# The Barebow current trend towards 27” risers...



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

I understand the need for longer bows for longer draw lengths to avoid string pinch but I have been seeing a new reason being presented by those using 27” risers and that is: forgiving. Trends come and go as top shooters move from product to product in all the shooting sports. The reason for change for many is because such and such use’s xxx’s so obviously if I want to follow the path made by those I want to shoot as well as then I need to buy xxx’s too. I get this thinking even though logic tells me just because someone has success with something it does not mean everyone will. 

My question is “ Is there any design reason or law of physics that can support a user’s rational that a 27” riser IS ACTUALLY MORE FORGIVING of use errors?” Does having limb tips further away from nock sets actually reduce the effects of a bad release? Does a longer bow add or decrease the effects of torque on a bow or any number of other archer flaws or issues? 

I plan on getting a 27” riser at some point because I own some TradTech BF extreme limbs that on a 27” riser will give me a outdoor BB with 36-7lbs otf which is between the 32lb and 38lb Hoyt limbs I have on my indoor bow and my Oly rig. The price of a riser is actually less than the price of a TOL limb set at 35-6lbs plus it gives me two separate B.B. setups so I won’t have to retune for different events. It just makes sense to me to buy the 27” riser in my case to make use of limbs I have that I have not used for many years. If the 27” riser actually does offer a more figuring setup that will be a definite plus but my mind tells me that longer actually could allow more things that could effect the shot than less but I have never shot a riser over 25” either. 

Is there a reason why user’s claim more forgiveness with a 27” riser that we can actually point to a reason a 27” riser would be more forgiving than say a 25” riser by the same company? I realize that if a user switched brands to get 27” risers how it could possibly feel more forgiving but that could have more to do with riser geometry than just length. I truly am interested in why...


----------



## yegon (Aug 15, 2017)

Demmer shoots a purple 27 gillo so I bought a purple 27 gillo (I hear I was not alone)  that was my reasoning - now if I shoot bad I know its not the equipment ( kinda knew it before too  )

In 3 months I did not shoot a better score with it than with my old cheap bow (havent been training much though), I do not find it more pleasant or forgiving, I do not notice the size difference when shooting and it does not make the limbs I have lighter, I am having the same weight OTF as on my 25 inch SF Axiom riser (probably different limb pocket angle) so your calculation for the TradTech limbs might be off depending on the riser you go with


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

TradTech limbs are rated for 17” risers.... for each additional inch of riser you can subtract about a pound so a 45 lb set of TradTech limbs on a 27” riser should be in the 35-6lb range in theory. I have not taken my limbs and mounted them on a 27” riser to verify as of yet. 

Most ilf target limbs are rated on a 25” riser or actually show their rating on a 23” and 25” riser. TradTech is different....


Top shooters in all the shooting sports tend to set buying trends. Kruger shot Krieghoff for sporting clays as did a few other top shooters ( which was more of a sponsor issue than actual equipment difference) so Krieghoff became the gun to own for all sporting clays competitors. Same for ipsc competitions back a few years the top shooters shot Springfield ( again a sponsor issue) so everyone went to them. A new top dog came around and he shot S&W so the market quickly trended to them. I get that rational and my bet is any of these top shooters in any of these sports could grab a bow or gun off a Walmart rack and still outshoot 98% of their competition.


----------



## beleg2 (Dec 31, 2005)

As far as I know, most if not all 27" aluminum risers have less deflex than 25" riser, so they need more weight to be as stable as a 25" riser.
JMHO
Martin


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

That interesting Martin and makes sense due to the risers ability to handle additional lever length from limb tip to the rest. So that would mean less forgiving weights being equal.

Another consideration to consider if you are old or have shoulder issues and have problems with higher bow overall mass weight to get a 27 to be as forgiving as a 25 it will cost the user more mass weight.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Since I like to look at things from a physics point of view. A 27 inch riser will increase the inertial properties of the riser/bow. What this means is that for a given applied torque and for a same mass bow the angular acceleration will decrease in the pitch and roll directions. aka, it will rotate less. Also, higher inertia will help keep the bow more stable for all the arm twitching that goes on when trying to aim. A longer riser generally means a heavier riser. But since inertial is a length squared property, length has more impact on inertia than mass does. Thus one can make a higher inertia bow with less mass. Having higher inertial to resist the angular acceleration during the shot sequence in not a forgiveness thing. Forgiveness is a form problem, not an equipment issue.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Oh Mr Roboto, without a doubt the source for the "need of forgiveness" is in user error (and some of us have more source than others  ) but I have shot bows that had sufficient reflex to get a reputation of being a more forgiving design than some other bows. Some limb designs are know for smoothness, or speed, and some are forgiving...... these may or may not be a design intent for the product but end up as a attribute archers claim a certain product exhibits.

