New Model Names for Vic Ranger Grips

[Huntsman]

Hi Knights,

One thing that drove me nuts about the Wenger Rangers was their model numbering ......... (lack of) convention.
There were so many model numbers (just check the Wiki) it was so hard to work out which was which.
I tried for hours to find a logic to the numbering  ..... Just when you thought you had found a pattern - the theory was dashed by another model
- So I concluded there was no logic at all 

When Vic started making the Delemont Rangers - I was really hoping they'd sort out the numbering - Or maybe just give names like regular Vics
- But sadly they just adopted the Wenger numbers     

So I have developed a numbering convention for them - And wondered what you guys thought   
I'll explain it first - it sounds a little complicated

However in the piccie below - You can see what it means for the current Delemont Rangers - And hopefully you can see it makes a lot more sense than the current silly numbers 

The model numbers would all be of the format NXXW-ABO - where:
N = Number of layers
XX = Non meaningful number to represent model tool configuration - 00, 10, 20 etc
W = If present, indicates Ranger Wood model
A = Either Ph for Phillips or C for Corkscrew
B = Either P for Plain edged blade or S for partially Serrated
O = If present, indicates One-handed-opening blade

So you can instantly see: the layers, blade type and CS vs Ph - Just by looking at the model number - Not bad huh ?

Comments .... 
Shall I suggest it to Vic 


PS. I've done a lot of work on the Wenger Ranger tool matrix here to make it a lot more usable and user friendly
http://sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Ranger+130mm+Series+Comparison
Check it out too and let me know what you think .....

[Huntsman]

OK - So no-one likes my brilliant suggestion 
Not even any comments like: "Huntsman - Haven't you got anything better to do?"      ;   "I love the Wenger model numbering"   

Come on guys - You know it makes sense !!
The model 200s is the base 2 layer model; The model 300 is the three layer plus saw; The 400 four layer plus saw, gutting blade  ... etc etc ... 
It's beautiful 
What about all you Ranger fans/collectors out there? - How do you cope with these weird model numbers?   
Tosh - I know you love your Rangers and have a big collection - Are you still around? - What do you think?

OK, OK - So I have an even better suggestion, still based on the first - Which should really appeal to the Swiss sense of neatness and order
And gives all models exactly the same structure - and it's all numeric...

Here are the rules: ....
The model numbers would all be of the format NXX-YZ - where:
N = Number of layers
XX = Non meaningful number to represent model tool configuration - 00, 10, 20 etc
If a Ranger Wood model add 1 to XX
Y = Either 1 for corkscrew or 2 for Phillips 
Z = 1 for plain-edged blade; 2 for PE one-handed-opening; 3 for partially serrated; 4 for partially serrated OHO


I thought I liked my last suggestion - But this is even better     
And still the same benefits - once you know the numbering convention!!

And here it is applied to the current Delemonts: .......
Later Edit: Table updated!

Comments   

[NorCalJim]

OK - So no-one likes my brilliant suggestion 
Not even any comments like: "Huntsman - Haven't you got anything better to do?"      ;   "I love the Wenger model numbering"   

Come on guys - You know it makes sense !!
The model 200s is the base 2 layer model; The model 300 is the three layer plus saw; The 400 four layer plus saw, gutting blade  ... etc etc ... 
It's beautiful 
What about all you Ranger fans/collectors out there? - How do you cope with these weird model numbers?   
Tosh - I know you love your Rangers and have a big collection - Are you still around? - What do you think?

OK, OK - So I have an even better suggestion, still based on the first - Which should really appeal to the Swiss sense of neatness and order
And gives all models exactly the same structure - and it's all numeric...

Here are the rules: ....
The model numbers would all be of the format NXX-YZ - where:
N = Number of layers
XX = Non meaningful number to represent model tool configuration - 00, 10, 20 etc
If a Ranger Wood model add 1 to XX
Y = Either 1 for corkscrew or 2 for Phillips 
Z = 1 for plain-edged blade; 2 for PE one-handed-opening; 3 for partially serrated; 4 for partially serrated OHO


I thought I liked my last suggestion - But this is even better     
And still the same benefits - once you know the numbering convention!!

 And here it is applied to the current Delemonts: .......

Comments   

Makes sense!

