Big Boys Hobbies

Detector industry should consider (smart/modular) detectors

T

tnsharpshooter

Supporter
Forum Supporter
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
12,253
Location
Middle TN
The detector industry needs to take a new approach to making and even further marketing their detectors.

I think they need to take a hard look at modular technology. What do I mean by this?

Consider the following. Let's take the Fisher line of detectors and explore.

Imagine say an F70 detector. What if say a person wanted to upgrade to a F75 detector. Wouldn't it be nice to just be able to order the control head (pod), and unscrew the old and replace with the new (F75).

Cost to customer would be reduced overall. And to think if a person kept their old control head they in fact have a back up detector should anything happen to the newer upgrade F75 pod.

A person is already used to their rod/feel. And the weight differences minuscule.

Even when looking at warranty repairs---folks could at times just send in their control pod-----hence they still have their backup to use in the interim. Plus the shipping cost would be reduced at times. This both for warranty repairs (cost to manufacturer) and if out of warranty (cost to the user) would be reduced.

These overall less cost for the purchase of the new (upgrade) control head would I think allow folks to upgrade more often.

Even for say folks selling the pods later used on the market---shipping cost reduced overall.

Take a look at the Minelab CTX, then look at the new Minlab GPZ 7000. Look similar don't they. What would have happened if say a CTX owner could have only bought maybe a coil and a control head and in fact turned their CTX into a GPZ.

The explorer/etrac line, this approach could have definitely been taken. Afterall they use the same power supply.

I truly feel this new approach should be adopted by one or many manufacturers. The technology and design engineering is out there for this to exist.
 
Interesting idea. I only see two problems. 1. When there is a problem with a machine the factory likes to test the coil to see if that is the problem. 2. Some machines are paired with the coil. The frequency can be changed with a different coil. And a few are hard wired to the coil.
 
I think that is what the OP is getting at. It isn't set up that way with today's detectors, but why not create a system that can be interchangeable? I like the idea! I still would like to keep the "traditional" detectors around. Like the hardwired ones that Grumpysrb mentioned, but an interchangeable system could certainly be useful. I wouldn't want to do away with traditional setups all together because I do think they have their place. But adding this new system could have a niche for sure. They did it with shotguns, rifles, golf clubs, tools, and a lot of other things I'm sure I can't think of at the moment. So why not detectors?!

Interesting idea! Don't know how practical it would be to implement, but interesting nonetheless.
 
Grumpysrb said:
Interesting idea. I only see two problems. 1. When there is a problem with a machine the factory likes to test the coil to see if that is the problem. 2. Some machines are paired with the coil. The frequency can be changed with a different coil. And a few are hard wired to the coil.
Click to expand...

Understand your points.

But the explorer line/etrac line. One thing I notice about them. With aftermarket coils, the detectors seem to perform. (no real coil matching needed)

Now this modular or maybe better said universal tech, sure there may be times when a person has to buy the coil and control for upgrade---but not buying a new rod would reduce cost to customer.

I think detector manufacturers should develop their power supplies, then later design/engineer their detector components for the power supplies.

The XP Deus sorta portrays this idea (concept)--granted it's wireless

One thing though manufacturers must get their rods (correct)---durable, lightweight, and not induce any/less strain for the user to use.
 
Not feasible. The majority of the cost is resulting from the R&D process, not the physical component cost. So when you want to "swap out the control" you are buying the majority of the new detector (cost wise). Also, when you have a problem, how is the company going to perform warranty work when everything is from different designs and different ages? coils go bad, battery packs go bad, wiring goes bad, controls fail.... there are too many problems created by this approach than it solves.
 
Jason in Enid said:
Not feasible. The majority of the cost is resulting from the R&D process, not the physical component cost. So when you want to "swap out the control" you are buying the majority of the new detector (cost wise). Also, when you have a problem, how is the company going to perform warranty work when everything is from different designs and different ages? coils go bad, battery packs go bad, wiring goes bad, controls fail.... there are too many problems created by this approach than it solves.
Click to expand...