You are explaining some items "above my pay grade" but am I understanding right that a longer bow (limb tip to limb tip) stores more inertia than a shorter bow (all other things kept the same)? So this inertia equate's to higher limb tip speed at release and through the power stroke? The pitch and roll factor of a longer bow reduces the bows reactive qualities during the power stroke thus keeping the bow platform essentially more of a stable platform all other variables the same?

Hate to ask this many questions but I really want to understand the inherent advantages and disadvantages of a 27" riser.....


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

One other question to those in the know..... have Oly archers gotten on the longer riser trend as well or is this just the BB archers getting 27" risers for reasons other than draw length issues?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I hit my nose more with a 27" riser. :set1_punch:


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

with your draw length 27" make perfect sense....

Limbwalker at the Lancaster Classic I saw quite a few archers shooting 72" setups............ and some could not of been drawing even 28"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

JimDE said:


> with your draw length 27" make perfect sense....


Where were those 27" risers when I started competing with recurve is what I always want to know!


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

The "Nova" from Century longbows ...  Larry Yien found them and he didn't even need them....  Larry wanted as much weight as he could legally have in a longbow.......


----------



## JohnZhou (Oct 26, 2017)

My friend has 28" DL and brought a Gillo 27" over 25". He is a SW and got the 27" because of its geometry. I think Vittorio explained it somewhere that with the 27", at your crawl you are still pulling pretty much at center thus makes for a very balanced feel. The 27" isn't just a longer version of 25"; a lot of thought went into the geometry. I'm over simplifying here but I can't find the original post.


----------



## JohnZhou (Oct 26, 2017)

Going from 70 to 72 isn't going to make a whole lotsa difference in forgiveness. The reason my friend opted for the 27" G1 is because of the geometry is well suited for SW. Don't ask me why cuz I can't explain it lol.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

JimDE said:


> One other question to those in the know..... have Oly archers gotten on the longer riser trend as well or is this just the BB archers getting 27" risers for reasons other than draw length issues?


We are compensating for the lack of stuff hanging off the bows! I've seen more and more 27" risers in the Oly side of things. I'm waiting for the 29" risers. Someones gonna do it someday.. they've gotta...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Olympic archers are too scared of being robbed of speed to jump to longer risers.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

See I don’t see many Oly archers except some young JOAD programs in this state. I did not know the Oly archers were using the 27”er’s for reasons other than long draw lengths.

Limbwalker that surely is a very valid observation.... speed and sewing needles to get 90m is a big issue in that game.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

JimDE said:


> See I don’t see many Oly archers except some young JOAD programs in this state. I did not know the Oly archers were using the 27”er’s for reasons other than long draw lengths.
> 
> Limbwalker that surely is a very valid observation.... speed and sewing needles to get 90m is a big issue in that game.


90M is dead. But still the perception is that speed matters.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

I guess my age is showing again... FITA male is no longer 90m, 70m, 50m, 30m?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

JimDE said:


> I guess my age is showing again... FITA male is no longer 90m, 70m, 50m, 30m?


It is, but nobody shoots four-distance FITA rounds anymore. We have all been dumbed down to single-distance events.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Really? So it’s just 60 arrows at 70 meters and that’s it?

If that is the game today who needs bells and whistle high tech sights for that.... one block with windage and a minimal length sight bar for minimal elevation adj and one should be good to go.  No wonder Chek-it and Toxonics got out of the business. 

