Looks like this thread is filled with problems of not enough knowledge on abrasion and wear. 

This concept of wear is taught in college in material science and engineering.

First and foremost plastic on plastic contact causes more friction and thus more abrasion and thus more wear. Even metal on metal causes more amount of friction. 

The basic concept of wear depends on the surfaces in contact. Usually it is observed that if the materials in contact are the same it leads to more friction and thus more wear
( it sounds counter intuitive but is actually true! A simple experiment to check this is by putting a glass plate in contact with a glass cup; if you compare the friction and adhesive forces between moving steel on glass and glass on glass; we can observe more signs of wear when we conducted the experiment with glass on glass. Why you may ask? The answer is that since the two materials are same the adhesive forces between the two objects increases many times more than when two different materials are used)  

Back to the question of Metal Driver caps and Plastic teeth; In theory if everything was kept the same the metal and plastic contact will cause no change in wear( it can be expected to be less due less friction and strain.) Again when using science it is often advised not to follow you intuition as it is more often than not wrong. 

Provided the spring doesnt get stronger the force on teeth will remain same and thus no additional warping will occur, that is, it will be almost the same as inn the case of plastic teeth. (sometimes even lower)

However if the spring is stronger then there is an increase in chance of warping and deformation due to the fact that the Youngs Modulus of Plastic( Measure of the elasticity of the material)  is not really high.  I dont really know what Takara Tomy has advertised apart from the metal on the drivers; if they make the spring stronger only then will it cause problems. 

[font="Titillium Web", sans-serif]@[[ NØBØDY ]][/font][font="Titillium Web", sans-serif] As a caution; Friction is the major role in any form of wear. Ignoring friction will lead to wrong answers. [/font]

If I have made any mistake please feel free to correct me.


Some data to back my claims :
coefficient of friction:

plastic-metal

 Static :0.25...0.4
 Dynamic  :0.1...0.3

plastic-plastic

 Static : 0.3-0.4
 Dynamic : 0.2...0.4

Just beautiful, awesome job!  I was about to bring in Archards wear equation but man it is harder than I thought to find experimental k-values so thanks for saving me the time aha

Looks like this thread is filled with problems of not enough knowledge on abrasion and wear. 

This concept of wear is taught in college in material science and engineering.

First and foremost plastic on plastic contact causes more friction and thus more abrasion and thus more wear. Even metal on metal causes more amount of friction. 

The basic concept of wear depends on the surfaces in contact. Usually it is observed that if the materials in contact are the same it leads to more friction and thus more wear
( it sounds counter intuitive but is actually true! A simple experiment to check this is by putting a glass plate in contact with a glass cup; if you compare the friction and adhesive forces between moving steel on glass and glass on glass; we can observe more signs of wear when we conducted the experiment with glass on glass. Why you may ask? The answer is that since the two materials are same the adhesive forces between the two objects increases many times more than when two different materials are used)  

Back to the question of Metal Driver caps and Plastic teeth; In theory if everything was kept the same the metal and plastic contact will cause no change in wear( it can be expected to be less due less friction and strain.) Again when using science it is often advised not to follow you intuition as it is more often than not wrong. 

Provided the spring doesnt get stronger the force on teeth will remain same and thus no additional warping will occur, that is, it will be almost the same as inn the case of plastic teeth. (sometimes even lower)

However if the spring is stronger then there is an increase in chance of warping and deformation due to the fact that the Youngs Modulus of Plastic( Measure of the elasticity of the material)  is not really high.  I dont really know what Takara Tomy has advertised apart from the metal on the drivers; if they make the spring stronger only then will it cause problems. 

[font="Titillium Web", sans-serif]@[[ NØBØDY ]][/font][font="Titillium Web", sans-serif] As a caution; Friction is the major role in any form of wear. Ignoring friction will lead to wrong answers. [/font]

If I have made any mistake please feel free to correct me.


Some data to back my claims :
coefficient of friction:

plastic-metal

 Static :0.25...0.4
 Dynamic  :0.1...0.3

plastic-plastic

 Static : 0.3-0.4
 Dynamic : 0.2...0.4

Friction is only part of the equation, though. These new drivers are being advertised as having springs similar to dash drivers, which can be incredibly tight on certain layers even with a plastic cap.

While I understand that plastic is a solid, it's more flexible and malleable than metal is, so I would assume that plastic-on-plastic contact would somewhat evenly distribute the forces between the layer's teeth and the driver's cap. With a metal cap, the majority of that force would be exerted on the teeth, no?

While your explanation of abrasion/wear makes some sense, I feel that it depends on the difference in friction coefficients between the two materials, rather than simply whether the material is the same or not. There's no doubt that rubber on rubber has a lot of friction, moreso than say, rubber on ice. But by that same notion, shouldn't rubber on ice have more friction than ice on ice? Which would invalidate the idea that colliding materials of the same type have a lower friction coefficient compared to materials of different types, right?

In simple terms, materials with a high friction coefficient (such as rubber) will experience the most force when intersecting itself, whereas materials with a lower friction coefficient (like ice) will ultimately experience the least amount of force when intersecting itself.

