PREHISTORIC BEYBLADE

Some time ago, Kai-V brought to our attention a webpage dedicated to Osamu Mashimo: the inventor of Beyblade. This was the first time many of us had heard of the man, let alone acknowledged him for his contribution. Rightfully, much admiration was then lavished upon his achievements. We owe him much indeed.

...But that is not quite the full story...

In 1986, Mashimo was hired by Takara (then unaffiliated with Tomy) to work on the Transformers toyline. He quickly gained promotions and eventually took control of the "boys-hobby" marketing division. He held this position for twelve years before Takara merged with Tomy in 2006.

The 2006 Takara-Tomy merger actually began in 2005 and took just over a year to complete. This year-long upheaval completely reformed the structure of the company - directly coinciding with the demise of the entire Beyblade franchise. 2005 was also the year the United States patent system was overhauled; as a result, two full years passed before Tomy could fully acquire the rights for all Takara's patents - including Beyblade.

In 2008, less than a year after the patents were properly secured, the Beyblade franchise was revived. The powers at Tomy never wanted to decommission the franchise at all; they essentially bought Takara specifically to take control of it. The plan was always to revive it as soon as possible. In 2013, after the success of the revival, Mashimo was promoted as a Director of Tomy Co. Ltd.

The article from the Mashimo page is an interview posted in preparation for his promotion at Tomy. Publically listed companies (those you can buy shares in) often do this kind of thing when promoting the upper echelons of their organisations - to reassure the shareholders. EDITOR'S NOTE: since writing this post, Mashimo has assumed a more directorial roll at Takara-Tomy and the official article page has been taken down.

As luck would have it, I have recorded the content of the Mashimo article. The original is written from the first-person perspective - his own responses to questions. My English version is not a direct translation; I am simply recounting the story, as he tells it, from my own perspective. My version is not verbatim but it does contain a few minor corrections from the original Kai-V translation. Of course, I do not speak Japanese so please take all this with a grain of salt.

- - -

BEYBLADE LEGEND: AROUND THE WORLD

THE BEGINNING OF THE LEGEND...

Mashimo was originally hired by Takara to work with the Transformers design team as an inventor but was promoted to a marketing position soon after arriving at the company. The work was intense, day-in, day-out, but also immersive and rewarding. He ultimately spent 12 years with Takara's specialised Boys Team, studying marketing for boys.

Franchises Mashimo worked on: Tranformers, Mashin Hero Wataru, Mado King Guranzort, Mashin Hero Wataru 2, Future GPX Cyber Formula, Dragon Quest - Dai's Great Adventure.

In the early 90s, the boys-hobby market for elementary school children had been dominated by Super Nintendo. For this reason, the boys-hobby department of Takara was nearly decommissioned entirely on at least one occasion. Proper boys-hobby marketing only resumed when Mashimo personally took control of the division. This was Mashimo's chance to truly shine.

First, in order to understand the "elementary" demographic, Mashimo spent time working as a toy store clerk. Mashimo felt this was the only way to truly understand the reality of the modern boys-hobby market. The experiment did not yield the results he expected but he was able to properly gauge the market for the first time and determine what boys really wanted.

In response, he established a new project for boys-hobby marketing at Takara: video game toys. Mashimo the inventor had finally become Mashimo the leader.

At the time, the Final Fantasy card game was selling well. Mashimo immediately responded with his own card game based on Fatal Fury but it was not a spectacular success. The entire project was in danger of dissolution in less than a year. It only survived because of the Bomberman toyline: known as B-Daman. The B-Daman toys were the first major success for the new boys-hobby project at Takara.

After the success of B-Daman, Mashimo expanded the Bomberman merchandise range. The first major expansion was a spinning top toyline called SugeGoma. Similar to the concept of yo-yo, the challenge of the game was to perform difficult tricks. Immediately following SugeGoma was a new game called Puyo Puyo Battle Top. Neither SugeGoma nor Battle Top proved to be a hit - but the elements of these two series laid the groundwork for Beyblade.

THE BIRTH OF BEYBLADE!

Even though SugeGoma was not a great success, Mashimo felt the concept of "building" a spinning top would surely be successful in its own right. Why was he attracted to the spinning top concept exactly? There are two reasons:

1. To satisfy the boyish instinct for speed, power and control.
   
2. Fun traditional toys are encouraged by nostalgic parents.
   

Building on these core reasons, Mashimo developed an understanding of the two major factors influencing his spinning top plan: by modernising the traditional spinning top toy and adding an element of "modding" to the game, he became convinced that Beyblade would succeed. His basic idea for Beyblade was as follows:

1. Customisable battle tops.
   
2. A wide range of combinations and strategies (like in card games) to encourage collecting.
   
3. Ability to favour power in one strategy, thereby weakening other possible strategies.
   

Based on these ideas, Mashimo experimented with various different combat abilities. At first he thought the heaviest weight would dominate but eventually designs with jagged edges and spikes began to display their own strengths.

The results were unexpected and lead Mashimo to consider the balance of power more carefully. He devised a system of endurance, attack and defence - based on his previous work with SugeGoma. What truly mattered was the trade-off of weight in the spinning top against the rotation of its axis.

Due to centrifugal force, the weight of the top spinning around its axis creates a smooth, balanced movement. Mashimo found the surface area, shape and weight all contributed to the endurance and performance of his tops. This was exactly the same as in the Takara Mini4WD toyline: more speed meant less control. By slowing down the tops, the force was reduced but control increased.

To take full advantage of this balancing system, Mashimo utilized the deck-building concept of card games popular at that time. He had always wanted to explore this kind of fun and the excitement of making new combinations with Beyblade.

Because the number of combinations would be so complex, new players might find it difficult to fully participate. So Mashimo utilised the "starter set" concept with just a launcher and the parts needed to play. If the players wanted more, they would have to buy "booster packs" with extra pieces. This gave beginners an easy way into the hobby and allowed them to increase their abilities with new purchases as their skills became more advanced over time.

Above all, Mashimo was concerned with the exciting climax of the game as the tops clashed together. It was important that no battle should ever play out like another - each battle should be unique with no predetermined winner. It was clear from the results of Battle Top that children wanted new and unique play every time.

In order to properly verify his hypotheses, Mashimo tested his system with his team members for over a month. It was an incredible amount of work - testing tens of thousands of combinations to cover the entire range of possible components. Mashimo was uncompromisingly devoted to his research. The study was not to discover the strongest combination - but to ensure all parts were balanced. The results of these tests are reflected in the evolving products we see today.

BIG BREAK - RELEASING BEYBLADE TO THE WORLD

The marketing strategy for the resulting Beyblade toyline is well known - using promotional events such as tournaments and tie-ins with a published manga series. But the events and manga did not crown Beyblade with the status of a mega-hit. In its second year, the toyline went into a period stagnation as projected sales began to drop off.

Takara began to question the future of Beyblade growth - they demanded more. Mashimo suggested that, to take advantage of the "elementary" market peak season, they produce an animated television series. This idea was quickly approved by Takara and one week from the first episode airing, Beyblade became a mega-hit. The available stock of Beyblade toys could not provide for the demand.

Even with the manufacturing shortfall, Beyblade's momentum continued unabated: not only in Japan - but across a sales network of sixty countries around the world. These Japanese toys swept the globe in a worldwide phenomenon. Finally Mashimo's passion for his toys had spread around the world.

SUGEGOMA TODAY

The Mashimo article is insightful enough, even if it does not translate very well; but if Beyblade really was based on something called "SugeGoma" then what exactly was this strange ancestor? What did it look like? What exactly did it do? And without further adieu, I present to you the SugeGoma, new in packaging:


SugeGoma is an expansion of Takara's original B-Daman Bomberman merchandise. Observe the Bomberman III artwork on the torso. B-Daman was first released in 1993 but SugeGoma was only released in 1995 to accompany the new video game. The toys are basically giant spinning mech-suits which the Bombermen pilot. The above example is an incarnation of the notorious Black Bomberman. The artwork on the packaging shows the White Bomberman SugeGoma spinning. I personally own the Blue Bomberman version:


A whole series of these spinning top Bombermen were released alongside the new video game in 1995 - at least eight and probably more. Exactly how the merchandise ties into the video game itself is not entirely clear; but the main antagonist Bagular pilots a huge walking mech which resembles the toys in spirit. Gigantic mech suits were becoming more common in B-Daman by 1995 so it is likely there was some design collaboration between Takara and Hudson Soft, who made the video game (and subsequent Beyblade video games).


Amazingly, SugeGoma's direct link to Beyblade is printed on the back of the packaging. In the image below, we see how the SugeGoma was used like a Duncan Whizzer. The arms and legs are removed, then the player holds the top in their palm and drags the rubber tip over a flat surface - the traction spins an internal flywheel. The SugeGoma can then be used to perform tricks, spinning on its various protrusions like the classic Gyrobot from Tomy. Observe how the top can be inverted to spin on its head - the tip itself can be customised. Each SugeGoma comes with different interchangeable spin tips: the very beginnings of the Beyblade programming system.


An article from Ghost Actor Pop's suggests the SugeGoma design originated as a Transformers product - though unrelated to the transformers meta. You can see the inherent likeness. It appears to "transform" into a box of noodles. I cannot confirm if the Transformers version came before or after the B-Daman version (or if it really is a Transformers toy at all) but it is quite common for companies to recycle their proprietary designs in different franchises.


My suspicion is that the B-Daman version came first. The odd "rollers" attached to the SugeGoma's shoulders are actually spin-tips which can be removed and attached to the spinning "head" of the Bomberman - allowing the SugeGoma to spin atop a marble. Marbles are thus an intrinsic part of the SugeGoma game and this intertwines with the wider purpose of B-Daman. Though it might just be coincidence.


Surprisingly, SugeGoma does actually involve battling. Each SugeGoma comes with a small leaflet detailing certain tricks to be performed. Each trick is worth the number of points indicated by the leaflet. In addition, each SugeGoma's packaging comes with a unique trick card; describing an especially difficult and unique trick worth many more points than the stock set. Two opponents play the game by taking turns to declare the trick they will perform. If they pull it off, they get the points. First SugeGoma to an agreed points total wins.


We can see how SugeGoma was the first incarnation of a battling top game from Takara. It involved an indirect form of combat: competing for points. Nonetheless, you can see why Mashimo regards it as a predecessor of his own Beyblade. B-Daman is still the strongest "boys-hobby" franchise at Takara-Tomy today, behind Beyblade. With all the major franchise reboots and Takara-Tomy's recent focus on "post-Beyblade" products, perhaps we will witness the ultimate return of SugeGoma?

- - -

PUYO PUYO

In addition to SugeGoma, Mashimo repeatedly mentions a game called Battle Top. One will agree this is beginning to sound more like the Beyblade we know. But it is not a simple transition from Battle Top to Beyblade - particularly as he first calls the game: Puyo Puyo Battle Top.

Puyo Puyo is a Japanese tile-matching video game originally made by Compile and based on characters from the Madou Monogatari series, from the same developer. It is one of the most successful video games of its genre; particularly in Japan but also selling on many consoles in almost every country supporting them since 1991.


Puyo Puyo literally means "jelly-like" and describes the colourful blob-characters from the game. Part of the game's appeal is its cross-gender market; the characters are cute but not necessarily feminine. In the game, they are quirky and rich with emotion - making them equally likeable among both boys and girls.

This also means they are particularly suited to cross-platform merchandising; they basically became Takara's version of Angry Birds. Mashimo had steered the boys-hobby division of Takara toward video game toys and Puyo Puyo Battle Top was part of that project; to create real-life animated versions of the characters from the games.


Ghost Actor Pop's describes how the tops come in various rich colours, just like the characters of the game, and how the metallic flywheel inside looks particularly spectacular through the translucent plastic casing.


The Puyo Puyo Battle Top design is largely based on the original SugeGoma. It can be used like a Duncan Whizzer - dragging the tip along a flat surface to spin the internal flywheel. But the rubber tip can be removed and modified, necessitating a crucial feature SugeGoma lacked: a ripcord. While not a new concept in itself, this addition allows the tops to spin for much longer than any SugeGoma. In addition, the tops could be deconstructed to change the weight and appearance of the internal flywheel.


By 1998, Battle Top had become a self-marketed game in its own right and largely shed its Puyo Puyo roots - similar to how B-Daman gradually seceded from Bomberman. Accessories for the game could even be bought in booster packs - such as Heavy Weight Power-Up Disks. The packaging below shows how the tops were constructed - with different weight disks and tip options. SugeGoma may have been the instigator of this evolution but the customising system in Battle Top was the immediate predecessor of Beyblade.


Exactly how the game is supposed to have worked remains a mystery. SugeGoma was a trick-based game (like yo-yo, which was hugely popular in Japan at the time) but Battle Top was obviously a physical fighting game: its tops were meant to interact. Hard as I try, I cannot find any published rules for the game. The typical Whizzer design of the tops suggests they were simply thrown at each other by the players; the traditional method of play for that design is strikingly similar to playing with marbles.

- - -

EVOLUTION OF MODERN BEYBLADE

With the customisable tips of SugeGoma and the fighting performance of ripcords in Battle Top, the stage would appear to be set for the invention of Beyblade. But was this really the full story? Was it all just a simple matter of product evolution? Or was there an outside force driving the uptake of new ideas at Takara?

The concept of battling spinning tops is ancient. We all know Beyblade is a misnomer of the Japanese beigoma. But many other companies have explored the concepts of top fighting since the end of World War II - and before the rise of Beyblade in 1999.

Battling Tops was an invention from master toy-designer Eddy Goldfarb - the creator of such classics as the "chattering teeth windup" and games such as Kerplunk and Shark Attack. It was first produced by Ideal (now Mattel) in 1968 during the post-war American plastics boom and featured an arena-bowl surrounded by four launching devices for the tops. This was the first use of complex mechanical launchers in a commercial top-fighting game.


Battling Tops was rereleased, rebranded and passed between a multitude of American toy companies for the next fifty years - and is still available in stores today. The game spawned a great many counter-designs; such as the 1982 Turbo Tops, designed by Lee Spector and released by Wham-O, which makes use of innovative air-powered tops.


In 1987, Takayuki Onoda invented the game that became Spinjas or "Tomy Battlers" which used handheld spring launchers in a visceral setting. The game was produced by Tomy and rereleased in multiple forms throughout the world. By the end of the 80s, a clear trend was emerging in the world of top-fighting: new and visceral top designs driven by innovative and proprietary handheld launchers.


Then in 1993, six years before Beyblade was released, the beigoma concept was reborn. While Mashimo and Takara worked on B-Daman, Tsuyoshi Nonaka and Minoru Sawada invented Spin Fighters for Bandai - the Japanese toy manufacturing giant and arch rival of both Takara and Tomy. The Spin Fighters design was compatible with a range of different franchises and originally featured Bandai's own Power Rangers. As well as reincarnating beigoma, this was also the first example of modern top-fighting arena design (with exit points).


Spin Fighters completely dominated the top fighting market in Japan and abroad for years after their invention. But because they were never invested in a visceral franchise of their own, the Spin Fighters were beholden to the market fluctuations of other properties. By 1997, their popularity had waned and production ceased entirely.

Takara had obviously enjoyed the Spin Fighters' popularity with SugeGoma and Battle Top but they must have known any serious competition would be futile. They timed their response to perfection: immediately following the demise of Spin Fighters, Mashimo began work on Beyblade. The first products of the new franchise were released in 1999 and by 2002 every toy company on the planet wanted a piece of the action.

At the 2002 American International Toy Fair, Bandai responded with their Cyclonians E.G.G Bots - a SugeGoma style gyroscope doll. At the same event, Trendmasters, who owned the rights to the Robot Wars toys, released Rumble Rippers as an addition to their robot fighting toyline Rumble Robots. Later that year, ToyMax Inc. would re-release Spinjas under license, heralding a widespread and decade-long revival of toys from the 80s and 90s.