I wish I had a dime for every arrow I shot in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s at the 90m mat’s


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> It is, but nobody shoots four-distance FITA rounds anymore. We have all been dumbed down to single-distance events.


we still have the FITA at the Ohio Target 

reverse FITA last year. I shot my first year as a master (when the 50+ masters shot 90M) with a 27" Hoyt RX and did OK with it-I believe that was my only 90M with the 27" riser though I shot Medium limbs. all the other years I shot a 68 inch Hoyt with a Matrix 25" riser and before that a 24" sky with a total of 68" riser. Best scores were with the Sky by far


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

To return a few posts back, California (last I checked) is still shooting full FITA round. So for the junior/senior men 90 meters is still on the menu.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Olympic archers are too scared of being robbed of speed to jump to longer risers.


I actually chose a 27" for Olympic shooting because of speed. I wanted a 70" for my draw length, but since medium limbs have less mass than long limbs, it stood to reason that the long riser and medium limb combination could yield more speed. In reality, there has been no speed difference noticeable at the shooting line, and my shop unfortunately had their chrono break before I could verify any results.

I think the bigger reason they avoid them is the problems I'm facing now. Since 25" risers are much more common, it is harder to find equipment that works with this setup. For example, all of my friends shoot long limbs to get 70" bows, so now I can't buy any equipment from them unless I switch out my entire bow, which doubles the cost of the switch. It also significantly reduces my choice in risers, with many popular risers not even being manufactured in 27" sizes. And there's the perceived notion that long limbs are smoother, which is hard to quantify and verify, but the perception is there. 

So ultimately, no perceivable benefit unless your draw length requires it, plus a lot of practical difficulties. I still like my bow, and I have long accepted the fact that the equipment is not my limiting factor, so I'm not worried. But given the choice again, I would have probably kept my 25" riser, or upgraded to the 25" version of the riser I have now.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

JimDE said:


> Really? So it’s just 60 arrows at 70 meters and that’s it?
> 
> If that is the game today who needs bells and whistle high tech sights for that.... one block with windage and a minimal length sight bar for minimal elevation adj and one should be good to go.  No wonder Chek-it and Toxonics got out of the business.
> 
> I wish I had a dime for every arrow I shot in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s at the 90m mat’s


To be clear, it's 72 arrows at 70m for the Olympic round. But the full FITA round is still a recognized round; it's just not used at World Archery tournaments like the World Cup and World Championships anymore. Still used plenty in a lot of places, like California (as mentioned) and Europe. Also used a lot in Korea; if they only shot out of 720, they'd have too many ties.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

JohnZhou said:


> Going from 70 to 72 isn't going to make a whole lotsa difference in forgiveness. The reason my friend opted for the 27" G1 is because of the geometry is well suited for SW. Don't ask me why cuz I can't explain it lol.


The Luxor and 27" Gillo are asymmetrical in vertical grip position, so yes they are very suited to stringwalking.


----------



## SD40 (Dec 25, 2005)

grantmac said:


> The Luxor and 27" Gillo are asymmetrical in vertical grip position, so yes they are very suited to stringwalking.


 Mac,

Elaborate please, grip is above center making it easier to tune, forgiving to shoot?.


----------



## leatherback (Jun 7, 2017)

Neither.

The portion of the riser beneath the hand is longer (and heavier) then the portion above it. 

This technically should allow limb timing to be effected less and therefore go out of tune less as you crawl down the string.

This benefit you would gain specifically from trying to gain a marginal tune across multiple crawls.

If you tune at one distance (indoor) or gap shoot this doesn't add much benefit (nor does it take it away)...except possibly the addition of more weight below the hand.




Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Interesting ...... I’m kinda new to stringwalking as a serious usable method of aiming for target archery though I fiddled with it off and on since the 60’s but because most shooting organizations frowned or would not allow it I just used aiming methods that were allowed. My outdoor arrows with a nominal tiller setting, nock set about +1/8” gets me a poi of about 55 yards with vap v1’s and a Gabriel rest. My max crawl down the string for 10 yards is a bit over 1.25”. So the maximum I am varying my string hand contact point is 1.25” which on a 69” string on a 72” bow in a nominal load variance between upper and lower limb loads. I could see if the range of crawl was 4-6” where direction and angle of pull could significantly effect limb timing but a inch variance over a 69” total string length? Am I viewing this wrong? I mean it is not much more that the difference between 3 under and split finger. I would not even expect to see much timing issues on a 67” string or a 65” string with a inch variance in pull effecting limb timing much at all, heck a bow grip variance in load from high to low wrist would change angle of load more than a inch at the string.

