It's not an optical illusion. Per the photos in post 1230 the Halo bats are an additional 5/32" off the playfield. : https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/review-precision-pinball-products-cnc-flipper-system/page/25#post-7226606

The gap between glass and top of a flipper bat on The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends is 1.993". With the Halo bats 0.030" shorter overall thickness that would be 2.023".

Balls hopping over a flipper is pretty rare, at least on most games. If that's a concern on your games Halo bats may not be the best choice for you.

EDIT: Halo bats are only 1/32" shorter, not 1/4". Numbers corrected above.

Not sure where you're seeing the 1/4" difference in height. Judging from the photo, I see the top of the halo flipper at about 1/16" lower than the top of the plastic flipper, as is the top of the flipper rubber on the halo compared to the plastic.

You can adjust the height of the bushing (and subsequently the bat) by adding washers.

Regardless, the contact height - where the rubber hits the ball is not affected by the height of the bat. Meaning, the impact point is determined by the height of the midpoint (or ‘equator’ if you will) of the ball for the most part.

Seems like you are arguing against yourself. "Flipper hop is not a problem" and "It happens all the time on Tron".

And it's not .5mm, the top of the flipper is 1/16" lower (which is 1.58mm).

If you want to say you don't care, that's fine, but some people might care - seems like maybe Tron owners might care the most...

I'm not trying to pick on his design, and by most acounts it's an improvement over the standard flipper. But unless there is a good reason (cost, weight, etc.), I don't see why you would want them any shorter than standard.

You're right. Mis-read one of the posts. The photos indicate between 2 & 3/32", not 8/32". Thanks for catching that.

The creator says "0.030 (about 3/32") shorter. But 0.030" isn't 3/32" so I'm not sure what he measured. 1956PINHEAD ?

You could, but then your contact point would also be lower and probably cause air balls. Anyone concerned about flipper hop would have even more concern.

OK, I think I need to post one more time on this particular topic since there seems to be a lot of focus on the measurments/differences of the Plastic flipper Vs my design. I made the error in posting 3/32" when it should have been 1/32", my bad. That's real confusing stuff I threw at everyone, glad you guys are paying attention. Not sure how I arrived at 3/32", I think too many hours spent programming and machining, then play testing the past couple days

Taking away from my brain fart, my main objective was to provide a visual reference of the position of the rubber on both my flipper and the plastics as measured from the playfield surface as that is the 'key measurement' in establishing the sweet spot/contact point between the ball and the rubber. In summary this effort was put forth so that I could update the lower lip/flange area just below the rubber and in doing so wanted to share the results.

Got a lot of new posts today though didn't it

I'm sorry if I have added to any confusion, but I'd still like to know the reason for the change in flipper size.

From your pictures posted above (all measurements from playfield surface) :
...top of old flipper is 33/32", top of new flipper is 31/32"
...top of old rubber is 29/32", top of new rubber is 27/32"
...bottom of old rubber is 14/32", bottom of new rubber is 12/32"
...bottom of old flipper is 4.5/32", bottom of new flipper is 9/32"

I would think that the position of the rubber would be important, as would the overall height of the bat. The "missing" part underneath the rubber is probably less important, but might still have some sort of effect.

Again, what is the advantage to the change in flipper bat size? Is it somehow harder to mill them in the original size/shape? Is it a method of trying to reduce the weight or cost? I would think that (assuming all things being equal), keeping the same size (and position of rubber) would be important.

Sometimes, less is just more.

There is more chance of getting airballs off the stock flippers as they are tapered and create lift, the precision bats have a square side where the rubber mounts so there is actually less chance of this happening ( think golf club, driver versus putter ).

The height of the rubber is immaterial, the ball will always be struck in the same position, what is important is the bearing. If that is a poor fit and the flipper shaft can be forced backwards when the ball is struck, it will create lift.

mbeardsley Because you haven't had the opportunity to play test the many different configurations that I did during the development of this product, I'll just summerize the results of all my testing this way. The shape of my flipper bat has been optimized to gain several advantages over the plastic flipper bats they replace. I already addressed the cost topic compared to the shape of the plastics.

Here's a couple photos for you showing some early testers. How do you like the curved one! Bet you weren't expecting to see something like that were you

My recommendation would be for you to give them a try, you just might like em

full sized tester (resized).jpgcurved tester (resized).jpg

John I think they have pills that help with that

He is maintaining the same position of the rubber - That's what the design centers around. That's maintained.

Then he's reduced the unneeded mass away from that critical contact area in a way that is balancing reducing mass while maintaining the bat's resistance to deformation. He's basically adding ribbing to the structure with that lower lip. It's also a guide for the user's flipper rubber install. He's now trimmed that lip at the most extreme edge to avoid contact when the flipper rubber compresses.

