Not to get back on topic or anything, but…
If the design translated into a play style that I prefer, and the yoyo or accessory was of a level of quality that warranted said extra cost, then yes, I would gladly pay more.
If, however, the extra cost just gets me a sticker that says, “MADE IN AMERICA,” affixed to a clunker that sits in a case 'cuz I hate to use it, then no.
I think @da5id explaination of wide fits when you consider he was talking about the affect axial rim weight has on how smooth a yoyo is. It’s still really silly to not say that bit though lol
@chaosgow Hi boss man 
Yes you are right to a degree, but everyone would consider the 100mm x 60mm to be a narrow yoyo. At least by my 16 years of doing of this experience, that has been the view. Of course you’re right that if the number is bigger it’s wider.
Hi fren
Fair enough there. Overly tight bearing seats where your hands are red after pulling off the bearing with a tool suck.
Exactly: wideER. The original point was not “you don’t make yoyos wider than n,” it was “you don’t make wide yoyos.” Define wide with no other information given. 60mm is not wide if it’s referencing the width of my monitor.
The wide thing was something David brought up anyway. He was saying players are trending to wider, higher performance yoyos and that OD doesn’t make them because his dr friend said it’s going to be harder.
Mic drop moment.
I 100% didn’t say this. Please stop misquoting me.
Yeah, that’s mad annoying. How about the ones where you’re cranking back and forth for what seems like an eternity and it finally grinds off with that scrrrrrrreewwwwnnnch sound that feels like melted ice cream. 
“Man, I hope I didn’t just break my Koi!”
Can you cite the post where he says this? I was referring to where you said this:
“the kinds of designs people want are the same kind that don’t tolerate error very well”
“things like being wide and having lots of axial rim weight”
“We have our Physics Doctor friend, Dirty Birdy who has done a lot of work in this area so he can do analysis of our CAD before we cut metal and let us know how tolerant of error it is”
Exactly, I didn’t say “so therefore we don’t make those kind of yoyos”. I’m saying we use math to understand what we’re getting into and help improve production if possible. We don’t use this to avoid doing certain kinds of yoyos. We are the ones who actually tackle the difficult task of hitting .0002". The others are willing to accept having a stuck bearing a certain percent of the time in exchange for not hitting the tolerance.
Idk about anything here but if Dirty Birdy had any hand in telling you to run as many fat tires as you do… don’t listen to that guy lmfao
I think we’re starting to go in circles.
@da5id Out of curiosity and in no way out of disrespect, could we possibly have a OD version of a modern pure competition yo-yo (any category of play ie. speed, tech, zoning, etc)?
Saying this as a fan, tangential to this conversation.
Thanks for isolating the content, but I don’t translate the snippets in or out of context to mean, “We don’t do it 'cuz it’s too hard.” With his previous comments on cost to tolerance ratio, I interpret his words to mean that the tolerances these features would require will cost a significant amount of money for them to successfully accomplish.
No need to by a bearing removal tool then?