I could be completely wrong in my thinking but I have shot even a 68” longbow split and three under and have experienced no variance in arrow flight or tune and on a longbow I can’t easily change tiller like I can with a ilf to compensate for draw angle variances. Am I missing something? I could even see draw angle issues with short hunting recurves being a problem but with some saying their 27” riser is more forgiving than the 25” risers and this alone is the difference they may hang their hat on I would tend to have my doubts and think what they feel is more of a placebo effect than a true engineering one. I really would like to understand where I am seeing this incorrectly...


----------



## Dillinger1 (Aug 14, 2017)

JohnZhou said:


> My friend has 28" DL and brought a Gillo 27" over 25". He is a SW and got the 27" because of its geometry. I think Vittorio explained it somewhere that with the 27", at your crawl you are still pulling pretty much at center thus makes for a very balanced feel. The 27" isn't just a longer version of 25"; a lot of thought went into the geometry. I'm over simplifying here but I can't find the original post.


This is the biggest difference that I have experienced. I have owned many barebow risers and now own two 27" Gillos and don't see a need for anything else. Shoot what wins.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

JimDE said:


> Oh Mr Roboto, without a doubt the source for the "need of forgiveness" is in user error (and some of us have more source than others  ) but I have shot bows that had sufficient reflex to get a reputation of being a more forgiving design than some other bows. Some limb designs are know for smoothness, or speed, and some are forgiving...... these may or may not be a design intent for the product but end up as a attribute archers claim a certain product exhibits.
> 
> You are explaining some items "above my pay grade" but am I understanding right that a longer bow (limb tip to limb tip) stores more inertia than a shorter bow (all other things kept the same)? So this inertia equate's to higher limb tip speed at release and through the power stroke? The pitch and roll factor of a longer bow reduces the bows reactive qualities during the power stroke thus keeping the bow platform essentially more of a stable platform all other variables the same?
> 
> Hate to ask this many questions but I really want to understand the inherent advantages and disadvantages of a 27" riser.....


One doesn't store inertia. It a property of mass and geometry. It is linearly proportional to mass, and linearly proportional to length squared. That is why people want the long stabs. For example, a 10 inch stab that weighs 1 pound, its inertia about its end is 33.3 in^2-lb, a stab that is 30 inches long with the same mass of 1 pound, its inertia will be 3333.3 in^2-lb 

Barebow/Trad likes to add weights. So to get the same inertia of a 1 pound 30 inch stab in a 10 inch stab, its weight will have to be 100 pounds!!! Which will be easier to hold in one's hand a 1 pound 30 inch long stab, or a 100 pound 10 inch long stab?

People don't generally think in terms of inertia. But the shot process is controlled by inertia. 

A higher inertia riser is not going to change the speed of the arrow for the same limbs. What happens is that the draw force curve changes. But if the limbs are adjusted so that the same stored energy is achieved in the limbs, arrow velocity will be the same for the same power stroke length and assuming the string mass doesn't change. If one uses the same limbs with a longer riser, the string mass will increase because its a longer string. If the longer bow has the same stored energy profile, the arrow velocity will be lower strictly because of the heavier string mass.

As Ryland pointed out, it won't be long before you see the 29 inch risers, then the 31 inch risers, and as time goes on, we will be shooting the longbows again.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Mr Roboto,  I am glad I am too old to see much more in innovations for archery .... I remember being in MO shooting in a archery range hearing about H. Allen patenting some bazaar gadget to shoot arrows


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> ........
> As Ryland pointed out, it won't be long before you see the 29 inch risers, then the 31 inch risers, and as time goes on, we will be shooting the longbows again.


A G1 29" riser has been investigated as possibility, but with present existing milling technology and riser design, keeping the parallelism of pockets and strightness matching our standards and considering small volume, cost jumps sky hight. No way to make it cheaper, so no way to make it. 