The Bandai-owned Spin Fighters patent lapsed in 2008, spawning a widespread revival of the design across a multitude of franchise properties. These days, Takara-Tomy itself has adopted the Spin Fighters design (minus the detachable tips) and rebranded them as Battle Wheels for use in their various toylines. Multiple series of Pokemon now grace the pictorial top-faces as well as, in a cruel stroke of irony, Transformers. It appears what goes around, comes around.


I consider it prudent to acknowledge the work of all those other designers who, just like Mashimo, were talented inventors who worked for toy companies and just wanted their games to be played. All of them contributed to a world in which it was possible for Mashimo to create Beyblade and succeed. Without them, there may never have been a market in which Beyblade could thrive.

So this explains the pre-history of Beyblade. An enterprising Japanese inventor got a job at a toy company, decided to make video game toys, had some success with Bomberman merchandise and finally got his chance to invent something pretty original in a market ripe for the plucking. A great many things could have gone wrong along the way: Mashimo might not have joined Takara, he might not have been promoted, the Bomberman video game might have flopped, the merchandising deal might have gone to some other company, the initial Beyblade tests might have failed - any number of random things could have prevented Beyblade from ever being invented.

Fortunately, none of these disastrous events occurred. Over a decade since the original Beyblade toyline was released, we are on the verge of many a grand evolution in the world of battling tops. We have competitive companies vying for market-share, an emerging amateur scene in the form of WarShell and regular innovative creations from local engineers and designers. Beyblade was reinvented after the Takara-Tomy merger but it has arguably become much more than just one single creation. The stage is now set for the greatest battles the game will ever know.

I am always surprised when people assume Takafumi Adachi created the Metal Fight Beyblade franchise. He was hired by TvTokyo to create a "totally new Beyblade galaxy" and by all accounts, he did just that. Adachi created the manga; the fantasy world of Metal Fight Beyblade, its characters, places and mythology. But he didn't design any of the spinning tops, launchers, stadiums or other accessories sold in stores. At best, he was a consultant - which is a noble enough cause in itself.

A recent post from Adachi's blog gives us a brief glimpse into the process. The drawing below is a mockup from Adachi's work. It shows how the artist would leave spaces in the draft for the final toy designs to be inserted later. Observe the geometric "box" reserved for the launcher.


Remember, the Beyblade designs for the manga and television show are usually matte paintings - 3D images traced to fit the style of the media. The Pegasus design in the drawing is only a hand-drawn mockup; not the final version. Mockups like this show the 3D artist how the final render should be orientated before being sent back to Adachi for finishing.

Wait, what 3D artist? If Adachi didn't create the actual Beyblade designs, who did? As always, the key to this mystery lies within the Beyblade patents.

According to the patents, the entire Beyblade revival of 2008 appears to have been orchestrated by just three inventors: Takeaki Maeda, Hisao Nishimoto and Haruhisa Ujita. Further research suggests Maeda produced and managed the entire project while Nishimoto and Ujita were mainly concerned with designing the actual blades, launchers, stadiums and accessories. Nishimoto was later replaced by Kenji Horikoshi.

Before we begin, some admissions: I currently have very little information on the Zero-G Series as its patents are all too recent. Some of the information I present here is taken from Japanese sources and I can't read Japanese: so if something I've written sounds odd, it may just be a mistranslation on my part. I've done my best but please, correct me.




Maeda is the business and marketing mastermind behind the entire Beyblade revival. He worked on the original Beyblade series under Osamu Mashimo (2002) at Takara. As producer and manager of the Beyblade revival marketing team, he was largely responsible for the 4 Layer, 5 Layer and 4D Series systems of play. By extension, he also played a role designing the launchers and stadiums for each series. In recent years, Maeda has been occupied by the Transformers revival; this is largely the reason Beyblade has seen such a long hiatus since 2012. Maeda is basically the "revival specialist" at Takara-Tomy.

Though listed as "Takeaki" in the patents, he appears to currently use the name "Noriaki" instead. His position at Takara-Tomy is listed under Noriaki Maeda. An interview from Issue #167 of Figure King magazine also writes his name as Noriaki Maeda (前田典秋) with emphasis on the Nori (典) so it is likely there is some story behind this I just don't understand. It may just be a nickname. He might have been married. They may even be two different people - but I consider that very unlikely.




Nishimoto personally designed all the original 4 Layer Series blades and a number of the better-performing 5 Layer Series blades: Burn, Flame, Galaxy. He was eventually transferred to work on the Transformers revival (where he arguably received more recognition for his work) and was replaced by Kenji Horikoshi. Generally considered the "reliable workhorse" for in-house conceptual design and innovation, often playing a role in the first releases of new franchises and reboots.




Ujita originally worked for Tomy and is now the Senior Assistant Manager (presumably under Maeda) of the Product Development Team for boys (2014) at Takara-Tomy. He personally designed a number of 5 Layer Series blades and set the precedent for 4D Series design with Big Bang Pegasis and L-Drago Destroy. He also designed many of the launchers and accessories of the 4 Layer and 5 Layer Series. Ujita personally invented the BB-10 stadium. Considered a "natural leader" and fun-loving personality, he uses the name UJHaru on the WBBA blog (2012).




Horikoshi was Assistant Manager of the Boys Marketing Division at Takara (2003) and known for his work with B-Daman and Choro-Q; for which he won multiple awards. He survived the 2005-06 Takara-Tomy merger to work on modular combat systems such as Battle Deck. He was brought into the Beyblade team to develop stadiums, blades, launchers and accessories for the final stages of the 5 Layer Series (particularly the Maximum Series) and throughout the 4D Series. He currently works with B-Daman, represents the WBBA and writes for the Takara-Tomy online blog under the name Beynuma.

Horikoshi's induction in the Beyblade design team would alter the evolutionary course of Beyblade for years to come. Next week, we will examine the ramifications of his work and how he completely revolutionised the Beyblade metagame. For now, it is enough to know he is the resident "new guy" after the original three - despite his long and successful career with Takara.



Some of the revival inventors (particularly Nishimoto) are listed in patents which draw on content from Pre-Metal Fight Beyblade patents. This makes it appear as if they were involved in the original Beyblade systems as well - though with the exception of Maeda I am almost certain this is not true. As far as I can tell, all the non-marketing revival inventors are new to the team as of the Metal Fight System.

Additionally, almost all of these inventors (including the original Beyblade inventors) have backgrounds in chemical or electronic engineering. Some are genuinely rocket scientists. I have chosen not to allude to this in their mini-biographies but it helps to understand that Beyblades are not the only thing these guys are known for inventing.

The following list is a selection I have compiled from the patent listings at Google. This should basically be the go-to library on the WBO for anyone wanting to find Beyblade patents or information about their inventors - the unsung heroes of Beyblade.

• 4 Layer Construction Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20090253344 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/285,877
  Publication date: Oct 8, 2009
  Filing date: Oct 15, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 4, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Hisao Nishimoto, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-00 Pegasis: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD610209 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,764
  Publication date: Feb 16, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-02 Bull: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD615134 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,766
  Publication date: May 4, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-04 Leone: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD615602 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,758
  Publication date: May 11, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-11 Wolf: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD608842 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,762
  Publication date: Jan 26, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-17 Beylauncher: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20090253345 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/285,880
  Publication date: Oct 8, 2009
  Filing date: Oct 15, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 4, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Hisao Nishimoto, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-15 Launcher Grip: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD616043 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,760
  Publication date: May 18, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Jun 9, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-16 Beypointer: (Click to View)

  Publication number USD605536 S1
  Publication type Grant
  Application number US 29/309,763
  Publication date Dec 8, 2009
  Filing date Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Beypointer Attachment Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD610211 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,767
  Publication date: Feb 16, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Bey Ta Stadium (?): (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20090253343 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/285,873
  Publication date: Oct 8, 2009
  Filing date: Oct 15, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Teruo Kitamura, Haruhisa Ujita, Nobuo Kobayashi, Hiroaki Fujimaki
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.

• 5 Layer Construction Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number US20110256795 A1
  Publication type Application
  Application number US 12/895,196
  Publication date Oct 20, 2011
  Filing date Sep 30, 2010
  Priority date Apr 19, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Left-Spin "Spin Steal" Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110256796 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/895,241
  Publication date: Oct 20, 2011
  Filing date: Sep 30, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 20, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Unreleased (?) Modular Coat-Sharp Tip: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110171876 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/805,627
  Publication date: Jul 14, 2011
  Filing date: Aug 10, 2010
  Priority date: Jan 12, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-29 Dark Wolf: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629847 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/311,776
  Publication date: Dec 28, 2010
  Filing date: Jun 17, 2009
  Priority date: Dec 18, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-30 Rock Leone: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD614245 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/311,777
  Publication date: Apr 20, 2010
  Filing date: Jun 17, 2009
  Priority date: Dec 18, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-34 Light Launcher: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD610210 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,765
  Publication date: Feb 16, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy, Company, Ltd.
• BB-35 Flame Sagittario: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629051 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/311,821
  Publication date: Dec 14, 2010
  Filing date: Jul 2, 2009
  Priority date: Jan 9, 2009
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-47 Earth Aquila: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629468 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,188
  Publication date: Dec 21, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 20, 2009
  Priority date: Apr 20, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-50 "Quake" M145Q: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110006479 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/659,660
  Publication date: Jan 13, 2011
  Filing date: Mar 16, 2010
  Priority date: Jul 10, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-59 Burn Phoenix: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629469 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,646
  Publication date: Dec 21, 2010
  Filing date: Mar 26, 2010
  Priority date: Sep 28, 2009
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-69 Poison Serpent: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629848 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,645
  Publication date: Dec 28, 2010
  Filing date: Mar 26, 2010
  Priority date: Sep 29, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-70 Galaxy Pegasis: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD639869 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,838
  Publication date: Jun 14, 2011
  Filing date: Jun 21, 2010
  Priority date: Dec 26, 2009
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-71 Ray Unicorno: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD660918 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,364
  Publication date: May 29, 2012
  Filing date: Jan 14, 2011
  Priority date: Jul 14, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-80 Beylauncher LR: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110177750 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/926,184
  Publication date: Jul 21, 2011
  Filing date: Oct 29, 2010
  Priority date: Jan 15, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-87 Light Launcher 2: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD639349 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/376,310
  Publication date: Jun 7, 2011
  Filing date: Oct 5, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 5, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Light Launcher 2 Ripcord: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD637661 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/376,306
  Publication date: May 10, 2011
  Filing date: Oct 5, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 15, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-91 Ray Gill: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD639348 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,730
  Publication date: Jun 7, 2011
  Filing date: Apr 26, 2010
  Priority date: Nov 26, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-94 Tornado Beystadium: (Click to View)

  Publication number: WO2011158940 A1 (no download available)
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: PCT/JP2011/063941
  Publication date: Dec 22, 2011
  Filing date: Jun 17, 2011
  Priority date: Jun 18, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi, Takeaki Maeda
  Applicant: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• [i (Click to View)

  BB-95 Flame Byxis:]
  Publication number: USD646729 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,353
  Publication date: Oct 11, 2011
  Filing date: Jan 14, 2011
  Priority date: Jul 14, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-99 Hell Kerbecs: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD665859 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,548
  Publication date: Aug 21, 2012
  Filing date: Apr 12, 2011
  Priority date: Oct 12, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-102 Screw Capricorne: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD667894 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,354
  Publication date: Sep 25, 2012
  Filing date: Jan 14, 2011
  Priority date: Jul 14, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-103 Snipe Launcher: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110306269 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 13/184,145
  Publication date: Dec 15, 2011
  Filing date: Jul 15, 2011
  Priority date: Jun 10, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Kenji Horikoshi, Takeaki Maeda
• BB-104 Basalt Horogium: (Click to View)

  Publication number USD665858 S1
  Publication type Grant
  Application number US 29/371,513
  Publication date Aug 21, 2012
  Filing date Mar 31, 2011
  Priority date Oct 1, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.

• 4D Construction Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110256796 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/895,241
  Publication date: Oct 20, 2011
  Filing date: Sep 30, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 20, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-105 Big Bang Pegasis: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD666252 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/396,583
  Publication date: Aug 28, 2012
  Filing date: Jul 1, 2011
  Priority date: Jan 6, 2011
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-108 L-Drago Destroy: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD666253 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/397,515
  Publication date: Aug 28, 2012
  Filing date: Jul 18, 2011
  Priority date: Jan 18, 2011
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-113 Scythe Kronos: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD662556 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/397,516
  Publication date: Jun 26, 2012
  Filing date: Jul 18, 2011
  Priority date: Jan 18, 2011
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.

Patents differ depending on which country they are registered in. I have tried to include only the US patents where possible - they are easier to read and usually have more pictures. In the United States, patents come in two major forms: applications and grants. I have tried to include only the grants because those are the final and complete versions.

Obviously the names of the patents do not correspond to the product they describe. For licensing reasons, Takara-Tomy does not include trademarks in its patents. This makes Beyblade patents very difficult to find. I have tried to include product codes where I can - even though they are often out-of-sequence with their invention date. If anyone can help me rename the patents marked with a (?) it would be much appreciated.

Bear in mind the global patent system is a slow-moving behemoth. The information in a patent is often out-of-date. As an example, the original Beyblade patents were not granted until 2006, while more recent patents were not granted until 2007 - long after their production run had ceased entirely and Takara had merged with Tomy. Likewise, patents are often updated or modified for legal reasons; many Japanese patents were re-registered in the United States after 2005 due to changes in the terms granted to successful applicants. In these cases, I have tried to include only the most recent versions.

Despite their vicarious nature, the patents give us an unprecedented perspective of the design processes behind the franchise and the masterful inventors tasked with its revival. We often forget there are real people responsible for creating the everyday items we enjoy in our lives - or the blades we battle against in every tournament. This meagre list of acknowledgements serves as a tribute to those brilliant people. If the inventors are reading this: thank you for all your hard work.

Previously on Formula Bei, we have discovered the creator of Beyblade and the products which preceded his greatest franchise. We have introduced the Beyblade revivalists, their inventions and the crucial role they played in further developing one of the greatest games of its kind. Yet, it has been some time since our last Beyblade product release - so this week, I will recount how I discovered one of the greatest Beyblade engineers of our time; and how his work is shaping the evolution of blading.

- - -

I saw my first live robot fight in 2010 as part of the Robowars Nationals in Brisbane. At the time, I was working on a robot fighting boardgame and had been testing my ideas with housemates and work colleagues. We had made good progress toward the ultimate goal: miniature robot combat. So it was only natural I investigated this curious live-action event with some trepidation - as if I somehow knew it would reform my appreciation of the subject.



The contest was divided in two sections, according to weight. The heavier featherweight robots fought in a huge polycarbonate box. They were the main attraction. But I noticed lengthy gaps in the program between fights - the engineers spent more time fixing damage in the pit than fighting in the arena. When the fight finally began, it would either last just a few seconds - with an instant kill - or until the maximum time limit - with neither robot receiving fatal blows. In either case, the audience's attention quickly faded.

The lighter antweight robots fought in a smaller polycarbonate box mounted on a table. These were especially diminutive creatures; imbuing an air of wicked cutesiness. But I particularly noticed how much more actual combat they performed during the fight. Rather than simple knockouts or ineffectual stalemates, these robots genuinely fought to the death. Even the lesser machines inflicted damage on a scale comparable to the strongest featherweights. Each encounter was a genuine and dramatic struggle.

It seemed clear that if I were to investigate robot fighting myself, the smaller classes would be a better choice. They were much more effective even though their circuitry seemed simpler. Many of the antweights on display used simple construction methods and materials found around the home. In addition, the little guys just seemed to exude the feeling of a better game - one in which people of all skills could participate and enjoy without too much to lose. So I tried building my own.

To my dismay, this was the most monumentally comprehensive failure of my life. At complete odds with my initial impressions, the learning curve was so steep the very idea began to feel pointless. It became obvious the entire hobby was just for people who already knew about machines and electronics - not people wanting to learn from scratch.


In practice, the real problem was how learning without explicit instruction led to mistakes. Mistakes meant a high expenditure of materials and eventually this began to feel like a waste. I am not the right-minded person for wasting anything, let alone time, money and materials. Those are my favourite things!