Additionally, there were past issues with other metal products where failures could lead to metal bats dragging on the PF.. so in that respect, the space below the bat provides a safety buffer.

If you just duplicated the original flipper shape your resulting bat would be significantly heavier and a heavier bat would impact play and electrical load. His design needs to account for mass and the structure+material strength. He's already pointed out how some of the OEM design is about providing material strength to the plastic body that is not needed/relevant to this aluminium design.

He's built a structure that minimizes the superficial material to reduce mass.

This is all actually more expensive to produce... 1) it's not optimizing material used.. its all material that is being machined out (waste) 2) All that machining is more time on the machine as well -> more expensive.

That’s only true within a range. When the ball contacts the rubber the rubber compresses against the face of the ball. If that rubber is too low there won’t be any rubber at the top of the compression divot and that might result in lift. Given a 17/16” diameter ball the initial contact point will be 17/32 but the diameter of the compression divot isn’t math I can do in my head and varies based on the force at the compression point.

This sounds similar to the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow.

https://byjus.com/maths/chord-of-circle/ - Chord Length Formula

Chord length is what you seek.
Pinball size minus Depth of divot = d
Pinball radius = r = 17/16

Chord length = vertical impact zone

I just don't have a flipper rubber at my desk to give an accurate estimate of how deep the divot could be in a worst case scenario

Your confusion stems from your lack of comprehension which i think is a lack of attention to what others are saying and the tendency to see what you want to see.

I never said i get flipper hop on Tron.

I said the spinning disc at the top of the playfield throws the ball from there down the drain in a full toss. Flippers have bum bum all to do with it.

I'm fairly confident that 1956PINHEAD will give mbeardsley a refund on any flipper bats he bought that he's dissatisfied with.

You’re still making contact with the ball at the same height on the ball.

Providing accurate information is the goal. So customers can make an informed decision. At least one poster in this thread thought the bats were the same distance from the playfield until the photos showed the difference.

Do the plastic bats list the height from the playfield?

You all seem to think that I'm trying to shoot down this product...I am not.

I am simply pointing out some differences between the precision flippers and "original" ones, and asking if there is a reason for it.

And the only answers that I seem to get are "well, it doesn't matter anyway".

Not only is the flipper height different, but it holds the rubber in a lower spot relative to the playfield. This means that the center of the ball will hit closer to the top of the rubber.

Maybe this is a good thing - maybe it could reduce air balls, or maybe it's a bad thing and causes other undesirable behavior. And if it "doesn't matter anyway", why not just do it the same as the original flippers?

I still haven't heard anyone say "the position of the flipper and/or rubber was moved for reason X".

Just to add another element for thought for those who are not familiar with the injection molding process of plastics I'll share this with you. When designing a part that will be manufactured using the injection molding process there needs to be what's called 'Positive Draft' within the mold caivity. This draft allows the part to be 'ejected' from the mold easily to avoid trapping it in the mold.

The amount of Draft (or angle) is driven by the depth/mass of the part being molded, the deeper the mold cavity combined with the cross section/mass, the greater the draft. This also varies by the type of plastic being molded, Nylon 66 has been used since day one for the molded flipper bats because its the cheapest and easily molded variety available. So the exterior shape of the plastic flipper was born in part by the nature of the manufacturing process and material used.

To that I offer this for thought, just because we've all been playing pinball (up until now) with plastic flippers does not make them 'The Standard' for which all others should be judged or compared. My opinion. Sure they've been around a long time but now we all have another choice available, one that 'Breaks the Mold' and pushes modern day technology and improves the way the game plays and responds to the user. I can tell everyone with 100% confidence that the plastic flipper bats have been made the way they are with one primary driver from day one, their low cost and easy to make truck loads of them in a day.

Bottom line, the plastic flippers are what they are, nothing special, minimal engineering development, easy and cheap to manufacture, (including the bushings) and they've been used and accepted (perhaps as the norm) for years. Will my flipper system become the 'standard' going forward, time will tell. Are they for everyone, perhaps not.

I also believe this discussion we are all having is good, its all thought provoking right! I'll close by saying I owe all of you who have purchased a big thank you, and for those who might consider buying to be open to give them a try, they just might bring a smile to your face and make you even happier your playing pinball

It's great that you're questioning everything but I do feel like you've gotten an answer over and over. It's been reiterated by yourself and others that the shape of the flippers changed because there's no secret sauce in the existing shape but more a balance of cost and manufacturablity and the cost and weight of the precision pinball set is prohibitive to just reproduce the same shape. There's been both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the change in shape has not caused any undesirable behavior yet. If you're still unconvinced, then you're going to have to buy a set and do the leg work yourself to meet your standard of evidence. I'm sure the people in this thread would be happy to help you design a test system and protocol that would meet your requirements. We'd all be interested in seeing the results, so we can help John make a better product if you uncover any as of yet unknown issues.

