The Perfect Chip Rack (PCR)

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Basic features of the PCR's:

1) Completely encase chips, regardless of size
2) Tongue and groove design allows racks to "lock" together - no more swaying
3) Rotationally symmetrical - no fussing with orientations
4) No-spill design allows racked chips to be carried in any orientation - perfect for seat-moves

Hope that explains the concept adequately.

I didn't show it in the renderings, but the bottom of the Half Rack may have grooves in the bottom rim, as well. This might allow for matching tongues to be designed into an Apex Poker Chip Case base to mate perfectly with the bottom rack. That should really keep the PCR's from moving around.

1545344432372.png
1545344457881.png
1545344479845.png
1545344501716.png
1545345086178.png
1545344546612.png
1545344571829.png
1545344608667.png
1545344654127.png
1545344708208.png
1545344757339.png
1545345037462.png
 

Attachments

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
We design for the thickest chips we can find—*cough* dice chips *cough*—and go from there. If anyone has a better solution, I’m all ears. (y) :thumbsup:
 

arch3r

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
3,132
Location
Northern Virginia
Thin acrylic spacers. Bam. That would add practically nothing, cost-wise, to this/these projects.
I use them now. But almost never do the chips fit snug. 1 spacer not enough, 2 too many. I would love to see some kinda adjustable sidewall but I have no idea how that would work. But since we are spitballing wish lists, thought I'd toss that out.
 

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
I was thinking more like guitar pick thicknesses, rather than the existing acrylic casino spacers or lammers. Guitar picks come in sizes that vary by fractions of a millimeter. (Actually, might not be a bad solution for you now, in the meantime.)
 

markleteenie

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
3,164
Location
coloRADo
I use them now. But almost never do the chips fit snug. 1 spacer not enough, 2 too many. I would love to see some kinda adjustable sidewall but I have no idea how that would work. But since we are spitballing wish lists, thought I'd toss that out.
Just use some bubble gum.


Just kidding, but in all seriousness - a wedge/shim might work best - since it is variable thickness.
 

markleteenie

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
3,164
Location
coloRADo
Basic features of the PCR's:

1) Completely encase chips, regardless of size
2) Tongue and groove design allows racks to "lock" together - no more swaying
3) Rotationally symmetrical - no fussing with orientations
4) No-spill design allows racked chips to be carried in any orientation - perfect for seat-moves

Hope that explains the concept adequately.

I didn't show it in the renderings, but the bottom of the Half Rack may have grooves in the bottom rim, as well. This might allow for matching tongues to be designed into an Apex Poker Chip Case base to mate perfectly with the bottom rack. That should really keep the PCR's from moving around.

View attachment 229588View attachment 229589View attachment 229590View attachment 229591View attachment 229602View attachment 229593View attachment 229594View attachment 229595View attachment 229596View attachment 229597View attachment 229598View attachment 229601
I like this concept a lot. Can you explain how this perfectly fits 39 and 43mm chips without them rattling?
 

arch3r

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
3,132
Location
Northern Virginia
I was thinking more like guitar pick thicknesses, rather than the existing acrylic casino spacers or lammers. Guitar picks come in sizes that vary by fractions of a millimeter. (Actually, might not be a bad solution for you now, in the meantime.)
Currently I use the 'felt' feet you put on furniture legs so they don't scuff the floor as spacers. Since they are soft and have a bit of give, you can usually get a snug fit. Works fine but would love an integrated solution. Probably not doable, but I have to ask.
 

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
If we want to avoid any rattling at all, we’d have to do two models. A 39mm and a 43mm. That is, of course, if a new spacer system wouldn’t cut it. We could vary the thicknesses by tenths of a millimeter or smaller.

If we did have to go with two models, we could still design the tongues and grooves of both models to fit.
 

RichMahogany

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
3,373
Reaction score
3,574
Location
Sucka Free City
Concept is solid. The initials PCR have been used many times already in the poker chip world FYI. Not saying you should change it, but I dont immediately think of chip racks when I see PCR
 

ruskba

Flush
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
1,837
Location
Colorado
I’m not really sure what problem these are solving? You’re not going to have a single rack that fits every chip snug, some sort of spacer is required. And if they’re snug, they stack pretty solid. There’s already no orientation issues. But now you are introducing a secondary rack that you have to make sure you keep track of and have enough of.
 