Gillo GX project will solve the probelm, but it will take a couple of years more (and a lot of money in development) to reach preseries stage, and for sure 29" will come later than 25" and 27". Let say, GX-29 by mid 2021, best guess.
A 31" riser is presently unrealistic even to imagine.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

Ok, that eas a big teaser... care to elaborate on goals for Gillo GX?? 🙂


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Hi Vittorio, I understand the increased engineering difficulties that a machined ILF type recurve riser has compared to a compound riser built for a specific set of limbs and hardware. That said I have not measured this but I am pretty sure TSS built a riser for their Quadraflex that was over 31”. I am thinking it was cast and not milled but I don’t recall ever hearing of a riser failure on the Quadraflex and they built versions over 100 lb draw weights. I worked at MacDonnell Douglas for a few years and their mills would mill titanium bulkheads for f4’s 8’ in length. 

I do understand small volume machine shop requests push the costs up significantly and could make the resulting consumer cost to own ridiculous and unrealistic. But, if there was a market willing to pay the prices to play any length riser could be feasible to produce. Vittorio I take my hat off to you for creating a excellent product line with some major innovations that caters to the barebow community and other archery venues at a very affordable cost. If we consider your product is a product from Europe and the difference in Euro’s value to USD, export cost, a US distributor, and the final retail price to the USA consumer your product’s are a value and the quality is excellent. I know the barebow/archery community is thankful to have a manufacturer like you providing such excellent products at such a value. I met you at Lancaster and recognized immediately your personal commitment to the archery community.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Vittorio said:


> A G1 29" riser has been investigated as possibility, but with present existing milling technology and riser design, keeping the parallelism of pockets and strightness matching our standards and considering small volume, cost jumps sky hight. No way to make it cheaper, so no way to make it.
> 
> Gillo GX project will solve the probelm, but it will take a couple of years more (and a lot of money in development) to reach preseries stage, and for sure 29" will come later than 25" and 27". Let say, GX-29 by mid 2021, best guess.
> A 31" riser is presently unrealistic even to imagine.


Ahhh, but here is the question, will a 29 inch or a 31 inch riser be more stable? I personally am not good enough of an archer to tell you whether a 19 inch riser or a 27 inch riser is any different. I make my arguments based on physics. But you are an outstanding archer so you can tell the difference, and since you have even considered and looked into cost projections of a 29 inch riser then there is merit that it will be better from an inertia point of view.

Something to consider, with the costs of risers running upwards to $1000 US, you can almost double your costs and still be price competitive to high end (cost) risers in the US.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

JimDE said:


> Hi Vittorio, I understand the increased engineering difficulties that a machined ILF type recurve riser has compared to a compound riser built for a specific set of limbs and hardware. That said I have not measured this but I am pretty sure TSS built a riser for their Quadraflex that was over 31”. I am thinking it was cast and not milled but I don’t recall ever hearing of a riser failure on the Quadraflex and they built versions over 100 lb draw weights. I worked at MacDonnell Douglas for a few years and their mills would mill titanium bulkheads for f4’s 8’ in length......


Jim, I have to say unpolitely that making risers for compound is not doing top level technology in archery. Compound risers are machined, milled or forged/milled same as recurve risers, but they have the great advantage of much less need for precision in parallelism of the limbs seats. For instance, one of the less known information in the market is that tens of thousands of compound risers/year for different US brands are forged in Italy by one single specialized company, then sent by containers in USA for final milling, finishing and assembling. I have discussed with this maker all problems they have had to face, and limits reached by their forging technology, were the main one is the lenght of the finished riser, as forging machine has one (giantic) limited size and temper process is done 3 times to be able to reach strightness requested after forging. But, compound risers have only strightness problems, not the need to have very precise parallele planes for limbs seats and have them square with small tolerance to the center axis of the riser. §
Standard milling process has a 0.3 mm tolerance on 60 cm lenght ( around 23" riser), and tolerance increases rapidly ove 25 ". Then, if you get over that lenght, keeping tolerance becomes cmlicted on 3 axis milling machines, as of the many re-positioning needed. Our 5 axis milling process limits tolerances a lot, but has a turbntable limit to the 27" riser lenght. 
Of course, everything is possible, if cost is not an issue. But it is. 
Not a matter of strenght, just a problem in precision of the result....

