Rant coming, be forewarned. (And just after I got a compliment for the "new Dynasour" being less verbose than the old. So it goes. But this has been on my mind for a few years now.)
Originally posted by Johnnie
Hybrids have been the buzz for a number of years, but it seems just within the last year that interest has waned substantially.
... (stuff snip'ed)
Am I trip'n or are people actually migrating away from Hybrids? It is my understanding that even our local clubs has hardly pulled out the GSE and had any flights since September last year...if you've got em you'll burn'em right?
Johnnie
Migrating away, no. Reduced adoption, yes. A market defines itself by profitability. For hybrids that means a continual influx of new users, because supporting those that have already made the major investments necessary is not where the profit is. This is simply the flip side of the "investment" observation made by others. Manufacturers and retailers will see a lack of adoption as more of a "failure" than those in the user base.
People who tend to go for the latest and greatest adopt early. They suffer the "user as beta tester" period gladly. Having been successful, they remain dedicated and satisfied. They remain the few, however. Their existence never depended on how successful a particular product was, but on their own success. Their observations will reflect this.
The majority will wait until there is sufficient market penetration and adoption, so they know they will be adequately supported in the sense they are accustom to, the informal sense from other users. If they don't see it, they won't adopt. Having a few around is not sufficient for them. They want to see the equivalent of card stock topped plastic bags hanging from hooks in several stores before they'll follow the proven path and invest. They will also look for ease of adoption, in this case the learning curve involved as well as the infrastructure required. You can buy an Estes starter pack and have the complete infrastructure. Users don't expect something this simple, but they want something a step up but not a giant step up. Being in the position of a clueless newbie is not a comfortable place for someone who has become accustom to being at least competent.
Having the break point between pyro and hybrid motors the same as the break point between modrocs/LPR and the greater step of HPR, with its certification requirements and regulations, makes the step up all that more daunting. This is in part due to the technology; hybrids don't include ejection and require separate electronics and ejection. This also requires a step up, different from the motor technology itself. It also requires the high power certification for handling the ejection charge materials (yes, exceptions exist; they are exceptions and users see that). This is all because hybrids were developed for HPR fliers who could replace HP motors with these and could handle the rest of the technology, so they could use these, so others would see, want and adopt, so they would spread the word, etc. There are too many steps to be made in getting to hybrids, due to this placement across the high power boundary. No matter how easy the technology is to master according to those who make the large step successfully, the average user knows full well they are touting it based on their own success, not as an objective measurement from the viewpoint of the average user.
If manufacturers would place themselves in the position of lessening the learning curve by developing hybrids, infrastructure and associated technology that did not fall across that boundary, they would attract far more new users.
I had paid for the development of a hybrid based on minimal technology and requiring no HPR certification for any part. The idea was to develop a motor and system that could be used by any user with existing equipment, that could be manufactured with less effort than existing hybrids, and that could be certified as less than HPR. This was accomplished. The result used Whipit nitrous (in a manner sufficiently safe, contained completely within a protective canister), BB gun size CO2 cartridges for ejection (in the same manner as used in the guns; "sufficiently safe" here is a known, and served as the basis for the nitrous design), and "memory metal' wire reconforming to an electrical charge for the ejection sequence. The ejection sequence still depended on an apogee detecting electronics package, and on learning how to use it. The motor and other technology was different from, but not harder than, reloadable motors, a step sideways. The electronics was the only step up, and it was made as easy as possible by using dedicated apogee detection hardware, so it was a small a step as possible. (It would also work with apogee detecting altimeters, but did not require them). The learning curve and decreased "ease of use" factor (and investment required) were more than going from LPR/BP motors to MPR/reloadable technologies, but the difference was kept well below the same measures in going to HPR/L1 certification. More than that, the result was driven by the original idea of making the entire package as safe or safer than existing reloads. The hybrid motor itself is safer because the fuel is not flammable. BP and APCP are, yet they can be used by children, and are allowed within schools. I wanted the entire thing to meet this measure or beat it. It did.
I lost track of the person who built this system, and never got one, but that doesn't matter. It was done. The development cost me $100 and him about the same or less. It could be done again.
As long as manufacturers maintain the technology at the level of HPR, they will continue to hobble the widespread adoption of their own technology, and that of the whole field. If they will instead lower the bar and make it accessible to non-certified fliers, and make it safe and cheap enough for the motor and other technology to be certified by NAR/TRA/CAR as a mid-power motor at best, they will open up the market they have been waiting for in vain. Unfortunately, they have set a goal and met it, and are hoping for profitability at this point, and so are resistant to investing in more R&D in technology and manufacturing without seeing profit at the point they've set for themselves.
I believe they (each individually) also are resistant to the idea of promoting a new technology which has in the past been criticized as unsafe, as prior attempts to use prepackaged nitrous in mini-hybrids has been, even though a new design might not have this failing. It requires a fair amount of effort to overcome "common knowledge" of users who are experienced enough to know of the prior problems. Their passing along of experience with what they've been exposed to previously, offered as experience even though it was not accumulated with the newer technology, can be a significant barrier. This requires another kind and level of promotion in getting adopted. Hybrid makers are, in my opinion, comfortable in their position of not having to do this because users approaching their equipment are doing so across several other barriers, that of HPR certification, and expect barriers to overcome, including that of "common knowledge" through their self-education.
OK, not a rant, but lotsa words. As I said, its been on my mind for a long time. And I've taken an active part in trying to change it. If I had the money I'd extend the development to manufacturing, and make it cheap enough for a manufacturer to put together the whole package in a way easy and cheap enough for them and the users to easily adopt. I've got the time, hands and experience. If a manufacturer wanted to pursue this, I'd do it just to see it done, pretty much just to make hybrids kid-and-school level safe, just as I'd intended in the first place. At that level, widespread user adoption would be easy.