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Concept is solid. The initials PCR have been used many times already in the poker chip world FYI. Not saying you should change it, but I dont immediately think of chip racks when I see PCR
I was going to entitle the thread something with "Codename PCR," but thought it was cheesy. We'll definitely change the name to something awesome, a la "Apex 1000." :rolleyes:
I’m not really sure what problem these are solving? You’re not going to have a single rack that fits every chip snug, some sort of spacer is required. And if they’re snug, they stack pretty solid. There’s already no orientation issues. But now you are introducing a secondary rack that you have to make sure you keep track of and have enough of.
1) The biggest advantage--for some, particularly those in the Apex thread--is that they could be designed to house 39mm and 43mm chips, either in a single model or, alternatively, in two separate models designed to stack together well.

2) I'll have some prototypes made up soon, hopefully, and they should adequately show the stability that they would offer over the industry-standard wobble.

3) They also offer a better solution for long-term storage, imo. They're more insulated from the elements, if you'd like the option of storing them in a garage or an attic. I thought about having some custom bands made that would keep just the right amount of tension on them at various capacities (i.e. 100 bands, 200 bands...500 bands.)

4) I could design some card- and button-carrying models, too. (Two decks of cards in a single rack, sandwiched between four racks of 100 chips, fwiw.)

edit: 5) Almost forgot! Native Apex 1000 support? Design a PCR-compatible, tongue-and-groove Apex 1000 base for those that prefer these racks to standard racks.

Together, there's nothing we can't do! :D
 
Last edited:

ruskba

Flush
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
1,837
Location
Colorado
I was going to entitle the thread something with "Codename PCR," but thought it was cheesy. We'll definitely change the name to something awesome, a la "Apex 1000." :rolleyes:

1) The biggest advantage--for some, particularly those in the Apex thread--is that they could be designed to house 39mm and 43mm chips, either in a single model or, alternatively, in two separate models designed to stack together well.

2) I'll have some prototypes made up soon, hopefully, and they should adequately show the stability that they would offer over the industry-standard wobble.

3) They also offer a better solution for long-term storage, imo. They're more insulated from the elements, if you'd like the option of storing them in a garage or an attic. I thought about having some custom bands made that would keep just the right amount of tension on them at various capacities (i.e. 100 bands, 200 bands...500 bands.)

4) I could design some card- and button-carrying models, too. (Two decks of cards in a single rack, sandwiched between four racks of 100 chips, fwiw.)

edit: 5) Almost forgot! Native Apex 1000 support? Design a PCR-compatible, tongue-and-groove Apex 1000 base for those that prefer these racks to standard racks.

Together, there's nothing we can't do! :D
1. A single rack to fit both size chips is legitimate.

2. Eh, the wobble exists. It’s the worst when the chips don’t really fit the rack, so maybe just having different barrel sizes is the best option (66.7, 67.7, and 70 for all those 8vs that just went out).

3. This is a straw man argument. Elements? Dust is the only element that is worth considering. And it’s not exactly a huge issue considering how many people here will clean thousands of chips with ultrasonics. Blowing off some dust is not going to give anyone pause.

4. Accessory racks would be interesting, as @justsomedude had mentioned previously.

5. Yea I guess having racks to match the carriers is nice, but you’re alienating a TON of people that have racks that they don’t want to replace.

In the end, the most interesting thing is if you can make a single rack that’s usable for 39mm and 43mm chips. I think having top/bottom racks and middle racks is just adding unnecessary complications. If you can’t make a rack to handle both sizes, now you’re asking people to buy 4 different racks where 2 used to work.

People will pay good money for racks that fit chips snug in each barrel. That’s the only complaint I’ve really seen in my few years around here. The rest seem like you’re fixing problems that don’t really exist.
 

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
1. A single rack to fit both size chips is legitimate. This is the ideal situation and I'm doing my best with it. Need some 43mm chips still though. I'm sure you guys know the actual diameters vary widely, even when their nominal diameter (39mm or 43mm) is the same.

