A message from MalletHeadz – Yes, I’m completely serious.

 

Hat tip to DC Bike Polo for posting this on FB last night

Let me just get you up to speed on this:

Mallet Headz makes mallets, ostensibly. I posted this about their product, and they responded with this comment. 321 Polo! did this review.

and now, friends, we have this UNEDITED post from their own website.

NOTE: if you just want to get to the part where I lampoon the hell out of this message, skip down this part.

A Word From Malletheadz
Malletheadz Bike Polo Mallets

What has Steve Raymond, Managing Partner of Malletheadz, been doing since the last review? Steve has been attending seminars in India, China and Switzerland in order to maintain his proficiency in materials engineering and design. While he was at the structural seminar in Switzerland, he brought along the Version 2 Mallet Head (v2) that was reviewed previously by the writer.
A panel of engineers brought up pictures of v2 on screen at the meeting and enlarged the pictures on the big screen so everyone could see the v2 mallet head.
Several engineers at the seminar started to say “foul, foul!” I had no clue what they were talking about as it was in another language. I was told that they were ‘referring’ to the construction of the shaft that was ‘violated’ so as to make it appear as there was a problem with the end of the shaft. The end of the shaft could not come loose as it was ‘pinned’ in three locations around the radius of the end of the shaft. The writer claimed that the end of the shaft came apart while playing with it.
The next seminar was held in India and some of the engineers heard this story. Steve was requested to bring in the v2. So, the next day he brought the head and the shaft for them to examine. The engineers agreed that the end of the shaft could not come apart not without someone forcibly causing it to come loose.
I was asked by the panel why the shaft had a curve in it and explained that the writer of the article claimed that he was able to bend the ¾” shaft of T6-6061 aircraft grade aluminum with his bare hands”. The panelists said that it was not possible; the writer must have put the shaft in a vise, or used a pipe bender on the shaft to embarrass our group. I did not want to dwell on the subject any longer and had heard enough.
Prior to attending these seminars, a new mallet head design was produced by our group. We took into account the critiques of the writer of the article when the new version was designed. The engineers were of the opinion that it probably was superior to the v2 and that we should go with it. There is a patent pending.
This new version will be tested by a bike polo player in Florida.
To be frank, the writer had some good ideas in his review and is quite knowledgeable about bike polo. The review may have been biased as he is associated with a company that manufactures bike polo mallets. The writer should continue with his writing as he writes well. Maybe he should take up journalism and become a writer professionally.
Mallet head specifications come from Mallet Making 101, which is on Google, so to say that ours are not within specification, would be an erroneous accusation.
The head is made out of tough ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). The shaft is made out of T6-6061 Aircraft-grade aluminum, and not from broom sticks. We are investigating using anodized and powder coated aluminum, although we will still be spray painting the shafts with a polyurethane ultra-clear coat.
For those that want T6-7075 aluminum, this can be ordered on an ‘as-needed’ basis. Our mallet heads can be custom-made to whatever size and dimensions required.
We offer a lifetime warranty on the head and the shaft. With each warranty the customer should include $5.00 for shipping and handling of the mallet and shaft. (Of course, shafts that are used in pipe benders or vises are not warranteed!)
MALLETHEADZ IS COMMITTED TO THE SPORT OF BIKE POLO, AND WE AIM TO DESIGN THE ULTIMATE BIKE POLO MALLET. MALLETHEADZ LISTENS TO ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM FROM THE BIKE POLO COMMUNITY.

METALLURGY 101
For those of you that do not know the difference between T6-6061 and T6-7075 aircraft grade aluminum, I will do my best to educate you on the differences. Not that the writer of the review is a metallurgist, but most bike polo shafts are T6-6061 aluminum.

T6-6061 Alloy
The alloy composition of T6-6061 aluminum is mainly comprised of magnesium and silicon. Some other elements are small amounts of iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, chromium, zinc, and titanium. Due to its strength and rigidness, bike manufactures use this alloy. The ultimate tensile strength of this alloy is 42,000 P.S.I. and the shear strength is 27,000 P.S.I.

T6-7075 Alloy
The alloy composition of T6-7075 aluminum although may be more prone to corrosion then T6-6061. T6- 7075 is composed of zinc the alloy agent of aluminum, including higher levels of magnesium and copper, making it harder but retaining the lightweight quality of aluminum. The aluminum is widely used in rock climbing equipment, bike frames, and Lacrosse stick shafts. The ultimate tensile strength of this alloy is 83,000 P.S.I. while the shear strength is 48,000 P.S.I.
I would be very careful of anyone claiming that they are using T6-7075 due to the high cost of the aluminum. From a metallurgical perspective (and discussions with metallurgists), T6-6061 will bend under a harsh impact, whereas T6-7075 will snap under a harsh environment. With that said, I would prefer to use T6-6061 rather than have anyone get hurt as a result of having the shaft snap and flying through the air.