Even if I had discovered a design I could actually build, my living conditions at the time really didn't suit the hobby at all. I had a room in a share house with almost no space for anything creative, let alone manufacturing a combat robot. I didn't know anyone in the field who might teach me or supply me with materials. It was a lonely prospect.

The largest part of the waste in robot-building appeared to be electrical malfunctions. The electrics were perhaps the hardest part of the design to get right - and when they failed, whole sections of the construction would be wasted. Piece by piece, it became clear that electrics were the first and greatest barrier to entry in the sport. That needed to change.


I began working with spring motors, building autonomous robots based on the classic shufflebot design; perhaps a more truthful representation of traditional robotics than the actual combat robots themselves. Inspired by the Chico windups, this was a much easier endeavour than I had imagined. Physically programming behaviours into these little wire robots was not a chore - it was fun in itself. Best of all, they were made of simple wire: cheap, abundant, easy to manipulate and available in a wide variety of different gauges and materials to vary strength, weight and elasticity.


But there was a disappointing hitch. The most entertaining antweight battles all lasted between 60 and 90 seconds. My windup robots could not operate for any more than 45 seconds; much less in an actual fight. The concept of spring-powered robots seemed promising - but the spring motors themselves were not strong enough to inflict any real damage or operate for the length of a good battle.

Beylon Wrote:By a coincidence I didn't recognise until much later in my research, I had taken my spring motors from the modular Battle Deck series designed by Kenji Horikoshi of Takara-Tomy. I searched the entire world for more powerful motors in the same weight range - to no avail. Takara-Tomy, it seemed, produced the best miniature spring motors on Earth.

But the year was 2011 and by some alignment of the cosmos, Beyblade had just reached the shelves of Australian stores. I had completely missed the original Beyblade craze as a teenager and had no real idea what these things were. When I discovered what they were capable of, it was like seeing my first robot fight all over again.

Thus began two years of gyroscopic study. It was obvious these spinning tops were the solution to my challenge; I had simply never considered them as a type of motor before. All around me in my everyday life, I found abundant materials - anything from hardware washers to decorative plate finishings; things widely available for very little cost. With plentiful materials, my efforts primarily concerned methods of construction. I explored various ways of matching pieces together - devising locking systems to prevent them exploding under the extreme forces of rotation.


But my study gradually spiralled into a quest for (what I came to recognise as) magic items; constantly detouring through hardware stores and bargain basements, searching and hoping for pieces that would just "magically" fit my designs. I was kidding myself. In the wake of the 4D Series, I finally concluded that Takara-Tomy really did make the best spinning top components in the world.

I created many fighting machines based on the Beyblade system. My work continued in this vein for years. It was clear that building a miniature mechanical robot should not be about gambling on magic items; it should be a logical process focussed on collecting data and deliberately redesigning to suit. Beyblade only facilitated this within the limits of its own unique system and I felt as though something were missing; as if I were permanently subscribed to powers beyond my control. I needed a new avenue of inquiry.





I first saw Lowen93's work in the Homemade Beyblades thread on the WBO. He was producing weight disks for vintage plastic designs by drilling, cutting and filing stainless steel sheet. It was a curious method which attempted to address a major issue in blade-making: forming complex shapes.


This was the first instance I had seen of someone tackling this problem in a replicable way; that is, without using a lathe. I have always been suspicious of lathing because it so wholly relies upon the crafting skill of the operator to yield a quality result. Lowen93's method could theoretically be achieved using just a drilling jig and file. It was a more efficient solution.

Some time later, Lowen93 showcased his CAD design work in preparation for a batch of laser-cutting. He had obviously learnt from the drawbacks of his drilling method and decided to embrace more complex technology via outsource. This was an "alarm bells" moment for me. I had previously investigated a similar method using CNC milling instead of lasers but had given up on my endeavour because of the huge cost involved. Lowen93 claimed to have overcome this problem with an alternative technology.


In the subsequent months, Lowen93 expanded his range of designs, committed to various test batches and demonstrated practically that his production process was not only valid but also efficient.

Having struggled to build blades from renewable components for years, this was an exciting time for me. It was obvious Lowen93 had developed the skills by which to accomplish his goal - metal reincarnations of plastic Beyblades - but would he be altruistic with his skills? Would he sell his designs to others? Maybe even take commissions? Having witnessed the rise of this young talent, my biggest fear was that he might suddenly "disappear" before seeing the process through.

Then came the opening of his Silver Tops store. He began to list components for sale and at a price significantly lower than I had been able to manage through my own methods. Most crucial of all, he was accepting custom requests. I needed to know if this was real. I constructed a 3D model (of a design I thought would be particularly difficult to produce) and sent a brief to Lowen93 via the forum messaging system. This is the brief I sent:


I explained that I was not sure of the necessary measurements and that I wanted him to make my design "cooler" than it seemed on paper. Within the week, he returned with a CAD version of my design. I was beyond impressed. My professional life in game design often had me dealing with outsource work and in all my years doing that job, I never saw anything to the degree of quality and commitment Lowen93 displayed in that first submission.


Nonetheless, I was becoming accustomed to what he could achieve and began to request changes to his returned submission. He responded to the suggestions without complaint and after three or four back-and-forth submissions, I was happy. In fact, I was very happy:


Lowen93 had been working on other designs for other clients during our back-and-forth and had been updating his showcase and store with his newest works. By this time, I was becoming a serious fan of his work. I had originally commissioned him because of my never-satisfied drive for perfection in blade-design but now I just wanted a few examples for "collecting" purposes.

Just as we were finalising the order, I surprised him with a much larger request. Two full metal plastic Beyblades, one which he had in stock (Dranzer F) and another he would have to design from scratch (Driger G) with a bearing core in the latter. It was a huge and unexpected back-flip from me but he took up the request without complaint.

The original order had taken just under a month to fully flesh-out and complete from design to production. Likewise, the two additions would add another month - the first being from stock. Including postage from the United Kingdom to Australia, the entire order took about two and a half months. If I had my time again, I'd just pay the extra postage and do each order one at a time. The wait is just too nerve-racking.

Finally, the order arrived. It was packaged in multiple layers of bubble wrap - though it probably didn't need to be, spare to protect anyone handling the package:


Apart from their amazing appearance, the first thing I noticed about these was how sharp they were. Picking them up, I could feel the cutting edges on my skin. The blades are not "dangerous" to hold but I would think twice about picking them up mid-spin without gloves for protection.

Beylon Wrote:I became convinced that Beyblade was the way forward when I lost a fingernail to a spinning Poison Serpent. This was the first time a miniature mechanical fighting machine had ever inflicted real pain upon me. It was exactly the kind of power I needed. Since writing this, I have damaged my thumb with the Silver Tops Driger G - drawing blood. Morbid as it may seem, this is precisely the kind of power I always wanted from my robots: real power!

(Click to View)

The second thing I noticed was how precise the work was. All the pieces fit together snugly. Often when producing something in layers, the layers themselves can be a little out of place; not so with the Lowen93 designs. All the layers fit together great; even the rollers spin with a surprising degree of freedom.


My original design stipulated the rollers should be made from 3mm ball bearing cases. Lowen93 explained why they should be solid steel instead - they simply needed something stronger. In this case, stronger also meant cheaper. Not only was Lowen93 able to produce my design; he made the design itself better.


The final "BC01 JAWS" design is a testament to the power of Lowen93's professional crafting method. He was able to explore new features in this commission and executed them with flare. Even now he continues to expand his methods, having recently branched into CNC milling with his own personal mill. With quality results like these, I hope to work with him on many more innovative projects in the future - blades and beyond.


But the design itself stands for more than just the craftsmanship of one man. It is a physical testament to the future of custom blade design. It is proof that WarShell has begun. For all my years of trying to make this work, Jaws demonstrates how miniature mechanical robot combat is a real phenomenon - and it is happening right now. It shows that waste is not necessary in building combat machines; the whole process can be executed cleanly, cheaply and efficiently.

Children are always taught to accept reality; but as we grow into adults, we begin to recognise the value of those who help us realise our dreams. Lowen93 is one of those people. Watching robots smash each other to pieces four years ago, I never thought I would be outsourcing similar work to the United Kingdom - it just shows how opportunities so often arise in unexpected places.

Each iteration of Beyblade has established greater standards of fighting performance: stronger, faster, heavier machines. As technology advances, it is only natural that performance increases to match it. Which is why I consider the "Limited Format" such an interesting phenomenon in the world of Beyblade. We have discussed the makers of Beyblade and the rise of custom design - so this week, we shall examine how the Beyblade community itself has taken control of the game and what that means for the immediate future of gyroscopic combat.

th!nk Wrote:For a lot of us, [the Limited Format] was almost a direct reaction to the power creep that began with Hell Kerbecs and Basalt Horogium, which made [many] older parts useless.

When we refer to power creep, we are talking about basic product marketing. It works by building a competitive metagame then releasing a product which dominates the competition. Participants must purchase the new product if they wish to remain competitive. Once enough money is made from the dominant product, a new product is released which dominates the last... And so on in perpetuity.

In economics, this kind of power creep is better known as a Ponzi scheme. It essentially involves an ever-inflating product value which eventually reaches a limit, bursts and instantly loses all its accumulated wealth. By releasing evermore powerful products, each new release becomes more valuable than the last - based on the depreciating value of those previous products. There's a little more to it than that... But you get the idea. In economics, running a Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent crime.

But the laws for protecting monetary investments do not apply in the world of game design. In the absence of any governing body to protect consumers against such brutal marketing schemes, what can we do to avoid falling prey ourselves? Well, the truth is we are already doing it. The above quote from th!nk shows what happens when the willing masses are thrust into a doomed cycle of Ponzi consumerism: they revolt.


In the specific case of the WBO Limited Format, the most influential participants in the community have determined specific rules to curb power creep. To the wider forum, this is an innocent enough gesture toward building a better game. Personally I feel the format holds a lot of promise. But the affects of Limited run far deeper than that...

What I most admire is how the Limited Format holds the game designers responsible for their work. If a particular design is not good enough, if it does not fit neatly into the existing game, it is excluded entirely. In theory, this limits the designer's ability to make money from advantageous meta-mongering. If a designer abuses the system, their designs are simply banned.

Perhaps inadvertently then, the Limited Format insists manufacturers only endorse products of a certain quality - to benefit the game as a whole - rather than overpowered individual designs intended to make money out of hype. I do not believe anyone truly hates the Standard or Zero-G formats - but I do support the accountability of Limited.

What many participants did not understand at the time Limited was announced, is that almost all of the original power creep designs were engineered by just one designer: Kenji Horikoshi. This guy began the cycle which would eventually result in the heavyweight synchrome designs of Zero-G.


Horikoshi originally worked for Takara. He specialised in wheeled vehicles and electronics, winning multiple awards for his Choro-Q designs. His time during the Takara-Tomy merger years (2005-06-07) was spent working on B-Daman designs. By mid-2008, he had single-handedly engineered the award-winning Battle Deck game for Takara-Tomy; fusing Choro-Q with collectable combat toys. With his work on Battle Deck complete, he was free to join the Beyblade design team.

• Battle Deck System
  
• Battle Deck Construction Frame
  
• Battle Deck Interactive Track Piece
  

Horikoshi's 2010 arrival in Beyblade appears to coincide with the departure of veteran designer Hisao Nishimoto, who designed such blades as Burn, Flame and Galaxy. Nishimoto left the team specifically to work on the Transformers revival and it is likely Horikoshi was his replacement. This change also coincided with the creation of a new and revamped WBBA blog - in which Horikoshi regularly features under the name Beynuma (2012) and where he showcases his more recent Zero-G and B-Daman work.

Horikoshi's first major work in Beyblade was the BB94 Tornado BeyStadium - an obvious choice for someone with a background in electronics. He also designed the innovative five-point Tornado Herculeo; which was initially a limited-edition release with the stadium. He would later design the BB-120 Ultimate BeyTa Stadium and corresponding Proto Nemesis blade.

This was only the beginning. Over the next year, he produced Forbidden Ionis and followed up with designs for the Maximum Series - Hell, Screw and Basalt - before moving on to 4D designs such as Scythe. Obviously his trademark was in extremes. It was Horikoshi who introduced power creep in the 5 Layer Series - engineering three of the four competitive Maximum Series blades.


Whether this power creep was his own intention or whether he was under orders is not entirely clear. One might reasonably suspect his purpose was to smooth the public transition to 4D design. The fact remains: he engineered Hell and Basalt while his partner, Haruhisa Ujita, produced the impressive but entirely acceptable 230 track component.

What is clear from his previous work is that "balance" in game design has never been Horikoshi's strongest asset. His Battle Deck game, in which wind-up cars attack each other head-long, is characteristically flawed in this way. The car with the lowest plough always wins - so Takara-Tomy originally released the highest plough first, the lowest last, before the game "burst" and fell into obscurity.


To be entirely fair, the Battle Deck game itself was well constructed and innovative for its purpose. Factors beyond Horikoshi's pay grade forced the project to be cancelled before his second-generation designs could be manufactured. The second-generation was engineered in partnership with Takeaki Maeda (of Beyblade revival fame) and was set to be the 4D of Battle Deck. Below is an example which was never produced: a slightly modified chassis with a curious spring-loaded flipping ram which triggers on contact with an opponent.


As cool as it looks, it still does not solve the basic "balance" flaw of the game. It is just another bigger gun. Perhaps this is why the second-generation was never released? Being lost to the design backlog at Takara-Tomy, we may never know the truth for certain. Whatever the case, Horikoshi's work on Battle Deck was a noble enough effort - even if it played poorly and failed commercially.

Most would agree his early efforts in Beyblade were equally noble: he made some really performance-driven designs. What differs is his reception. Battle Deck may have passed away unnoticed but Beyblade had amassed a worldwide network of loyal fans. On the one hand, Horikoshi's blades were unquestionably powerful - the glorious peak of gyroscopic blade technology at the time. On the other, his designs made large sections of the existing and beloved metagame redundant.

It may only have been a short string of creeping designs before 4D was fully established - but the effect was real, far reaching and irreversible. Any of Horikoshi's Maximum Series blades were capable of beating all Nishimoto's previous work on the same series.

For the longest time, the WBO had stipulated only "official" Beyblade components could be used in competition. This remains a legitimate rule to prevent fans building their own crazy designs and ruining the metagame. But with Horikoshi, we saw a string of power creep designs which, for many players, essentially performed that same function: degrading the metagame. In a sense, the WBO had freely promoted Beyblade for the longest time only to be betrayed on a basic design level by Horikoshi's power creep.

If the WBO Limited Format really was the culmination of a drawn-out revolt against power creep in the metgame, then it could also be seen as a direct protest against Horikoshi himself: the man who started it all. Horikoshi's intention was to create the most powerful blades ever, a large section of the community unknowingly shirked him for it, the Limited Format is now in full swing and there's no going back!

Sure, this all happened years ago now - and it sounds melodramatic when I write it that way - but it demonstrates how fragile the metagame can be at any point in time. Which raises what I consider to be the most important question concerning the future of the sport: is Beyblade a game or a hobby?


From a design perspective, these are two very different concepts. A "game" is a complete system with artificial rules obstructing artificial goals. When we "ban" certain Beyblade components, we are creating "rules" that say we must not use those components. These rules are "artificial" because there is no physical reason for us to obey them. The WBO cannot physically stop us using whatever parts we like - it can only penalise us within its own system.

A hobby is different in that its "system" exists in a state of perpetual construction. It is never complete. When a hobby involves artificial rules obstructing artificial goals, it is assumed the participants will form their own system by which to achieve those goals. If our goal is to own the last blade spinning, anything we can do to achieve this goal is reasonable.

A "game" has set-in-stone rules
while a "hobby" is expandable at the whim of the players.

As an example, Chess is a "game" because its system of rules and goals is complete and absolute - both players are equally bound, every move they make has been made before and will probably be made again. By contrast, Warhammer is a "hobby" because it allows players to choose the rules they desire; thereby creating their own system. Players build their own armies whichever way they like, execute their own strategies and achieve goals by the most efficient means available to them. Is Beyblade more like Chess or Warhammer?