Since plastic and metal have similar friction coefficients, while there may be a difference in force, it's negligible at best. The properties of the material (hardness, flexibility, rigidity, etc), as well as the tightness of the springs used in the new drivers, will most likely be the deciding factor when it comes to part durability.

---

TL;DR: Technically you're not wrong about plastic-on-metal contact having less friction, but you're wrong about why it has less friction. It's also a miniscule difference, with other variables to consider, so I personally wouldn't write these new drivers off as "safe" just yet.

Looks like this thread is filled with problems of not enough knowledge on abrasion and wear. 

This concept of wear is taught in college in material science and engineering.

First and foremost plastic on plastic contact causes more friction and thus more abrasion and thus more wear. Even metal on metal causes more amount of friction. 

The basic concept of wear depends on the surfaces in contact. Usually it is observed that if the materials in contact are the same it leads to more friction and thus more wear
( it sounds counter intuitive but is actually true! A simple experiment to check this is by putting a glass plate in contact with a glass cup; if you compare the friction and adhesive forces between moving steel on glass and glass on glass; we can observe more signs of wear when we conducted the experiment with glass on glass. Why you may ask? The answer is that since the two materials are same the adhesive forces between the two objects increases many times more than when two different materials are used)  

Back to the question of Metal Driver caps and Plastic teeth; In theory if everything was kept the same the metal and plastic contact will cause no change in wear( it can be expected to be less due less friction and strain.) Again when using science it is often advised not to follow you intuition as it is more often than not wrong. 

Provided the spring doesnt get stronger the force on teeth will remain same and thus no additional warping will occur, that is, it will be almost the same as inn the case of plastic teeth. (sometimes even lower)

However if the spring is stronger then there is an increase in chance of warping and deformation due to the fact that the Youngs Modulus of Plastic( Measure of the elasticity of the material)  is not really high.  I dont really know what Takara Tomy has advertised apart from the metal on the drivers; if they make the spring stronger only then will it cause problems. 

[font="Titillium Web", sans-serif]@[[ NØBØDY ]][/font][font="Titillium Web", sans-serif] As a caution; Friction is the major role in any form of wear. Ignoring friction will lead to wrong answers. [/font]

If I have made any mistake please feel free to correct me.


Some data to back my claims :
coefficient of friction:

plastic-metal

 Static :0.25...0.4
 Dynamic  :0.1...0.3

plastic-plastic

 Static : 0.3-0.4
 Dynamic : 0.2...0.4

Friction is only part of the equation, though. These new drivers are being advertised as having springs similar to dash drivers, which can be incredibly tight on certain layers even with a plastic cap.

While I understand that plastic is a solid, it's more flexible and malleable than metal is, so I would assume that plastic-on-plastic contact would somewhat evenly distribute the forces between the layer's teeth and the driver's cap. With a metal cap, the majority of that force would be exerted on the teeth, no?

While your explanation of abrasion/wear makes some sense, I feel that it depends on the difference in friction coefficients between the two materials, rather than simply whether the material is the same or not. There's no doubt that rubber on rubber has a lot of friction, moreso than say, rubber on ice. But by that same notion, shouldn't rubber on ice have more friction than ice on ice? Which would invalidate the idea that colliding materials of the same type have a lower friction coefficient compared to materials of different types, right?

In simple terms, materials with a high friction coefficient (such as rubber) will experience the most force when intersecting itself, whereas materials with a lower friction coefficient (like ice) will ultimately experience the least amount of force when intersecting itself.

Since plastic and metal have similar friction coefficients, while there may be a difference in force, it's negligible at best. The properties of the material (hardness, flexibility, rigidity, etc), as well as the tightness of the springs used in the new drivers, will most likely be the deciding factor when it comes to part durability.

---

TL;DR: Technically you're not wrong about plastic-on-metal contact having less friction, but you're wrong about why it has less friction. It's also a miniscule difference, with other variables to consider, so I personally wouldn't write these new drivers off as "safe" just yet.

The equation for abrasive wear (two materials sliding against each other) is given by the Archard Wear equation,  , V is the amount of wear, K is a dimensionless (unitless) wear coefficient, P is the normal load (force exerted between the two objects), L is the sliding distance, and H is the hardness of the softer material.  As you can see from this formula, the only way to increase wear is via an increase in K.  P, L and H are constant in the case of metal cap vs plastic cap.  K is typically determined experimentally as there are many factors that impact it such as friction, material hardness, surface quality etc.  However, the friction coefficient of the two materials is the dominating factor in the K value.  As you can see in the chart that at the end of the article about the Archard Wear equation (link 1 below), K values are HIGHLY correlated to the coefficient of friction with an almost linear relationship being present.

"In simple terms, materials with a high friction coefficient (such as rubber) will experience the most force when intersecting itself, whereas materials with a lower friction coefficient (like ice) will ultimately experience the least amount of force when intersecting itself."  This is incorrect.  As you can see in the second link below, ice on steel has lower friction than ice on ice and much lower friction than steel on steel.  You are correct that not ALL materials follow this pattern, however the OP you responded to never claimed that, simply saying that is "usually" the observed pattern, which it is.


