Cross Compatible Reloads

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

uncle_vanya

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
0
Many have said that they would like more cross-compatibility between motor vendors. It's arrived slowly but surely. Not perhaps in the way that we might have wanted (all reloads fitting all cases) but there are now a couple of cross certified lines:

Aerotech Case - CTI Propellant (75 & 98mm)
AMW Case - KOSDON by Aerotech Propellant (38, 54, & 75mm)

Now that it has started do you think this trend will continue? Will Aerotech market their reloads for LOKI cases for example?
 
BTW - another point related to the question: What about cases damaged by someone else's reloads?

Prior to the announcement by Aerotech of these new AMW compatible reloads the only cross-certified loads that I know of are the CTI 75 and 98mm loads that can be flown in both Aerotech and CTI style cases.

As I understand things the vendors' stance on this can be summed up as:

Aerotech - Warranty is only valid if flown with their reload.
CTI - Will replace an Aerotech style case with their own if their reload caused damage to an Aerotech style case.

Does anyone know what AMW policies are on this issue?
 
Does this thread have cooties? People are answering the poll but not replying.

So here's another thought - Do you think LOKI and Gorilla and AMW should cross-certify? Who would benefit the most from these options if they ever came about?

Fliers...
Companies...
No one...

Who takes it on the chin?
 
Does this thread have cooties? People are answering the poll but not replying.

So here's another thought - Do you think LOKI and Gorilla and AMW should cross-certify? Who would benefit the most from these options if they ever came about?

Fliers...
Companies...
No one...

Who takes it on the chin?

This is TRF. If anyone posts what they really think about this subject here, it will be removed by the moderators.

The topic of unauthorized cross-compatible reloads has many twists and divisive issues. If you want answers, email the NAR BOT and the TMT BOD. All other discussions here will just produce ignorant speculation and FUD.
 
This is TRF. If anyone posts what they really think about this subject here, it will be removed by the moderators.

The topic of unauthorized cross-compatible reloads has many twists and divisive issues. If you want answers, email the NAR BOT and the TMT BOD. All other discussions here will just produce ignorant speculation and FUD.

Feel free to PM me your opinions and info.
 
BTW - another point related to the question: What about cases damaged by someone else's reloads?

Prior to the announcement by Aerotech of these new AMW compatible reloads the only cross-certified loads that I know of are the CTI 75 and 98mm loads that can be flown in both Aerotech and CTI style cases.

As I understand things the vendors' stance on this can be summed up as:

Aerotech - Warranty is only valid if flown with their reload.
CTI - Will replace an Aerotech style case with their own if their reload caused damage to an Aerotech style case.

Does anyone know what AMW policies are on this issue?
Use some common sense.

Warrantee has nothing to do with certification. Certification means that the motors submitted for certification performed as per the manufacturers specifications when operated as per the manufacturers instructions. Warrantee means the manufacturer stands behind his products in the event of a failure.

If you experience a motor failure using components from one manufacturer, have the receipts, and it occurs withing the warrantee period, the manufacturer will usually honor their warrantee.

If your have a motor failure using components from several manufacturers, you are on your own as far as the casing is concerned.

Universally.

Bob
 
Use some common sense.

Warrantee has nothing to do with certification. Certification means that the motors submitted for certification performed as per the manufacturers specifications when operated as per the manufacturers instructions. Warrantee means the manufacturer stands behind his products in the event of a failure.

If you experience a motor failure using components from one manufacturer, have the receipts, and it occurs withing the warrantee period, the manufacturer will usually honor their warrantee.

If your have a motor failure using components from several manufacturers, you are on your own as far as the casing is concerned.

Universally.

Bob

Bob - this reply rubbed me the wrong way. If I'm being thin skinned sorry about that.

I do not agree with your contention that "universally" you are on your own. I cannot find the specific post or email right now but I have seen Anthony Cesaroni state that if his reload is to blame for the destruction of an Aerotech case he will "upgrade" (his words) the user to one of his cases in the same size. I did find this thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=32719 in which Anthony states that he pursued cross-warranty agreements with Aerotech. This takes some of the wind out of the notion that the concept of multiple vendors' reloads being warranty honored is total nonsense. (Sorry for the awkward phrasing!)

I also never indicated that Warranty and Certification were the same. I am pointing out in my post that they are different.
 
If your have a motor failure using components from several manufacturers, you are on your own as far as the casing is concerned.