Supporters of the Limited format just want a balanced game. For them, the Beyblade line of products is merely a vehicle for their own enjoyment. They are the proverbial Chess camp. They like to fully understand the intricate capabilities of every single component in the game. They desire universal balance above all else. Others, who unceasingly buy every new power creep design, approach Beyblade more like a hobby. For them, owning and using the best blades available is enjoyable in itself, regardless of the metagame; a very "Warhammer" way of thinking.


This reveals a deep schism in the communal perception of Beyblade. When we subscribe to the marketing whims of uncontrollable commercial entities, but we also want a fair and balanced game, we are setting ourselves up with a series of double-standards. We must only use "official components" but we also decide what it means to be "official" in the first place. This is a very dangerous road for the longevity of any game - it leaves the rules open to contradiction.

The WBO addresses this danger in the Limited Format with a "changeable" ban list which constantly evolves over time. This may be a very workable system at present but whether it is enough to take the format into the future remains to be seen. Sure the ban list is rightly driven by community input... But it still relies on just a few select individuals to write the actual list itself.



WarShell takes a very different approach; more like a hobby. It recognises that the Horikoshi designs exist now - and they cannot be undone. Rather than banning overpowered designs, it provides a fair and balanced vehicle by which to upgrade older designs which may have lost their zeal.


Uniformly, older Beyblade designs become less useful as newer designs gain weight. But what if the older designs gained weight too? WarShell allows players to achieve better results with their existing blades by modifying older designs - upgrading them. Custom upgrades allow older designs to remain useful without limiting innovations in gyroscopic blade technology. While upgrades are only a small part of the WarShell universe, simple allowances like these help the "hobby" to grow beyond the metagame trappings of "official" Beyblade designs.


In this way, WarShell is essentially the opposite solution to the same problem addressed by the Limited Format. Where Limited selects only the most balanced components of the official product line, WarShell opens the doors to custom technology and thereby overcomes the limits of that same static product line. Both methods, above all, provide fair and equal competition.

WarShell is still a work in progress - unendorsed by the WBO - and whether the new formula is enough to sustain an evolving metagame also remains to be seen. But even now, as we examined last week, we are witnessing a trend toward custom and crafted blade design. Technologies like 3D printing, laser cutting and CNC milling can be accessed online by amateur designers with no workshops of their own - and for the approximate cost of a new Beyblade at release. This new era of custom designs are not just one-off creations: they are a whole new product-line in their own right.


As the original Beyblade demographic grows older, acquires more worldly skills and better appreciates the value of design and technology, this trend may evolve into something much deeper and more powerful than we can currently comprehend. As that happens, WarShell will be there to provide a fair and equal environment for innovative design and competition.

Over the coming weeks, Formula Bei will examine various facets of the WarShell universe. We will cover construction guidelines, weight limits, performance qualifiers, popular building methods, materials, physical programming, the process of design, customs houses, artists, engineers, history and most importantly: the combat itself.

There's been a few rumours lately concerning the return of Beyblade. Beyond the rerelease of the Legends line from Hasbro, the theory is that ongoing official Beyblade events in Japan are paving the way toward a resurgence in the franchise - as Asia slowly climbs out of its toy-sales mire. The sales situation in Japan today is a historical repeat of the early 90s market crash brought about by the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Video games killed toys then - and they're doing it again today.

We have previously witnessed Beyblade inventor Osamu Mashimo describe how the "boys" division of Takara was very nearly decommissioned in the face of such a downturn. Companies like Takara and Bandai ultimately survived the toy-market collapse by feeding on the popularity of those very products responsible for destroying the market in the first place: video games. This survival strategy has not changed. All over the world today, just as it was twenty years ago, toys are buying into larger brand identities - in turn driven by the very forces which are killing the market: movies and video games.


Although the Hexbug brand from Innovation First International has gone relatively unnoticed by the combat robotics world at large, the fact remains they have held a monopoly on miniature digital robot combat for years - with their Nano Bridge Battle set and later Warriors line, followed by their more recent Battle Spiders - based on Jamie Mantzel's Attacknid. Now, as the toy market of the world crumbles under a downturn of popularity, we see the Nano and Warriors toys adopting the Transformers brand in an attempt to stimulate sales. At long last, a direct link between the fighting robots of the Hexbug line and the makers of Beyblade - albeit mediated through Hasbro.


The situation today simply demonstrates how toys must evolve to survive. Without product evolution, toys die. The exact reasons for a toy line becoming stagnant are numerous and complex - but one fact above all is obviously beyond disrepute: when toys stop being made, entire toy lines die. If a toy line is to survive, it must continue producing toys! If this means adopting a more popular brand name - or delving into the cruel world of power creep - then so be it.

Beylon Wrote:It's a mystery why Transformers were relegated to Spin Fighters clones instead of being incorporated directly into the Hasbro Beyblade line. Now we see that creepy and unrelated "Cyborg" spin-off emerging... And for what? I mean, what were the Stealth Battlers if not the perfect Transformers platform? Somebody missed the train on that one!

Beyblade itself has proven particularly resilient to product-death following its final release. Years have passed - yet a community of dedicated followers still carry the flag of loyalty. This resilience is perhaps due in part to the game's complex modularity - where building new combinations "simulates" the release of new toys to satisfy players. Such engrained features of a toy line enable players to form their own metagame and rules by which to play: such as the celebrated WBO Limited Format.

Much can be learned from the success of Beyblade - yet the franchise is approaching the brink at an alarming rate. If Beyblade does not produce something new soon, even with its built-in modular resilience, then total product extinction looms large in the same sad tradition of its competitors. I hope the rumours are true - that something new is indeed coming - but only time will tell for sure. Until it does, we are on our own.





Beylon: Mega Brands is known for their "alternative" versions of popular toys - how did the company end up with Battle Strikers?

Bey Brad: That call was made long before I joined the company, but I can guess - Beyblade was a smash hit, but the series was currently on hiatus. It seemed like a great time to fill that position in the marketplace while also introducing a novel gameplay concept - magnetic control.

Beylon: What exactly was your roll at Mega Brands and what duties did you perform as part of the Battle Strikers team?

Bey Brad: I was originally flown out there just for a day - there was no expectation of receiving a formal job offer. I worked as a consultant on Series 2 and Metal XS - primarily the latter - in addition to trying to build the type of community for Battle Strikers like I did for Beyblade with the WBO.

What they probably didn't expect is that the WBO went so smoothly exactly because I wasn't beholden to anyone else. I could run a contest without consulting a legal department. I could change the rules whenever I felt the game could benefit from it. The WBO is certainly a grassroots effort, but I think that's what made it so compelling. It wasn't possible to replicate that within corporate confines.

Beylon: How did you land this job? Who called who?

Bey Brad: They started posting on the WBO to promote their product and get feedback. We were decidedly unwelcoming towards them! But the marketing coordinator messaged me and told me the team really wanted my feedback, so I went out there and gave it to them.

Beylon: You joined the team after Series 1 was released - at the time you arrived, what was the general design direction the team was heading in?

Bey Brad: What shocked me when I arrived was that the team there had very little knowledge of Beyblade. Even though MFB was on the market in Japan then, they weren't regularly importing releases and studying them. This was particularly strange since it was basically a preview to what Hasbro would release within a year or two's time. That kind of competitive foresight is basically unprecedented - I was blown away at how they failed to take advantage of it.

During my initial consultation meeting, the system of Metal XS and Series 2 was only just beginning to take shape. MEGA Brands works on an incredibly tight development schedule compared to most toy companies. Development of a new product in a line could begin as little as six months before it went to market. Everything was always down to the wire. Because of this, maybe some designs lacked the attention to detail that they deserved.


Beylon: At its core, Battle Strikers addresses the issue of "control" in battling spinning top games - generally speaking, how many Beyblade players suffered from (or complained of) a lack of control?

Bey Brad: I don't think that many players complained about this. It was always a "wouldn't it be nice?" kind of thing. After all, in the anime - how most kids got into Beyblade - we see that the Bladers can control their Beyblades. There were always the Remote Control Beyblades, but I don't think anyone ever really liked those.

The magnetic control was a seriously innovative solution to what was not a problem, but a lacking gameplay element. It's easily the most compelling part of the toyline.

Beylon: The Battle Strikers team were mindful of being "too much like Beyblade" - do you feel this desire to be considered "apart" from Beyblade may actually have hurt the franchise in the marketplace?

Bey Brad: I don't think so. Keep in mind that when Battle Strikers launched, Beyblade was not on the market anywhere outside Asia. Any desire to be different from Beyblade was a desire to create something uniquely our own, and to deliver a great experience both from a gameplay perspective and from a role-playing perspective - you know, the really ornate and personality-filled Launchers and Strikers.

What proved to be difficult is that the team at Takara-Tomy really nailed a lot of the basics. They had a long time to iterate with Beyblade, and as a result they were able to distil the top's structure to its bare essentials. The Metal Fight Beyblade construction system is solid. I don't think the team at MEGA was able to create something better than that.

Beylon: A common practice among fans was to use Strikers in Beyblade stadiums - what makes Battle Strikers stadiums unique and why do you think so many fans migrated back to their Beyblade stadium roots?

Bey Brad: Was it really that common? That's a little disappointing!

The Knockout Arena is actually really dear to me, since I probably had more design input on this product than any other in the Battle Strikers roster. So many Beyblade stadiums are totally awful, even Japanese ones. Competitive play is still stuck to BB-10. I figured that I'd only get one shot at producing a good arena for Battle Strikers, so I wanted it done right.

I'm super satisfied with that arena, actually. We adjusted the exit height and width so many times for optimal knock-out play. If you watch some of my Battle Strikers videos, you'll see that knock-out tactics were really effective when played skilfully. The ridges that push the Strikers towards the centre of the arena were also my idea.

To get back to the original question, Battle Strikers is a much more mentally and physically demanding game than Beyblade. It's almost like sparring with spinning tops! If you don't feel like exerting that much effort, the Beyblade stadiums take care of the battling for you. It's easy to see the lack of control in Beyblade as a flaw, but it's not; it's a totally different gameplay dynamic. It makes the game way more addictive and accessible. There's a really nice feedback loop that doesn't transfer over to a game where you have so much control.

Beylon: As the franchise developed, metal weapons and ripcords were introduced - what influenced the adoption of these new features?

Bey Brad: With regards to metal Weapons, that was really the obvious path to take. Heavy Metal System had already come and gone, and Metal Fight Beyblade was ready to storm North America - metal was the way to go. It's so much more satisfying and, frankly, cooler.

As for the rip cords, it was just a cost issue. The Turbo Launcher worked well because you needed to keep your primary hand free to control the Striker. Integrating the Controller and Launcher together was a nice solution to a tough problem - how can we sell a Starter Set for less?

Beylon: Many fans consider Series 2 a speed-bump between Series 1 and Metal XS - what specific factors influenced the team's decision to push Series 2 in the lead-up to Metal XS?

Bey Brad: Cost, mostly. There was a meaningful cost difference between making and selling a plastic top versus making and selling a metal one. I wanted Series 2 cancelled, but there was no way it was going to happen. I don't think anyone has fond thoughts about Series 2, within or outside the company. Some of the cooler Series 2 designs were cancelled, their designs being used as a basis for some great Metal XS designs (Fangrir being one of them).

Beylon: The visceral designs of the Strikers far surpassed anything Beyblade offered at the time - how did "marketing" affect the visual design of the Strikers and how did you balance that "design" factor against performance?

Bey Brad: Products were developed pretty independently of marketing. There was a "brand manager" that dictated the overall feel of the brand, and the designers would do their thing designing the tops. We would start with the motif for each top, and the gameplay elements would arise organically.

Beylon: You were personally involved with the development of some of these Strikers - which Strikers bear your personal mark of influence and in what way?

Bey Brad: I came up with all of the motifs past the initial release of Metal XS, which was already largely finalized by the time I joined the MEGA team full time. So the three teams, and the motif of each top within those teams, and their names - these were all developed by me, though some of my cooler ideas ended up being reigned back. (There was originally a Bible-themed Tournament Set containing Leviathan Vs. Behemoth. It was a long time before someone caught onto what I was trying to do and ended up nixing it.)

I mostly provided soft guidance and play-testing and balancing to the designers, rather than dictating design mandates themselves. Fangrir's upper attack slopes and Masumai's overall attack ability were a big point for me.

One thing that's worth remembering about the first wave of Metal XS is that so many of the designs are two-dimensional; they look deep, but they're just hollow rings of metal with an ornate design on the top, and smooth sides. This led to some of the original wave of tops being accidentally overpowered, such as Black Widow. (That kind of worked out though, since it ended up being very rare.)


Beylon: Do you perceive a link between the brief popularity of Metal XS and the significant shift toward "art" based blade designs in Beyblade Zero-G?

Bey Brad: While I would love to think so, that seems pretty unlikely. I think they had their own thing going on over there.

Beylon: Battle Strikers Series 1 was released pretty much worldwide - why wasn't Series 2 and Metal XS released across a similar range of countries?

Bey Brad: Overstuffed channel, basically. Series 1 sold decently well, but the expectations for it were just insane - every store ordered more than they could sell, and we ended up eating a lot of money on it. Series 1 basically killed Battle Strikers, no matter how good any future release would be. Many stores didn't pick up anything after Series 1, or made such small orders that it was impossible to build any momentum.

Beylon: What factor most influenced the decline in sales across the franchise after Series 1?

Bey Brad: I think the lack of a TV show hurt us a lot. Most strong toy lines these days are built on the back of some kind of narrative, a world that kids can thrust themselves into. We worked briefly on a web-manga project that would have been written by me, but the writing was on the wall before we could get it off the ground. I still have the test sketches from artists.

Other than that, lack of product availability and a failure to build goodwill and momentum with the Series 1 release.

Beylon: Are there any Battle Strikers products which remain unreleased?

Bey Brad: Of course, like with any cancelled toy line, there is a lot of killer stuff that never saw the light of day. I designed a lot of new parts that we never had time to develop.

Beylon: Battle Strikers gear can still be bought online and particularly from Europe and Asia - are you aware of any remaining hotspots of activity for the sport?

Bey Brad: I think it's pretty much dead everywhere now.

Beylon: You were a key consultant for many of the design decisions in the team - if you had a magical opportunity to reinvent the franchise and call all the shots yourself, what would you change?

Bey Brad: I'm not sure I would ever develop another spinning top toy. The Beyblade team at Takara-Tomy does a stellar job. That said, there's one key element that MEGA forsook to launch the line that haunted it until it died: gameplay.

Series 1 is a truly, truly awful product. The control aspect was amazing, of course, but the only way to get any decent battles out of it were to use the absolute heaviest parts, because otherwise they would just sputter out almost immediately. In addition, there was basically one good combination in the whole game, but all of the parts were pretty undifferentiated.

They started with an idea, but an idea isn't enough. You have to nail the fundamentals. You have to know what kind of story you want to tell. And I don't mean like a story as in a TV show or whatever, but the gameplay story. What emotions should the player feel? What kind of thoughts should they have? You are writing the story for every player of your game. They didn't care about that story. And it's not out of negligence - that team really wanted to create a great toy. But they didn't understand what that meant.

Before doing anything, I would decide what kind of gameplay story I want to tell. If it's just Beyblade with a flat arena and magnets, then there's no point.

Some other things:

• Organized play and online community would be baked into the concept from the start.
  
• Try to solve the issue of two player's hands interfering during control. I'm not sure there's an easy solution to this.
  
• Pick a better name. Battle Strikers: Turbo Tops is exactly the kind of name you'd expect from a North American company ripping off a Japanese toy.
  

Beylon: Do you feel there is any possibility Battle Strikers will return in the future? Perhaps under a different guise?

Bey Brad: I don't know. I think MEGA feels pretty burned by the pretty poor results of the project. I'm not sure that's a door they'd want to open again. If they do, they should call me before they start developing the toy.

Beylon: Final comments for all us Battle Strikers fans?

Bey Brad: I'd like to thank everyone who saw the potential for what we were creating, even if we weren't able to fully realize our vision.