Precisely what this would do---breed brand loyalty. The detector needs to be good from the start though.

Extended warranty programs could be offered as well. Fisher did this when they upgraded their F75 detectors.

Surprised that Minelab and White's don't offer extended warranty. Seems every time I buy something electronic at wally world, even things not that expensive, they try and sell me an extended warranty.
 
You see this universal concept to a degree made the aftermarket coil manufacturers rich, case in point Minelabs---much money was made on aftermarket coils. CTX changed that though, Minelab made sure.

So why not take this concept and turn it around where the manufacturers get the $$$$$.

BTW, I have talked about this on other forum. I think I called it plug and play.
 
so what happens when you have detector model ABC which is designed to use a 7 Khz signal, and you decide you want to upgrade to model BCD. But BCD uses 3 Khz or 15 Khz, and now your coils aren't designed to work with that frequency. What happens when the manufacturer makes a whole new controller which needs a newer more powerful battery?

New technology is very seldom backwards compatible because we can't see what the future requirements will be. Same reason we aren't using 1990's computers with new chips in them. they are physically not capable of handling the new needs.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
The detector industry needs to take a new approach to making and even further marketing their detectors.

I think they need to take a hard look at modular technology. What do I mean by this?

Consider the following. Let's take the Fisher line of detectors and explore.

Imagine say an F70 detector. What if say a person wanted to upgrade to a F75 detector. Wouldn't it be nice to just be able to order the control head (pod), and unscrew the old and replace with the new (F75).

Cost to customer would be reduced overall. And to think if a person kept their old control head they in fact have a back up detector should anything happen to the newer upgrade F75 pod.

A person is already used to their rod/feel. And the weight differences minuscule.

Even when looking at warranty repairs---folks could at times just send in their control pod-----hence they still have their backup to use in the interim. Plus the shipping cost would be reduced at times. This both for warranty repairs (cost to manufacturer) and if out of warranty (cost to the user) would be reduced.

These overall less cost for the purchase of the new (upgrade) control head would I think allow folks to upgrade more often.

Even for say folks selling the pods later used on the market---shipping cost reduced overall.

Take a look at the Minelab CTX, then look at the new Minlab GPZ 7000. Look similar don't they. What would have happened if say a CTX owner could have only bought maybe a coil and a control head and in fact turned their CTX into a GPZ.

The explorer/etrac line, this approach could have definitely been taken. Afterall they use the same power supply.

I truly feel this new approach should be adopted by one or many manufacturers. The technology and design engineering is out there for this to exist.
Click to expand...



:laughing: that one sentence got me. Yes. There is something wrong with me. :D
 
Not an exhaustive list.

Pros (from manufacturers view):

  1. Neat idea.
  2. Possible marketing appeal, at least over the short term.
  3. Possibly increased brand loyalty.


Cons (from manufacturers view):

  1. The bulk of manufacturing cost is in the "pod" and, secondarily, the coil, not the shaft.
  2. Already have several detector lines capable of sharing coils between family members (e.g. White's Eclipse coil sharable between DFX, MXT, M6, v3,...). Next step would just allow sharing the shaft. Is that sufficiently compelling?
  3. Increased customer loyalty due to additional modularity is marginal, specially if better technology becomes available from competitor.
  4. The market is small, so the R&D is limited. Additional R&D and time to market would be needed to create a standard interface, capable of outstanding performance across multiple generations of technology.
  5. Selling price would have to be increased to pay back for the additional R&D.
  6. If concept is successful, average selling price would go down since only a module is replaced. Overall sales volume (market share) would have to increase to offset lower average selling price.
 
I don't see how it could be more profitable to just sell modular components, when you can sell the complete unit. It's not a high demand market. It's not like there is a 'one-size fits all', when it comes to detectors either. You have to balance the weight, so you aren't feeling it so much. Coils have several other electronic characteristics, besides resonant frequency, which need to be observed. Modular products would be pretty much the same as all other models, just a few fluff features, that have little to do with function, or could have been handled in a firmware update.