One could argue that this is the difference between a member-driven organization and one whose officials are driven by fear (or favor) of certain manufacturers.
 
One could argue that this is the difference between a member-driven organization and one whose officials are driven by fear (or favor) of certain manufacturers.

I'm afraid this went over my head. I've not been around long enough to understand the subtext. As stated before feel free to PM me. If you need an alternate way to contact me I'll supply it if you ask for it.
 
Switching away from the hardware angle...

I wonder what AMW thinks about this? Something tells me they won't be thrilled w/the biggest player in propellants offering their customers several, more affordable options for "their" hardware (then you have Gorilla motors edging in on their "image" & color niche...)

Nice business move by AT, though!!!

I hope this..

A) prompts AMW to reduce the prices of their hardware, which have always seemed obscenely high when you compare the levels of engineering/mfg. prowess between AT & AMW hardware (no/little CNC work w/AMW!!).

B) prompts AMW to FINALLY offer 29mm hardware & reloads to 'retaliate' & try to steal some of ATs (blue) thunder!
 
Switching away from the hardware angle...

I wonder what AMW thinks about this? Something tells me they won't be thrilled w/the biggest player in propellants offering their customers several, more affordable options for "their" hardware (then you have Gorilla motors edging in on their "image" & color niche...)

Nice business move by AT, though!!!

Why do you insist on using a double standard when it comes to AT v. Gorilla? In an earlier thread you jumped all over Gorilla for offering a green propellant to 'compete' with AMW and then here you claim it's a wise business move by AT to offer the same. This makes zero sense and you sound like a terribly biased fool.

I hope this..

A) prompts AMW to reduce the prices of their hardware, which have always seemed obscenely high when you compare the levels of engineering/mfg. prowess between AT & AMW hardware (no/little CNC work w/AMW!!).

Hmmm...interesting. In general, AMW is CHEAPER than AT when you compare a complete motor set or just casings alone for roughly the same size motor. Granted, there is more CNC work for AT closures, but then how do you explain for the TUBE alone AT is more expensive? Keep in mind that AMW tubing is drawn, which is considerably more expensive than extruded, and at least twice as thick as AT.

B) prompts AMW to FINALLY offer 29mm hardware & reloads to 'retaliate' & try to steal some of ATs (blue) thunder!

And of course offer it so you can use your slimlines. Then all will be forgiven for AMW, right?

Gimme a break
 
Why do you insist on using a double standard when it comes to AT v. Gorilla? In an earlier thread you jumped all over Gorilla for offering a green propellant to 'compete' with AMW and then here you claim it's a wise business move by AT to offer the same. This makes zero sense and you sound like a terribly biased fool.


Posh....I jumped on Gorilla soley for NAMING their company "Gorilla", as it seems an obvious attempt to infringe on AMWs identity as a color-specialist by naming itself after one of their sig. color propellants. Had they named themselves ANYTHING unique, I wouldn't have said a peep. Coming out w/colored motors and/or any kind of direct competition on the product level is fine; it leads to lower prices & more options. AT didn't partner w/Kosdon to go after people w/old Kosdon hardware, they did it primarily to go after AMW hardware owners...THAT was shrewd, not sleazy (much!).

AT wasn't even mentioned in that thread, it was just Gorilla vs. AMW (I was defending AMW!!)...and it was weeks before AT announce the approval of their new green (didn't comment on that, but I think it's great).


Hmmm...interesting. In general, AMW is CHEAPER than AT when you compare a complete motor set or just casings alone for roughly the same size motor. Granted, there is more CNC work for AT closures, but then how do you explain for the TUBE alone AT is more expensive? Keep in mind that AMW tubing is drawn, which is considerably more expensive than extruded, and at least twice as thick as AT.


I corrected myself in saying it's not that AMW is more/equal to AT's prices that bothers me, but that it should be a lot less. In AT's 38mm stuff, a 600 tube's about $50 (less than AMW's tube-only..isn't it?) & each closure's is about $25-28. I'd think AMW's snap rings should be about $5 each....$10 for the thrust ring, and maybe $50-60 for the tube. What you say about the tube is new to me though...that WOULD affect my estimates, but I'd still like to see $60-70 for the 38mm 600ish size.

And of course offer it so you can use your slimlines. Then all will be forgiven for AMW, right?

I'm OK on that now....38mm AMW can easily be made slimlinable, and I'd guess if they offer 29mm, they'll make it compatible. And that was a different thread from the Gorilla/AMW one.