Perhaps I should have added "immaterial so long as the ball does not compress the rubber past the edge of the band when struck"

But then again that would also depend on the type of band used ( make ) and the shore of the material which would govern the depth of the compression divot.

Yes, it makes them the standard. It doesn’t make them the best. It’s clear from the evidence in this thread your new flipper system is superior in many ways- except cost.

Seems like the perfect situation for a mod. Too expensive for the manufacturers to include from the factory but provides a noticeable difference to game play with every flip.

Cant we all just PIN together.......

No, I don't feel that I have gotten an answer to this one basic question yet...

Why was a decision made to move the flipper rubber down from it's "historic" position to a position 1/16" lower? Is there some perceived benefit to this?

I keep being told it's "not about cost", "not about weight", and "not about ease of manufacturing".

If there is no perceived benefit to moving it, and no reason for moving it, why move it?

Perhaps it was just an oversight, and you don't feel the need to re-adjust it?

The only reason I even brought this up was that I looked at the two pictures posted by 1956pinhead, and thought "Wow, there are some significant differences there - I wonder why he chose to make those changes."

Furthermore, I am not trying to pick on his design - I'm trying to understand it.

The only reason I haven't already bought some of these is that I only own 3 machines, and two of them have no way to reduce the flipper strength (and WH20 mountains get broken too easily already). I may buy a set for my MBr, but seeing as how they are still going through some refinements, I will probably wait a while.

That was the other reason I brought this whole issue up, if there are still refinements being made, maybe one of them could be to adjust the rubber position back to the "historically expected position".

Ffs, if you want the rubber 1mm higher, why wouldn't you just lift it up 1mm on the bat?

Why does it have to be a philosophical question with a technical answer?

Lowering the band slightly does give an advantage over the stock position under certain circumstances. You could try this by raising the bands on your stock bats a little and see if you perceive a difference.

Design questions aside, which I recognize the desire to understand, and another case of how transparent John is with his design process...

Here's another short video of the original Precision Flips in action! To me, how these play and look is the biggest reason for using them and I have somewhat of an engineering background.

Since you have a GZ, can you share your strength setting and bat adjustment ? I could not yet figure out a good combination

I think you’re grossly over estimating the amount of engineering that went into the original plastic flipper geometry and design. I’m willing to bet that the flipper height on all 3 of your machines is different.

Current flipper settings on Godzilla with ~650 games played on Precision Flips:

Lower Left: 235
Lower Right: 225
Upper Left: 160

For bat adjustment angle, I ended up basically putting them as low as possible while still being able to cradle a ball.

I hold the bat up and set a ball on it, and if the ball will slowly roll back into the cradle position, that's where I tighten the flipper.

This is working well on both GZ and Deadpool. I started out trying to emulate the original flipper position in relation to the alignment hole, but my lower left flippers couldn't fully cradle in that position. Just a light tick upward and they could. The upper flipper on GZ is set as close to original flipper location as possible.

I'm not 100% sure but when I read the thread, I had the impression that there was a balance in the design to minimise weight while maintaining rigidity.
Potentially (John can correct me if I'm wrong here), the "missing bit" along most of the bottom is an effort to reduce weight.

I haven't seen any reason why the rubber is at a different height, and can't offer any insight as to whether it would make a difference, sorry.
Although it was something I noticed from the picture comparison before you mentioned it.

mbeardsley Here's your answer, and its a simple one. As the designer I determined what was critical and what wasn't at the onset. This project started with a 'clean sheet of paper' as they say. That's the benefit of being a designer and not relying on what someone else did in the past. My approach was to test until I was satisfied. I've been playing pinball for going on 61 years now, while I don't compete in tournaments I do consider myself to be capable enough to determine what works well and what doesn't. I also made certain to get testers out in the field to gather additional feedback, DiabloRush being one of those testers. If you've read some of his postings in this thread you might pick up on the fact he's a pretty smart guy, he enjoys playing pinball too

Lastly, the refinements that have been made have not changed the primary geometery/interface of the shaft and flipper, that was and has been well established from the beginning of my play testing. That interface is a key element in establishing the flipper bat/rubber height from the playfield. There are a lot of design elements that make up this system that aren't so visually evident. Again, since you haven't actually seen, touched, or played them you would not have first hand knowledge or awarness of any of these details. I'll state the obvious to anyone who owns or has played them compared to the plastics, they play better despite the very minor differences in where "I" chose to place the rubber onto the flipper bat. The shape was driven by weight savings, longevity, aesthetics, and the desire to 'be different' from what was done before.

