Its a "bubbler style" neck placement w/ a really functional mouthpiece in the appealing new mobius stylings... I believe you or at least a few other members specifically asked for a bubbler style neck and I want it to look nice... I thought happy medium. I have failed. Honestly it would look just fine with the fc-1000 bubbler neck on there.
Eh, with that sipper mouthpiece I wouldn't consider it the same as a bubbler neck/mouthpiece at all...
I've always considered "bubbler" style to include both the side-of-can neck placement and an open/flared mouthpiece.
If I had to describe it to someone, I'd say something like
"it's basically a bubbler neck, but with a sipper mouthpiece"
I personally hate sipper style mouthpieces.
I thought the general consensus from a few polls a while back was that most members generally preferred open mouthpieces too.
(Actually, now that I think about it, I kinda consider open/flared mouthpieces to be the standard, and anything with a sipper mouthpiece is basically an asterisk on that type...
Tube*, Sidecar*, Bubbler*...)
There's nothing wrong with wanting to make the piece better, but where was the collaboration?
You didn't throw the idea out here on FC (as far as I know of), you just went and told steven that's what we wanted...
I get that it was just honest misunderstanding, but this is why we tried to keep the points of contact with steven to a minimum earlier in the thread...
By hashing it out here first, then having a somewhat consistent contact person with steven, we can ensure that
A) the piece that gets made is what most people would want
B) Steven doesn't screw up the design by having input coming from so many directions
TL-DR
IMO better form would have been to just post it up here first with something like;
"I think this would make all the bubbler neck fans happy and I like the look of it, what do you guys think?
Should I send it to steven?"
If everyone agreed it was better we'd even be able to knock up a photoshop of the proposed new design before we sent it too
1 hour later, super edit:
Really can't comment much on these dimensions since I don't have the other Dcycler, but here's my opinions:
A: 50mm
B: 65mm
C: ??
D: 275mm to 300mm
E: 150mm
F: 10mm tall by 100mm diameter
G: ?? maybe 10 to 15mm?
Note 300mm overall means this piece would be 11.75inches tall which I think is pretty good, maybe too big?
I really like that ~30cm/12inches height.
It makes the piece a nice size, not too large, but still a nice volume when paired with a vape.
C: should be E+A = 200mm - this would make the joint stick up just above the return funnel.
= C: 200mm
Id assume the return drain would be like 1cm diameter, so that would leave G at (A-1cm)/2
= G: 20mm
I think the ratio of E(can):B(funnel) should be about 3:2, with E+B = 200 - 220mm
= E: 130mm
= B: 90mm
I thought on the original diagram F was another E, and figured the base would be the same diameter as the main can height.
So, my slightly refined version of your numbers would be:
A: 50mm
B: 90mm
C: 200mm
D: 300mm
E: 130mm
F: 10mm tall by 100 - 130mm diameter
G: 20mm
I didn't want to say it XD
Although this particular mobius piece does look very nice and I'm sure it would hit swell, it aint worth wet lips. Few things are.
That would be legit!
If you want assistance, I'm offering it. Whatever that's worth
Can do technical drawings if required, could design a fully modular range that can be plugged and swapped in accordance to what is being inhaled..?
Yeah, very evident and fair enough to them. You can buy bongs in airports in China, I'm pretty sure they have a very different idea about them. (they smoke tailored cigs through them for the most part, from what I saw)
I guess the point I was attempting to make, was that the influence on design from us prospective buyers has had effect on the range that is available. It seems that mostly when this happens, and it happens with most items being produced on the cheap, counterfeit products are the result.
In this instance, at least, there is no point to reproducing image.
It's a bit like buying an art piece or a stock canvas print.
What we want is a range of canvas prints that don't look like shit and make you vomit.
What we don't want is a heap of immitation pieces that suck and make you vomit. (although most of the newer pieces seem pretty spot on, the fact that mobius labels are being applied is poor taste)
What you say about a bong being just a bong isn't strictly true. When a hose and plastic bottle offers better results - that chunk of glass is a bloody useless bong. But for connecting to a herb vaporiser, it works like a treat.
And we already have the problem of having to guess if a piece will work at all, at least if it was listed as 'made for oil', 'made for combusting' etc. it would be clear that some thought has gone into what that object actually is. Many designs out there have me wondering.
And it makes those question threads answerable until they are no longer made.
This is what it will always come down to anyway, but I think it would be good to stray away from passing on semi-luxurious pieces to copy, and pass on information as to how to make something as good or better. Which is something that's happening, and that's where the benefit is. It's not like there's no creativity on the fabrication line. It seems glass bongs are made on the side to more traditional uses of glass, limiting the time allocated per unit and cutting the design potential right down.
I pretty much agree with everything you said
I just feel like categorizing/labelling pieces as "intended/designed for X/Y" will lead to so many people asking but "can it be used for Y/X?"
It's just such a silly question that it shits me - just about any bong
can be used for just about any purpose.
Absolutely some designs are better for certain applications, the FC-710 is absolutely designed for concentrates, but I've still vaped with my sub through it
...
Like the whole "isn't that too much diffusion for vapor/dabs/whatever?"...
No. It's personal preference. Some people want/need very high diffusion pieces, even for vapor...
It's probably just something that annoys me more than others
I had a muck around on sketchup playing around with the Dcycler design,
came up with this
Basically as the chamber size has increased, swapping to a disc perc would stack the bubbles better, flared bottom chamber allows more water for better cooling and freshness, and is shaped to force splash and clouds the right way through the recycling function (as there isn't a cage perc), pinched central stem-line out of the middle chamber allows for maximum vortex spin time, small chamber up top catches any splash and circulates inhalent to desired smoothness.
It's not much difference as the original dcycler piece looks to work really well.
This version would be just over 4 inches taller and would be better suited for combusting or smoother, less tasteful hits.
The disc perc would hopefully stack well enough with a vapour line attached. I have a honeycomb piece the same radius attached to an EQ and it stacks really nicely with very little effort.
My
If it was to switch to a disc perc, I'd want some kind of inline or other perc under it anyway - the weird chug of disc percs when the inlet forms a semi-natural perc is really annoying IMO
I prefer the aesthetics of a straight can/bottom chamber, but I could see that more beaker-ish chanber working too
I've never had any issues with splashback on my dcycler, the little nub the mouthpiece connects to seems to stop any splashback from being able to climb up there, so that extra top chamber seems a tad unnecessary (I wouldn't think it would smooth things out any much more than all the actual diffusion in the piece?),
I'm kinda 50/50 on it...
I don't think it would really add or detract from the function, and
The aesthetics of it work, but they also work without it