[Ron Who]

Hi Huntsman, your numbering convention is much more logical than Wenger´s.  But do we need yet another numbering convention?  Why not invent plain names instead of weird codes? (Like the Gardener and the Boatsman). Because, IMO, any new numbering convention would be uninteresting to most MTo people, and utterly incomprehensible to the casual visitor. So instead of solving the problem, you would only add to it (remember Babylon).

E.g. suppose someone would post a picture labeled RangerGrip model 320-11 and I would like to have one. Googling this code will not help me one bit!

[Huntsman]

Hi Ronald

Thanks for the feedback
I think I have not explained myself clearly
I am not suggesting that this is a convention for us to use at MTo (or in SAKWiki) etc - That would be pointless and confusing

I am suggesting that Victorinox adopt this convention  ...  As their current Ranger numbering system is unintelligible -
.... So googling 320-11 - Would absolutely find you the Vic RangerGrip with pliers openers and a blade - in the Victorinox website or catalogue !!
And people who were knowledgeable (eg Vic fans, MTo members, knife nuts etc)  - would immediately know this was a three layer model with a CS and plain blade, without even checking the web.

My other suggestion was that they use model names as opposed to numbers - like the rest of their range !

Of course it will never happen     - But it's a great idea!! 

[hiraethus]

It's no better than what they already have.  Without the key (and an interest in how the numbering system works - which is probably only relevant to enthusiasts) it's just as opaque as 0.9563.MWC4 is, for example.

[Huntsman]

Well I'll continue to flog my dead horse one more time   

Hiraethus - I am talking about model names not product codes
So when someone is thinking of buying a Ranger and trying to work out the different models - are you really saying you think that:

Models: 55, 79, 155, 179, 56,  78, 178

Is as clear and meaningful as:
Models: 300-11, 300-12, 300-13, 300-14, 300-21, 300-22, 300-24

Whether or not you understand how the naming convention works!
It's a no brainer for me - But I guess everyone's minds work in different ways !

Anyway I'll shut up now, as from your responses, this is not so much of an issue for anyone else      


However I will let you know why my sudden interest in this topic     
I have been fixing up the Delemont Rangers in the Wiki, so needed to understand the models and numbering
- This is done now - Check it out if you are interested:

http://sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Del%C3%A9mont+130mm

I'll put a full report in the 'Been doing some work in the WIki' thread shortly     
....... And Vic better not take up my brilliant suggestion otherwise we'll have to redo all the pages 

[Thunderpants]

I hate to say it but I agree with everything Ron and Hiraethus said.
I have a Wenger 50, a name which means nothing without seeing a picture of it. It has strange features - 3 layers, no openers, no awl, a hunting blade and a very rare colour scheme. How would you fit that information into a number? Sure, it could be done but you'd need the Rosetta stone to interpret it.
I wish they'd just called it the Wenger Snow Beast...
Anyway, you can see what the problem is - there are millions of combinations of tools, even on relatively simple models. Trying to explain the variations with numbers is doomed to explain very little. Even the opaque but short numbers Wenger came up with have the benefit of being easy to remember (And say over the phone.)

[Alan K.]

I find the Ranger models impossible to interpret now but I think calling them a 200-XX or a 300-XX would be helpful because at least you could skip every other Ranger on E-bay when you're looking for a 3 layered model.  If you contact Victorinox with your idea and they don't reply with a restraining order from the lawyers you'll have made some progress.

[hiraethus]

are you really saying you think that:

Models: 55, 79, 155, 179, 56,  78, 178

Is as clear and meaningful as:
Models: 300-11, 300-12, 300-13, 300-14, 300-21, 300-22, 300-24

To someone with no inclination to try to understand the numbering, yes.  Someone who just wants a big SAK with a saw and corkscrew isn't going to try to decipher the difference between the various options.  They'll look at a picture and pick the one that's got the right tools.

If you're going to name them, then name them: Cartographer, Osteopath, Quantity Surveyor...

Good work on the Wiki pages though.

[gregpost]

I just want Victorinox to make one with a big file, saw, and OHO blade like this Wenger "East Ranger" style. I don't care what they call it.   

[ThePeacent]

I just want Victorinox to make one with a big file, saw, and OHO blade like this Wenger "East Ranger" style. I don't care what they call it.   

(Image removed from quote.)

that'd be very nice