1. https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/archard-wear-equation/
2. https://collegephysicsanswers.com/openst...-two-drive

Looks like this thread is filled with problems of not enough knowledge on abrasion and wear. 

This concept of wear is taught in college in material science and engineering.

First and foremost plastic on plastic contact causes more friction and thus more abrasion and thus more wear. Even metal on metal causes more amount of friction. 

The basic concept of wear depends on the surfaces in contact. Usually it is observed that if the materials in contact are the same it leads to more friction and thus more wear
( it sounds counter intuitive but is actually true! A simple experiment to check this is by putting a glass plate in contact with a glass cup; if you compare the friction and adhesive forces between moving steel on glass and glass on glass; we can observe more signs of wear when we conducted the experiment with glass on glass. Why you may ask? The answer is that since the two materials are same the adhesive forces between the two objects increases many times more than when two different materials are used)  

Back to the question of Metal Driver caps and Plastic teeth; In theory if everything was kept the same the metal and plastic contact will cause no change in wear( it can be expected to be less due less friction and strain.) Again when using science it is often advised not to follow you intuition as it is more often than not wrong. 

Provided the spring doesnt get stronger the force on teeth will remain same and thus no additional warping will occur, that is, it will be almost the same as inn the case of plastic teeth. (sometimes even lower)

However if the spring is stronger then there is an increase in chance of warping and deformation due to the fact that the Youngs Modulus of Plastic( Measure of the elasticity of the material)  is not really high.  I dont really know what Takara Tomy has advertised apart from the metal on the drivers; if they make the spring stronger only then will it cause problems. 

[font="Titillium Web", sans-serif]@[[ NØBØDY ]][/font][font="Titillium Web", sans-serif] As a caution; Friction is the major role in any form of wear. Ignoring friction will lead to wrong answers. [/font]

If I have made any mistake please feel free to correct me.


Some data to back my claims :
coefficient of friction:

plastic-metal

 Static :0.25...0.4
 Dynamic  :0.1...0.3

plastic-plastic

 Static : 0.3-0.4
 Dynamic : 0.2...0.4

Friction is only part of the equation, though. These new drivers are being advertised as having springs similar to dash drivers, which can be incredibly tight on certain layers even with a plastic cap.

While I understand that plastic is a solid, it's more flexible and malleable than metal is, so I would assume that plastic-on-plastic contact would somewhat evenly distribute the forces between the layer's teeth and the driver's cap. With a metal cap, the majority of that force would be exerted on the teeth, no?

While your explanation of abrasion/wear makes some sense, I feel that it depends on the difference in friction coefficients between the two materials, rather than simply whether the material is the same or not. There's no doubt that rubber on rubber has a lot of friction, moreso than say, rubber on ice. But by that same notion, shouldn't rubber on ice have more friction than ice on ice? Which would invalidate the idea that colliding materials of the same type have a lower friction coefficient compared to materials of different types, right?

In simple terms, materials with a high friction coefficient (such as rubber) will experience the most force when intersecting itself, whereas materials with a lower friction coefficient (like ice) will ultimately experience the least amount of force when intersecting itself.

Since plastic and metal have similar friction coefficients, while there may be a difference in force, it's negligible at best. The properties of the material (hardness, flexibility, rigidity, etc), as well as the tightness of the springs used in the new drivers, will most likely be the deciding factor when it comes to part durability.

  Your point about it being a spring similar to the dash spring means that the tension force exerted is exactly the same; regardless of the material. 

I never said that wear doesnt depend on coefficient of friction. In fact the cause of the above phenomena is directly related to  the increase in the coefficient of static friction. the point about the durability depending on properties of the material is obviously true. However to be brutally honest i thought that the uneven distribution of forces with plastic will be offset by the difference in the coefficient of friction. A difference of 0.5 doesnt sound much but can compound to a lot.

I actually do not have data on the tension in the dash driver spring so i cannot guess as to how much it is offset.  Also one assumption you are making is that the plastic teeth is near elastic limit which may or may not be the case. ( i do not have that data) 

Note i am not denying the possibility of damage; I clearly said that if the spring is stronger than the dash drivers then it would definitely damage the teeth of older layers. 

I am implying that just due to addition of metal not everything becomes bad and that  teeth will definitely wear due to metal is a wrong assumption and that the reality is often much more complicated.

Also just like the above post mentioned; that case off rubber on ice is wrong as that is an exceptional case and that trend is a general one.

---

TL;DR: Technically you're not wrong about plastic-on-metal contact having less friction, but you're wrong about why it has less friction. It's also a miniscule difference, with other variables to consider, so I personally wouldn't write these new drivers off as "safe" just yet.

Please read up on why the same materials have more friction when rubbed with one another. This is a general phenomena which is observed due to the fact that the surfaces in contact become homogenous at the "interface" ; it becomes difficult to distinguish at the boundary which molecules belong to which material. This increases the static friction ( which is the measure of intermolecular forces of attraction and repulsions at the molecular level)

I would like to apologize if this post sounds a bit rude. I'm in a hurry lol.