Honestly, now that the gloves seem to be off in motors/propellants, I can't see why AMW and/or Gorilla couldn't/wouldn't make straight-up RMS compatible loads of their recipes. I can't imagine the grain and/or part dimensions are patented or registered....nor, I believe could they prevent them from being certified in their hardware. Sure, they could/should say "we aren't responsible for hardware when AMW/Gorilla propellants are used", but that's about it, legally.

I hope that happens, cuz it looks like someone has to do something to keep AT in check, otherwise they MIGHT run people outta business & become even more of the, er. 900 lb gorilla.
 
I corrected myself in saying it's not that AMW is more/equal to AT's prices that bothers me, but that it should be a lot less. In AT's 38mm stuff, a 600 tube's about $50 (less than AMW's tube-only..isn't it?) & each closure's is about $25-28. I'd think AMW's snap rings should be about $5 each....$10 for the thrust ring, and maybe $50-60 for the tube. What you say about the tube is new to me though...that WOULD affect my estimates, but I'd still like to see $60-70 for the 38mm 600ish size.

Really? $70? That's HALF of AT for the 38/600!
AT complete 38/600 = $114
AMW 38/640 = $90

While like everyone else I would like to see hardware prices come down, $70 for a complete AMW 38/640 is an unreasonable expectation given
1) AMW's thicker casing
2) AMW uses a reusable graphite nozzle (machine work) that's included in the complete hardware package

Also, AMW reload prices are $6-$10 cheaper than AT. So in the long you are a paying quite a bit less for the hardware and saving money on each and every flight with cheaper reloads.

Honestly, now that the gloves seem to be off in motors/propellants, I can't see why AMW and/or Gorilla couldn't/wouldn't make straight-up RMS compatible loads of their recipes.

Due to AT's case design, it's more difficult for a third party to make compatible propellant. There are several reasons, the most important of which is the nozzle.

I hope that happens, cuz it looks like someone has to do something to keep AT in check, otherwise they MIGHT run people outta business & become even more of the, er. 900 lb gorilla.

With this I agree. On the positive side, while AT definitely has a large market share, they also know they are not the only game in town anymore and do face stiff competition from AMW & CTI and to a lesser extent Loki. AT can't just sit back - which they clearly are not doing - and assume they'll always have as large a share as they currently do.
 
I think the cross compatible reload will be more common. Once the "gloves are off" I think all the manufactures will start looking to cross certify. I don't know what the profit margins are, but I would think there's a LOT more profit in propellant then in cases. It stands to reason you can sell more propellant if you make it for more cases, including competitors.

I'm actually surprise there aren't 3 or 4 manufactures that make reloads for AT's 24 & 29 hobbyline cases (or all of ATs cases for that matter). They're cheap, no LEUP required, shipping would be easier and I know I would certainly buy some of the AMW colors if I could get them for my 29/40-120.
 
A company making reloads for AT-compatible cases will have to deal with the patent issue. This is especially true if there's a delay element. RCS was assigned the patent when Aerotech went bankrupt and Gary Rosenfield bought back the assets of his own company.

The snap-ring style motor is not patented. However, Kosdon was threatened with a lawsuit by Aerotech and the result was a settlement to license the Kosdon brand. Aerotech also had an agreement with AMW's owner, but apparently that went away with Aerotech and was not carried over to RCS, although the same person owns the company. Fuzzy things like that are usually decided in a Court of Law.

The other patented reloadable motor design is owned by Cesaroni, the only real rocket company making motors for hobbyists. Don't wake the sleeping giant.
 
Hardware can be patented...I do not believe a bag of propellent pieces, o-rings & a rubber washer & a delay could ever be. They could package the delay differently, say in a plastic liner w/built in spacers for different length delays.

You can't patent a size!

And I think an patents on ATs hardware design would have expired by now. You could never say "RMS", but I cannot see how producing reloads could ever cause a patent problem. It's almost identical to aftermarket toner cartridge filling companies....HP/Epson can beech all they want, but they can't stop someone from filling their devices w/material.
 
Bob - this reply rubbed me the wrong way. If I'm being thin skinned sorry about that.

I do not agree with your contention that "universally" you are on your own. I cannot find the specific post or email right now but I have seen Anthony Cesaroni state that if his reload is to blame for the destruction of an Aerotech case he will "upgrade" (his words) the user to one of his cases in the same size. I did find this thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=32719 in which Anthony states that he pursued cross-warranty agreements with Aerotech. This takes some of the wind out of the notion that the concept of multiple vendors' reloads being warranty honored is total nonsense. (Sorry for the awkward phrasing!)

