Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by jaysonelliot on Saturday March 09, 2013 @12:35AM
(#5347510)
A well-designed product is not just one that had a clever idea in the concept. To be a well-designed product, it must also be reliable, usable, and above all have great build quality.
As someone who bought one of these and threw it away in disgust after being unable to open it once I supposedly set my own combination, I'd never call it a well-designed combination lock.
As uptown says, the reviews on Amazon alone bear witness to the fact that this is a shoddily built lock which often fails one of the only tests that really matter for a lock, namely, can you open it?
I'd rename this article "A really clever idea for a combination lock (that failed in execution)."
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by colmvp on Saturday March 09, 2013 @03:52AM
(#5347873)
I've had this lock for months and it's never failed me. I didn't even want it since it was more expensive than most locks but it was the only one at my gym's shop.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by Sami_Lehtinen on Saturday March 09, 2013 @01:05AM
(#5347580)
It's a nice practical joke task to rearrange those stickers, I'm quite sure there are plenty of users who can't open the lock after that.
Personally I wouldn't ever record password, I would record the combination. Because there is that risk. I have seen way too many people to fail with simple tasks like this.
Just like changing log-in domain or putting caps lock or numlock on (laptop). So much lulz and waster effort due users who are unable to grasp what's happening.
Btw. When I was kid, there were bicycle locks using the same idea.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by jsnell on Saturday March 09, 2013 @01:31AM
(#5347633)
Yes, those 80s bicycle locks were the first thing I thought of when reading this. Really the main difference is including stickers to allow spelling a password.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by chinpokomon on Saturday March 09, 2013 @03:11AM
(#5347804)
Very interesting... I had seen this lock before, but I wasn't sure how secure it'd be. Playing with the simulator (http://toool.nl/images/e/e1/MhVisualizer_V2.0_p.swf), found in a link on the website bewoody provided, I'm still not sure I'd want to trust this to anything I truly value.
For example, UDL is the equivalent of LDL, and UDLR is the equivalent of LLR... but by extension it is also equivalent of LDLR. There are 5 positions for each of 4 tumblers, but not every tumbler position is valid, so the total number of combinations must be far less than 5^4.
I know that the dial combination locks have a reverse combination as well, and that the total number of tick marks is actually greater than the number of valid positions for the dial, but this whole system reminds me a bit of a game of lights out.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by ianb on Saturday March 09, 2013 @12:21AM
(#5347468)
I had the plastic one used in an exterior location, which isn't a good idea – was always finicky and difficult. The metal one seems to be more reliable. I wouldn't trust it somewhere I cared greatly about security, but combination locks aren't generally great in those cases.
One of the difficult parts is telling anyone else how to use it. Up-down-left-left-right, but only after you pushed it in to reset it? With a standard combination lock all I have to tell someone is the combination, and one of the great parts of a combination lock is that you don't need to copy a key or anything in order to delegate opening it.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by Resident_Geek on Saturday March 09, 2013 @02:58AM
(#5347778)
> With a standard combination lock all I have to tell someone is the combination
I don't think that's fair. The standard combination lock interface is well-known, not intuitive. "6-38-16" is brief, but it assumes the listener already knows to translate that to "turn right 360 degrees, then right 6, left 38, right 16". This lock doesn't seem any worse in that regard.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by sesqu on Saturday March 09, 2013 @05:06AM
(#5347989)
> The standard combination lock interface is well-known, not intuitive.
Indeed. Over in this part of the world, I have never actually seen one. I once looked them up on the Internet just to figure out how to use one, but had by now forgotten about the starting reset.
Re:A really well-designed combination lock
by jkmcf on Saturday March 09, 2013 @10:52AM
(#5348666)
"now heinously ugly"
A combination lock may not be sexy, but I see it as a classic design. There is no way you can call it hideous unless you have some childhood locker trauma to work through, and/or you only date supermodels, drive expensive cars, and live in a million dollar home.
As someone who bought one of these and threw it away in disgust after being unable to open it once I supposedly set my own combination, I'd never call it a well-designed combination lock.
As uptown says, the reviews on Amazon alone bear witness to the fact that this is a shoddily built lock which often fails one of the only tests that really matter for a lock, namely, can you open it?
I'd rename this article "A really clever idea for a combination lock (that failed in execution)."
http://www.amazon.com/Master-Lock-1500iD-Combination-Assorte...
Personally I wouldn't ever record password, I would record the combination. Because there is that risk. I have seen way too many people to fail with simple tasks like this.
Just like changing log-in domain or putting caps lock or numlock on (laptop). So much lulz and waster effort due users who are unable to grasp what's happening.
Btw. When I was kid, there were bicycle locks using the same idea.
For example, UDL is the equivalent of LDL, and UDLR is the equivalent of LLR... but by extension it is also equivalent of LDLR. There are 5 positions for each of 4 tumblers, but not every tumbler position is valid, so the total number of combinations must be far less than 5^4.
I know that the dial combination locks have a reverse combination as well, and that the total number of tick marks is actually greater than the number of valid positions for the dial, but this whole system reminds me a bit of a game of lights out.
One of the difficult parts is telling anyone else how to use it. Up-down-left-left-right, but only after you pushed it in to reset it? With a standard combination lock all I have to tell someone is the combination, and one of the great parts of a combination lock is that you don't need to copy a key or anything in order to delegate opening it.
So in my opinion it's only an okay lock.
I don't think that's fair. The standard combination lock interface is well-known, not intuitive. "6-38-16" is brief, but it assumes the listener already knows to translate that to "turn right 360 degrees, then right 6, left 38, right 16". This lock doesn't seem any worse in that regard.
Indeed. Over in this part of the world, I have never actually seen one. I once looked them up on the Internet just to figure out how to use one, but had by now forgotten about the starting reset.
http://toool.nl/Image:The_New_Master_Lock_Combination_Padloc...
A combination lock may not be sexy, but I see it as a classic design. There is no way you can call it hideous unless you have some childhood locker trauma to work through, and/or you only date supermodels, drive expensive cars, and live in a million dollar home.