I hope that this helps you understand where we stand in the sport of bike polo.
Good Luck,

Steve Raymond
Managing Partner – Malletheadz

 

Just let that sink in for a second, dear polokins.

 

And now, as I hope you would expect, here is my lampoon of that shit:

A Word From Malletheadz
Malletheadz Bike Polo Mallets

What has Steve Raymond, Managing Partner of Malletheadz, been doing since the last review?(making more dangerous products without a single idea of what bike polo is, I betcha!)  Steve has been attending seminars in India, China and Switzerland in order to maintain his proficiency in materials engineering and design (The crazy begins). While he was at the structural seminar in Switzerland, he brought along the Version 2 Mallet Head (v2) that was reviewed previously by the writer(no – I don’t think he means me here. I think “the writer” is 321 Polo! But can you imagine how EXCITED the Swiss scientists were when someone took up their otherwise boring time to review a bike polo mallet?!).
A panel of engineers brought up pictures of v2 on screen (it takes a panel to operate a slide projector, apparently. Little known fact) at the meeting and enlarged the pictures on the big screen (the big one) so everyone could see the v2 mallet head.
Several engineers at the seminar started to say “foul, foul!” I had no clue what they were talking about as it was in another language (Fun fact: English is a compulsory class in Sweden from 3rd grade on. almost 90 percent of the country speaks English fluently.Editor’s note: it’s been pointed out to me that I refer to the Swedes here and not the Swiss. To be fair and honest, the Swiss do speak English much less than the Swedes do. Except for in Geneva, as they have the United Nations and all…my bad, Stevsie.) . I was told that they were ‘referring’(grammar!) to the construction of the shaft that was ‘violated’(the ‘ means we should be smirking along with him) so as to make it appear as there was a problem with the end of the shaft. The end of the shaft could not come loose as it was ‘pinned’ in three locations around the radius of the end of the shaft. The writer claimed that the end of the shaft came apart while playing with it (oh that mysterious writer who just pops up in Sweden to disprove all of that delicious Swedish science).
The next seminar was held in India (Travelling the world to keep your proficiency lends credibility. I go to Siberia every year to stay proficient in making ice) and some of the engineers heard this story. Steve was requested to bring in the v2. So, the next day he brought the head and the shaft for them to examine. The engineers agreed that the end of the shaft could not come apart not without someone forcibly causing it to come loose (It was easy for them to agree to this, as they were all the same person in Florida).
I was asked by the panel why the shaft had a curve in it and explained that the writer of the article claimed that he was able to bend the ¾” shaft of T6-6061 aircraft grade aluminum with his bare hands” (the lonely quotation marks are lonely). The panelists said that it was not possible; the writer must have put the shaft in a vise, or used a pipe bender on the shaft to embarrass our group. I did not want to dwell on the subject any longer and had heard enough (read: I just wanted to make a passive aggressive point with my imaginary Indian Panel that the writer is mean and a liar).
Prior to attending these seminars, a new mallet head design was produced by our group. We took into account the critiques of the writer of the article when the new version was designed. The engineers were of the opinion that it probably was superior to the v2 and that we should go with it (even though the writer was completely wrong, Steve and the board of directors decided “hey, I guess we’ll humor the kid.”). There is a patent pending.
This new version will be tested by a bike polo player in Florida (Just one – as Steve has but one grand child) .
To be frank, the writer had some good ideas in his review and is quite knowledgeable about bike polo. The review may have been biased as he is associated with a company that manufactures bike polo mallets (as the scientists are biased as they are all the same person). The writer should continue with his writing as he writes well. Maybe he should take up journalism and become a writer professionally(awwww).
Mallet head specifications come from Mallet Making 101, which is on Google(hold the presses – hold the PHONE! Stevsie used google to help him make mallets to spec?! Oh man we’ve been so wrong to judge him! Also, if you type “Mallet Making 101″ into Google you get a first result of Boise bike polo. If Steve would follow their advice I dare say he’d be on to something good), so to say that ours are not within specification, would be an erroneous accusation (read: a completely accurate accusation) .
The head is made out of tough ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). The shaft is made out of T6-6061 Aircraft-grade aluminum, and not from broom sticks (because that’s what we started with). We are investigating using anodized and powder coated aluminum, although we will still be spray painting the shafts with a polyurethane ultra-clear coat.
For those that want T6-7075 aluminum, this can be ordered on an ‘as-needed’ basis. Our mallet heads can be custom-made to whatever size and dimensions required.
We offer a lifetime warranty on the head and the shaft. With each warranty the customer should include $5.00 for shipping and handling of the mallet and shaft. (Of course, shafts that are used in pipe benders or vises are not warranteed!) (oh you clever man!)
MALLETHEADZ IS COMMITTED TO THE SPORT OF BIKE POLO, AND WE AIM TO DESIGN THE ULTIMATE BIKE POLO MALLET. MALLETHEADZ LISTENS TO ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM FROM THE BIKE POLO COMMUNITY.(<full crazy released)

