• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Gen 1 vs Gen 2

denots

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
2,088
Location
Denham Springs, Louisiana
Well here's a side-by-side of the two Predator platforms. I personally didn't see any need to Beef It Up but the guys decided that it was necessary so here they are.
f3b0447047942b55f29d1744f6eb9559.jpg
1575bdf6820f85361117269e37b7a880.jpg
3623909f7ea860b89bff8f720409f1a1.jpg
e6f08f76188725970eb47ed54f220910.jpg


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
Not a ton, about three quarters of a pound. And this thing ought to be Stout enough for even the bigger guys who were concerned about flex and breaking platforms.
659673bc1b13d45b3d53dc2d300610ca.jpg
e4f0e7bcac7eeee00353d4e8a7e4d2b4.jpg


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
It appears they need to change the top post bracket to match the angles of the seat portion. There is no way if all of the teeth on the bottom are contacting the tree, that you get all of the teeth on the top to contact the tree. I guess they did this for packability, but it seems to be wasted material and additional weight that serves no purpose because it doesn't contact the tree. I'm curious as to their thought process on the original design, and their thought process of why they didn't change it for Gen 2.

Curious if they fixed the noise issues with the platform. Most say it doesn't cost much to fix, so my question is why haven't they fixed it prior to shipping them to customers. This appears to be a known issue with the Gen 1 stands.
 
It appears they need to change the top post bracket to match the angles of the seat portion. There is no way if all of the teeth on the bottom are contacting the tree, that you get all of the teeth on the top to contact the tree. I guess they did this for packability, but it seems to be wasted material and additional weight that serves no purpose because it doesn't contact the tree. I'm curious as to their thought process on the original design, and their thought process of why they didn't change it for Gen 2.

Curious if they fixed the noise issues with the platform. Most say it doesn't cost much to fix, so my question is why haven't they fixed it prior to shipping them to customers. This appears to be a known issue with the Gen 1 stands.

unless you find a perfect tree (cylinder) you will seldom get 4 points of contact..... basic geometry.
 
It appears they need to change the top post bracket to match the angles of the seat portion. There is no way if all of the teeth on the bottom are contacting the tree, that you get all of the teeth on the top to contact the tree. I guess they did this for packability, but it seems to be wasted material and additional weight that serves no purpose because it doesn't contact the tree. I'm curious as to their thought process on the original design, and their thought process of why they didn't change it for Gen 2.

Curious if they fixed the noise issues with the platform. Most say it doesn't cost much to fix, so my question is why haven't they fixed it prior to shipping them to customers. This appears to be a known issue with the Gen 1 stands.
If you don't mind me asking do you have one of these? And what is your concern with all the teeth touching? The design as is works flawless. The Gen 2 is just a heavier built version. I don't have any problems with how the teeth connect the tree or it camming over tight so I don't know why they would change that aspect of the design.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
It appears they need to change the top post bracket to match the angles of the seat portion. There is no way if all of the teeth on the bottom are contacting the tree, that you get all of the teeth on the top to contact the tree. I guess they did this for packability, but it seems to be wasted material and additional weight that serves no purpose because it doesn't contact the tree. I'm curious as to their thought process on the original design, and their thought process of why they didn't change it for Gen 2.

Curious if they fixed the noise issues with the platform. Most say it doesn't cost much to fix, so my question is why haven't they fixed it prior to shipping them to customers. This appears to be a known issue with the Gen 1 stands.

If I'm reading this correctly, the answer to your question is the Predator was designed to fit solidly to a wide range of tree sizes. The top bracket bites in solid no matter what the diameter of the tree is when you cam the platform over. The bottom teeth are designed so that on larger trees the outer teeth do all of the work. As the tree diameter gets smaller, the inner teeth come into play. The design works exactly as it should. Hope that helps.
 
Curious if they fixed the noise issues with the platform. Most say it doesn't cost much to fix, so my question is why haven't they fixed it prior to shipping them to customers. This appears to be a known issue with the Gen 1 stands.[/:eek:QUOTE]

I think Ernie said the platforms were coming pre-waxed now.
 
It was Ricky, but I'm still going to drill mine and put the nylon spacers like I did my Gen 1. It's too easy of a permanent fix

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
It appears they need to change the top post bracket to match the angles of the seat portion. There is no way if all of the teeth on the bottom are contacting the tree, that you get all of the teeth on the top to contact the tree. I guess they did this for packability, but it seems to be wasted material and additional weight that serves no purpose because it doesn't contact the tree. I'm curious as to their thought process on the original design, and their thought process of why they didn't change it for Gen 2.