Beylon: Thanks for speaking with us Bey Brad. Your insights are a valuable glimpse into the harsh but exciting world of combat toy development.




So there you have it, folks. If the story of Battle Strikers tells us anything, it is that product-death is a very real phenomenon. Exactly why products pass away forever cannot always be easily explained. But where toys are concerned, one fact is clear: without new toys, toy lines die. If some philanthropist had purchased the entire Battle Strikers brand and manufactured the toys out of the "kindness of his own heart" then the game would still be alive today, regardless of its doomed beginnings.

To me, this reiterates the importance of customs designers like Lowen93, username2130 and TheMechanicPapa. These guys are the real philanthropists; they are producing toys where the big companies have failed and abandoned us. In turn, this reiterates to me the importance of the entire WarShell project: to facilitate product-evolution beyond the factory - to immortalise the game itself. WarShell is the key to a new era of blading and gyroscopic technology constructed around safe and fair competition. Through WarShell, we take control of our game without spiralling out of control entirely.

In February 1840, Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The prince was a scientifically-minded and forward-thinking naturalist with a penchant for machines and industry. Albert arranged the first Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations and built the incredible Crystal Palace to accommodate it.


The show attracted new technologies from around the world; including new cost-effective tin-plate windup toy designs from Germany. The Victorian period is today renowned for its mindboggling pre-electrical machines and gadgets. Technology-driven windup toys really gained momentum on the back of trade-shows like the Great Exhibition.

Spring-power really came to dominate the global toy-market in the late 1800s. This was the quintessential era of the windup toy. All windup technology we use today is still based on designs from this historic period.

Then came the widespread adoption of electricity and invention of the battery. By the 1920s, the windup toy market had collapsed. Very few manufacturers continued to invest in these products as the Great Depression set in. The rationing system of World War II practically erased the last of the Western market.

Ironically, this period of downturn is often considered the "Golden Age" of windup toys as the few remaining American manufacturers, fuelled by widespread anti-German sentiment, competed for dominance in a tiny but overstuffed market. It was during this time that the "Knockout Champs" windup was released by the Louis Marx & Company.


Wind up the mechanism and watch as the boxers circle each other, frantically throwing punches. At a moment determined randomly by the internal clockwork, one of the boxers is thrown back and a bell sounds to signal a knock-out. The toy was, at best, an automation. It had no rules and no need for players. The "random" gimmick merely allowed spectators to "bet" on the outcome. Nonetheless, the Champs set was extremely popular and sold more units than any other windup toy in history. It was the crowning moment of windup design and helped establish a whole new genre: fighting games.



When the Empire of Japan surrendered to the Allies at the conclusion of World War II, a list of brutal embargos were imposed upon its industry to prevent aggressive expansion ever happening again. The idea, according to the Marshall Plan, was to protect Japan's neighbours by limiting its ability to manufacture and produce - essentially binding its economy. Certain industries were simply forbidden - while others were debilitated by arbitrary restrictions.

In contrast, certain "minor" industries were actually encouraged by the Allies. This was an effort to establish Japan as a minor economy. The country was thereby given great assistance from the Allied nations in establishing its own tin-toy and windup manufacturing industry. In the western world, the market for such toys was considered insignificant and it was felt that allowing the crippled nation this small courtesy would not infringe upon the markets of other nations.

But they were wrong. Fuelled by the resurgent Pachinko industry and powerful American importers, Japan had completely dominated the global toy market within a decade. The affect on American manufacturers was so extreme that major changes were needed to survive. It was the 1950s and just one technological innovation would change the direction of toys forever...



Plastic allowed American manufacturers to create toys they'd always considered too expensive to produce in tin or bakelite. In fact, plastic toys were so cheap to produce, an avalanche of new games and toys poured out of the United States and destroyed even the most popular classic Japanese tin toys. Among the avalanche was the earnest successor to the Champs system: Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots.


This staple of the genre was the first commercial example of its kind. Players finally had complete control over the fight itself - every punch and dodge. For sixty years after Rock'Em Sock'Em first hit the shelves, the American fighting game genre would promote hands-on play.


Of all the games to embrace and drive new technologies, Rock'Em Sock'Em is the greatest. Its forms are many and varied, from the original boxing match to hand-helds and flying-laser clones. There is a big-budget movie (Real Steel) with its own toylines and even a hokey live-action reality TV show (Robot Combat League).

Rock'Em Sock'Em is the victorious posterboy of American toys and every second-rate hack manufacturer from even the poorest countries wants a slice of the action. But the tide of battle is changing. In the next few chapters, we'll be looking at the Asian influence on modern fighting games and how a technology-driven modern world is exploring new forms of gaming combat.





So far, we have examined how the Western arm of the fighting game genre has always embraced hands-on gameplay - giving players direct control over every punch. But the traditional Eastern philosophy is quite different. While the American Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots typifies a hands-on combat approach, the Japanese Beyblade system demonstrates a much more complex reliance on autonomous combat; the blades do the fighting for us.

In the next few chapters, will discuss how the "autonomous" design of Beyblades came to be and how it has impacted on the modern evolution of fighting games.





Everybody knows that Beyblade evolved from the traditional Japanese Beigoma. But what exactly is this ancient game? What circumstances led to its enduring popularity and why did it have such a lasting impact on the evolution of Asian fighting games? The basic principles of Beigoma are as follows:

• The word "beigoma" refers to both the game itself and the actual spinning tops used in the game.
  
  
• Two players meet at an arena - usually a barrel or bucket with a heavy cloth or rubber sheet stretched over it, forming a soft bowl.
  
  
• The players each have one beigoma - a weighted spinning top wrapped in a coiled string.
  
  
• The players each throw their beigoma into the arena, keeping hold of the string and "whipping" it back to spin the top as it lands in the bowl.
  
  
• The spinning beigoma then do battle autonomously; the last one spinning or the last one remaining in the arena is the winner.
  

Beigoma are unique among fighting tops (of which there are many other kinds) for their miniature size - fitting neatly in the palm. They also lack the "stem" of more traditional tops - first because their launching method does not require one and second because the players do not interfere with the tops during the game (unlike say, a juggler, is want to do during his performance).


The first modern revival of this miniature flat-top format in Asia came in the guise of Spin Fighters but Spinjas also exhibited the classic "throw into the arena" design as well. As we have discussed previously on Formula Bei, these two games were monumental in shaping the future of the sport. By simple extension, all the modern Asian formats are uniformly based on the beigoma concept.





So what exactly does "beigoma" mean anyway? At its most basic, "beigoma" is a Japanese word meaning: shell spinning top. This is the common use which everyone in Japan and abroad understands today.

The original beigoma from ancient Japan (circa 1200AD) were made from common seashells found all around the country and collectively known as "baigai." The shell would be filed down, packed with sand, clay or lead and wrapped in a string. By throwing the shell and letting the string quickly unwind mid-air, the shell would become a spinning top. People of all castes would spin these tops in special arenas to see which one would crack first.


So a beigoma is a shell spinning top - but despite this solid definition, the modern interpretation is not actually a literal translation of the word itself. It is a complicated situation... But not incomprehensible:

There are three major scripts which define the Japanese language: hiragana, katakana and kanji. The simplest is hirigana; much like any other language, a series of sounds and symbols constructed and placed together to form meaning. Then we have katakana; a special script used when foreign words are brought into Japanese from the West. For example; "raisu" in katakana means "rice" in English.

Finally we have kanji; the most complex script (based on traditional Chinese) with meaning conveyed by the sounds and symbols themselves as well as their constructions together as a language. Kanji is a strange creature and while it directly determines most of the meanings found in the simpler hirigana, kanji itself conveys meaning on multiple levels depending on its context.

In kanji, "beigoma" is literally written as "baikoma." The difference in spelling in "beigoma" is widely adopted simply because of how the kanji version is verbally pronounced (as well as "k" often becoming "g" in Japanese compound-words) and therefore how it is written in hirigana. Baikoma is actually a compound word where "bai" means "shell" and "koma" means "spinning top." But it is even more complex than that...


Three kanji make up the word: bai (貝), ko (独) and ma (楽). Bai (貝)is the simplest and literally means: seashell. You can tell just be looking at it, right? Ko (独) is a less obvious character which literally means: alone. Ma (楽) is a complex character which literally means: at ease. So a baikoma is a shell, alone and at ease.

The meaning is less cryptic when applied practically. Being "alone" and "at ease" really means: being confident while alone. In English, this is best represented by being independent. Koma really just means: independent. By extension of English synonyms, it can also mean: individual or autonomous. The word "koma" is additionally used to describe individual playing pieces in Japanese games - such as Shogun - because each piece moves independently of every other. The word is also used in many similar applications; such as to describe each individual "frame" in a comic strip. In the context of beigoma, this means a "baikoma" is a shell that operates independently - literally an autonomous shell.

I agree this meaning is not immediately obvious. Even such reputable companies as Sonokong have misinterpreted the intention of the word. The Japanese word "bei" has multiple meanings in kanji, one of the most prolific of which is "plate;" as derived from "bei," (米) meaning rice and thereby, "a plate for serving rice". Sonokong’s spinning top game Top Plate is a translation of the hiragana "beigoma" - which in Kanji literally reads: spinning top plate or a plate for spinning tops on. You can see how they arrived at their conclusion and it is entirely appropriate for their specific game (which does involve a special plate) even if it is technically a misinterpretation.






So why did the ancient Japanese bladers use shells specifically? Other kinds of tops were just as popular at the time - why not use a heavier wooden top? Well, there are two crucial factors which led to the widespread adoption of shells in the ancient beigoma metagame:

The first is that the shells were cheap. Baigai are very common shellfish found throughout Japan even today. As food, they are mostly served in a dish where the shells themselves are included as a garnish. Obviously no one eats the shells (nor did they ever) so for the expanse of Japanese history, even the lowest castes of society have had access to these baigai.


The "cheap" explanation continues in that the shells are easily worked by hand. Rubbing the shell against a rock is enough to grind flat the "open" end; balancing the shell's weight on its "pointy" end. This means the shells require almost no manufacturing at all - and what little they do require can be performed by the owner at essentially no cost.

The second major factor is intrinsically linked to this manufacturing accessibility. The shell alone is not enough to make a top - it must be weighed down with ballast. Filling the shell with sand is enough to weigh it down sufficiently for combat. The opening is then sealed with wax or clay to stop the contents spilling out during the spin.


But there is far more to this process than just filling a shell with sand. With a little creativity, a shell can be filled at intervals with different materials. Alternating lead-shot, rock or iron-slag with sand ballast can change the behaviour of the shell as it spins by modifying the internal weight distribution. By experimenting with filling methods, the ancient Japanese bladers were able to influence the autonomous behaviour of their beigoma. This process of modifying autonomous behaviour by changing the physical characteristics of the subject is today known as:





The physical characteristics of a Beyblade will determine how it operates in battle; how it responds to its opponent, what manoeuvres it will perform and when. As we change the physical characteristics of a Beyblade, so too do we change its behaviour. By observing these behaviours carefully, we can physically modify the blade to behave however we want. This is the essence of physical programming.


If you ever attend a live performance - perhaps an orchestral symphony - you will likely be provided with a "program." The program lists all of the planned events in chronological order - perhaps the names of the songs and the order in which they will be played. When the performance begins, you will be able to track the progress of the entire presentation by referencing the program. Funnily enough, the person who devises this program is known as a "programmer" and the very act of putting together the program is known as "programming."

You will have heard this term before in relation to "computer programming." This is because the job of a computer programmer is to write programs specifically for a computer - just the same way the programmer writes programs for a live performance. Similarly, a computer program is basically a list of events. The computer, when running the program, starts at the beginning of the list; it does whatever the first item on the list tells it to do before moving on to the next item. This continues until the computer has attended to every listed item in the program.

At the conclusion of a live performance - the end of the program - the proceedings usually cease and everyone goes home. But a computer program often loops many times before ceasing - starting from the beginning again once it reaches the end of the program. What makes computer programs special is how they can be told (by items in the program list) to change parts of the program further down the list. In this way, computer programs can be designed to rewrite themselves depending on the program provided by the programmer.

Programming is intrinsically linked to the concept of autonomous behaviour. When we write a program for a live performance, we expect the performers on stage will stick to the program without constantly needing to be told what to do - the program tells them what to do next. So long as they stick to the program, we can safely leave them to operate on their own (autonomously) and even sit back and watch the performance ourselves. Furthermore, if we have access to the program, we can even predict what the performers will do next.

Just as a live music performance starts and ends, so do Beyblade battles start and end. When we construct Beyblades, we determine (through their design) what will happen in the fight. If we want our blade to zoom around the arena, we program it with a rubber-flat tip. If we want it to spin stationary, we use a sharp tip. Each tip determines (at least in part) the events the blade will be involved in during the fight. In that sense, the tips themselves are programs in their own right - combining them with other components in a blade simply makes the program more complex.

Remember that computer programs can rewrite themselves if necessary: so too can Beyblades. In a Beyblade battle, the circumstances can change depending on the opponent. We may have no idea what "program" our opponent will be using; so we need to program our own blade to cope with as many input-variations as possible. Consider the final-drive component (capable of changing its behaviour halfway through a battle) or tips like rubber-defence-flat and coat-sharp which will change their behaviour only when an opposing blade interferes with their usual programming.

As bladers, fully half our job is to create "programs" which can counter other programs. From an abstract game-design point of view, there is no difference between building a Beyblade and writing the computer program for a character in Street-Fighter. They just look different.





In recent centuries, cast-iron has replaced shells as the natural material of beigoma and the ability to program individual tops has all but disappeared. Riding on the economic reforms of the Meiji Period, people simply had more money to afford dedicated top designs. They could purchase multiple iron beigoma, each cast in different heights, with different patterns, edges, tips, etc. and simply choose the one they wanted from their collection, depending on their opponent.


This type of "solid-state programming" is reflected in the modern gaming forms of Spinjas and Spin Fighters but the creators of Beyblade obviously understood the physical programming principle; when they revived beigoma as Beyblade, the also revived the ability to program individual blades. This above all else has secured Beyblade's place in the pantheon of successful fighting games.

So perhaps the basic idea of Beyblade is not so new - even the ancient Japanese had the system figured out. But for all the hundreds of years that have passed since the programmable baigai, what beigoma have we seen which can outperform Beyblade? To be the greatest incarnation of a sport in its thousand-year history is nothing to be ashamed of at all.





The West has always embraced hands-on combat in their fighting games and nowhere is this more evident than in the brutal sport of Robot Combat. First exhibited in Britain and later spreading to America and the rest of the world, these full-metal fights now attract robot-builders from all over the globe. Much is at stake; for combat robots truly fight one another to the death - until their opponent is torn to pieces or smashed into oblivion.




But despite their namesake, the "robots" in these fights are all remote controlled. Their actions are directly determined by real-time inputs from their drivers, standing safely outside the fighting arena. There is a long-standing East vs West argument among robot builders that Robot Combat is just high-tech sword-fighting. I propose more specifically; Robot Combat is just high-tech Rock'Em Sock'Em and merely the most recent incarnation of this classic Western game.

Meanwhile, a sizable portion of the global combat robotics community is more interested in the tribulations of Robot Sumo. As its name suggests, this sport originated in Japan and involves two robotic sumo wrestlers attempting to push each other out of a circle. Unlike Robot Combat, these sumobots are not specifically designed to destroy each other. Also unlike Robot Combat, sumobots are necessarily autonomous - with no "driver" or remote control of any kind. These are true robots in the Asian tradition of autonomous combat. Frankly, I see them merely as high-tech beigoma.


Though many supporters of Robot Combat consider Robot Sumo a "lesser" form of the sport, most Western robot combat leagues will make allowances for builders who wish to enter autonomous robots in a standard fight. Admittedly, this is very rare. Yet in recent times we have witnessed the first ever victory of an autonomous combat robot over a human-driven robot (Autonomous-B vs Squirrel) so perhaps we are entering a new age where both Eastern and Western combat philosophies can coexist? With the rise of cross-culture success stories like Battroborg and the autonomous Hexbug Nano, I'm feeling pretty positive about it.