P.S. 
Just in case someone wants to know my experience in compound manufacturing, in my 2 years in handling Bernardini, I have made a full new compound design (riser, limbs and cams) , the Skorpion 2000, that was quite succesfull here. Then helped Fiberbow to develop their compound bow that never went to production. We have no problems in designing and making compounds, just we can not be competitive, as of the small market available for an italian maker.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Vittorio, I am sorry if my statement was not clear in its message but I initially stated that recurve ilf risers have far more engineering difficulties to produce than a compound riser built for one set of components. My point was to only point out that stress and cost wise 31”+ archery risers have been produced in the past for compounds. This was only to verify its ability to handle the forces involved in shooting arrows at such longer lengths . I truly meant no disrespect to you or Gillo that would cause a “unpolitely” response..... obviously my post did not make my intent clear...


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

What about a +29" carbon riser?


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

Interesting about the Gillo 27 grip position. I always felt the start of the draw with zero crawl felt like I was drawing too much above center. Even with nock height at less than 1/2", and the more weight I had on the riser the more pronounced that feel was.

I have a very practical reason why I like the 25" riser and long limbs. I can place my binoculars on top of the limb with bow on my foot. I can't do that with the 27". I noticed that the first time I went outdoors with my 27.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Granite, you can always wear “roach kickers” while shooting a 27” riser to get your “binocular height”


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

JimDE said:


> Vittorio, I am sorry if my statement was not clear in its message but I initially stated that recurve ilf risers have far more engineering difficulties to produce than a compound riser built for one set of components. My point was to only point out that stress and cost wise 31”+ archery risers have been produced in the past for compounds. This was only to verify its ability to handle the forces involved in shooting arrows at such longer lengths . I truly meant no disrespect to you or Gillo that would cause a “unpolitely” response..... obviously my post did not make my intent clear...


Jim, don't worry, I have not considered your commnts unpolite at any level, and it is probably my limited English that did not not express what I really wanted to say. My comments were from technical/manufacturing point of wiev only, and not if partially related to yout post.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Vittorio, I agree whole heartedly that from a engineering and design perspective Recurve risers are far more complex to produce! The TSS I was referring to was one of the first split limb with mid limb pivot compounds and because of the mid limb pivot they had a extraordinary long riser. Due to those innovations they did get a fairly premium price of $800 for that time.

Vittorio, being as you created the 27" G1 riser (and I will be soon in the market for a 27" riser for outdoors to match some TradTech RC Extreme Samick long limbs I currently own) could you give some insight from the design and engineering perspective as to why some current Barebow users of the 27" length riser feel the 27" riser with long limbs are "more forgiving". Your input to this topic could serve to be invaluable to user's thinking of making the move to 27"


----------



## JohnZhou (Oct 26, 2017)

Found the post: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5132385 See post #7 from Vittorio


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Thanks John!


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Here lies the fundamental question, what is the definition of forgiving? can it be independently measured by different sources and yield the same answer?

What is unique about the riser all by itself that relates to forgiveness?

When people talk about forgiveness, its related to the whole system, riser, limbs, string, arrow, arrow rest, grip, setup, relative loading points to each other, and their own shooting form. This is ultimately a form problem where certain features of the bow system can mask.

Take for example, I know I struggle with keeping my wrist straight when shooting about the yaw axis (aka torqueing). A 12 inch or a long 30 inch stab will help minimize that problem. Hence the stab adds forgiveness. A longer riser or a longer bow won't help in that area because the inertia properties only help in the pitch and roll axis. Since I shoot using WA Barebow rules, and I can't add anything that is outside the 12.2 cm ring, I have to improve my form to fix that problem.

When the word "forgiveness" is used without any definition to it, one person's forgiveness solution is completely useless to another person's issues.


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

True.... but certain bow designs or features are often considered more forgiving, or faster, or quieter......... Over the years a deflex riser tends to be more forgiving compared to a reflex riser but a reflex riser tends to be faster. Certain limb compositions tended to be more forgiving than others like yew vs rock maple or wood core verse's carbon or foam. It would be difficult to put a hard and fast defining cause to every reason one feels a certain product is forgiving but it does tend to exist within archery. 

Being older with some physical issues caused over the years and medically I know I will never be the archer I once was. I will take every advantage I can get in product design to assist me to put more arrows in the gold because I know I am going to have "oop's!" occasionally. I was just looking for a reason archers using these 27' riser claim to have more forgiveness using them than their 25" risers. If you ask 10 27" riser using archers why they prefer these riser 7-8 of them usually say forgiveness as their first response then feel their second.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

A lot of this tends to be how we define and use our terms.