Come to think if it, would metal drivers even be actually tighter than dash drivers? because if the springs are only of similar strength rather than outright being more powerful, then how is having a metal cap even supposed to help with tighteness, when it both has less friction than plastic and that they'd just tear through normal teeth?

---

Come to think if it, would metal drivers even be actually tighter than dash drivers? because if the springs are only of similar strength rather than outright being more powerful, then how is having a metal cap even supposed to help with tighteness, when it both has less friction than plastic and that they'd just tear through normal teeth?

I think the function of the Metal Cap is , it's heavier than normal(plastic cap)thus make it harder to get pushed down by the teeth,boom!! increased burst resistance......but don't take this seriously😂

Come to think if it, would metal drivers even be actually tighter than dash drivers? because if the springs are only of similar strength rather than outright being more powerful, then how is having a metal cap even supposed to help with tighteness, when it both has less friction than plastic and that they'd just tear through normal teeth?

That's the point that Vtryuga and I are trying to make.  There is currently no reason to believe that it is likely that the metal caps will increase teeth wear.  See our previous responses in this thread for an explanation of the science.

The community seems to have se quickly jumped on this "TT bad/lazy/stupid" train with no apparent ciritical thinking behind this decision.  Let's just think about it from a business perspective. TT is not some rinky-dink small company, they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products.  It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this.  Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts?  There simply is no incentive for a brand where part quality is a competitve differentiator to make such a non-sensical decision.

What the hell is going on I don’t know what any of this means

---

The spring is super tight meaning higher tension when sliding against teeth and metal (tough) is being slid against plastic (weak). All of this just irks me the wrong way. I’ve already had teeth deformed from normal tips, this is just scary.

---

Come to think if it, would metal drivers even be actually tighter than dash drivers? because if the springs are only of similar strength rather than outright being more powerful, then how is having a metal cap even supposed to help with tightness, when it both has less friction than plastic and that they'd just tear through normal teeth?

That's the point that Vtryuga and I are trying to make. There is currently no reason to believe that it is likely that the metal caps will increase teeth wear.  See our previous responses in this thread for an explanation of the science.

The community seems to have se quickly jumped on this "TT bad/lazy/stupid" train with no apparent critical thinking behind this decision. Let's just think about it from a business perspective. TT is not some rinky-dink small company, they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this. Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts? There simply is no incentive for a brand where part quality is a competitive differentiator to make such a non-sensical decision.

You mean, the same community that is mostly populated by children/teens/young adults? The same community that (most likely) has not taken college courses in material science and engineering? That community?

Also, you act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company, when in reality there's been plenty of times when parts have been released and had new molds made b/c the originals had breakage issues. Victory Valkyrie is probably the most memorable, along with things like the Cho-Z awakening beys having poor teeth, the 12 disk doing notable damage to other beys, etc. I also remember a while ago there was a discussion about certain types of plastic being used for layer teeth that wore down really easily? I think it was something about clear plastic being weaker for whatever reason, but that was a while ago and idk where that discussion was.

Anyway, I'd like to quote something you said; "Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts?" 

Also; "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."

Considering Hasbro has already done both of these things, it's not completely unreasonable to believe that TT has the ability to make such a decision. While I understand that Hasbro is historically bad, to the point where offbrand/fake beys are closer to being TT beys than Hasbro's releases ever will be, there's nothing restricting TT from making the same business decision.

TL;DR: TT isn't your friend, they won't give you a pat on the back for defending them. They're a company, and companies can (and do!) make mistakes and bad marketing decisions.

That's the point that Vtryuga and I are trying to make. There is currently no reason to believe that it is likely that the metal caps will increase teeth wear.  See our previous responses in this thread for an explanation of the science.

The community seems to have se quickly jumped on this "TT bad/lazy/stupid" train with no apparent critical thinking behind this decision. Let's just think about it from a business perspective. TT is not some rinky-dink small company, they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this. Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts? There simply is no incentive for a brand where part quality is a competitive differentiator to make such a non-sensical decision.

You mean, the same community that is mostly populated by children/teens/young adults? The same community that (most likely) has not taken college courses in material science and engineering? That community?

Also, you act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company, when in reality there's been plenty of times when parts have been released and had new molds made b/c the originals had breakage issues. Victory Valkyrie is probably the most memorable, along with things like the Cho-Z awakening beys having poor teeth, the 12 disk doing notable damage to other beys, etc. I also remember a while ago there was a discussion about certain types of plastic being used for layer teeth that wore down really easily? I think it was something about clear plastic being weaker for whatever reason, but that was a while ago and idk where that discussion was.

Anyway, I'd like to quote something you said; "Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts?" 

Also; "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."

Considering Hasbro has already done both of these things, it's not completely unreasonable to believe that TT has the ability to make such a decision. While I understand that Hasbro is historically bad, to the point where offbrand/fake beys are closer to being TT beys than Hasbro's releases ever will be, there's nothing restricting TT from making the same business decision.

TL;DR: TT isn't your friend, they won't give you a pat on the back for defending them. They're a company, and companies can (and do!) make mistakes and bad marketing decisions.

TT has made downgrade evolutions. People will buy it, quality doesn’t matter. As long as it doesn’t fall apart I guess.

