounting a transmitter on a single deck feather is a "heck no!" for me. It sets up a scenario where the feather has to support not only pull from the transmitter, but also torque around it's axis. With two decks involved, there's no axial twist/torque and you double the anchoring power.

My 2 cents.

I have installed a mount on each deck feather when used on tiercel peregrines, opened up the the clip on the transmitter a bit and slipped the tranny into both clips. Alleviates the stress on a single deck, still allows full movement of the deck feathers when needed and makes it possible to use an RT+ on a tiercel. Never had any problems with this method. If mounted up high, there is enough of a natural gap between the two decks that the feathers lie naturally.

[RLBagley]

I have installed a mount on each deck feather when used on tiercel peregrines, opened up the the clip on the transmitter a bit and slipped the tranny into both clips. Alleviates the stress on a single deck, still allows full movement of the deck feathers when needed and makes it possible to use an RT+ on a tiercel. Never had any problems with this method. If mounted up high, there is enough of a natural gap between the two decks that the feathers lie naturally.

Yes, this is great alternative to then be able to more safely use a larger (1/3N size) transmitter on the tail.

Thanks for pointing this out and doing so from firsthand experience.

We'll be sure to add this as a recommendation on the Mounting Methods Section of the Website, and give you credit for seeing it first (if that's OK?).

RB

[Tanner]

I agree, that's a solid suggestion Ray, thank you.

[RLBagley]

Shouldn't the last photo say "For 2011" instead of 2010?

Yes, it should . . . and now does.

(thanks)