METALLURGY 101
For those of you that do not know the difference between T6-6061 and T6-7075 aircraft grade aluminum, I will do my best to educate you on the differences. Not that the writer of the review is a metallurgist, but most bike polo shafts are T6-6061 aluminum. (Not that I think you are genuine in any way, but let’s humor each other, shall we?) (a note here, dear reader: I’m not going to go into the explanations of metal here).

T6-6061 Alloy
The alloy composition of T6-6061 aluminum is mainly comprised of magnesium and silicon. Some other elements are small amounts of iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, chromium, zinc, and titanium. Due to its strength and rigidness, bike manufactures use this alloy. The ultimate tensile strength of this alloy is 42,000 P.S.I. and the shear strength is 27,000 P.S.I.

T6-7075 Alloy
The alloy composition of T6-7075 aluminum although may be more prone to corrosion then T6-6061. T6- 7075 is composed of zinc the alloy agent of aluminum, including higher levels of magnesium and copper, making it harder but retaining the lightweight quality of aluminum. The aluminum is widely used in rock climbing equipment, bike frames, and Lacrosse stick shafts. The ultimate tensile strength of this alloy is 83,000 P.S.I. while the shear strength is 48,000 P.S.I.
I would be very careful of anyone claiming that they are using T6-7075 due to the high cost of the aluminum. From a metallurgical perspective (and discussions with metallurgists), T6-6061 will bend under a harsh impact, whereas T6-7075 will snap under a harsh environment. With that said, I would prefer to use T6-6061 rather than have anyone get hurt as a result of having the shaft snap and flying through the air.

I hope that this helps you understand where we stand in the sport of bike polo.
Good Luck, (clear as day).

Steve Raymond
Managing Partner – Malletheadz

 

Me again:

So I issue this challenge to Steve Raymond of Malletheadz: Please give me the exact names and dates of the seminars you attended in the various countries listed so I can verify your story. Also – I’ll be happy to review your new mallets whenever they come out (I heartell by summer of 2012, so you have 1 day to get that mallet ready before fall!)

Sharing is Caring
Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Tumblr Digg Email

Add a Facebook Comment

13 comments

  1. mathbach says:

    oh you saucy little bitch (hairflip please)

  2. mathbach says:

    indubitably.

  3. john from dc says:

    I’m particularly fond of his metallurgy lesson that is pretty much copied from Wikipedia.

    7075 is considerably stronger and more expensive than 6061. It’s actually slightly more dense than 6061, but is often thought of as “lighter” because with 7075 you can use a thinner tube to get comparable strength. The elongation at break (1.59mm thickness) is 11% for 7075 vs 12% for 6061 at the same thickness, meaning that the tendency to snap is a little less than 10% greater for 7075 than 6061.

    These figures are taken from matweb, which is also on the Google.

    6061

    7075

  4. notsochristian says:

    Not to be an egotistical, credit-seeking prick, but this letter was actually an email from Malletheadz. You had to be on their email subscriber list. When I found the site months ago, I signed up because I wanted to know WTF they were doing. They sent this email to subscribers on Monday.

    Needless to say, it’s comedy gold.

    • Crusher says:

      I don’t see how that makes you sound egotistical – I didn’t realize that it was an email blast until I saw “campaign” in the URL. Mike from DC linked directly to it from FB (how I saw it), so I assumed it was a webpage. I then saw my error but decided “meh”.

      I -like you – am now a subscriber and intrigued at the car crash that is this company.

    • Sean says:

      both of you are correct. It was an email blast and now it’s an all of his pages on his site. As the guy who spent the money on, and did the review for 321, I have to say that this made me smile all day.

  5. Quentin says:

    I assume the seminar part is second degree, right?

  6. benji says:

    by sweden you mean swiss ? because he talking about switzerland and not sweden if i m not mistaking, you are confusing nationalities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *