Nice Sub A Team

[windowtinter]

Apparently you neglect to fully read my posts.

I stated several times that PPI made a flat cone. But they have NOT made a flat cone that can take the abuse that subs face today. Alma gates my have used flat cones in her old bronco, but she had multitudes of them which in the end didn't receive as much abuse as most subs do today, even in daily driver applications.

Plus I'd like to see a back shot of the PPI sub to see if it's actually a flat cone, or just a flat dustcap that is layered over a normal cone.

The only company to try a flat cone since the PPI subs was eD, and we should all remember that disaster. Even an aluminum backing on the cone couldn't help them from falling apart. Though eD isn't a company I would trust with such a design anyways.

I know I'm really coming off as a douche in this thread, which wasn't my intention. Rusty is a good guy but I just really, REALLY don't care for this idea. That shouldn't deter people from buying his stuff because we all know it works. Not every sub is suited for every environment. It's just my personal experiences that form my opinions.

since you really dont care for this idea then how about you stop posting in here and leave it alone and if it fails in the long run you can say i told you so but until the stfu this is as bad as the tsns crap that everyone is posting just be patient and wait like everyone else let the nut huggers be nut huggers, and let the sub be tested like we all know it will be and if it is an epic fail then im sure you will be happy knowing you were right all along but if your wrong you just look like an asshole as you have alreay stated. and yes i did repost by accident

Edited December 13, 2009 by windowtinter

[kirill007]

If DC has found a way to keep the flat cones together, then that's great. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that you have less overall cone area and an inherintely weaker structure.

Flat cones have the same cone area as concave cones, look at the subs from a bird view you will see they have the same cone area.

If a deeper cone equals more cone area, then why wouldn't people build 2 feet deep cones?

The cone area on a concave cone isn't bigger, the amount of material being used is more then a flat cone.

To find the cone area of a sub you need to use this formula: 2 . π . r you don't need to know the depth of a cone.

[NDMstang65]

I am pretty sure that is not the basket that will be used however no pics until rusty has the patent for it so no 1 can jack the design and I believe that the a team 15 was a proto so they could test it out before it hit the market so rusty would know for sure if it would hold up which is a wise decision as far as I am concerned.also whatever rusty puts up will be tested to be a solid product before he sells it so I am not worried if he says its good that is all I need to hear.

Just a little heads up, as I could really care less and do not have a dog in the fight.

If one were to post pictures of such thing on the internet, and a second party making it known that person A is waiting for a patent (indicating that it is not pending)...and if person A does not have a patent number pending already...it just shot person A's objective of getting a patent straight in the foot.

It is now public knowledge...and you can not patent it.

One would hope that person A has a pending number, in that case what is it..because the drawings would be available on uspto.gov...thus person A would have no reason to try to hide anything as he would be protected under the pending number until the patent is granted. Although anybody could make and use that technology while it is still 'pending'..and stop immediately as the real patent number is issued with out infringing on the patent.

With love,

The guy who had one too many business law courses.

Edit: Tommy is nothing short of correct on all counts except the cone area comment, radiating cone area is the same regardless of shape, and for everybody that forgot what 9th grade geometry is...material does not matter and is completely irrelevant. Everything relies on the shape. Or for the "Engineers" in the room...freshman year introduction to mechanical engineering class when you go back to study...you guessed it. Geometry.

Edited December 13, 2009 by NDMstang65

[kingsuv]

Also a good point. I keep repeating myself over and over. If DC has found a way to keep the flat cones together, then that's great. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that you have less overall cone area and an inherintely weaker structure.

Why put all the time and effort into developing a flat cone when there's absolutely no benefit?

Why Not?

Just because the tire was made so many years back doesn't mean companies shouldn't try to redesign and try new ideas right?

Just because PPI and some others did it years back means DC couldn't revisit the idea and try to improve on them?

As far as putting prototypes out on the internet, Sometimes it can help in the design process when others toss out ideas so they go. Sometimes it's the young kid who knows nothing about a product that may have an idea on a particular part of it and have a soloution without even knowing it.

[The A Team]

Yes i believe i already made a statement about the misconception about the cone area.

Im curious Tom what do you think this cone is made out of? Why do yo u think it will be weaker then a paper? You have not even seen the material yet you have no way of making claims that this cone based on shape alone will fail. As for the former joint on this first sub i will not post any pics of it, because like i said this is not built the way it is going to be for production. All i see is alot of very quick conclusions based on what other companies have done years ago. I appreciate your concerns but we are not going into this blind. Just be patient you will see the benefits of this cone post on my states page in 2010.

And on a side note you come into the DC forum what do you expect to find? Shouldnt be a shock that the people posting use and like DC products. Infact i wouldnt use them if i didnt think they had the best sub for my needs, and dont tell me they havent been working out for me.

[tommyk90]

Yes i believe i already made a statement about the misconception about the cone area.

