to keep this simple for you
1. a vastly differing number of sharpenings on the packaging may seem dubious for a non blind consumer that actually pays a lot of money for these rings
2. again and again... the total number of cycles has nothing to do with the amount of material a "newer" 60 sharpenings 1/2, 3/8...ring may be able to remove in one cycle vs. an "older" 40 sharpenings 1/2, 3/8,11/16, 5/8... ring therefore 40 vs 60 doable sharpenings are perfectly possible and I truly want this to be proofed with data.( you can switch "newer" and "older" around. choose for yourself. no one knows for sure)
3. All I want from them is to come out on their website and publish information on the fact that both variants are in circulation, and as I've already said, proof the fact that an "older production" 1/2 ring will yield the same number of sharpenings, under isolated conditions, compared to the "new" 1/2 ring.
Additionally,it remains to be proven if it takes the same amount of cycles with the "newer production/new packaging" 1/2'' rings to reach the desired radius of hollow than with the lesser agressive 11/16,5/8...1 inch rings in the "old packaging". All of these tests have to be done under isolated conditions, using new identical blades.
This would help us to make a qualified buying decision in the future. Maybe there are some differences maybe not? how can we know this as consumers?
The goal here is that nobody has to feel like a piece of crap after spending 200$ including shipping on two of these rings just to find out that the stated number of sharpenings varies by 33% from ring to ring.
that's it. As long as these things aren't published and proved, I'm awaiting a serious apology from their side.
I just had to answer on that. no worries,I'll discuss the rest with Sparx directly.