To me its an example of over-engineering. Floyd hasn't been in the spotlight for a decade (or two) and I believe he was left alone with his thoughts for too long. Only to emerge with the "greatest tremolo ever" but with the most limitations. To me, its exactly like inventing the world's first car that drives itself, using GPS. The only problem is that in order for it to work, everyone must have one. I'm speaking of the special strings, by the way. I can't stand that part of it. You mean to tell me that if I'm out of town and need a string I'm at the mercy of the local store to carry strings for a bridge nobody has?
By the way, I saw one on a BC Rich, and it looked okay. So I'm not beefing about the design, just the audacity of someone to say I'm going to design a bridge and you string makers have to change the way you do things. And to expect a string maker to pre-bullet the ends to within a fine tuner range is crazy in my opinion. He admitted it was, and he had a miserable time getting the right string. Why not a guitar with the speedloading bridge, but some sort of pinch lock on the other side so I could use regular strings if I wanted to? Like Steinberger has their double ball ends, but some copies, including Ibanez, could lock a plain string in there if necessary.
The whole thing upsets me from the standpoint of designing something that may be the best of its kind, but tries to force the hand of the industry. I like a string with a ball end on one side and a tuning mechanism on the other. Absent the ball, I like a locking trem.
Here's a good idea, make the speedloader to accept a bullet on the trem side, but on the neck side, just pull the string through finger tight, lock it, and snap the bridge saddle back. Rig it so that normal finger tension is enough to bring the string into tuning range when snapped back. Now everyone's happy. Even a speedloader bridge with locking tuners for speed would be fine too. Then you could just put the bullet in, lock the tuner, and go.