Keeping new products unique, helps cut down on the copycats, and the manufacturer is the only place to get parts and repairs. Much easier to spot the fakes, and rebranding older models.

Mostly though, these are sensitive instruments, tuned and calibrated. We see threads about a brand new unit, not performing well. Sent in, it's checked over, retuned and calibrated. Few slip past inspection... Don't think mix and match would provide best performance.

Extended warranties are free money, usually not worth the paper they are printed on. If you receive a warranty covered defect, it's generally obvious, during the normal warranty period. I'm not real thrilled with any product, that strongly requires a lengthy warranty period, or even the absolute need of the document. Like my ProPointer... Products under a Lifetime warranty, seldom need repaired or replaced. I've taken advantage of the Craftsman hand tool Lifetime warranty a few times, and yes, I slightly abused the tools...
 
I've been thinking about this all day since I read it this morning. The more I think about it, the more I don't like it. Perhaps it would be good for entry level machines?? Maybe a land based system, then "mods" that can be swapped out to make a 10' submersible water machine?? Even then, I think it's pushing it. Here's why I think this...

I like my machines as they are. They have been researched for, and built for, the characteristics that I want. If that requires the coil to be hardwired, then I'm fine with that. I want the research that was done on my machines to be specific for my machine. I don't want time spent on figuring out how to make this adaptable to other "ideas" that they want to put in a completely unrelated system.

I think if they did it on a simple basis, and kept it around the entry level products, it might... MIGHT... work. But for sophisticated machines, I don't think I like the idea as much as I thought I did. I bought my machines for what they are, not for what they could be turned into.
 
Some good points made by all.

I have often wondered for example this CTX 3030. Wonder if Minelab would have designed it modular. And offered the rod they currently offer--I think the extra weight is better for water hunting, although I've never water hunted.

And offered a significantly lighter weight version rod for folks---for the land hunters.

I believe this would have worked---as long as the water proofing ability wasn't compromised on the water based rod model.

And if sold say to a dedicated land hunter with lighter (cheaper rod) overall cost for a land based CTX could have been reduced.

This idea overall does fascinate me. But we all know it's profits and sales that really matter for manufacturers.

I also think it's fair to say such a modular type system certainly would make manufacturers have to put significantly more forethought into the engineering/design process.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
.....

And offered a significantly lighter weight version rod for folks---for the land hunters.

I believe this would have worked---as long as the water proofing ability wasn't compromised on the water based rod model.
Click to expand...

Do you own a CTX? Have you looked at or touched a CTX? They used carbon-fiber rods. Those are the lightest weight rods available that have sufficient strength for the job. The battery housing is plastic. The control housing is plastic. You can NOT do anything more to reduce weight with available technology today.
 
Jason in Enid said:
Do you own a CTX? Have you looked at or touched a CTX? They used carbon-fiber rods. Those are the lightest weight rods available that have sufficient strength for the job. The battery housing is plastic. The control housing is plastic. You can NOT do anything more to reduce weight with available technology today.
Click to expand...

Had a CTX and just sold a few weeks ago.
IMO the rod for land hunting is a bit overkill. Sure, when swinging the coil through water the rod needs to stronger (less flex). But swing the coil and rod through air--big difference.

And Etrac checks in at 4.8lbs
CTX checks in at 5.2lbs--so a more modern detector even with li-Pro battery and still heavier than older tech...

And AT Pro another older detector and weighs a shade over 3lbs.

BTW the spec weights came off of Kellyco's site.
 
The idea of modular detectors has been around a while. Discovery electronics treasure baron was modular , to a point , but never really was a hit from what I can tell. I like the idea , though from the manufacturers perspective it would be expensive with a lower profit margin than what they currently offer.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
Had a CTX and just sold a few weeks ago.
IMO the rod for land hunting is a bit overkill. Sure, when swinging the coil through water the rod needs to stronger (less flex). But swing the coil and rod through air--big difference.