So how does all this translate into WarShell? Unsurprisingly, the fighting machines used in WarShell are known specifically as "shells" and if you have just read this entire article, it will be obvious why. But it is worth explaining why we do not just call them "beys" or "blades" like the normal spinning tops of Beyblade.


We all know the terms "bey" and "blade" are just abbreviations of the Beyblade trademark. Either abbreviation can be used to describe the spinning tops of that game, created by Takara-Tomy. But WarShell is a more complex beast. The shells which lend their name to the format's title will often contain two or more actual blades - or split into two separate machines entirely - and can even support weapons which do not actually use blades in the traditional sense. Most crucially, there is no definition which requires the "shells" of WarShell to be spinning tops at all; they might run on wheels or stabilizers with spring motors. The fact that most shells are indeed spinning tops is merely testament to the power of that design - as we will now examine:


Since the very beginning of combat robotics, the notorious "spinner" design has divided sentiment throughout the Robot Combat community. For context; a spinner is any robot whose primary weapon operates on the "flywheel" principle. The weapon (usually a thick steel-toothed disk or doubled-headed hammer) spins at an alarming rate, gaining momentum with each revolution. When it finally collides with a target, all that accumulated energy is released instantly - with an impact far greater than the robot's motors would otherwise be capable of.


Half the Robot Combat world wants spinners banned altogether. The other half uses them exclusively. Non-lethal forms of the sport such as Robot Sumo are often used as a refuge from spinners. To a lesser degree, the emerging Sportsman Class essentially prevents spinners from entering. Whichever form one subscribes to, there is no denying the basic, brutal power of the spinner.

Foremost among spinners is the "melty-brain" design - pioneered by Adam Savage and Jamie Heineman in the veteran Blendo robot. Melty-brain fuses the cumulative motive power of a spinning top with the control of a wheeled vehicle. The entire robot spins - so the entire robot is a weapon. Its greatest weakness is good-old-fashioned recoil. Flinging the entire machine around is often enough to turn its delicate insides to jelly.


Even the most novice bladers understand the dangers of recoil. Beyblade itself is a perfect demonstration of this. While melty-brain spinners only fight in a bullet-proof polycarbonate box and must be smashed completely before they are disabled - similar to outspinning - the much smaller spinning tops of Beyblade can be fully knocked out of the arena itself. For this reason, gyroscopic blades have generally responded to recoil issues more efficiently than combat robots. This is reflected in the designs of the blades themselves and in the arenas they use for fighting.

Nonetheless, it speaks volumes that the most powerful combat robots are essentially huge, semi-controllable spinning tops. The only good reason to build any other design would be specifically to counter the spinners. Such is the case with "wedges" - which maximise the recoil of the attacker:


The problem facing designers in WarShell is how to create such counters within the WarShell Construction Guidelines - keeping the shell under 75 grams and without using electricity or explosives. Innovations of this kind differentiate a "shell" from a "blade" or "bey". So the term "shell" describes something like a blade or bey but which is not necessarily a spinning top.





I feel the ancient and true interpretation of "beigoma" as an "autonomous shell" is a particularly apt description of the fighting machines used in WarShell. Consider the universal concept of the shell: you might imagine a bony, hard and often dangerous husk protecting a more delicate life-force within. In the case of WarShell, the shells are indeed very hard and dangerous and they protect the "force" which their owners have mechanically transferred into them.

Remember that the energy used to operate a shell (or even just a Beyblade) always comes directly from its owner, in whatever form he endeavours to produce; if YOU pull the ripcord, it's YOUR energy being transferred to the blade. Each shell literally contains and protects the very energy of its owner.

Just as Beyblade has retained the use of the word "bei" and just as we often call them "beys," so too do I consider the English form an appropriate substitute. "Bey" literally means "shell" and I think it is appropriate to pay a certain homage to this most influential of Japanese games. After all, it was the Japanese beigoma which first made programmable and autonomous fighting machines available to even the poorest echelons of humanity. Without beigoma, we would not have any of the modern blading formats and WarShell might never have been written.

One of Beyblade's greatest achievements is the bringing together of new and old players. Because its system is so comprehensible, and because blading skill is essentially based on practice over time, two bladers of completely different experience-levels can still compete together in fair and equal competition. Even if the less-experienced player loses, he will learn - and be better prepared to win next time. Very few games (if any) facilitate this cross-generational gameplay as well as Beyblade.

So how does this translate with WarShell? Among so many new and evolving shell designs - and countless variations of arena types - how can we be expected to research and practice? How will we know which parts are best to use against others? What security do we have that our own shell designs will not be terrible in an actual fight?

The answer we have already covered in a previous episode of Formula Bei: physical programming. Remember, physical programming is where we modify the behaviour of something by changing its physical characteristics. Beyblade is such a successful product because it allows us to program our blades effortlessly; changing the performance tip of a Beyblade is a perfect example of physical programming.

The same principles of programming a Beyblade also apply to building custom shells in WarShell. What makes WarShell so exciting is that these principles can be applied in completely new and innovative ways. This does not mean, however, that the principles themselves will be different. Aerodynamics, weight distribution, recoil - all apply equally to any custom shell you can imagine. Just as they do in Beyblade.

In WarShell, we may not be able to judge the performance of our opponent based on previous experience. In most cases, we will be fighting the opposing shell design for the first time. But we can use the basic principles of physical programming to quickly analyse the opposing design and judge for ourselves how he will perform with surprising accuracy.

Over the next few episodes, Formula Bei will be examining the basic principles of physical programming and ways of applying them in your designs. Rather than construct a simple list of principles (which would just play-out like a lesson in basic physics) I will instead use a number of case studies to illustrate the idea.

You will notice many of the principles examined here apply equally to Beyblade. This is because the two games are so very similar - and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, you may even learn something new about Beyblade through studying-up on WarShell.

So this week, I have an exclusive video of a WarShell battle from my studio - a single test round between Sumo and Terminator, whom some of you will have seen in the past. For this episode to make any sense, you really must watch the video.






Remember that a "program" is a chronological sequence of events. Some programs are more complex than others; but all programs will start somewhere and end somewhere - so all programs can be analysed in measures of time. Physical programming is no exception.

In almost every case, a shell will exhibit predictable behaviours during combat. These behaviours can be classified in "phases" of time through which the shell will naturally pass over the course of its operation. Exactly how the shell behaves in each phase depends on its unique design - but to keep things simple, we use the same words to describe each phase for all shells.


These phases are known as:

• Engage
  
• Patrol
  
• Attack
  
• Shock
  

The diagram below is an audio-waveform analysis of the fight in the video. Here we can track the progress of each shell throughout the entire conflict. Each spike on the wave indicates an impact. Each fuzzy area indicates movement around the arena. Notice how the behavioural phases are quite clear to see?



In this phase, shells are less concerned with fighting each other and devoted instead to recovering from the violence of launching. For each shell, the purpose of this phase is to engage all its mechanisms and assume its programmed behaviour.

A shell should ideally engage as soon as possible. The longer it takes to engage, the more likely it will be interrupted by obstacles (or its opponent) without first being combat-effective. Interruptions of this kind are a waste of energy and can lead to uncontrollable reactions - particularly unwanted recoil.

In the video (which runs at 30 frames per second), Terminator takes just 25 frames to engage - or 0.83 seconds. An engage time of less than a second is pretty phenomenal. By contrast, Sumo takes 106 frames to engage - or 3.53 seconds. So Terminator exhibits a shorter engage phase than Sumo, giving it the upper hand from the outset.



Once a shell has fully engaged, it will need to find something to attack. Patrolling describes the way a shell will cover ground to locate its opponent. The traditional Beyblade flower-pattern manoeuvre is a good example of patrolling. This behaviour increases a shell's chances of finding its opponent - and readies the shell for a powerful attack.

Not all shells will attempt to seek out targets. Some are so confident in their stamina that they purposefully avoid conflict all together - hoping their opponent will die from exhaustion. Tornado-stalling is an example of this kind of patrolling. Others may occupy very little floor space and will attempt to move as little as possible - becoming very small, innocuous targets for their opponents. In all these cases, we still refer to this behaviour as patrolling - because it determines the likelihood of the shell meeting an opponent.



It might seem like a shell's prime combat-effective phase should come right after its launch - or at least right after it engages - when it carries the most energy. But in practice, this is almost never the case. The best way to understand this curious paradox is by example:


Consider the shell illustrated above. If a target hits the flat, outside area of those blades, it will simply bounce off - a weak impact at best. But anything caught in the recesses between those blades is going to feel some serious pain. Furthermore, the deeper within the recesses the target is, at the point of impact, the more severe the impact will be. This is why we call those recessed areas: kill zones.

But because this shell spins at such high velocity immediately after launching, targets will have barely any opportunity to be caught in its kill zones at all. Instead, they will just bounce off the flat, outer surface. As the shell slows down gradually over time, targets are presented with ever-increasing chances of being caught in the kill zones - because they have more time to travel into them.

So the prime combat-effective phase of this shell will not be immediately after launch - because it inflicts impacts better as it slows down. This is an important attack strategy - it allows the shell to inflict heavier hits after its opponent has depleted much of their own energy.

Ideally, the attack phase should come as late as possible in the fight - for maximum effect against a weakened opponent. This must be carefully balanced against using too much energy before the attack phase begins - or the attack will not be strong enough to disable the opponent.

The exact moment a shell enters its attack phase is not always clear - though it is usually accompanied by a sudden burst of energy and aggressive behaviour. So many physical forces come into play during the attack phase that it is often difficult to keep up. This is why we always look for sweeping behavioural changes rather than analysing each impact and recoil.



The shell is still able to operate but has no real hitting power left. Once a shell has entered the shock phase, it is unable to properly participate in the fight. It should avoid all physical contact from this point forward.

Shells should endeavour to avoid shock for the longest time possible. The longer the shell avoids shock, the longer it will remain combat-effective. Largely, this factor is based on its abilities in the patrol and attack phases.

Once a shell has entered the shock phase, it should endeavour to remain operational for the longest time possible. Avoidance is a good strategy here. It also helps to disengage any attack abilities and concentrate all power on basic operation.




You will notice in the video that shells designed for stamina and defence tend to patrol for quite some time. Most shells will naturally favour one behavioural phase above the rest. This characteristic is known as: phase bias. So a shell designed for stamina might have a "patrol phase bias". By directly comparing the amount of time a shell devotes to each phase, we can gauge exactly what kind of shell it is - and which design we should employ to counter it.

Often the type of behaviour a shell exhibits will be obvious - and we will rarely need a detailed diagram to make informed design decisions. But because shell designs vary so dramatically from one fight to the next, it is worth observing the phase bias of an opponent - to make beating them just that much easier.






Sumo, as its name implies, is designed specifically to push its opponents around the arena with brutal traction manoeuvres. It sports multiple traction plates with no impact points at all. Smooth upper and lower surfaces also increase traction time. This notorious setup is colloquially known as the "chasm" design; the deep channel in the shell perimeter effectively grips onto targets and stops them recoiling away to safety.

Traction is a popular attack strategy when fighting in stamina-based combat arenas because it produces almost no recoil. When the arena is so flat, with very low walls, high-recoil designs would likely self-destruct.

The metal-wheel of Sumo is positioned low on the core. This may seem like a design flaw at first, as the wheel will contact the arena walls. But the low-recoil perimeter minimises these impacts, using traction to stabilise instead. Though not as extreme as the Terminator design, Sumo's weight distribution also makes it more likely the shell will gravitate toward the centre of the arena rather than toward the outer walls.

Sumo exemplifies a stamina-based shell with powerful attack capabilities. It is designed specifically to destabilise other stamina-based shells in high-risk arenas just like this one. Often this kind of design is known as: anti-stamina.



Terminator is recognised by its colossal height and heavy core. A solid defence design. The weight of the shell is almost wholly centred with a relatively high centre of gravity. This gives the shell extreme stability and massive leverage to absorb incoming attacks.


In the video, Terminator is repeatedly pushed by Sumo during traction manoeuvres. But Terminator's core is so strong, the shell recovers before Sumo has fully completed the manoeuvre. Terminator then corrects itself in a swift, sweeping arc of movement - avoiding the arena walls due to its strong core and unmatched stability.

Adding insult to injury, the travelling speed of Terminator induced by correcting the effect of the traction manoeuvre is enough to inflict a heavy impact on Sumo as both shells collide again. The strong core of Terminator allows it to recover from traction and recoil so efficiently that attacks from Sumo are largely negated.

Terminator is designed to attack only if attacked first. It does not hunt its opponent. Furthermore, in a stamina arena like this one, it fully expects to be attacked by shells sporting traction plates - and is designed to counter. Every time Sumo attacks, its impacts merely trigger Terminator's own attack behaviour - fast, tight, sweeping arcs of movement. Impacts from these counter-attacks send Sumo recoiling into the arena walls.

This is a perfect example of counter-design. Terminator was specifically engineered to be immune to traction and recoil. Its super heavy core gives it the shortest engage time ever recorded and huge amounts of torque against leverage from opposing impacts. Though Sumo has performed exactly as intended, Terminator is programmed specifically to counter its attacks.




In this fight, both shells use the Beylon Customs Bolt (BCB) construction method. You can see this method illustrated in the Sumo construction diagram above. The BCB method is specifically designed for using Beyblade clear-wheels in custom shell designs. It locks the clear-wheel to the core rather than pressing it into the metal-wheel. This is a significant departure from the Metal Fight Beyblade (MFB) construction method. It allows shells to be constructed in a broad range of heights without exposing their delicate clear-wheels to attack.

The clear wheel of Terminator is positioned high atop a monolith of steel. Only the tallest shells are able to reach this high. In contrast, Sumo's clear-wheel is positioned just above its metal-wheel and protrudes toward the shell perimeter. This is a design flaw; leaving the clear-wheel exposed to attack.

As the final impacts of the fight are inflicted, Terminator performs an advantageous traction manoeuvre on Sumo's clear-wheel. Because the perimeter of the clear-wheel does not hold nearly as much energy as the perimeter of the shell itself, this is effectively a one-way traction attack and Sumo is severely compromised. This is a perfect demonstration of how any part of a shell not expressly designed to inflict damage may quickly become a weakness in combat.




Throughout this report, we have made reference to the brutal traction manoeuvre. Some of you will recognise this exotic attack from the 4D Scythe design - though that design certainly did not use it exclusively. When we refer to traction, we are talking about the ability of a shell to gain momentum from grinding against its opponent - like a car wheel spinning against the ground, attempting to accelerate.

Unlike normal impacts, where a hit is inflicted and both shells recoil away to safety, traction translates the force of an impact into a constant, applied effect on the target. A single normal impact with recoil may last only a millisecond - but a traction attack can last indefinitely, depending on the design. The result is a devastating transfer of energy from the attacking shell into the body of its target.


You might be wondering: what if both shells are spinning at the same speed? Will the traction not be applied to both shells equally? Yes, traction is a dangerous manoeuvre and needs to be executed perfectly to work well. Luckily, there are a number of ways we can ensure our traction attacks perform as desired...

Attacking from below the target is essential; this gives our shell the weight advantage. A spinning top will always travel toward the average direction in which it is leaning. So when a shell attacks from below, it is naturally coaxed to lean "in" to the attack by the weight of the target above - meaning better traction and better stability with a much-reduced chance of recoil.

Meanwhile, the target is forced to lean "out" from the attack, being leveraged by the weight of the attacker underneath. The result often looks as though the attacker is chasing the target around the arena - as seen in the video. This destabilises the target as well as reduces its energy output.

Consider how a nail works best when you use the pointy end; or how a thumb-tack only goes in one way. The same principle applies to traction. The sharper the attacking surface compared to the surface of the target, the more force will be transferred into that target. Traction plates are best when they are sharp - like in the Sumo design - because they output more force than they receive in return.

(May. 02, 2014  2:51 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: Making a powerful spinning top is actually pretty easy. The strongest Beyblade would be round, small, heavy, with no projections. Part of what I learned when working on Battle Strikers is that top design boils down to: start with a circle, and then intentionally make it worse.

