Quoted from mbeardsley: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".
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.