CanAm Dutchy - Prototype #1 Released...

With that stick even a disk lead from 2kg is a good puck. But when somebody that tested with that stick say the puck is not easy to flick i can not help the feeling it that its not the puck but the stick why he or she can not easy flick the puck. But when the tester used as example a "knuffelwuppie" or a "Carve"and then say the puck is not easy to flick, and he or she can flick other pucks easy, then its more likely that its the puck why. And that can have some different reasons.

Or when somebody say that he can not give a fancy back flick with a "knuffelwuppy" its clear why. The stick is not desing for a fancy backflick.(but for puck control in the hook) But when somebody say that by a "carve" then its again a reason to look why.

So its nice when having more imput to have a total picture.

thats why the next point are nice!

1.Long lasting or not.(on different sorts of pools)
2.stabillity of the puck.(by puck controll)
3.good flicking or not.(and also the stability when flicked)
4.Used material stick. (wood/PU/PU,rubber/other)
5.Model stick.

and another extra one:
6. sort of pool bothem or obstruction things in the pool that can damage some off the world the pucks. When the puck is to easy damaged then players choose faster for a other puck that is stronger.(that is not always a better puck) But when the designer now those points he or she can try to better the pucks. And like this puck maybe its important to make a reflection with an canam puck that is also from Steve. SO the differents and iff its a better puck or not more clear. And iff possible even a reflection on your favorite puck in my case the 1300 Dutch Bontje puck

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

A couple of things....

The discs in my pucks are made of a very hard plastic that do not wear very much, even on the rough bottoms. They are also replaceable for the bottoms that are very rough; even better, you can order them with brass discs if the bottom is super rough.

My goal is to provide the best 3 or 4 pucks to the world as it seems to be impossible to provide one puck for all bottoms. So help me get it right! The uni2 will be available for trial at the San Diego tournament and the U of I tournament in late April. Thanks for the input on the pucks, I have one final design to release in the next month, it is for the very, very rough bottoms

Steve

After initial testing of this puck, the characteristics of sliding and shooting needed minor refinements. The puck sliding on a semi-smooth bottom was being hampered by the outer material between the disc and the radius on the edge, due to the softness of the outer material. The puck also tended to have a "draw" built into the flight path of the puck...near the end of the flight it would veer to the right a bit. To help correct both of these non-favorable attributes, a 3 degree bevel was added from the end of the disc out to the large edge radius. This adjustment curbed both behaviors of the initial design puck. It is amazing how such a small movement in puck geometry can make a large effect on the characteristics of puck flight and sliding.

Steveo
canamsticks.com - Home

An 10 year old Bontje puck.


Lets see the dutchy

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

hey Sven, if you want to get into all the technical aspects for comparison purposes, don't forget the skill of the player testing. I've flicked pucks using a 1/4 inch (6-7mm) steel rod and they threw well. And I could get a decent shot off with that stick you show, it's very similar to what I used to learn. So would that tell you anything about the puck? Say some guy has only been playing 6 months and hasn't completely figured out his shot, at best he's inconsistent. He gets in and tries this puck and coincidentally his shot motions come together that day so he's cranking out some good shots (for him). Is the puck good? Can he tell you if it flies to where he wanted it to fly? I doubt it. Where's the info you need? Neither the stick design and material nor the pool bottom matter.

Steve's on the right track with having a series of pucks that are good for various bottoms since making the puck is a lot cheaper than resurfacing a pool. One might play great on tile and lousy on gunite or vice-versa. Which is better? The one that consistently shoots where you aim and lasts longer than the rest of the pucks that consisitently shoot where you aim. My opinion. Others might just want a puck that lasts twice as long as others and not worry about the shot. And still others may only be concerned about potential damage to the pool and would think another puck is better.

Durability and balance matter and those come from design, material, and process. Not from pool bottom, stick, nor player.

__________________
And the countdown begins... Ay, ay ay ay, ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay.. Colombia!

Yes, that was exactly my point, but was lost in neverending de-bait-ing... its ALL about the guy that makes the pucks... that determine if its good puck or not.

Hmmm...

Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is a historical term for behavior characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence — often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions.

Usually a term I reserve for referees, but....

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

Ok, Jols... you just got me the name for my new puck - Megalomaniac ! I hope It will be better puck than the name suggests.... or maybe I'll use Omnipotence, it sounds better, dont you agree?

I am sure we can do better than that...

A small round metal shield is called a Buckler... how about Puckler...
Or, in ice hockey a puck I believe is sometimes called a 'biscuit'... could call it that.
Or, did you know that the word puck is used in the irish game hurling: "related to the verb "to puck" (a cognate of "poke") used in the game of hurling for striking or pushing the ball, from the Scottish Gaelic puc or the Irish poc, meaning to poke, punch or deliver a blow" ... so I reckon POC could be a decent name.
Or, you could always call it a 'FLKR'.

I think we may have hit on something here... surely the adoption of a puck by the underwater hockey community has more to do with marketing than with it's playing characteristics. The name is vastly more important than whether you can control or flick it. Therefore I firmly believe that you should go with the 'iPUCK'... I know Carol would then buy one.

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

Hello Duck.

Technical aspect and visions from diversion level players. THe opinian from a experianced low class player is as good as a experianced high class player. And put those together and you have a balanced opinian.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..