Why would anyone do this? Simply put, perfection isn't fun. People aren't playing Beyblade in order to have the strongest Beyblade; they're doing it to have the coolest battles, and to earn those victories. Making a perfectly circular Beyblade is the same as making a card in a game that says, "this card cannot be defeated."

What I love about this quote from Bey Brad is the challenge it issues to the world of blade, shell and arena design at large. Challenge is what this game is all about - in both combat and design. Defiance of the accepted status quo in Beyblade is where WarShell really shines.

A circular perimeter may be a strong design - but it is not actually the strongest. In fact, my experience is that there is no "strongest" design at all - only balance. A circular shell might deflect impacts and minimise recoil - but this also makes it particularly susceptible to traction attacks in return. Beyblade does not use many perfectly circular designs and its stadiums are always very deep - so we rarely see this kind of attack used well. But in WarShell, it is yet another layer of brutal strategy we must consider in our designs.




Because this fight takes place in a stamina arena, the launching skill of the shell operators plays less of a part in the result. In this case then, the actual design of the shells is paramount. They each need to be able to operate at peak-efficiency - without launching guidance from their operators.

Because WarShell arenas can take almost any form imaginable, at least one shell in every cluster ought to be able to operate completely independently of operator input - regardless of how it is launched. In this way, when the importance of operator skill is minimised by the fighting environment, whole fights can be won by design alone.

Building your own shells or customising existing ones with your own parts may seem daunting at first. It can be difficult to achieve anything comparable to existing designs - such as Beyblade - until you have experimented with a few different methods. But once you have mastered the basics of getting something to spin, you will undoubtedly start to recognise the virtue of well-considered combat design.

I have been quite busy in recent months; and it may be the case for the next few - but we will eventually examine some specific building methods I have found to be quite rewarding. It's all about choosing a strategy, minimising cost and buying the right stuff. Hope you're looking forward to it as much as I am.

PREHISTORIC BEYBLADE

Some time ago, Kai-V brought to our attention a webpage dedicated to Osamu Mashimo: the inventor of Beyblade. This was the first time many of us had heard of the man, let alone acknowledged him for his contribution. Rightfully, much admiration was then lavished upon his achievements. We owe him much indeed.

...But that is not quite the full story...

In 1986, Mashimo was hired by Takara (then unaffiliated with Tomy) to work on the Transformers toyline. He quickly gained promotions and eventually took control of the "boys-hobby" marketing division. He held this position for twelve years before Takara merged with Tomy in 2006.

The 2006 Takara-Tomy merger actually began in 2005 and took just over a year to complete. This year-long upheaval completely reformed the structure of the company - directly coinciding with the demise of the entire Beyblade franchise. 2005 was also the year the United States patent system was overhauled; as a result, two full years passed before Tomy could fully acquire the rights for all Takara's patents - including Beyblade.

In 2008, less than a year after the patents were properly secured, the Beyblade franchise was revived. The powers at Tomy never wanted to decommission the franchise at all; they essentially bought Takara specifically to take control of it. The plan was always to revive it as soon as possible. In 2013, after the success of the revival, Mashimo was promoted as a Director of Tomy Co. Ltd.

The article from the Mashimo page is an interview posted in preparation for his promotion at Tomy. Publically listed companies (those you can buy shares in) often do this kind of thing when promoting the upper echelons of their organisations - to reassure the shareholders. EDITOR'S NOTE: since writing this post, Mashimo has assumed a more directorial roll at Takara-Tomy and the official article page has been taken down.

As luck would have it, I have recorded the content of the Mashimo article. The original is written from the first-person perspective - his own responses to questions. My English version is not a direct translation; I am simply recounting the story, as he tells it, from my own perspective. My version is not verbatim but it does contain a few minor corrections from the original Kai-V translation. Of course, I do not speak Japanese so please take all this with a grain of salt.

* * *

BEYBLADE LEGEND: AROUND THE WORLD

THE BEGINNING OF THE LEGEND...

Mashimo was originally hired by Takara to work with the Transformers design team as an inventor but was promoted to a marketing position soon after arriving at the company. The work was intense, day-in, day-out, but also immersive and rewarding. He ultimately spent 12 years with Takara's specialised Boys Team, studying marketing for boys.

Franchises Mashimo worked on: Tranformers, Mashin Hero Wataru, Mado King Guranzort, Mashin Hero Wataru 2, Future GPX Cyber Formula, Dragon Quest - Dai's Great Adventure.

In the early 90s, the boys-hobby market for elementary school children had been dominated by Super Nintendo. For this reason, the boys-hobby department of Takara was nearly decommissioned entirely on at least one occasion. Proper boys-hobby marketing only resumed when Mashimo personally took control of the division. This was Mashimo's chance to truly shine.

First, in order to understand the "elementary" demographic, Mashimo spent time working as a toy store clerk. Mashimo felt this was the only way to truly understand the reality of the modern boys-hobby market. The experiment did not yield the results he expected but he was able to properly gauge the market for the first time and determine what boys really wanted.

In response, he established a new project for boys-hobby marketing at Takara: video game toys. Mashimo the inventor had finally become Mashimo the leader.

At the time, the Final Fantasy card game was selling well. Mashimo immediately responded with his own card game based on Fatal Fury but it was not a spectacular success. The entire project was in danger of dissolution in less than a year. It only survived because of the Bomberman toyline: known as B-Daman. The B-Daman toys were the first major success for the new boys-hobby project at Takara.

After the success of B-Daman, Mashimo expanded the Bomberman merchandise range. The first major expansion was a spinning top toyline called SugeGoma. Similar to the concept of yo-yo, the challenge of the game was to perform difficult tricks. Immediately following SugeGoma was a new game called Puyo Puyo Battle Top. Neither SugeGoma nor Battle Top proved to be a hit - but the elements of these two series laid the groundwork for Beyblade.

THE BIRTH OF BEYBLADE!

Even though SugeGoma was not a great success, Mashimo felt the concept of "building" a spinning top would surely be successful in its own right. Why was he attracted to the spinning top concept exactly? There are two reasons:

1. To satisfy the boyish instinct for speed, power and control.
   
2. Fun traditional toys are encouraged by nostalgic parents.
   

Building on these core reasons, Mashimo developed an understanding of the two major factors influencing his spinning top plan: by modernising the traditional spinning top toy and adding an element of "modding" to the game, he became convinced that Beyblade would succeed. His basic idea for Beyblade was as follows:

1. Customisable battle tops.
   
2. A wide range of combinations and strategies (like in card games) to encourage collecting.
   
3. Ability to favour power in one strategy, thereby weakening other possible strategies.
   

Based on these ideas, Mashimo experimented with various different combat abilities. At first he thought the heaviest weight would dominate but eventually designs with jagged edges and spikes began to display their own strengths.

The results were unexpected and lead Mashimo to consider the balance of power more carefully. He devised a system of endurance, attack and defence - based on his previous work with SugeGoma. What truly mattered was the trade-off of weight in the spinning top against the rotation of its axis.

Due to centrifugal force, the weight of the top spinning around its axis creates a smooth, balanced movement. Mashimo found the surface area, shape and weight all contributed to the endurance and performance of his tops. This was exactly the same as in the Takara Mini4WD toyline: more speed meant less control. By slowing down the tops, the force was reduced but control increased.

To take full advantage of this balancing system, Mashimo utilized the deck-building concept of card games popular at that time. He had always wanted to explore this kind of fun and the excitement of making new combinations with Beyblade.

Because the number of combinations would be so complex, new players might find it difficult to fully participate. So Mashimo utilised the "starter set" concept with just a launcher and the parts needed to play. If the players wanted more, they would have to buy "booster packs" with extra pieces. This gave beginners an easy way into the hobby and allowed them to increase their abilities with new purchases as their skills became more advanced over time.

Above all, Mashimo was concerned with the exciting climax of the game as the tops clashed together. It was important that no battle should ever play out like another - each battle should be unique with no predetermined winner. It was clear from the results of Battle Top that children wanted new and unique play every time.

In order to properly verify his hypotheses, Mashimo tested his system with his team members for over a month. It was an incredible amount of work - testing tens of thousands of combinations to cover the entire range of possible components. Mashimo was uncompromisingly devoted to his research. The study was not to discover the strongest combination - but to ensure all parts were balanced. The results of these tests are reflected in the evolving products we see today.

BIG BREAK - RELEASING BEYBLADE TO THE WORLD

The marketing strategy for the resulting Beyblade toyline is well known - using promotional events such as tournaments and tie-ins with a published manga series. But the events and manga did not crown Beyblade with the status of a mega-hit. In its second year, the toyline went into a period stagnation as projected sales began to drop off.

Takara began to question the future of Beyblade growth - they demanded more. Mashimo suggested that, to take advantage of the "elementary" market peak season, they produce an animated television series. This idea was quickly approved by Takara and one week from the first episode airing, Beyblade became a mega-hit. The available stock of Beyblade toys could not provide for the demand.

Even with the manufacturing shortfall, Beyblade's momentum continued unabated: not only in Japan - but across a sales network of sixty countries around the world. These Japanese toys swept the globe in a worldwide phenomenon. Finally Mashimo's passion for his toys had spread around the world.

SUGEGOMA TODAY

The Mashimo article is insightful enough, even if it does not translate very well; but if Beyblade really was based on something called "SugeGoma" then what exactly was this strange ancestor? What did it look like? What exactly did it do? And without further adieu, I present to you the SugeGoma, new in packaging:


SugeGoma is an expansion of Takara's original B-Daman Bomberman merchandise. Observe the Bomberman III artwork on the torso. B-Daman was first released in 1993 but SugeGoma was only released in 1995 to accompany the new video game. The toys are basically giant spinning mech-suits which the Bombermen pilot. The above example is an incarnation of the notorious Black Bomberman. The artwork on the packaging shows the White Bomberman SugeGoma spinning. I personally own the Blue Bomberman version:


A whole series of these spinning top Bombermen were released alongside the new video game in 1995 - at least eight and probably more. Exactly how the merchandise ties into the video game itself is not entirely clear; but the main antagonist Bagular pilots a huge walking mech which resembles the toys in spirit. Gigantic mech suits were becoming more common in B-Daman by 1995 so it is likely there was some design collaboration between Takara and Hudson Soft, who made the video game (and subsequent Beyblade video games).


Amazingly, SugeGoma's direct link to Beyblade is printed on the back of the packaging. In the image below, we see how the SugeGoma was used like a Duncan Whizzer. The arms and legs are removed, then the player holds the top in their palm and drags the rubber tip over a flat surface - the traction spins an internal flywheel. The SugeGoma can then be used to perform tricks, spinning on its various protrusions like the classic Gyrobot from Tomy. Observe how the top can be inverted to spin on its head - the tip itself can be customised. Each SugeGoma comes with different interchangeable spin tips: the very beginnings of the Beyblade programming system.


An article from Ghost Actor Pop's suggests the SugeGoma design originated as a Transformers product - though unrelated to the transformers meta. You can see the inherent likeness. It appears to "transform" into a box of noodles. I cannot confirm if the Transformers version came before or after the B-Daman version (or if it really is a Transformers toy at all) but it is quite common for companies to recycle their proprietary designs in different franchises.


My suspicion is that the B-Daman version came first. The odd "rollers" attached to the SugeGoma's shoulders are actually spin-tips which can be removed and attached to the spinning "head" of the Bomberman - allowing the SugeGoma to spin atop a marble. Marbles are thus an intrinsic part of the SugeGoma game and this intertwines with the wider purpose of B-Daman. Though it might just be coincidence.


Surprisingly, SugeGoma does actually involve battling. Each SugeGoma comes with a small leaflet detailing certain tricks to be performed. Each trick is worth the number of points indicated by the leaflet. In addition, each SugeGoma's packaging comes with a unique trick card; describing an especially difficult and unique trick worth many more points than the stock set. Two opponents play the game by taking turns to declare the trick they will perform. If they pull it off, they get the points. First SugeGoma to an agreed points total wins.


We can see how SugeGoma was the first incarnation of a battling top game from Takara. It involved an indirect form of combat: competing for points. Nonetheless, you can see why Mashimo regards it as a predecessor of his own Beyblade. B-Daman is still the strongest "boys-hobby" franchise at Takara-Tomy today, behind Beyblade. With all the major franchise reboots and Takara-Tomy's recent focus on "post-Beyblade" products, perhaps we will witness the ultimate return of SugeGoma?

* * *

PUYO PUYO

In addition to SugeGoma, Mashimo repeatedly mentions a game called Battle Top. One will agree this is beginning to sound more like the Beyblade we know. But it is not a simple transition from Battle Top to Beyblade - particularly as he first calls the game: Puyo Puyo Battle Top.

Puyo Puyo is a Japanese tile-matching video game originally made by Compile and based on characters from the Madou Monogatari series, from the same developer. It is one of the most successful video games of its genre; particularly in Japan but also selling on many consoles in almost every country supporting them since 1991.


Puyo Puyo literally means "jelly-like" and describes the colourful blob-characters from the game. Part of the game's appeal is its cross-gender market; the characters are cute but not necessarily feminine. In the game, they are quirky and rich with emotion - making them equally likeable among both boys and girls.

This also means they are particularly suited to cross-platform merchandising; they basically became Takara's version of Angry Birds. Mashimo had steered the boys-hobby division of Takara toward video game toys and Puyo Puyo Battle Top was part of that project; to create real-life animated versions of the characters from the games.


Ghost Actor Pop's describes how the tops come in various rich colours, just like the characters of the game, and how the metallic flywheel inside looks particularly spectacular through the translucent plastic casing.


The Puyo Puyo Battle Top design is largely based on the original SugeGoma. It can be used like a Duncan Whizzer - dragging the tip along a flat surface to spin the internal flywheel. But the rubber tip can be removed and modified, necessitating a crucial feature SugeGoma lacked: a ripcord. While not a new concept in itself, this addition allows the tops to spin for much longer than any SugeGoma. In addition, the tops could be deconstructed to change the weight and appearance of the internal flywheel.


By 1998, Battle Top had become a self-marketed game in its own right and largely shed its Puyo Puyo roots - similar to how B-Daman gradually seceded from Bomberman. Accessories for the game could even be bought in booster packs - such as Heavy Weight Power-Up Disks. The packaging below shows how the tops were constructed - with different weight disks and tip options. SugeGoma may have been the instigator of this evolution but the customising system in Battle Top was the immediate predecessor of Beyblade.


Exactly how the game is supposed to have worked remains a mystery. SugeGoma was a trick-based game (like yo-yo, which was hugely popular in Japan at the time) but Battle Top was obviously a physical fighting game: its tops were meant to interact. Hard as I try, I cannot find any published rules for the game. The typical Whizzer design of the tops suggests they were simply thrown at each other by the players; the traditional method of play for that design is strikingly similar to playing with marbles.

* * *

EVOLUTION OF MODERN BEYBLADE

With the customisable tips of SugeGoma and the fighting performance of ripcords in Battle Top, the stage would appear to be set for the invention of Beyblade. But was this really the full story? Was it all just a simple matter of product evolution? Or was there an outside force driving the uptake of new ideas at Takara?

The concept of battling spinning tops is ancient. We all know Beyblade is a misnomer of the Japanese beigoma. But many other companies have explored the concepts of top fighting since the end of World War II - and before the rise of Beyblade in 1999.

Battling Tops was an invention from master toy-designer Eddy Goldfarb - the creator of such classics as the "chattering teeth windup" and games such as Kerplunk and Shark Attack. It was first produced by Ideal (now Mattel) in 1968 during the post-war American plastics boom and featured an arena-bowl surrounded by four launching devices for the tops. This was the first use of complex mechanical launchers in a commercial top-fighting game.


Battling Tops was rereleased, rebranded and passed between a multitude of American toy companies for the next fifty years - and is still available in stores today. The game spawned a great many counter-designs; such as the 1982 Turbo Tops, designed by Lee Spector and released by Wham-O, which makes use of innovative air-powered tops.