---

That's the point that Vtryuga and I are trying to make. There is currently no reason to believe that it is likely that the metal caps will increase teeth wear.  See our previous responses in this thread for an explanation of the science.

The community seems to have se quickly jumped on this "TT bad/lazy/stupid" train with no apparent critical thinking behind this decision. Let's just think about it from a business perspective. TT is not some rinky-dink small company, they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this. Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts? There simply is no incentive for a brand where part quality is a competitive differentiator to make such a non-sensical decision.

You mean, the same community that is mostly populated by children/teens/young adults? The same community that (most likely) has not taken college courses in material science and engineering? That community?

Also, you act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company, when in reality there's been plenty of times when parts have been released and had new molds made b/c the originals had breakage issues. Victory Valkyrie is probably the most memorable, along with things like the Cho-Z awakening beys having poor teeth, the 12 disk doing notable damage to other beys, etc. I also remember a while ago there was a discussion about certain types of plastic being used for layer teeth that wore down really easily? I think it was something about clear plastic being weaker for whatever reason, but that was a while ago and idk where that discussion was.

Anyway, I'd like to quote something you said; "Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts?" 

Also; "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."

Considering Hasbro has already done both of these things, it's not completely unreasonable to believe that TT has the ability to make such a decision. While I understand that Hasbro is historically bad, to the point where offbrand/fake beys are closer to being TT beys than Hasbro's releases ever will be, there's nothing restricting TT from making the same business decision.

TL;DR: TT isn't your friend, they won't give you a pat on the back for defending them. They're a company, and companies can (and do!) make mistakes and bad marketing decisions.

Also they made the king of the court stadium which literally broke beys, do I need to say anymore.

---

That's the point that Vtryuga and I are trying to make. There is currently no reason to believe that it is likely that the metal caps will increase teeth wear.  See our previous responses in this thread for an explanation of the science.

The community seems to have se quickly jumped on this "TT bad/lazy/stupid" train with no apparent critical thinking behind this decision. Let's just think about it from a business perspective. TT is not some rinky-dink small company, they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this. Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts? There simply is no incentive for a brand where part quality is a competitive differentiator to make such a non-sensical decision.

You mean, the same community that is mostly populated by children/teens/young adults? The same community that (most likely) has not taken college courses in material science and engineering? That community?

Also, you act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company, when in reality there's been plenty of times when parts have been released and had new molds made b/c the originals had breakage issues. Victory Valkyrie is probably the most memorable, along with things like the Cho-Z awakening beys having poor teeth, the 12 disk doing notable damage to other beys, etc. I also remember a while ago there was a discussion about certain types of plastic being used for layer teeth that wore down really easily? I think it was something about clear plastic being weaker for whatever reason, but that was a while ago and idk where that discussion was.

Anyway, I'd like to quote something you said; "Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts?" 

Also; "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."

Considering Hasbro has already done both of these things, it's not completely unreasonable to believe that TT has the ability to make such a decision. While I understand that Hasbro is historically bad, to the point where offbrand/fake beys are closer to being TT beys than Hasbro's releases ever will be, there's nothing restricting TT from making the same business decision.

TL;DR: TT isn't your friend, they won't give you a pat on the back for defending them. They're a company, and companies can (and do!) make mistakes and bad marketing decisions.

You quoted: "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."  then presented Hasbro as an argument for why that is wrong.  Completely ignoring the competitive differentiator part.  Hasbro can do these things because their part quality is not a competitive differentiator, it is largely their cost and accessability.  I don't act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company. I literally said "they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this."  Both of these statements are expressing that it is PROBABLE for a company of their size to have the resources to prevent such a drastic mistake, not that they certainly are.  

And sure, TT has made mistakes in the past.  Mistakes that they have learned from and corrected.  I've presented the argument for possible teeth wear from the scientific and business perspectives and both individually have a low probability of reflecting reality.  I have always presented this as a probability not a certainty.

You mean, the same community that is mostly populated by children/teens/young adults? The same community that (most likely) has not taken college courses in material science and engineering? That community?

Also, you act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company, when in reality there's been plenty of times when parts have been released and had new molds made b/c the originals had breakage issues. Victory Valkyrie is probably the most memorable, along with things like the Cho-Z awakening beys having poor teeth, the 12 disk doing notable damage to other beys, etc. I also remember a while ago there was a discussion about certain types of plastic being used for layer teeth that wore down really easily? I think it was something about clear plastic being weaker for whatever reason, but that was a while ago and idk where that discussion was.

Anyway, I'd like to quote something you said; "Do we honestly think that TT is going to knowingly release a whole line of parts that are compatible with yet destroy existing parts?" 

Also; "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."

Considering Hasbro has already done both of these things, it's not completely unreasonable to believe that TT has the ability to make such a decision. While I understand that Hasbro is historically bad, to the point where offbrand/fake beys are closer to being TT beys than Hasbro's releases ever will be, there's nothing restricting TT from making the same business decision.

TL;DR: TT isn't your friend, they won't give you a pat on the back for defending them. They're a company, and companies can (and do!) make mistakes and bad marketing decisions.