I also never indicated that Warranty and Certification were the same. I am pointing out in my post that they are different.
Sorry if I was too short with my answer. No offense intended.

What I meant to imply is that the casing manufacturer is not responsible for the casing. That's been a universal response.

The propellant manufacturer can and should accept responsibility for the casing however but I have never seen it come up.

Bob
 
Sorry if I was too short wtihmy answer. No offense intended.

What I meant to imply is that the casing manufacturer is not responsible for the casing. That's been a universal response.

The propellant manufacturer can and should accept responsibility for the casing however but I have never seen it come up.

Bob

Thanks for the clarification - as I indicated I might have been thin skinned so no offense meant = none taken.
 
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread Cesaroni already makes RMS compatible reloads but only for the 75mm and 98mm sizes. The instructions are on their website. They reference RMS and properly denote it as Aerotech's trademark or copyright (I forget which).

I have no idea if Aerotech (RCS) ever entertained a lawsuit but it would appear that this was either not worth it or that it did not have good legal standing or was deemed to be a bad PR move. In any case, the precedent exists. Now that Aerotech is doing the same to AMW that they had done to them -- they probably couldn't complain much if someone went after their hobbyline or HPR reload market with alternate propellants.
 
If I am firing an AT motor in an AMW case and it fails in some way or another I would expect that Aerotech would replace the reload and case in one way or another. The simple fact is that their reload was the reason my case was damaged since it was loaded in the motor at the time of failure. Of course it seems obvious that AMW would not replace the case in this situation.

The problem I see is getting Animal Motor Works warrantees AFTER an Aerotech load has been fired in the case. If I was Paul and you came up to me with a 7600 that blew up with an M3000 in it after you had fired an M2900 Redline in it the launch before I would not give you a new case. For all I know the AT propellant stressed the case in the last flight and that voided the warrantee. If you want your case warranteed don't use other manufacturer's propellant. This is similiar to AMW warranteeing cases for people who fly EX motors in their AMW cases, it doesnt make buisness sense to do.
 
I corrected myself in saying it's not that AMW is more/equal to AT's prices that bothers me, but that it should be a lot less. In AT's 38mm stuff, a 600 tube's about $50 (less than AMW's tube-only..isn't it?) & each closure's is about $25-28. I'd think AMW's snap rings should be about $5 each....$10 for the thrust ring, and maybe $50-60 for the tube. What you say about the tube is new to me though...that WOULD affect my estimates, but I'd still like to see $60-70 for the 38mm 600ish size.

You are comparing cases with different wall thickness anodizing and closures. Why dont you try to make your arguement comparing AMW and LOKI cases since they are almost the same casings anyway and the price range is greater.
 
I don't get this...why is everyone talking like mfgs. replace damaged hardware all the friggen time...or that they should?

I'm sure they don't, as I'm sure most damage is due to user error...and I can't imagine it's easy to prove/determine whose fault it is.

And how on earth do you think AMW would know if you used AT loads in their hardware prior to a failure w/an AMW load, Ryan?

Does O.S. replace engines (or your plane) if you crash your RC plane & claim it died mid-air? Does Futaba replace your radio or damaged servos/Rx if you claim a crash was due to a radio glitch?

Of course not! We assume risks in hobbies...ESPECIALLY rocketry. It's great that certain companies have OFFERED great customer service in certain cases, but why on Earth is everyone going back & forth on this so much? I'd think it's simple; IF AT offers to replace damaged hardware (AT and/or Rouse), they SHOULD limit it to only AT loads. CTI propellant in the 75/98 that are now compatable? NO (nor, I believe, should CTI do anything for you!). AMW, if/when they offer 18-98mm AT loads? NO!

Nor should AMW replace stuff damaged w/KDA loads....and no cross-warrantying between AMW, Gorilla (and I guess now, KDA). THIS would help maintain brand loyalty, and to me, it's only fair.

IF YOU WANNA CROSS-LOAD....YOU SHOULD LOSE WARRANTY COVERAGE (with the possible exception of AT/RouseTech, as that's a licensed agreement).

CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!

BTW, AT's warranty is as clear as day. Basically, if you get a blistered casing or a closure blows off (threads strip)..WITHIN ONE YEAR OF PURCHASE, they'll help you out. Anything else? If they do something, great, if not, tough!

