Wow, I didn't know this topic exploded back up over here- I've been addressing it over at MCB but, I'll share my main points here for folks that don't go there often or at all.
In regards to my data and graphs etc, it has nothing to do with the ASTM, or my membership but rather, my changing of hosting services and the relatively low interest I got over on TechPB in more recent years. Current thread and working links are over on MCB
Given the fact that there are several insurance providers who haven't already jumped to Cossio's conclusion, I wouldn't say that this is purely an insurance issue. Also, Cossio's behavior clearly indicates that he has some personal motive beyond 'insurability'. I do acknowledge that some insurers don't feel comfortable covering something not under a specification. If it was a clear-cut case, it'd be more like Full-Auto which for a long time has nearly been universally banned. On this point, you must also consider the following ASTM certification dates:
1996- ASTM Adopts a standard for the ASA (threading, etc); Many markers made in 1989 had this capability but, this was the first standard.
1999- ASTM adopts a standard for paintballs and goggles; Again, many goggles had come and gone before this standard arrived.
2003- ASTM adopts a standard for paintball markers; We went from nel-spots to electropnuematics before this standard even came around.
2006- ASTM adopts a standard for 'reball' like products; Reball usage related questions started appearing on PBN in March, 2005.
2009- ASTM adopts a standard for safe handling and filling of HPA tanks.; I had my first HPA system in 2004, and I believe several in here have had them before that.
It appears to me that requiring ASTM specifications before the product is allowed on the field is unrealistic at best.
Also, interestingly enough, I've seen the negative responses from other voting members and, it's a bit surprising to see a canned phrase "different impact profile" by multiple voters who even manage to use the phrase incorrectly. Also, If I could name the organization, it would be clear that one of the 'down voters' just simply want's to slow the competition. I've heard rumors that Kee/GI opposes them but, nothing in the ASTM I've seen to justify the assertion.
The founder of Carmatech, and other individuals provided a presentation to the ASTM that did about as good of a job as I can imagine of showing how FS rounds and Paintballs interact with the body (force sensors, force sensors with standard ballistic gelatin coating, force sensors with gel and, burlap (to simulate clothing), paint and FS rounds impacting clear gelatin (to highlight penetration, etc) and there is next to a zero difference between projectiles that impact at similar speeds and weights.
One thing I find funny about the assertion of netting defeat is that Cossio claims to have done it while calling out the amateur testing of others (and purposely leaving out the testing I mentioned above), and demanding that third party certified testing organizations be commissioned to do testing.
It's also worth noting that when this whole LL thing spilled over, Cossio said: "We have seen the statement by Tiberius and are glad they are trying to get all the safety approved, the thing is, even though they are trying to get standards set by the ASTM and the safety testing approved by the Goggles manufactures, netting, etc. the insurance carriers won't change their policies until all the testing has been completed and standards are set. We are not saying that the FSR are not as safe as a paintball and we would have no problem insuring them & have nothing against Tiberius personally." Now that they are close to being approved, he's in a panic. The earlier quoted email that he sent out to his distro, has since been taken down.
Finally, I'm dialing into the meeting tomorrow and I expect to hear just how things will move forward since we finished the 2nd round of voting.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by pbjosh