You quoted: "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."  then presented Hasbro as an argument for why that is wrong.  Completely ignoring the competitive differentiator part.  Hasbro can do these things because their part quality is not a competitive differentiator, it is largely their cost and accessability.  I don't act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company. I literally said "they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this."  Both of these statements are expressing that it is PROBABLE for a company of their size to have the resources to prevent such a drastic mistake, not that they certainly are.  

And sure, TT has made mistakes in the past.  Mistakes that they have learned from and corrected.  I've presented the argument for possible teeth wear from the scientific and business perspectives and both individually have a low probability of reflecting reality.  I have always presented this as a probability not a certainty.

Just because they know doesn't mean they didn't intend it or would not have released it. TT could be looking for more money and thus are okay with the teeth getting damaged/broken because that means you might purchase another copy. So it could not be a "mistake, as you said, but a decision. We all know the pandemic has affected TT before, just look at burn (from Hyperion burn).

---

Sup Turtle
Leader of the Spryzenlightnings
I make beyblade recolors!  Check out my thread if you want one (or a few) done!
spoiler (click to view)

You quoted: "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."  then presented Hasbro as an argument for why that is wrong.  Completely ignoring the competitive differentiator part.  Hasbro can do these things because their part quality is not a competitive differentiator, it is largely their cost and accessability.  I don't act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company. I literally said "they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this."  Both of these statements are expressing that it is PROBABLE for a company of their size to have the resources to prevent such a drastic mistake, not that they certainly are.  

And sure, TT has made mistakes in the past.  Mistakes that they have learned from and corrected.  I've presented the argument for possible teeth wear from the scientific and business perspectives and both individually have a low probability of reflecting reality.  I have always presented this as a probability not a certainty.

Just because they know doesn't mean they didn't intend it or would not have released it.  TT could be looking for more money and thus are okay with the teeth getting damaged/broken because that means you might purchase another copy.  So it could not be a "mistake, as you said, but a decision.  We all know the pandemic has affected TT before, just look at burn (from Hyperion burn).

Yeah they can and will intentionally make bad decisions. King Of the Court stadium broke beys but it has epic spikes so people will buy it. Slash Valkyrie is a downgrade but it's Valkyrie so people will buy it.

---

You quoted: "There simply is no incentive for a brand, where part quality is a competitive differentiator, to make such a non-sensical decision."  then presented Hasbro as an argument for why that is wrong.  Completely ignoring the competitive differentiator part.  Hasbro can do these things because their part quality is not a competitive differentiator, it is largely their cost and accessability.  I don't act like TT is a perfect, all-knowing company. I literally said "they almost certainly conduct material testing on the materials used in their products. It is probable that if TT released a part line that destroyed existing parts, they would know this."  Both of these statements are expressing that it is PROBABLE for a company of their size to have the resources to prevent such a drastic mistake, not that they certainly are.  

And sure, TT has made mistakes in the past.  Mistakes that they have learned from and corrected.  I've presented the argument for possible teeth wear from the scientific and business perspectives and both individually have a low probability of reflecting reality.  I have always presented this as a probability not a certainty.

Just because they know doesn't mean they didn't intend it or would not have released it.  TT could be looking for more money and thus are okay with the teeth getting damaged/broken because that means you might purchase another copy.  So it could not be a "mistake, as you said, but a decision.  We all know the pandemic has affected TT before, just look at burn (from Hyperion burn).

As I have said repeatedly, I have not denied the POSSIBILITY of them knowlingly releasing a part that destroys others, every argument I have made has been expressed as a probabilty not a certainty.  Yes, it is possible TT knows about the wear issue (which once again, is unlikely according to wear science) and chooses to release it anyways.  I have already explained why I think this is unlikely due to part quality being a competitive differentiator for their brand.

It's because the metal is more resistance to change of shape than plastic. So when the force is acting on the plastic, when the tabs are plastic, plastic and plastic, due to the burst mechanism, pushes the Burst lock/spring down. But when it comes to metal,the metal is pushing the plastic due to different hardness. Because of this, the metal can chip the plastic due to the higher (unhealthy) resistance.

---

We aren't talking about friction here

Yes, obviously metal is more durable than plastic.  But if driver tabs are currently not being deformed at all (which I have not noticed in hundreds of battles on some drivers) that implies that the forces generated were already less than that which is required to deform the tabs.  That means that all of the energy is already being transferred to the teeth.  Even though the metal cap is made of more durable material, it will not exert any more force on the teeth (and I say assuming friction is the same because increasing friction does increase abrasive wear).  If it were the case that the plastic driver caps were being deformed then there would be additional energy transferred to the teeth from the metal cap due to material hardness but that appears not to be the case.

---

Looks like this thread is filled with problems of not enough knowledge on abrasion and wear. 

This concept of wear is taught in college in material science and engineering.

First and foremost plastic on plastic contact causes more friction and thus more abrasion and thus more wear. Even metal on metal causes more amount of friction. 

