FORCE3 PRO GEAR Hero Tech™ Foam

[JimKirk]

FORCE3 PRO GEAR Hero Tech™ Foam

View the full article

[MadMax]

That’s… nice… and all, but where is the baseball, real-world application? Or implication, for that matter? 

So you’re dropping a steel shot (ball bearing) from a height… is that steel shot 5 oz? Is it traveling at 95 mph? That’s the only numbers guys (in our practical business) care about. 

You’re demonstrating “typical” foam; that’s not entirely typical. That’s not Qualux (let’s name the beast) upholstery foam, 3/4” (Douglas) to 1” (Wilson) thick. Nor is it topped by a “plastic” (ABS, HDPE, PVC, etc)  plate. That plastic plate, and its absence, is one of the primary reasons why your (Force3) UnEqual CP never achieved the market-shifting potential you so wanted. If you were to show the systems, in their model entirety (technical fabric, foam layer(s), plastic plate), and then drop (or shoot) a 5 oz ball at it, then you have a more realistic comparison. Then you can exhibit that your system is thinner, lighter, but achieves the same (or better!) protection values. 

Otherwise, what does that slick demonstration really show us?  Not much. I’m not calling my colleagues and contemporaries stupid or slow, but most will not be able to extrapolate the/any implication from a bounce test like this. The test that “moves needles” is a much more practical one, with an Umpire (uppercase) wearing one; and that shot you had, you blew it when the ball missed and the Umpire winced. 

White-walled labs ain’t ball fields.

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

That’s… nice… and all, but where is the baseball, real-world application? Or implication, for that matter? 

So you’re dropping a steel shot (ball bearing) from a height… is that steel shot 5 oz? Is it traveling at 95 mph? That’s the only numbers guys (in our practical business) care about. 

You’re demonstrating “typical” foam; that’s not entirely typical. That’s not Qualux (let’s name the beast) upholstery foam, 3/4” (Douglas) to 1” (Wilson) thick. Nor is it topped by a “plastic” (ABS, HDPE, PVC, etc)  plate. That plastic plate, and its absence, is one of the primary reasons why your (Force3) UnEqual CP never achieved the market-shifting potential you so wanted. If you were to show the systems, in their model entirety (technical fabric, foam layer(s), plastic plate), and then drop (or shoot) a 5 oz ball at it, then you have a more realistic comparison. Then you can exhibit that your system is thinner, lighter, but achieves the same (or better!) protection values. 

Otherwise, what does that slick demonstration really show us?  Not much. I’m not calling my colleagues and contemporaries stupid or slow, but most will not be able to extrapolate the/any implication from a bounce test like this. The test that “moves needles” is a much more practical one, with an Umpire (uppercase) wearing one; and that shot you had, you blew it when the ball missed and the Umpire winced. 

White-walled labs ain’t ball fields.

Being F3, I imagine their sales pitch will be that it kills the bounce on blocked balls--which as you know, my dear former catcher, is nice for those in the squat.

What it means for umps? We don't care how far a ball bounces after it hits us.

[wolfe_man]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

That’s… nice… and all, but where is the baseball, real-world application? Or implication, for that matter? 

So you’re dropping a steel shot (ball bearing) from a height… is that steel shot 5 oz? Is it traveling at 95 mph? That’s the only numbers guys (in our practical business) care about. 

You’re demonstrating “typical” foam; that’s not entirely typical. That’s not Qualux (let’s name the beast) upholstery foam, 3/4” (Douglas) to 1” (Wilson) thick. Nor is it topped by a “plastic” (ABS, HDPE, PVC, etc)  plate. That plastic plate, and its absence, is one of the primary reasons why your (Force3) UnEqual CP never achieved the market-shifting potential you so wanted. If you were to show the systems, in their model entirety (technical fabric, foam layer(s), plastic plate), and then drop (or shoot) a 5 oz ball at it, then you have a more realistic comparison. Then you can exhibit that your system is thinner, lighter, but achieves the same (or better!) protection values. 

Otherwise, what does that slick demonstration really show us?  Not much. I’m not calling my colleagues and contemporaries stupid or slow, but most will not be able to extrapolate the/any implication from a bounce test like this. The test that “moves needles” is a much more practical one, with an Umpire (uppercase) wearing one; and that shot you had, you blew it when the ball missed and the Umpire winced. 

White-walled labs ain’t ball fields.

Without knowing these critical details, this test is worthless.  

And laying a pad on a hard surface alone will make it increasingly more likely that it offers less rebound/resistance than a human body would, so not an apples-to-apples test for comparison's sake.

[kylehutson]

4 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Being F3, I imagine their sales pitch will be that it kills the bounce on blocked balls--which as you know, my dear former catcher, is nice for those in the squat.

What it means for umps? We don't care how far a ball bounces after it hits us.

Further - if it hits me, that means the catcher missed it. I hope it bounces to the dugout and the runners all advance.