Curious if they fixed the noise issues with the platform. Most say it doesn't cost much to fix, so my question is why haven't they fixed it prior to shipping them to customers. This appears to be a known issue with the Gen 1 stands.
The way it’s designed the top standoff slides up and down on the tree when setting the platform. You don’t want it to grip the tree like the bottom teeth. It needs to slide down when calming the platform down. That’s what gets the strap super tight. If it matches the bottom teeth there would be more breakages and it wouldn’t perform as well. It’s one of the key parts that make that design work well. You could probably cut the outside tooth on each side off completely and save a little weight without hurting the performance at all. Once it’s cammed over the top standoff doesn’t do anything but stop the top of the post from moving toward the tree and the strap being loose. I weigh I’ve had several trees where the top standoff wasn’t even touching when my weight was on it. Didn’t budge just belt a little more springy than normal. I weigh 290 and have yet to break the gen 1 version.
 
DaveT, for the height of the Predator on the tree, most of the trees I hunt are certainly cylindrical over that height. So given that, I would think you would want symmetrical teeth touching both top and bottom, much like any of the climbing sticks or treestands.

Denots, I currently do not own one, but I have a friend that actually owns two Gen1s. (I was essentially holding out for a Gen 2 version, much like I never buy a first model year car....). He noticed the nature of the contact. See also the question beign raised at post 321 on the Official Predator Platform review thread!!:
https://saddlehunter.com/community/...atform-review-thread.7960/page-17#post-150681

I was just curious as to the design considerations, so thank you ckossulth!
 
DaveT, for the height of the Predator on the tree, most of the trees I hunt are certainly cylindrical over that height. So given that, I would think you would want symmetrical teeth touching both top and bottom, much like any of the climbing sticks or treestands.

Denots, I currently do not own one, but I have a friend that actually owns two Gen1s. (I was essentially holding out for a Gen 2 version, much like I never buy a first model year car....). He noticed the nature of the contact. See also the question beign raised at post 321 on the Official Predator Platform review thread!!:
https://saddlehunter.com/community/...atform-review-thread.7960/page-17#post-150681

I was just curious as to the design considerations, so thank you ckossulth!
I only asked if you had one because I wanted to know if maybe you were having problems with yours. I wasn't trying to be a ****. As far as I can see it operates flawlessly the way it is no need to fix something that's not broke.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
It was Ricky, but I'm still going to drill mine and put the nylon spacers like I did my Gen 1. It's too easy of a permanent fix

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

So what is the difference in flex between the two? Does the Gen 2 feel more robust?
 
So what is the difference in flex between the two? Does the Gen 2 feel more robust?
I haven't had a chance to put it in the tree. It's been raining and nasty here and I've been fighting trying to get a little bit of work done around it so hopefully this weekend. I'll bring it to the camp with me and play with it some. Just from the looks of it though it would take a pretty big fella to make it Flex any. I have a feeling it would start to pull away from the tree before it would begin to flex, but I never found there to be much of a flex in the Gen 1 maybe a little bit if I'm way out on a corner with no weight in the saddle. I'm 200 pounds fyi, I don't know how much that matters.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
So what is the difference in flex between the two? Does the Gen 2 feel more robust?
I'm sorry Ricky I didn't answer the second part of your question. I know the pictures probably don't do it justice but there's definitely a lot more material in the platform. I believe it will be exponentially stronger than the last one even though it does not appear to be that much heavier built(weight wise).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
I’ve seen it mentioned on here a couple times about the top contact point matching the bottom. That actually would be a bad idea for anything other than telephone poles. It’s designed like that to allow you to level it on crooked or uneven trees. Same idea as the lone wolf batwing.
 
I’ve seen it mentioned on here a couple times about the top contact point matching the bottom. That actually would be a bad idea for anything other than telephone poles. It’s designed like that to allow you to level it on crooked or uneven trees. Same idea as the lone wolf batwing.

Also similar to xop 6 pt bracket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
just got my gen2. It appears that they used some sort of lube on the spacers and bolt to help with the creaking. It’s going to get a work out today. Well done guys.
 
I'm sorry Ricky I didn't answer the second part of your question. I know the pictures probably don't do it justice but there's definitely a lot more material in the platform. I believe it will be exponentially stronger than the last one even though it does not appear to be that much heavier built(weight wise).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I just used the gen 2 today after snapping my 1rst gen. It almost felt like a different platform. Once l locked it into tree this thing was rock SOLID. Had no creaking or sounds and could not feel any flex like the gen 1 had.
 
Back
Top