Sherrill squashes Sidewinder

Davej wrote:

I thought I'd mention that I'd never even seen a good closeup photo of the SW, so could not fully appreciate the differences.

The collapsing pole looks to me like the painter poles you can buy at your local hardware store.

Worthwhile questions Dave.

Correct on the pole, Jeff mounts the Sidewinder head on an off-the-shelf extension pole.

The Big Shot ships with a standard Jameson fiberglass pole, segmented or single piece.
-moss

Here are some photos for review, and with it a challenge;

I'll wager Mr. Joslin the freedom for his friend Jeff to freely market his Big Shot-like product (in it's current configuration of course) against $1,000.00 (yes, I want skin in the game too) to pack anymore gear (tree climbing gear that is, not books) into a backpack or similar back country duffle than I can with a Big Shot head. Indeed, none these claims of portability were clear to me until very recently when I got my hands on the sample ordered by the examiners eluded to in a previous post. You may be able to swing the horns of this Sidewinder flat but unless you're hiking into the back country with a laptop case it presents zero improvement. And on top of that the Big Shot head is lighter by 3 ounces and, another wager, considerably more durable to abuse!

Here are photos of the products side by side and two illuminating the metal ball inserted within the elastic tubing that is retained only by thin-walled plastic hole in an area that we consider \"damage prone\" due to users dropping the pole post firing.



As for the telescopic pole, over 4 years ago I was unable to obtain permission from this manufacturer to market their product in this particular configuration for \"insurance reasons,\" I suspect Jeff was able to overcome that.

If Andrew and Jeff accept (and win) this challenge than they'll receive everything they've sought and more, if not then reviewers can draw their own conclusion to why people invest in patent protection. Fair enough?

Looking forward,

Tobe

No success in 3 attempts to post 57kb photo images. Will forward to Webmaster for their attempt.

tsherrill wrote:

No success in 3 attempts to post 57kb photo images. Will forward to Webmaster for their attempt.

Tobe, if you don't get timely response email them to me and I'll post.
-moss

Your address?

Here are Tobe's photos to illustrate his Big Shot/Sidewinder comparison comments:

Side-by-side, Big Shot up top, Sidewinder is folded


Side-by-side, Big Shot on the right, Sidewinder arms locked in open position on the left.


Detail of aluminum rod section plug which retains the latex tubing on the Sidewinder arm.


Detail of wall thickness on a Sidewinder folding arm

Well obviously the SW head is wider and taller and folds flat. Folded flat it is still wider. The BS is clearly simpler and more rugged. The SW might have the clearance to launch a larger bag. I'd suspect there isn't too much weight difference. The aluminum plug in the SW tubing does not look as secure as the traditional wrist rocket approach used on the BS.

Could be a wear area.....or not. I've not used or seen a Sw.

But, and this is technically off topic, Toby, I find it hard to understand why you are still selling the BS with the new, open pouch. It really is virtually impossible to launch at an angle and not have the shot pouch fall out. In fact, even vertical tosses take extreme care to keep from the weight falling out. Good thing I have 3 functioning BS's, (only one with the poor pouch) and a new rubber assembly, with, of course, has the old pouch.

And don't say we're not using it properly. Everyone I know who's used the new design agrees. It needs to be closed up to almost as tight as the old design, which rarely gives missfires.

Ok, these are by far the best photo's that I've seen so far for comparison. These seem to me to be obviously two differently designed tools to accomplish the same end result (utility in patent speak?) But getting beyond that, I think I would now change my mind regarding the benefits of the fold flat design in the sidewinder. I also need to mention that I have not used either of these before. I had the BS head as a large bulk that fit in a case and took up a cubic foot of storage space.

The sidewinder looks like a bulky tool even folded. The BS is not nearly as bulky as I pictured it. Honestly probably less than half as much. The slight curve would stuff in with the rope and other gear just fine, however poles would be an issue of their own. Flat would be better, but maybe not necessarily at the expense of extra width (not to mention a less rugged design). From a purely ruggedness stance, moving parts can be a liability.

I agree that the pouch on the BS should be more of a basket. I can picture the misfires just looking at the picture.

To avoid carrying awkward poles into the wilderness could it be designed to simply clamp onto things? It could strap or clamp onto branches, forearms, hefty sticks already laying in the woods, rail fences, etc... etc... This might side step the patent and make an even more versatile tool?

Carl

Ok, new thought here.

Folding completely flat means that it would fit into a \"fold-n-hold\" cube along with the throw wieght. This would be an appropriate place to store it, and the curve on the BS would keep this from being an option.

Carl

Wow....quite an interesting start to my reading of the forums here.

I'm a relative newbie to rope assisted climbing, that being said I am also an engineer who works in prototyping and the like.

Just as a note, more than 90% of all patent disputes end in settlement. This is two fold, one, nobody wants to pay the legal fees, and two, no one who owns a patent wants a legally binding opinion on the claims within their patent. So perhaps the two parties can work it out to everyone's benefit?

As a new member, I'll just have to say that \"Hi\". I came on here trying to find a community and I guess that I did that....glad to see so many who care and are interested in maintaining that.

To avoid carrying awkward poles into the wilderness could it be designed to simply clamp onto things? It could strap or clamp onto branches, forearms, hefty sticks already laying in the woods, rail fences, etc... etc...

The amount of Force and Strength needed to safely fire either the BS or the Sidewinder would not be possible with any other pole(s) than the ones they were manufactured and designed for. Not to mention the problem of hoping to find something nearby the tree that has to be cut and shaped to serve a few times. I would not ever consider the dangers of even trying something like that.

I have seen and used both tools and they are definitely a well conceived idea for what they do. I have used the wrist rocket and if has its advantages but it is a different tool all together to be used with small 3 oz throw baggies and fishing line. They work also.

I wish there was away to properly manufacture both tool and offer it to the REC Climbing community. There is not a huge market anyway.

Well tmlukes you just have the perfect timing for jumping into the fire.

Our board is usually not this controversial on its opinions and we are mostly friendly people but sometimes the emotions get the best of us. Your opinion and experiences will be a new light on this situation that we hope it can be resolved soon for the benefit of all the parties in the REC Climbing Community.

It looks like the voices of reason will finally prevail over the voices of confrontation. Hopefully Soon!