Jul 3, 2013 at 9:34 am #1304918
We have a couple questions and we are looking for opinions.
We have given Outsak UL a makeover. We have replaced the stainless steel mesh with a new type. We like it. It has passed all of our field testing. Our field testers have indicated no problems. We are at a crossroads in development and want some input.
Keep the weight the same as the current Outsak UL and increase its capacity?
Would you keep the capacity the same as the current model and reduce weight?
Please share your opinion. We want to start making them after our summer break.
Thanks for the input.Jul 3, 2013 at 9:57 am #2002055
@cobbermanLocale: Northern Colorado
Both, you could increase capacity and market the original size as the SUL version.Jul 3, 2013 at 11:24 am #2002106
@danepackerLocale: Mojave Desert
Please post photos of the original Outsak and the new one to help us compare and offer suggestions.Jul 3, 2013 at 11:37 am #2002112
HA!! Yeah, I guess we could.
No pictures. Nothing really to tell from a picture anyways. gut reaction is what I'm looking for. Some of you have used the Outsak UL or UL Micro. Not much in the way of looks or style is changing. Just curious about more room or less weight.Jul 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm #2002142
"Keep the weight the same as the current Outsak UL and increase its capacity?"
Yes, please!Jul 3, 2013 at 12:51 pm #2002145
Yup. To both of your questions. Offer both.Jul 3, 2013 at 1:02 pm #2002149
Offer both.Jul 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm #2002172
…but if you had to pick one, which would it be?
We will still have the Outsak UL Micro. The choice on the UL will also affect the the UL Micro.
More than likely we won't offer 2 UL's and a micro. Minor differences like that we already do…most times for just a few bucks. Those are custom bag adjustments. Just contact us.Jul 3, 2013 at 2:07 pm #2002181
@cobbermanLocale: Northern Colorado
If you are only looking at one or the other, keep the size the same. The size has for the most part been working for many of your clients already. Unless several have come forward requesting a larger capacity, just make your current offerings in the lighter material.Jul 3, 2013 at 3:30 pm #2002214
That was my original thinking, and i'm still leaning that way. However, we asked a question and got some feedback, which caused us to ask some questions that we hadn't thought to ask ourselves previously….following me? Anyways, this is why feedback ROCKS!! Sometimes a different set of eyes allows you to see things differently. we've got a couple ideas but they have to simmer for a couple days.
Thanks for the feedback. keep it coming.Jul 3, 2013 at 3:36 pm #2002216
@richardcullipLocale: San Diego County
My choice would be same capacity but lighter.Jul 3, 2013 at 3:50 pm #2002223
Same capacity, lighter. I've been using the UL micro every trip to Grand Canyon and it works like a champ. The raven's haven't picked it apart yet..Jul 3, 2013 at 4:10 pm #2002239
Thank you for the compliment. It's about using the right tool for the job.
The new bags will be equally effective. We haven't compromised the bags ability to frustrate most animals.
There is dead weight in the UL series. If we trim some dead weight we can add usable weight, or just get rid of the weight.Jul 3, 2013 at 4:23 pm #2002244
@scubahhhLocale: White Mountains, mostly.
Seems like with whatever new material or construction you have available, you might be able to do it better, lighter, and cheaper than Ursack or any of the rigid containers, eh?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.