STAKO any new info?

[DeepPyro]

You have to balance that with how many similar complaints they've had. (Not enough to worry them according to the report.)

You also have to look at the fact that 2 randomly selected bottles from the same batch of 200 passed their tests.

The report suggests that on the faulty tank there was an unexplained inconsistency to the wrap where the leak was coming from. Unexplained to the extent that there is nothing in the manufacturing process to explain it.

How come they still had 2 bottles from the 200 batch? Surely if one was sold, the others would have been?

I see your point but if they can't explain the problem, even in one bottle, surely they need to look deeper into the problem.

4500psi is not to be messed with.

DP

 

[Stan]

I see your point but if they can't explain the problem, even in one bottle, surely they need to look deeper into the problem.

4500psi is not to be messed with.

DP

Agreed BUT:

If they're manufactured to the required level.
Testing on two random samples exceeds the required level.
They haven't recieved a large number of similar complaints.

and:

In FMEA STAKO presented the factors, which could have a potential effect on formationof leakages in the tanks.
STAKO implemented the recommended improvement actions listed in FMEA into production process.
After implementation of changes thermoplastic liners and finished tanks were manufactured, and STAKO conducted production tests on them.
Performed actions did not display differences in the quality of manufactured tanks, because examination results before and after implementation of changes in the production process were consistently positive.

ie - Stako came up with a list of things that could have caused the problem. Then implemented some changes in the way they produce the tanks. Then produced a batch to the new spec and tested them. The diferences in production made no difference to the tests because all bar the faulty tank have passed anyway.

 

[DANIEL]

i was under the impression that it was only when the bottle was emptied fully there was a problem because there was a gap between the linings, is the air between the linings being forced out and not the air inside the bottle.


this would make sense that this happened to bottles after teams had emptied the bottles and removed regs when they flew to Germany to play.



but as others have said - if HPAC won't fill the bottles then there's not a lot we can do, so just waiting to here what they say now,.

 

[Robin Hood]

Hmmm...the way I read it...(I could be reading it wrong!)

They couldn't pin point the where the leak originated, but they narrowed it down to somewhere in the head's neck region of the bottle where the plastic liner had thinned out.

They then re-iterated that there was/is a potential problem at the neck of the head of the bottles which could give rise to a crack after continuous filling and emptying. But they still don't have an definitive cause for the leaky one.

Even though the other tested tanks passed with flying colours and are manufactured within all of the required limits and specifications there is evidently some problem, likely fatigue related with the bottle design that caused the leak.

Analysis was carried out on the design of the bottle and they re-evaluated it and came up with a list of factors that could have a potential effect on formation of leakages in the tanks. They then took action and implemented any recommended improvements to the production process as a result of this analysis.

After making some new bottles to these specs they were tested, the improvements implemented didn't display any changes in the quality of the tank, but results were consistently positive and so these changes to the production process have been introduced permanently.

The tanks are now being produced again (production was suspended for a while) under an increased level of control to monitor the effect of the changes on the increase of the tank operation safety. They are inspecting new tanks with an internal endoscope to check the point of contact of the liners neck with the aluminium head element.

-------

It all seem rather positive, but it still seems slightly strange to me that they can't design it to be certain a crack won't occur.

Their new website www.stakopaintball.com has some good diagrams and info on it, and rather encouragingly they've mentioned about LBB:

All our designs undergo LBB (Leak Before Break) procedure. That means the tank is designed in the way that even broken or unsealed they do not burst open but slowly go empty.

So should any kind of crack in the liner occur, it won't go kaboom spraying bits of you all over the fill station.

I guess the question remains now, are HPAC satisfied with the findings and will they begin filling them again?

(They also have a diagram and a brief explanation about the air bubbles that are to be expected when filling from empty)

 

[evoonline]

perhaps retest after a couple of years then instead of 5 thus allowing the problems to be located and dealt with on stakos.

 

[Robin Hood]

You can't retest Stakos. 5 years and you pop 'em in the trash I believe.

 

[balf]

You can't retest Stakos. 5 years and you pop 'em in the trash I believe.

or turn them in to drinking vessels!!!!

or ashtrays

 

[true_death]

You can't retest Stakos. 5 years and you pop 'em in the trash I believe.

I believe it had something to do with them not actually being able to survive the re-test.

But I'm probably wrong

 

[evoonline]

You can't retest Stakos. 5 years and you pop 'em in the trash I believe.

really?? lol ive learnt 2 things in 1 day. thats an expensive buy then £130ish for a bottle for 5 yrs...

 

[balf]

but how many people retest anyway...i wont be