beyond our
typical reasoning which is: if it works, why change it. This has happened a lot in the detector industry going way back. However, there is a lot of good that can come from change as long as it doesn't hamper the end-performance the user can enjoy.
One example of things that can change,
and it is search coil related, goes back about 45-46 years. White's was one of the earlier big-name and big-selling detector producers and they were selling. There were a few engineers working for them, two were Don and Henry. Don had a good idea, or so they thought, to change the search coil design to something completely different and at the time, if I recall, they were using what they called a 'Triplet' design on the TR's.
His idea was pushed aside by the founder/owner because, basically, he figured
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of reasoning. Those two engineers, with their good ideas, left White's and joined up with another fellow, named Ron, and they started their own metal detector company. That was at a time both BFO's and TR's were the main selling types of detectors, but TR's were surging in popularity, and it was Don's search coil design idea that they used for their TR models. They promoted some of the benefits of this search coil design and, it was so impressive to me at the time, that I bought their product because it worked well.
Who were they and what was it? Ron Mack, Henry Gorgas and Don Dykstra got together and founded Compass Electronics, and their very popular Yukon series of TR, to include the lower priced Nugget and simple little Coin Hustler TR's, all had one thing in common, and that was they all used Don's search coil design. Different from all the other inner working of search coils in hobby detectors, his Double-D search coil design,
combined with the way the electronic circuitry design performed, was very impressive.
Yes, Monte has used DD coils since 1971, but most are familiar with how I usually praise the performance of a Concentric search coil design. I still have a Compass Coin Hustler w/6" DD coil and Yukon 99B w/8" DD coil resting about seven feet behind me here in my den. Like all my detectors, they have batteries installed and are ready to work at anytime, and they still work quite well, for what old basic TR's can do. Most of the time back then, by the way, I used the 6" DD coils because smaller coils worked handier for me where I hunted in trash, urban or out at a relic hunting location.
Cal_Cobra said:
It seems odd to me that the Racer2's 5" RC13E coil is perfectly round vs the Racer1's RC13 5"x4.5" OOR coil.
When I got the Nokta FORS CoRe in my hands over a year ago, and since I spend most of my life hunting very iron littered sites and prefer smaller-size search coils, I was eager to see what the little 4.[size=small]7[/size]X5.[size=small]2[/size]
'OOR' [size=small](Out-of-Round)[/size] DD coil would do ... and I was astonishingly surprised!. For a few reasons, I might add.
My favorite Tesoro models perform best with Concentric coils mounted. The White's MX5 and MXT Pro also worked better with the 6½" Concentric coil compared with any DD coil from them, or aftermarket, to include the 6" and 5" Detech coils. Most of the models I have used in the past decade or two have done better handling iron and non-iron trash with a Concentric than a DD designed coil, and most coils I have used in 5-plus decades have been smaller, in the 5" to 7" size, especially ± 6". All three of my Tesoro's have a round 6" concentric mounted, and I put ALL detectors to-the-test on my
Nail Board Performance Test and several other field-case scenarios. Concentric's almost always do better than DD's.
Then I held the FORS CoRe with a sub-6" sized, slightly squished-shape DD coil. Interesting looking. Kind of small looking. Not the design type I usually like to use. So that was to search coil I mounted on the FORS CoRe first to check it out and .... I was amazed! THEY ...
both the Coil and the Circuitry Design FORS CoRe ... were able to handle almost any test I threw at them, to include my
NBPT. Performance on that test and a few others immediately changed my detector assignment and the FORS CoRe became my #1, primary-use detector. I kept the standard 7X11 mounted on a spare lower rod for more open areas with sparse trash, keeping the dinky
'OOR' coil mounted full-time.
My FORS CoRe still has an
'OOR' coil mounted, and it works fine and is what I now compare all other detectors and coils against. For over a year now everything gets compared to a Tesoro w/6" Concentric and CoRe w/
'OOR.'. A year ago this month I got my first Makro Racer in-hand and it, too, came with the
'OOR' for it at its lower frequency, so it's now a Tesoro w/6" C, Makro w/
'OOR' and Nokta with
'OOR' that I have used to search with, and also use to compare other detectors in trash, especially dense iron such as nails.
Cal_Cobra said:
Given that the coils between the R1 and R2 are interchangeable, and the fact that the OOR RC13 R1 coil works so dang well, what's the logic behind the change to the RC13E coil on the R2?
Logic? I am not sure but some might be consumer input, and some might be design and build cost. I started wondering about that when I got my FORS Gold+ because it comes with a 5½X10 DD and a round 5" DD, so it was 'different' as I had been looking down at the little
'OOR' shaped coil on both the CoRe and Racer for about a year.
The Nokta FORS Gold+ was a 'want-to-have' for Gold Nugget Hunting, but also because it operates at a higher 19 kHz frequency and that is currently a popular frequency range for many avoid Relic Hunters ... and working the sites I work is Relic Hunting. I have used my FORS CoRe mainly for Relic Hunting but have done some urban Coin Hunting with it, but wanted to compare performance between the
'OOR' and 5" coils. The two FORS 'series' models went head-to-head in a coil battle, and, in the end, I couldn't find any real difference in performance between the two search coils.
Then along came the Makro Gold Racer and it, also, has the round 5" DD coil for it, so both Nokta and Makro were offering coils in that round 5" design. No, both are smaller size, and in this crazy era when we hear so many hobbyists call out for 'bigger' coils and 'more depth,' it is a treat to see and use smaller-size coils that work really, really well. These two do. I also believe some 'average' hobbyists took a wrong view at the
'OOR' and thought it looked smaller of funny-shaped, but the round 5" coils appears to be larger and better to them, thus a decision
might be to offer what the public wants.
Another thought to me is that it might be easier to make the round 5" coil, and in the cost department, the 5" coil
might be a little less expensive, and that housing is working on other models so ..... ?
Logic? Not sure. My evaluation Racer 2 was supplied with the
'OOR' coil and I have it mounted and working well now. When they get the new and improved standard 7X11 coil finished and in production, I hope to get one of those as it is superior in balance and feel to the regular Racer-shaped 7X11 coil. I also hope to get the 'new' 5" DD coil for the Racer 2 as well because, while I do like the
'OOR' search coils, there is something I like about the 5" DD coil as well.
I think it is a change we just have to accept, and there is no real loss in performance. I enjoy working both the FORS Gold+ and Gold Racer with their 5" DD coils, and using the CoRe and Racer 2 with an
'OOR' it is a tough call, but if I really had to, I prefer the ......
...... both or either, they work.
Monte
lol Well, get a new Racer 2 and you'll have an excuse to get out everyday....