The reason an arrow gets more speed with a given set of limbs has to do with the stored energy in the limbs. The longer the power stroke, the greater the stored energy, the faster the arrow goes. Reflex deflex affects the brace height position relative to the limb's pivot point. The shorter the power stroke, the more forgiving the bow system is to release issues. The longer the power stroke the faster the arrows but it becomes more twitchy to release issues. Then there is this whole argument about super recurves. The reason for the super curve is to minimize the angle of the string to the limb tip as one reaches full draw. We like to use stacking as a generic term, but in reality that stacking how more to due with the angle approaching 90 degrees. Then super recurves get their reputation as to being faster. Well that reputation relates to the correct riser and its reflex/deflex they are designed so that there is a longer power stroke. Longer power strokes require more unwinding of the limbs, and more likely that the string limb tip angle approaches 90 degrees. So by putting more curve in the limbs, one can draw longer before the stacking is felt.

We tend to use vague non descript terms with our archery equipment, and when we mix different pieces together we get different results with our system than other people get with system when between the two systems there is only one piece in common. If we start to use the right terminology we will see that limb A works great with Riser B, but Limb A should never be combined with riser A or Riser C. And Limb B works great with Riser A and Riser B but not with Riser C. Limb C and Riser C make the best combination but they are cost prohibitive, and if your draw length is greater than 30 inches don't even try. But we constantly hear people ranting and raving the pros and cons of individual limbs and Risers (and other parts) but not why it works or doesn't work with this system. Its really fascinating to see how all this works together.


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

Mr. Roboto said:


> The shorter the power stroke, the more forgiving the bow system is to release issues. The longer the power stroke the faster the arrows but it becomes more twitchy to release issues.


Apologies for stepping off-topic, but I just wanted to mention something I've never understood about this point, although I know it's accepted wisdom.

During the power stroke, any oscillation imparted to the string by the release gradually reduces. Therefore, all other things being equal, a longer power stroke gives more time for that oscillation to decrease. If this is true, why is a lower bracing height/longer power stroke seen to be less forgiving?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> A lot of this tends to be how we define and use our terms.
> 
> The reason an arrow gets more speed with a given set of limbs has to do with the stored energy in the limbs. The longer the power stroke, the greater the stored energy, the faster the arrow goes. Reflex deflex affects the brace height position relative to the limb's pivot point. The shorter the power stroke, the more forgiving the bow system is to release issues. The longer the power stroke the faster the arrows but it becomes more twitchy to release issues. Then there is this whole argument about super recurves. The reason for the super curve is to minimize the angle of the string to the limb tip as one reaches full draw. We like to use stacking as a generic term, but in reality that stacking how more to due with the angle approaching 90 degrees. Then super recurves get their reputation as to being faster. Well that reputation relates to the correct riser and its reflex/deflex they are designed so that there is a longer power stroke. Longer power strokes require more unwinding of the limbs, and more likely that the string limb tip angle approaches 90 degrees. So by putting more curve in the limbs, one can draw longer before the stacking is felt.
> 
> We tend to use vague non descript terms with our archery equipment, and when we mix different pieces together we get different results with our system than other people get with system when between the two systems there is only one piece in common. If we start to use the right terminology we will see that limb A works great with Riser B, but Limb A should never be combined with riser A or Riser C. And Limb B works great with Riser A and Riser B but not with Riser C. Limb C and Riser C make the best combination but they are cost prohibitive, and if your draw length is greater than 30 inches don't even try. But we constantly hear people ranting and raving the pros and cons of individual limbs and Risers (and other parts) but not why it works or doesn't work with this system. Its really fascinating to see how all this works together.


Great analisys and explanation. The full bow is the system, limbs and riser are just 2 part of it, and only companies offering both limbs and risers may try to work on full bow parameters to improve the full system. All makers that want to sell parts separately have to design everything supposing their parts are combined together's in a rather "standard" system. So, 44 to 40 mm of deflex and 14 to 15" of pockert angles are the average in the market for risers, and limbs are usually designed to work within these parameters. Going out of this area is binding riser to limbs design very strictly, at least in the present ILF market.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> Great analisys and explanation. The full bow is the system, limbs and riser are just 2 part of it, and only companies offering both limbs and risers may try to work on full bow parameters to improve the full system. All makers that want to sell parts separately have to design everything supposing their parts are combined together's in a rather "standard" system. So, 44 to 40 mm of deflex and 14 to 15" of pockert angles are the average in the market for risers, and limbs are usually designed to work within these parameters. Going out of this area is binding riser to limbs design very strictly, at least in the present ILF market.


