Material Mix up Not 7068

To answer some more questions:

There is generally a lot of trust that goes between a yoyo brand and manufacturer. All the well known machine shops have in house brands, and the very first baseline level of trust is that the machine shop will not copy the designs of the third party brands for their own. The second is the delivery time, and finally, the quality assurance.

Out of the 3 yoyos that we made in 7068, only 1 (seiji) was made at fpm. The other two were made at a new shop(and the only yoyos made for us by that shop.) The person that I worked with was a very reputable person in the business, and had advertised to me that he had purchased some cnc lathes for the purpose of wanting to vertically integrate. At this point, due to his reputation, I had no reason to doubt him. This ended up being a lie.

It wasn’t until this tip I received (not from a customer) that I was led to believe otherwise. For the Method, the only stage of involvement I had was designing and promoting. This was the only yoyo in the post covid era that I did a collaboration with where I was not directly involved with qc. I now see that this was a mistake, and not only have taken steps to prevent this in the future, but will be doing all qc in house.

As to whether or not we have tested our 7075 yoyos, whether this is wise or not, I have seen the material certification from our normal machine shop. There is a level of trust established between the oem that makes the majority of our yoyos (they don’t work with 7068, which is why we went with another machine shop). At this point, I have no reason to be suspicious of them.

Circling back to sample 2, this sample was from a very reputable shop, that had advertised it as 7068. It still came up as not 7068. This yoyo was made pre covid. I don’t believe there is any intentional malice or deception from any of the factories, but I think the facts present themselves that somewhere in the pipeline, there is an issue.

Finally, in my personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that someone can tell what grade aluminum a yoyo is just by throwing it. I’ve been yoyoing since 2007, and making yoyos (both designing and machining) since 2013, and can not personally tell the difference. Even with the Nation and Method, people were telling me that the yoyo has a feeling that can only be made by 7068. Granted this is a small sample size, but it seems like this situation at least casts reasonable doubt that people have the ability to tell what material a yoyo is made of, simply by throwing it.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, no one’s lives will be personally affected because a yoyo was a different grade aluminum than advertised. However, this was the best decision I could come up with to resolve this issue. I owe it to the community to be thorough and transparent, and to (in my opinion) more than fairly compensate for the issue. The 7068 yoyos were priced the same as our 6061 and 7075 yoyos, although they were significantly more expensive to make.

24 Likes

One question I have, were there not any durability (from thinner walls than a 6061 design) or weight discrepancies when going from CAD to prototype?

When i made my yoyos the machine shop would ask me for my actual target weight in addition to giving me a density figure for the material (which also more often than not deviated a bit from textbook sources). The idea seems to be that machining error is the primary source of weight differences, and that the machining process can be somehow tuned on spot to produce a weight anywhere in the ±1g range given the same base design

To be honest, I’m one of the recent people who purchased the Unparalleled Method yoyo but its was already on discount plus an extra 20% off from ■■■■■■■. The bearing recently stiffened up on me where it needs maintenance. I only had the yoyo nearly two weeks as of this writing. What bothers me is this likely isn’t the first time because I was listening to a video hint at the possibilities of yoyo not made of the grade of aluminum as advertised. The owners of these brands had to have prototypes to figure out the differences in these yoyo weights and sizes I mean I’m sure this discussion on the mistake was a earlier known problem if the yoyo was given a hefty discount. Someone knew about this sooner. I have several 7068 Al grade yo-yos but wow this story looks pretty bad on any brand designing, manufacturing and selling 7068 and 7075 they need to have certified proof.

2 Likes

95% aluminum
2% magnesium
.02% titanium
1% iron
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% uranium and plutonium
Stay safe :saluting_face:

1 Like

Wait…. A 5 material Yoyo. This could be ground breaking….:thinking:

1 Like

If the protos and production were both assumed to be 7068 but actually 6061, how would the weight be different?

1 Like

Well even with the material mix up, it appears that the Nation proved to be more that capable and dominating at New York States last weekend.

@unprld

@chandlersteele_ dominated NY States 1A and took the dub using Nation!
@colinbeckford won Dual with Ion and used his new proto for 1A!
@24newshoes placed 3rd in Dual using Abductions and finaled in 1A with Nostalgia
@r_kimmyyy did a #kimpossible prelim and finaled in 1A with Nation
@aidan_cioch had the most original tricks of the day in prelims, also using Nation

https://www.instagram.com/p/DAwvot1yYLK/

5 Likes

Yeah this conspiratorial line of thinking doesn’t really make sense and just seems to assume deception from stores and brands for no reason.

Also, not sure why you’re mentioning 7075 given the only type of aluminium to have this issue has been 7068.

2 Likes

Production copies and protos often end up with different weights than cad calculations anyways because tools and bar stock aren’t infinitely precise.

Also seems unrealistic to ask companies to always conduct tests on their alu if the fault was on their oem they trusted, especially with how small many boutique brands are.

2 Likes

I was just thinking based on designs we’ve seen ported to 7075 from 6061 without modification ending up way heavier, that the difference must have ended up larger than you could normally attribute to those sources of error.

1 Like

As it is an alloy, I think it is best to assume that there will be a slight margin of error (although in this case it may not be a slight margin).
I don’t think there is a need to be that nervous.
Because it is still a good yo-yo.

2 Likes

I think unprld’s response is excellent and there is no need to blame them. Maybe this issue is just the tip of the iceberg (there may still be companies that are covering up after hearing this, and it’s not just limited to 7068) What do you guys think, should we present the proof of alloys or should we not be that concerned about it?

3 Likes

I think we should not be that concerned about it. Especially bc like you said earlier, a good Yoyo is a good Yoyo either way. It’s good that Tyler has figured out what the problem was and I trust him to not let it happen in the future. Asking for more safeguards in place to prevent this type of thing just seems like a hassle and will add extra costs that would end up getting pushed to the consumers. It definitely does not seem worth it to ask brands to get all their yo-yos tested to me. There should also be a level of trust between an oem and a brand having them make yo-yos for a healthy relationship.

3 Likes


Yoyo used is the run 3 Hummingbird from 2018.

7 Likes

This may not be the best thing to ask here, but…
Have any of these people already received compensation?
I’ve been waiting for quite a while, but I haven’t heard from them or any information.
By new monometal, do you mean Recognition Redux?

1 Like