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/

Which products are covered by warranty?
AeroTech/RCS will replace or repair any of its products which are proven to have failed to perform properly as a direct result of manufacturer defect. See the warranty policies below.


What is the term of the warranty?
Items in question must be returned to the AeroTech facility for examination within one year of date of purchase.

Is proof of purchase required?
Proof of purchase will be required as well as a letter explaining the nature of the failure.

What if my warranty item contains propellant or a delay charge?
If the failure includes any remaining propellant or delay charge, please email [email protected] for instructions for mailing.

What else must I include with my warranty claim?
Customer name, address, and phone number must accompany all correspondence.

General: No warranty, either expressed or implied is made regarding AeroTech/RCS products, except for replacement or repair, at RCS’s option. Only those products which are proven to be defective in manufacture within 90 days or one year (applicable as described below), from the date of original purchase qualify. Incidental or consequential damages are not covered. For repair or replacement under this warranty, please send a copy of your paid invoice or other proof of purchase, the product involved, and a brief letter describing your experience with the reported failure. If your inquiry is regarding missing parts, please contact RCS directly. Freight or other fees incurred to send items to RCS are non-refundable. Note: Your state may provide additional rights not covered by this warranty.

RMS™ Hardware (18-98mm): Covered 1 year from date of purchase; motor casing must bear silk-screened AeroTech artwork or serialization plate - Ejection of forward or aft closure, casing bulge(s)/blistering, case rupture. Not covered: Forward or aft closure gas leakage (o-ring leakage) and resulting damage, degradation of casing artwork or anodization dye, hardware used with non-recommended reload kit, any incidental or consequential failure or damage related to use in a cluster or staged applications or otherwise modified in any way. NOTE: Hardware manufactured by an AeroTech/RCS RMS™ hardware licensee (such as Dr. Rocket/Reloadable Systems or Rouse-Tech) is not covered by the AeroTech/RCS warranty. Contact the appropriate manufacturer for warranty assistance.
 
If I am firing an AT motor in an AMW case and it fails in some way or another I would expect that Aerotech would replace the reload and case in one way or another. The simple fact is that their reload was the reason my case was damaged since it was loaded in the motor at the time of failure. Of course it seems obvious that AMW would not replace the case in this situation.

The problem I see is getting Animal Motor Works warrantees AFTER an Aerotech load has been fired in the case. If I was Paul and you came up to me with a 7600 that blew up with an M3000 in it after you had fired an M2900 Redline in it the launch before I would not give you a new case. For all I know the AT propellant stressed the case in the last flight and that voided the warrantee. If you want your case warranteed don't use other manufacturer's propellant. This is similiar to AMW warranteeing cases for people who fly EX motors in their AMW cases, it doesnt make buisness sense to do.


For what it's worth, some members of the S & T committee thought that the scenario you mention was possible and that there should be some testing of the casings beyond just firing a couple of motors. The powers that be thought otherwise.

Cross certification has the potential to be a good thing for the end user if the proper testing is done and all the risks are known. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
 
Since my philosophy
- or lack of such - is to
support the manufacturer of any specific reload
by buying also their hardware it really doesn't
make any diff for me personally, but the idea of
complete cross-compatibility is oh sooo sweeeeet....

But some people will always prefer one make while
others have their own fav flavor, and since we rocketeers are
more individuals than your average mass-marketed lemming
consumer I have my doubts about the early retirement of this debate...
:D
 
I think AT should give AMW the right to put sparkies in their cases. The mass of us have AT cases (in MPR small HPR) AT put their loads in AMW cases, I think they should let them "return the favor".

Ben
 
Let's keep this civil. Posts have been removed and, as always, posts quoting or specifically referencing the offending posts have also been removed.
 
I think AT should give AMW the right to put sparkies in their cases. The mass of us have AT cases (in MPR small HPR) AT put their loads in AMW cases, I think they should let them "return the favor".

Ben

I bet I'll be all alone on this, but I've had my fill of sparky motors, and it wouldn't bother me at all if they ceased to exist. I've flown exactly one myself (the AMW 38/640), and cleaning the case was enough of a hassle that I'm happy to just watch others fly the Skidmarks. But besides that, I've seen a lot of 'em in the last few years, and the thrill is gone. I'd MUCH rather see more staging and airstarts.

Am I supposed to say something rude here as well?
I'm not sure about the rules.
 
Back
Top