And Etrac checks in at 4.8lbs
CTX checks in at 5.2lbs--so a more modern detector even with li-Pro battery and still heavier than older tech...

And AT Pro another older detector and weighs a shade over 3lbs.

BTW the spec weights came off of Kellyco's site.
Click to expand...

Weight is meaningless for the amounts we are talking about. It's all about the ergonomics. CTX is heavier than the E-TRac but I can swing a CTX all day long without fatigue. I can only go a few hours on the E-Trac without a bungie cord. Excal is another horrible swinger until you put it on a straight shaft and then it's no problem at all.

Exactly what do you think they could do to lighten the rod on the CTX? How could you possibly make it any lighter and still retain any strength? Carbon fiber is as light and strong as is possible. Do you think they could make a plastic rod? It would be thicker and heavier, and still only half as strong!

Do you not understand WHY they made battery heavier? They could have made a smaller battery but we NEED that back-end weight to balance everything out.
 
Jason in Enid said:
Weight is meaningless for the amounts we are talking about. It's all about the ergonomics. CTX is heavier than the E-TRac but I can swing a CTX all day long without fatigue. I can only go a few hours on the E-Trac without a bungie cord. Excal is another horrible swinger until you put it on a straight shaft and then it's no problem at all.

Exactly what do you think they could do to lighten the rod on the CTX? How could you possibly make it any lighter and still retain any strength? Carbon fiber is as light and strong as is possible. Do you think they could make a plastic rod? It would be thicker and heavier, and still only half as strong!

Do you not understand WHY they made battery heavier? They could have made a smaller battery but we NEED that back-end weight to balance everything out.
Click to expand...

I don't know the reason for the battery weight----Could it be for the GPS??

I truly feel all the explorer/etrac/CTX could have been made lighter--without sacrificing durability/needed strength.

So you're saying basically Minelab for all practical purposes is stuck on/at 5 lbs???

I guess we'll wait and see. I do know if they and a few others don't make them lighter---many will abandon for other detectors. IMO one of the main reasons people use the say etrac/CTX even though heavy is the performance.

But a lot of older folks have been saying hello Xp Deus, goodbye Minelab.

And I do like the performance of both Etrac/CTX. I even recently bought a used XS explorer(mostly for a souvenir). It's hot and deep--IMO deeper than the etrac I had and on par with CTX.
 
tnsharpshooter said:
I don't know the reason for the battery weight----Could it be for the GPS??

I truly feel all the explorer/etrac/CTX could have been made lighter--without sacrificing durability.

So you're saying basically Minelab for all practical purposes is stuck on/at 5 lbs???

I guess we'll wait and see. I do know if they and a few others don't make them lighter---many will abandon for other detectors. IMO one of the main reasons people use the say etrac/CTX even though heavy is the performance.

But a lot of older folks have been saying hello Xp Deus, goodbye Minelab.

And I do like the performance of both Etrac/CTX. I even recently bought a used XS explorer(mostly for a souvenir). It's hot and deep--IMO deeper than the etrac I had and on par with CTX.
Click to expand...

I just gave you the reason for the battery weight; it's all about ergonomics. Its not my opinion, it's what ML's designers said when all these questions came out at the release.

Deus is a great machine, but it's not a Minelab. I would wager if you disected a CTX, you wouldn't find any wasted space. I think they are as light as their design allows. What do the two companies do different? I wish I had the money to tear them both apart and compare!

All I know right now is that I have no problem swinging a CTX, and it is the deepest and most accurate detector I have owned in 32 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Ace 400
Replies
0
Views
12
Jamiedon1
J
T
Deus 2 seems has a horseshoe button…hmmm
Replies
0
Views
28
tnsharpshooter
T
B
Does the Nokta LG24 have any advantages over stock coil?
Replies
8
Views
122
Jose159
J
S
Minelab Sale
Replies
10
Views
467
Beachhunt1
B
J
Xcal coil question
Replies
0
Views
93
jimsvillage
J
Back
Top Bottom