Im curious Tom what do you think this cone is made out of? Why do yo u think it will be weaker then a paper? You have not even seen the material yet you have no way of making claims that this cone based on shape alone will fail. As for the former joint on this first sub i will not post any pics of it, because like i said this is not built the way it is going to be for production. All i see is alot of very quick conclusions based on what other companies have done years ago. I appreciate your concerns but we are not going into this blind. Just be patient you will see the benefits of this cone post on my states page in 2010.

And on a side note you come into the DC forum what do you expect to find? Shouldnt be a shock that the people posting use and like DC products. Infact i wouldnt use them if i didnt think they had the best sub for my needs, and dont tell me they havent been working out for me.

Christ, I never said the material would be weaker than paper. I said the DESIGN is weaker than a paper concave cone. The only way to get the strength up when using a flat cone is by using a much more rigid (and expensive) material, only in the end to have no benefits over a standard paper cone. Plus somebody said something about having to machine parts for the cone to former joint? There goes most people's "lighter moving mass" theory as well. I'm sure you guys realize how light a paper cone is. (not to mention how much taller the former has to be as well)

Also, sorry about getting the surface area thing wrong, I wasn't really thinking about it at the time.

And yes, I know this is in the DC forum. I expect nut hugging to go on here. But this is something thats not even available or even out of the prototype phase yet and people are already kissing ass trying to get one. This reminds me of RD audio and the 3250v2. Worked out great for them didn't it?

I keep repeating the same information over and over, and I'll say this again. I hope it works out for rusty. Hopefully he figured out a way to keep things together, but in the end the flat cone has no advantages over a concave one.

Edited December 13, 2009 by tommyk90

[tommyk90]

Why Not?

Just because the tire was made so many years back doesn't mean companies shouldn't try to redesign and try new ideas right?

Just because PPI and some others did it years back means DC couldn't revisit the idea and try to improve on them?

As far as putting prototypes out on the internet, Sometimes it can help in the design process when others toss out ideas so they go. Sometimes it's the young kid who knows nothing about a product that may have an idea on a particular part of it and have a soloution without even knowing it.

Companies reinvent the tire to make it BETTER.

Is rusty trying to make the flat cone better? Obviously. Is this flat cone going to somehow be better than a traditional cone? I don't think so.

That's the point I was trying to make.

[The A Team]

Christ, I never said the material would be weaker than paper. I said the DESIGN is weaker than a paper concave cone. The only way to get the strength up when using a flat cone is by using a much more rigid (and expensive) material, only in the end to have no benefits over a standard paper cone.

Also, sorry about getting the surface area thing wrong, I wasn't really thinking about it at the time.

So what i understand you saying is this, the design is poor, thus no matter how strong the flat cone is it will not = that of a conventional paper cone? Or are you saying that if a high quality material is used the flat cone is or could be better then paper? I hate seeing you post this info based on what OTHERS have done and used. As for the cost these cones will be less money then composite cones offered by other companies, not to mention stronger. You are going ot have to believe the people who have seen this in person, trust me on this one ok.

[tommyk90]

So what i understand you saying is this, the design is poor, thus no matter how strong the flat cone is it will not = that of a conventional paper cone? Or are you saying that if a high quality material is used the flat cone is or could be better then paper? I hate seeing you post this info based on what OTHERS have done and used. As for the cost these cones will be less money then composite cones offered by other companies, not to mention stronger. You are going ot have to believe the people who have seen this in person, trust me on this one ok.

If a high quality material is used (and the joints hold up), THEN the flat cone will be fine to use. There's no benefit of using a flat cone over a concave one though.

The problem here is that flat cones are prone to weak cone joints since there is little bonding area. It sounds like rusty may have come up with something to cure this problem, which will be interesting to see.

Less money than composite cones, ok. I'm guessing you're referring to DD since they are pretty much the only company who is offering a composite cone in the U.S right now, and are pretty damn expensive. (I know that T3 is using composite cones now as well, but there's been nothing said about pricing) Also, are these cones made overseas or in the U.S.? In house?

But I'm guessing they still cost quite a bit more than a normal paper cone.

I guess in the end it will be up to the consumer to decide. A cool looking flat composite cone for more cash, or the standard cone which works perfectly well and just doesn't have the flash of the composite cone.

Edited December 13, 2009 by tommyk90

[The A Team]

Well lets wait for the test results. This may be a few weeks or more away with the holiday season approaching. I will let you know that the test will be fair and 100% legit. For the most part it will be DC vs DC so it cant lose. Like i said may take a reference from a DD 99Z 18 just to see how it compares.

Of course these cones will be more then a paper cone made in China. US built in house for now until you start to build them for us. haha

I know you are hell bent about the design being weaker, this is true for the most part, but what if the design of the flat design is not flat at all? If that makes any sense? And i have a PPI cone here, i know how they attached them and the strength and there is no question why it didnt work out in high power applications. I told you we are not going into this blind. Just try to refrain from arguing and labeling it a failure until i test it. And again the production assembly will be much better then this first sub i am testing, i would bet atleast 0.5 dB louder with the added secrets.