The basic concept of wear depends on the surfaces in contact. Usually it is observed that if the materials in contact are the same it leads to more friction and thus more wear
( it sounds counter intuitive but is actually true! A simple experiment to check this is by putting a glass plate in contact with a glass cup; if you compare the friction and adhesive forces between moving steel on glass and glass on glass; we can observe more signs of wear when we conducted the experiment with glass on glass. Why you may ask? The answer is that since the two materials are same the adhesive forces between the two objects increases many times more than when two different materials are used)  

Back to the question of Metal Driver caps and Plastic teeth; In theory if everything was kept the same the metal and plastic contact will cause no change in wear( it can be expected to be less due less friction and strain.) Again when using science it is often advised not to follow you intuition as it is more often than not wrong. 

Provided the spring doesnt get stronger the force on teeth will remain same and thus no additional warping will occur, that is, it will be almost the same as inn the case of plastic teeth. (sometimes even lower)

However if the spring is stronger then there is an increase in chance of warping and deformation due to the fact that the Youngs Modulus of Plastic( Measure of the elasticity of the material)  is not really high.  I dont really know what Takara Tomy has advertised apart from the metal on the drivers; if they make the spring stronger only then will it cause problems. 

[font="Titillium Web", sans-serif]@[[ NØBØDY ]][/font][font="Titillium Web", sans-serif] As a caution; Friction is the major role in any form of wear. Ignoring friction will lead to wrong answers. [/font]

If I have made any mistake please feel free to correct me.


Some data to back my claims :
coefficient of friction:

plastic-metal

 Static :0.25...0.4
 Dynamic  :0.1...0.3

plastic-plastic

 Static : 0.3-0.4
 Dynamic : 0.2...0.4

Thanks for the clarification.
And you said it was taught in college.
I'm still 14 so I didn't know about that. Though it's true that spring still makes a diff

---

Probably it won't cause teeth wear then.
Thanks for clarifying Vtryuga and GrinAndBarrett

---

Hi there!

Just because they know doesn't mean they didn't intend it or would not have released it.  TT could be looking for more money and thus are okay with the teeth getting damaged/broken because that means you might purchase another copy.  So it could not be a "mistake, as you said, but a decision.  We all know the pandemic has affected TT before, just look at burn (from Hyperion burn).

As I have said repeatedly, I have not denied the POSSIBILITY of them knowlingly releasing a part that destroys others, every argument I have made has been expressed as a probabilty not a certainty.  Yes, it is possible TT knows about the wear issue (which once again, is unlikely according to wear science) and chooses to release it anyways.  I have already explained why I think this is unlikely due to part quality being a competitive differentiator for their brand.

Yeah it would damage their brand but TT is the type of company that doesn't care about that, for Beyblade at least. A bey breaks here. TT would most certainty know that through testing. But yet, it got released.

---

As I have said repeatedly, I have not denied the POSSIBILITY of them knowlingly releasing a part that destroys others, every argument I have made has been expressed as a probabilty not a certainty.  Yes, it is possible TT knows about the wear issue (which once again, is unlikely according to wear science) and chooses to release it anyways.  I have already explained why I think this is unlikely due to part quality being a competitive differentiator for their brand.

Yeah it would damage their brand but TT is the type of company that doesn't care about that, for Beyblade at least. A bey breaks here. TT would most certainty know that through testing. But yet, it got released.

Didn't you see their scientific research? That bey only broke because it was a plastic-on-plastic collision. If it had slammed into a spike wall made of metal, there'd be less friction and thus it wouldn't have broken! OBVIOUSLY! 🤪

Edit: I'm an idiot, Valkyrie didn't even break when it hit the wall, it broke when it hit Yggdrasil! Clearly this means that we should be using MFB beys VS Plastic beys, right? 😛

Yeah it would damage their brand but TT is the type of company that doesn't care about that, for Beyblade at least. A bey breaks here. TT would most certainty know that through testing. But yet, it got released.

Didn't you see their scientific research? That bey only broke because it was a plastic-on-plastic collision. If it had slammed into a spike wall made of metal, there'd be less friction and thus it wouldn't have broken! OBVIOUSLY! 🤪

Edit: I'm an idiot, Valkyrie didn't even break when it hit the wall, it broke when it hit Yggdrasil! Clearly this means that we should be using MFB beys VS Plastic beys, right? 😛

Lol. Friction does matter, however the most simplest things turn out to be some of the biggest factors in whether it break or no. In this case, spikes hurt the bey, as we can see it was weakened to the point where it broke when hitting Yggdrasil.

---

This is a lot of discussion about something that can be solved with a simple, "We won't know until it's released and tested."

The only thing that matters about this release is if the rare Chassis colour is painted orange/violet instead of red (even though the plastic is red).

Y'know, the inclusion of 2B makes me wonder if they modified the Death Ring to be compatible with both modes of the Chassis or just something they decided to slap on. I mean it's probably the same mold, but if some of the parts from Random Booster Vol.22 taught me anything (namely the purple Ace Base), it's that some of the parts seen before could be tweaked on occasion.

However, it could just be for that particular Random Booster and this could very well just be a normal Death Ring. But man, it would be pretty sweet if they made this specific Death Ring work with both modes on 2B.

---

Eh, I will think of something to put here...