2. Eh, the wobble exists. It’s the worst when the chips don’t really fit the rack, so maybe just having different barrel sizes is the best option (66.7, 67.7, and 70 for all those 8vs that just went out). Different barrel lengths, right? You don't like the idea of thin acrylic spacers offered in tenth-millimeter increments, a la guitar picks?

3. This is a straw man argument. Elements? Dust is the only element that is worth considering. And it’s not exactly a huge issue considering how many people here will clean thousands of chips with ultrasonics. Blowing off some dust is not going to give anyone pause. All I know is heat...definitely affects chips. I live in Bakersfield, CA, where the temperature gets up to 110° F in the summer. Some pink chip clay blanks I ordered from holdempokerchips.com, back in the day, melted in my van in the span of about 2 hours, when I forgot them on the seat. I noticed they had warped, and when they cooled off, they remained all wonky. I saved them for just this occasion, actually, but they're at home and I'm not. :)

4. Accessory racks would be interesting, as @justsomedude had mentioned previously. Love this idea.

5. Yea I guess having racks to match the carriers is nice, but you’re alienating a TON of people that have racks that they don’t want to replace. True. I think I might have to make this a project on my own dime, eventually, if we can get the Apex project off the ground. I'm thinking these racks, after a few tweaks, coupled with an entirely different Apex base designed around the PCR concept--I think of that added stability and I can't help but think it would be really nice.

In the end, the most interesting thing is if you can make a single rack that’s usable for 39mm and 43mm chips. I think having top/bottom racks and middle racks is just adding unnecessary complications. If you can’t make a rack to handle both sizes, now you’re asking people to buy 4 different racks where 2 used to work.

People will pay good money for racks that fit chips snug in each barrel. That’s the only complaint I’ve really seen in my few years around here. The rest seem like you’re fixing problems that don’t really exist. Good to know this is the most important aspect of a new chip rack design. Even if this PCR concept falls by the wayside, now I know you guys would appreciate some new, innovative racks.
 

ruskba

Flush
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
1,837
Location
Colorado
The heat thing is true, of course. But enclosed racks or not, you’re gonna have a bad time if you’re storing chips in extreme conditions.

And yes, spacers are fine by me. That might be something that’s missing from the market: different width spacers. Seems there’s just one true casino spacer and then a bunch of DIY options. Offer a few different options for people to get their worn Paulsons to fit snug if it’s a chipco rack or a Paulson.
 

Mario Garza

High Hand
Site Vendor
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
271
Location
Bakersfield, CA
The heat thing is true, of course. But enclosed racks or not, you’re gonna have a bad time if you’re storing chips in extreme conditions. Can't argue with that.

...Offer a few different options for people to get their worn Paulsons to fit snug if it’s a chipco rack or a Paulson. I'm all over this one. Can't believe there's nothing for this problem yet, given the low cost of production.
Thanks for the feedback, @ruskba.
 

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
10,044
Reaction score
15,452
Location
Nashville-ish, TN
Personally, I like or prefer the idea of foam/squishy spacers, over a multiple thin hard spacers.

I have multiple racks from different manufacturers, and numerous sets of chips of differing thicknesses. Sometimes the thickness can vary within the same manufacturer. CPC frequently sees minor variance even within the same denom of a set. Paulsons of different levels of wear levels are notorious for differing thicknesses. I don't want to play a game of needing an extra spacer this time and not the next time.

That said, I only use spacers to set gaps in larger (tray-style) racks, so I can grab 20 without having to count. I select racks based on best fit for the chip to be used (only 20 to a barrel). A little "slop" is preferable to having 50 spacers laying all over when you have pulled out all your chips.
 

Coyote

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
1,814
Reaction score
2,022
Location
Athens, Greece
Just realised in horror that the language which poured thousands of its own words into practically all of today's western world languages has no word for "pad":ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 

Lemonzest

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
4,596
Reaction score
4,242
Location
Las Vegas
I really like the T&G design which completely encloses the chips. My 2c would be to make them perfectly fit mint paulsons.

Also probably a market for mint 43mm chips as storage for those is always an issue.
 
Top Bottom