Thanks for posting your thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to share some of what transpired when I started this venture to bring something new to the pinball community

Hi guys. I need your help ! I installed a few kits of the classic precision flip and it went pretty well. Except on one of my pinballs where no matter how hard I tightened the linkage, the shaft kept slipping after a few seconds of playing. I changed the linkage for brand new one three times and even on the last time, same issue. Believe me they were tight, almost broke every time.
So my question is: when will the keyed shafts be available ? I need them desperately
Kind regards

Turtlemaster Believe me I (and a few others) feel your pain in having to deal with that clamping system, it's hit and miss, more miss perhaps in your case. So this is a good segway into giving everyone an update on those clamps. I ran into a couple fixturing/machining challenges that I'm working to overcome in a production set-up. I've got a couple more test runs to make, once I get through that phase I'll give them the stamp of approval and start into production.

I'm hoping to finish that process end of this week. If all goes well I'll start cranking them out and try to make them available by the end of this month. I'm sorry for the delay, but I'm closing in on it.

For those that haven't yet seen what they look like I've attached a photo. The photo showing the clamp and shaft installed in GNR provided by DiabloRush during play testing.

D Shaft 4 (resized).jpg

D shaft GNR (resized).jpg

I bought one of your sets because the design makes sense and I don’t expect the same but better performance than the plastic standard flippers.
Flippers are the main control mechanism for the player and I always found the imprecise default design annoying so when I saw your product, I immediately liked it.

In the meantime:

1. Install the rod through the bushings, then clean it thoroughly with isopropyl. Do the same to the inside of the clamp. This allowed me to get my R&M working after similar frustration. I think even the SLIGHTEST bit of oil or residue from manufacturing can muck this. I still had to tighten the hell out of them, but they stay out now.

2. If that doesn't work, try hitting the rod and the inside of the clamp with a little 220 sandpaper to get a little more grip. I suspect part of the issue is the metal john uses is higher quality, smoother, maybe deforms less too, and is thus harder to grip (in the same scenario, my old basic plastic bats would go back in and hold fine).

Wow what a nice groupe of Pinsiders on this thread ! Thank you all for your help and advices. Thank you John, don’t worry about “delay” I’m sure you’re doing your best as usual to get the right product. You can already put a few pairs aside for me when it’s ready
DiabloRush yes after I got mad at it, I realized tightening them to the extrem, considering their shape, might just do the opposite and actually untighten them. Thank you for confirming that theory.
Ollulanus thank you for the tips. I also noticed the shafts are somewhat slippery, I tried to clean it but I didn’t do it the clamps so maybe there’s still a chance to get it right.

I’ll keep you posted on that

Does this issue only really effect JJP machines?
Has anyone had this happen on a Stern - specifically GZ?

Delivery is a pita for me so I had the idea I would wait until the new clamps were available and order everything I wanted/needed in one go.
but now I'm wondering if I need the clamp (more importantly, regret getting them)

No issues with slippage on my GZ.

I've installed on two sterns without any problems (that I couldn't fix by tightening the clamp further). The clamp for sterns is different than JJP/Williams, and has a much larger contact surface, so I think slippage would be much less likely with them in general. The Williams/JJP/Spooky style clamps are a pretty junk design in general and it's a wonder they hold anything.

These rods seem to be very, very slightly larger in diameter than standard bats - I've had to loosen everything more to get them in than to put the others in/out. That might also be reducing surface contact, and thus grip, since those easily deformable clamps are likely to flatten in one area at the cost of spreading in another. At least, I'd think so.

1956PINHEAD - can you confirm/deny that the rods you're making are slightly larger diameter than stock? Just for my curiosity/sanity, I'm not particularly concerned about it or interested in agonizing over half a millimeter

Problem solved, with exactly the tips given by @ollulanus. Thank you for that.
But unfortunately in the wonderful pinball world, just when you solve a problem you get the next one. I installed these precision flips on an Indiana Jones Williams. I wasn’t playing since 5 minutes and enjoying them that I broke a piece of the plane which wasn’t just the usual basic plane but the fantastic mod made by Kornfreak and which is bloody expensive
So I can only confirm that the precision flips are much more powerful (indeed on my left ramp the ball is jumping out when going down every second time which is what caused the damages) and for those who are planning to using them on old pinballs it’s important to know about this danger. I might change them back to classic flips on IJ because I don’t want it to get broken here and there after long months renovating it.
I have them too on my Champion pub and didn’t have any issue in a few weeks so I suppose it’s related to the playfield and some pins may be more sensitive than others.
I’m not complaining nor criticizing the product at all, but just reporting a fact to warn the others

Use lower powered coils in Williams. You have like 4-5 options. IJ uses some of the strongest coils due to the shots in that game.

Interesting
Do you have the reference for them ?