... later ;)

Y'know, the inclusion of 2B makes me wonder if they modified the Death Ring to be compatible with both modes of the Chassis or just something they decided to slap on. I mean it's probably the same mold, but if some of the parts from Random Booster Vol.22 taught me anything (namely the purple Ace Base), it's that some of the parts seen before could be tweaked on occasion.

However, it could just be for that particular Random Booster and this could very well just be a normal Death Ring. But man, it would be pretty sweet if they made this specific Death Ring work with both modes on 2B.

Apart from "technically" being a balance-type ring, I don't see any reason why 2B would be free-spin on Death. When you look at the rings that 2B can spin on, it's mostly things that you would expect it to work with. Curse, Jet, World (obviously), etc.

Y'know, the inclusion of 2B makes me wonder if they modified the Death Ring to be compatible with both modes of the Chassis or just something they decided to slap on. I mean it's probably the same mold, but if some of the parts from Random Booster Vol.22 taught me anything (namely the purple Ace Base), it's that some of the parts seen before could be tweaked on occasion.

However, it could just be for that particular Random Booster and this could very well just be a normal Death Ring. But man, it would be pretty sweet if they made this specific Death Ring work with both modes on 2B.

Apart from "technically" being a balance-type ring, I don't see any reason why 2B would be free-spin on Death. When you look at the rings that 2B can spin on, it's mostly things that you would expect it to work with. Curse, Jet, World (obviously), etc.

I know it's likely not gonna happen, but it's just so odd that 2B was the one they decided to slap on with a Ring that doesn't utilise the Chassis' gimmick instead of something more simple like 1B.

A slightly hilarious scenario I'd imagine is if some consumer who doesn't know anything about the Sparking system, decides to purchase Death Σolomon as their first Sparking bey. They would probably be confused as to why their 2B Chassis is free-spinning until they assemble the whole combo together, where it would become fixed and they would question why it was free-spinning in the first place haha.

To be fair, this is just some random stock combo and TT probably wants to give their consumers a cheaper to get the Σolomon Chip, whilst giving a Chassis that's decently useful and an easier way to get the otherwise hard to obtain Death Ring.

---

Eh, I will think of something to put here...

... later ;)

Yeah it would damage their brand but TT is the type of company that doesn't care about that, for Beyblade at least. A bey breaks here. TT would most certainty know that through testing. But yet, it got released.

Didn't you see their scientific research? That bey only broke because it was a plastic-on-plastic collision. If it had slammed into a spike wall made of metal, there'd be less friction and thus it wouldn't have broken! OBVIOUSLY! 🤪

Edit: I'm an idiot, Valkyrie didn't even break when it hit the wall, it broke when it hit Yggdrasil! Clearly this means that we should be using MFB beys VS Plastic beys, right? 😛

Come on dude I haven't been trying to put you guys down. I just pointed the fact that the automatic inclusion of metal doesn't make it bad. It is merely much more complicated than that. 

Also you can't just apply that logic everywhere.  Mfb beys are much more dense as well as have a compact mass distribution.  (If you were joking then my bad lol) 

I am aware that the inclusion of metal drivers CAN POSE a problem if the spring is a bit tighter than dash drivers and that it really depends on TT's design.  ( there could even be a warning not to use those drivers with some beys.)

Also seeing TTs stupidity in the past it can definitely happen lol. Testing is required is the only solution after all.

Sorry if i was rude in any of the above replies.

Didn't you see their scientific research? That bey only broke because it was a plastic-on-plastic collision. If it had slammed into a spike wall made of metal, there'd be less friction and thus it wouldn't have broken! OBVIOUSLY! 🤪

Edit: I'm an idiot, Valkyrie didn't even break when it hit the wall, it broke when it hit Yggdrasil! Clearly this means that we should be using MFB beys VS Plastic beys, right? 😛

Come on dude I haven't been trying to put you guys down. I just pointed the fact that the automatic inclusion of metal doesn't make it bad. It is merely much more complicated than that. 

Also you can't just apply that logic everywhere.  Mfb beys are much more dense as well as have a compact mass distribution.  (If you were joking then my bad lol) 

I am aware that the inclusion of metal drivers CAN POSE a problem if the spring is a bit tighter than dash drivers and that it really depends on TT's design.  ( there could even be a warning not to use those drivers with some beys.)

Also seeing TTs stupidity in the past it can definitely happen lol. Testing is required is the only solution after all.

sorry if i was rude in any of the above replies.

The battle is already over but seeing as you’re smart and I’m not I have genuine question. What impact would the tension of dash drivers have along with metal since it’s a more dense material, so I would imagine it would have a different outcome.

---

just a quick question: doesnt the burst mechanism work by tabs on the driver inserted into teeth, and force pushing down on the spring, allowing for a diagonal motion because of cenrifugal force(which is why tt tabs are bigger than hasbro tabs)? wouldn't this mean that the less flexible metal would pash against and wear the teeth down more than plastic? if the tabs are plastic, fine, but if not, isn't that kinda a problem? or maybe the burst mechanism works totally differently. not a physics expert, just started learning about Newtons 3 laws and kinematic equations lol

---

emotional DaMAgE