I guess Mivanitsky is a die hard Kafatek fan. I see totally why one can fall for a Kafatek. And the reasons are real. However...
- why use a term like "noninferior"...it means acutally it is equal but the author does not want to write equal. Why?
- Why bringing in the ES-1. The stance is a completely different grinder construction. Do we make the Monolith sound worse by using a grinder with the same burrs to convey that the monolith has issues? I guess this is not how to make an argument.
I agree that the Stance still has to prove itself. While first looks (Sam and friends) are pointing to a head-to-head race (meaning no blind test or TDS test can distinguish the stance from the MonCon), we actually have to confirm these first findings.
But making a good alignment should not be rocket science. So clever minds and some good execution should be able to achieve this. No reason, Kafatek is the only one knowing the "secret". But the industrial (star wars) design has an impact on people
Again, precision and alignment of Stance have to be confirmed, but on paper it has some strong points going for it:
- Vertical chute vs chute at an angle has the potential of even less retention
- Bigger burrs. Bigger used to be always better
- Ceramic bearings need no grease
- lower hght, fits under my kitchen cabinet, while the MonCon does not (I like conicals, but would have bought a flat kafatek....)