Got it. So apparently Ryan Avery is telling people BS when he says:
"We didn't participate in the design of the RS1.2. But after the RS.5 failed the drop test Maven asked a bunch of questions focused on the scope that passed. I email each company after form does the pass or fail. Maven and Zeiss are the only companies to call and ask me questions. Maven by far had had the most communications with me. They also asked what the perfect RS scope is and this is what I sent them:"
Specs then followed. One of the specs was pass the RS drop test. Apparently they succeeded. Seems like Maven completely ignored anything Avery had to say about the failure of the first scope.
Having a conversation about the mechanics that failed, then doing whatever they/Maven did to the internal workings of the 1.2 doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I suppose in your understanding of design, the fact that slide rules, computers, and engineer speak may not have occurred is proof that RS/Avery had no input into the "internal design". Carry on.