In 1987, Takayuki Onoda invented the game that became Spinjas or "Tomy Battlers" which used handheld spring launchers in a visceral setting. The game was produced by Tomy and rereleased in multiple forms throughout the world. By the end of the 80s, a clear trend was emerging in the world of top-fighting: new and visceral top designs driven by innovative and proprietary handheld launchers.


Then in 1993, six years before Beyblade was released, the beigoma concept was reborn. While Mashimo and Takara worked on B-Daman, Tsuyoshi Nonaka and Minoru Sawada invented Spin Fighters for Bandai - the Japanese toy manufacturing giant and arch rival of both Takara and Tomy. The Spin Fighters design was compatible with a range of different franchises and originally featured Bandai's own Power Rangers. As well as reincarnating beigoma, this was also the first example of modern top-fighting arena design (with exit points).


Spin Fighters completely dominated the top fighting market in Japan and abroad for years after their invention. But because they were never invested in a visceral franchise of their own, the Spin Fighters were beholden to the market fluctuations of other properties. By 1997, their popularity had waned and production ceased entirely.

Takara had obviously enjoyed the Spin Fighters' popularity with SugeGoma and Battle Top but they must have known any serious competition would be futile. They timed their response to perfection: immediately following the demise of Spin Fighters, Mashimo began work on Beyblade. The first products of the new franchise were released in 1999 and by 2002 every toy company on the planet wanted a piece of the action.

At the 2002 American International Toy Fair, Bandai responded with their Cyclonians E.G.G Bots - a SugeGoma style gyroscope doll. At the same event, Trendmasters, who owned the rights to the Robot Wars toys, released Rumble Rippers as an addition to their robot fighting toyline Rumble Robots. Later that year, ToyMax Inc. would re-release Spinjas under license, heralding a widespread and decade-long revival of toys from the 80s and 90s.


The Bandai-owned Spin Fighters patent lapsed in 2008, spawning a widespread revival of the design across a multitude of franchise properties. These days, Takara-Tomy itself has adopted the Spin Fighters design (minus the detachable tips) and rebranded them as Battle Wheels for use in their various toylines. Multiple series of Pokemon now grace the pictorial top-faces as well as, in a cruel stroke of irony, Transformers. It appears what goes around, comes around.


I consider it prudent to acknowledge the work of all those other designers who, just like Mashimo, were talented inventors who worked for toy companies and just wanted their games to be played. All of them contributed to a world in which it was possible for Mashimo to create Beyblade and succeed. Without them, there may never have been a market in which Beyblade could thrive.

So this explains the pre-history of Beyblade. An enterprising Japanese inventor got a job at a toy company, decided to make video game toys, had some success with Bomberman merchandise and finally got his chance to invent something pretty original in a market ripe for the plucking. A great many things could have gone wrong along the way: Mashimo might not have joined Takara, he might not have been promoted, the Bomberman video game might have flopped, the merchandising deal might have gone to some other company, the initial Beyblade tests might have failed - any number of random things could have prevented Beyblade from ever being invented.

Fortunately, none of these disastrous events occurred. Over a decade since the original Beyblade toyline was released, we are on the verge of many a grand evolution in the world of battling tops. We have competitive companies vying for market-share, an emerging amateur scene in the form of WarShell and regular innovative creations from local engineers and designers. Beyblade was reinvented after the Takara-Tomy merger but it has arguably become much more than just one single creation. The stage is now set for the greatest battles the game will ever know.

I am always surprised when people assume Takafumi Adachi created the Metal Fight Beyblade franchise. He was hired by TvTokyo to create a "totally new Beyblade galaxy" and by all accounts, he did just that. Adachi created the manga; the fantasy world of Metal Fight Beyblade, its characters, places and mythology. But he didn't design any of the spinning tops, launchers, stadiums or other accessories sold in stores. At best, he was a consultant - which is a noble enough cause in itself.

A recent post from Adachi's blog gives us a brief glimpse into the process. The drawing below is a mockup from Adachi's work. It shows how the artist would leave spaces in the draft for the final toy designs to be inserted later. Observe the geometric "box" reserved for the launcher.


Remember, the Beyblade designs for the manga and television show are usually matte paintings - 3D images traced to fit the style of the media. The Pegasus design in the drawing is only a hand-drawn mockup; not the final version. Mockups like this show the 3D artist how the final render should be orientated before being sent back to Adachi for finishing.

Wait, what 3D artist? If Adachi didn't create the actual Beyblade designs, who did? As always, the key to this mystery lies within the Beyblade patents.

According to the patents, the entire Beyblade revival of 2008 appears to have been orchestrated by just three inventors: Takeaki Maeda, Hisao Nishimoto and Haruhisa Ujita. Further research suggests Maeda produced and managed the entire project while Nishimoto and Ujita were mainly concerned with designing the actual blades, launchers, stadiums and accessories. Nishimoto was later replaced by Kenji Horikoshi.

Before we begin, some admissions: I currently have very little information on the Zero-G Series as its patents are all too recent. Some of the information I present here is taken from Japanese sources and I can't read Japanese: so if something I've written sounds odd, it may just be a mistranslation on my part. I've done my best but please, correct me.




Maeda is the business and marketing mastermind behind the entire Beyblade revival. He worked on the original Beyblade series under Osamu Mashimo (2002) at Takara. As producer and manager of the Beyblade revival marketing team, he was largely responsible for the 4 Layer, 5 Layer and 4D Series systems of play. By extension, he also played a role designing the launchers and stadiums for each series. In recent years, Maeda has been occupied by the Transformers revival; this is largely the reason Beyblade has seen such a long hiatus since 2012. Maeda is basically the "revival specialist" at Takara-Tomy.

Though listed as "Takeaki" in the patents, he appears to currently use the name "Noriaki" instead. His position at Takara-Tomy is listed under Noriaki Maeda. An interview from Issue #167 of Figure King magazine also writes his name as Noriaki Maeda (前田典秋) with emphasis on the Nori (典) so it is likely there is some story behind this I just don't understand. It may just be a nickname. He might have been married. They may even be two different people - but I consider that very unlikely.




Nishimoto personally designed all the original 4 Layer Series blades and a number of the better-performing 5 Layer Series blades: Burn, Flame, Galaxy. He was eventually transferred to work on the Transformers revival (where he arguably received more recognition for his work) and was replaced by Kenji Horikoshi. Generally considered the "reliable workhorse" for in-house conceptual design and innovation, often playing a role in the first releases of new franchises and reboots.




Ujita originally worked for Tomy and is now the Senior Assistant Manager (presumably under Maeda) of the Product Development Team for boys (2014) at Takara-Tomy. He personally designed a number of 5 Layer Series blades and set the precedent for 4D Series design with Big Bang Pegasis and L-Drago Destroy. He also designed many of the launchers and accessories of the 4 Layer and 5 Layer Series. Ujita personally invented the BB-10 stadium. Considered a "natural leader" and fun-loving personality, he uses the name UJHaru on the WBBA blog (2012).




Horikoshi was Assistant Manager of the Boys Marketing Division at Takara (2003) and known for his work with B-Daman and Choro-Q; for which he won multiple awards. He survived the 2005-06 Takara-Tomy merger to work on modular combat systems such as Battle Deck. He was brought into the Beyblade team to develop stadiums, blades, launchers and accessories for the final stages of the 5 Layer Series (particularly the Maximum Series) and throughout the 4D Series. He currently works with B-Daman, represents the WBBA and writes for the Takara-Tomy online blog under the name Beynuma.

Horikoshi's induction in the Beyblade design team would alter the evolutionary course of Beyblade for years to come. Next week, we will examine the ramifications of his work and how he completely revolutionised the Beyblade metagame. For now, it is enough to know he is the resident "new guy" after the original three - despite his long and successful career with Takara.



Some of the revival inventors (particularly Nishimoto) are listed in patents which draw on content from Pre-Metal Fight Beyblade patents. This makes it appear as if they were involved in the original Beyblade systems as well - though with the exception of Maeda I am almost certain this is not true. As far as I can tell, all the non-marketing revival inventors are new to the team as of the Metal Fight System.

Additionally, almost all of these inventors (including the original Beyblade inventors) have backgrounds in chemical or electronic engineering. Some are genuinely rocket scientists. I have chosen not to allude to this in their mini-biographies but it helps to understand that Beyblades are not the only thing these guys are known for inventing.

The following list is a selection I have compiled from the patent listings at Google. This should basically be the go-to library on the WBO for anyone wanting to find Beyblade patents or information about their inventors - the unsung heroes of Beyblade.

• 4 Layer Construction Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20090253344 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/285,877
  Publication date: Oct 8, 2009
  Filing date: Oct 15, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 4, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Hisao Nishimoto, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-00 Pegasis: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD610209 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,764
  Publication date: Feb 16, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-02 Bull: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD615134 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,766
  Publication date: May 4, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-04 Leone: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD615602 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,758
  Publication date: May 11, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-11 Wolf: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD608842 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,762
  Publication date: Jan 26, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-17 Beylauncher: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20090253345 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/285,880
  Publication date: Oct 8, 2009
  Filing date: Oct 15, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 4, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Hisao Nishimoto, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-15 Launcher Grip: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD616043 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,760
  Publication date: May 18, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Jun 9, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-16 Beypointer: (Click to View)

  Publication number USD605536 S1
  Publication type Grant
  Application number US 29/309,763
  Publication date Dec 8, 2009
  Filing date Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Beypointer Attachment Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD610211 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,767
  Publication date: Feb 16, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Bey Ta Stadium (?): (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20090253343 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/285,873
  Publication date: Oct 8, 2009
  Filing date: Oct 15, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Teruo Kitamura, Haruhisa Ujita, Nobuo Kobayashi, Hiroaki Fujimaki
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.

• 5 Layer Construction Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number US20110256795 A1
  Publication type Application
  Application number US 12/895,196
  Publication date Oct 20, 2011
  Filing date Sep 30, 2010
  Priority date Apr 19, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Left-Spin "Spin Steal" Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110256796 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/895,241
  Publication date: Oct 20, 2011
  Filing date: Sep 30, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 20, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Unreleased (?) Modular Coat-Sharp Tip: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110171876 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/805,627
  Publication date: Jul 14, 2011
  Filing date: Aug 10, 2010
  Priority date: Jan 12, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-29 Dark Wolf: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629847 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/311,776
  Publication date: Dec 28, 2010
  Filing date: Jun 17, 2009
  Priority date: Dec 18, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-30 Rock Leone: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD614245 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/311,777
  Publication date: Apr 20, 2010
  Filing date: Jun 17, 2009
  Priority date: Dec 18, 2008
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-34 Light Launcher: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD610210 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/309,765
  Publication date: Feb 16, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 6, 2008
  Priority date: Apr 8, 2008
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy, Company, Ltd.
• BB-35 Flame Sagittario: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629051 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/311,821
  Publication date: Dec 14, 2010
  Filing date: Jul 2, 2009
  Priority date: Jan 9, 2009
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-47 Earth Aquila: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629468 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,188
  Publication date: Dec 21, 2010
  Filing date: Oct 20, 2009
  Priority date: Apr 20, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-50 "Quake" M145Q: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110006479 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/659,660
  Publication date: Jan 13, 2011
  Filing date: Mar 16, 2010
  Priority date: Jul 10, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-59 Burn Phoenix: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629469 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,646
  Publication date: Dec 21, 2010
  Filing date: Mar 26, 2010
  Priority date: Sep 28, 2009
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-69 Poison Serpent: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD629848 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,645
  Publication date: Dec 28, 2010
  Filing date: Mar 26, 2010
  Priority date: Sep 29, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-70 Galaxy Pegasis: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD639869 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,838
  Publication date: Jun 14, 2011
  Filing date: Jun 21, 2010
  Priority date: Dec 26, 2009
  Inventors: Hisao Nishimoto
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-71 Ray Unicorno: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD660918 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,364
  Publication date: May 29, 2012
  Filing date: Jan 14, 2011
  Priority date: Jul 14, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-80 Beylauncher LR: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110177750 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/926,184
  Publication date: Jul 21, 2011
  Filing date: Oct 29, 2010
  Priority date: Jan 15, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-87 Light Launcher 2: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD639349 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/376,310
  Publication date: Jun 7, 2011
  Filing date: Oct 5, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 5, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• Light Launcher 2 Ripcord: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD637661 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/376,306
  Publication date: May 10, 2011
  Filing date: Oct 5, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 15, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-91 Ray Gill: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD639348 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/347,730
  Publication date: Jun 7, 2011
  Filing date: Apr 26, 2010
  Priority date: Nov 26, 2009
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-94 Tornado Beystadium: (Click to View)

  Publication number: WO2011158940 A1 (no download available)
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: PCT/JP2011/063941
  Publication date: Dec 22, 2011
  Filing date: Jun 17, 2011
  Priority date: Jun 18, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi, Takeaki Maeda
  Applicant: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• [i (Click to View)

  BB-95 Flame Byxis:]
  Publication number: USD646729 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,353
  Publication date: Oct 11, 2011
  Filing date: Jan 14, 2011
  Priority date: Jul 14, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-99 Hell Kerbecs: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD665859 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,548
  Publication date: Aug 21, 2012
  Filing date: Apr 12, 2011
  Priority date: Oct 12, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-102 Screw Capricorne: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD667894 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/371,354
  Publication date: Sep 25, 2012
  Filing date: Jan 14, 2011
  Priority date: Jul 14, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-103 Snipe Launcher: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110306269 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 13/184,145
  Publication date: Dec 15, 2011
  Filing date: Jul 15, 2011
  Priority date: Jun 10, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Kenji Horikoshi, Takeaki Maeda
• BB-104 Basalt Horogium: (Click to View)

  Publication number USD665858 S1
  Publication type Grant
  Application number US 29/371,513
  Publication date Aug 21, 2012
  Filing date Mar 31, 2011
  Priority date Oct 1, 2010
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.

• 4D Construction Method: (Click to View)

  Publication number: US20110256796 A1
  Publication type: Application
  Application number: US 12/895,241
  Publication date: Oct 20, 2011
  Filing date: Sep 30, 2010
  Priority date: Apr 20, 2010
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita, Takeaki Maeda
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-105 Big Bang Pegasis: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD666252 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/396,583
  Publication date: Aug 28, 2012
  Filing date: Jul 1, 2011
  Priority date: Jan 6, 2011
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-108 L-Drago Destroy: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD666253 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/397,515
  Publication date: Aug 28, 2012
  Filing date: Jul 18, 2011
  Priority date: Jan 18, 2011
  Inventors: Haruhisa Ujita
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.
• BB-113 Scythe Kronos: (Click to View)

  Publication number: USD662556 S1
  Publication type: Grant
  Application number: US 29/397,516
  Publication date: Jun 26, 2012
  Filing date: Jul 18, 2011
  Priority date: Jan 18, 2011
  Inventors: Kenji Horikoshi
  Original Assignee: Tomy Company, Ltd.

Patents differ depending on which country they are registered in. I have tried to include only the US patents where possible - they are easier to read and usually have more pictures. In the United States, patents come in two major forms: applications and grants. I have tried to include only the grants because those are the final and complete versions.

Obviously the names of the patents do not correspond to the product they describe. For licensing reasons, Takara-Tomy does not include trademarks in its patents. This makes Beyblade patents very difficult to find. I have tried to include product codes where I can - even though they are often out-of-sequence with their invention date. If anyone can help me rename the patents marked with a (?) it would be much appreciated.

Bear in mind the global patent system is a slow-moving behemoth. The information in a patent is often out-of-date. As an example, the original Beyblade patents were not granted until 2006, while more recent patents were not granted until 2007 - long after their production run had ceased entirely and Takara had merged with Tomy. Likewise, patents are often updated or modified for legal reasons; many Japanese patents were re-registered in the United States after 2005 due to changes in the terms granted to successful applicants. In these cases, I have tried to include only the most recent versions.

Despite their vicarious nature, the patents give us an unprecedented perspective of the design processes behind the franchise and the masterful inventors tasked with its revival. We often forget there are real people responsible for creating the everyday items we enjoy in our lives - or the blades we battle against in every tournament. This meagre list of acknowledgements serves as a tribute to those brilliant people. If the inventors are reading this: thank you for all your hard work.