If series production of +29" risers was economically reasonable do you think that would cause a change in limb design?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

grantmac said:


> If series production of +29" risers was economically reasonable do you think that would cause a change in limb design?[/QUOTE
> 
> No, as none of the limbs manufacturers is interested in making different geometries than present ones. So, it will be as usual a problem of the manufaturer of the riser, only, to find the correct geometry for it to allow use of existing limbs. Hard, but not impossible.


----------



## glitchy (Feb 19, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Where were those 27" risers when I started competing with recurve is what I always want to know!


I've heard a couple of people say that Hoyt made some 27" Gold Medalist risers. (Which doesn't narrow it down much given that they made the darned things for... how many decades?) Whether or when that actually even happened I couldn't say, but if I ever find one to buy I'll report back!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Perhaps, but when I started shooting recurve, we had two choices and two only. 23" or 25". Period. Vic cheated a bit by using long Conquest limbs, that gave him a 71" bow. He's always been smart like that though.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

One 27" bow that might have existed before the Luxor 27 has been the Talenta, made in Switzerland. Talenta bows I have seen have ever been made by 25" (or 26" ?) riser, but someone in 2007 when I started the Luxor 27 project mentioned to me that Talenta made a 27" risers in the mid of 90's 
Never found any picture of this, it it ever existed.
The Luxor 27 had to be a ... Luxor 26 in the original idea. We wanted to re-surrect the Ghibli, that was 25.5", not pure 25", so original idea was to go to a family of 26" and later 24" riser. But then, we went to the 27" lenght in order to make it easier for strings and limbs already around. 
Anyhow, Border was making 72" limbs since mid of 90's already, in my memory.


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

Vittorio said:


> Anyhow, Border was making 72" limbs since mid of 90's already, in my memory.


They were indeed, as were KG Archery in the UK, I believe. Border still do, but KG stopped a while back it seems.

I also seem to remember a Greenhorn advert in a Glade magazine I inherited from a friend, giving a range of sizes including a 71in option. I keep meaning to dig those magazines out of storage.


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

Can't seem to edit my post...

Anyway, Stylist also used to make 72in bows (XL limbs), and the classic Marksman KG1 was also available in 72in (24in riser).


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> grantmac said:
> 
> 
> > If series production of +29" risers was economically reasonable do you think that would cause a change in limb design?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

grantmac said:


> Vittorio said:
> 
> 
> > So it's ILF compatibility which limits theoretical riser design? I believe Border has mentioned this in the past as well...
> ...


----------



## starground (Mar 5, 2018)

Vittorio said:


> One 27" bow that might have existed before the Luxor 27 has been the Talenta, made in Switzerland. Talenta bows I have seen have ever been made by 25" (or 26" ?) riser, but someone in 2007 when I started the Luxor 27 project mentioned to me that Talenta made a 27" risers in the mid of 90's
> Never found any picture of this, it it ever existed.
> The Luxor 27 had to be a ... Luxor 26 in the original idea. We wanted to re-surrect the Ghibli, that was 25.5", not pure 25", so original idea was to go to a family of 26" and later 24" riser. But then, we went to the 27" lenght in order to make it easier for strings and limbs already around.
> Anyhow, Border was making 72" limbs since mid of 90's already, in my memory.


This might not be it. However it is interesting. It's a 71"/73" bow! Same limbs, just differently mounted. This is the barebow version without sight mounts etc and includes a hidden weight under the bottom limb mount. It's been shot (successfully) by Hartmut Ziplies since he bought in the late 80's. The riser itself isn't 27", more like 24"...see last image compared to my regular 25" riser.


----------



## starground (Mar 5, 2018)

Vittorio said:


> One 27" bow that might have existed before the Luxor 27 has been the Talenta, made in Switzerland. Talenta bows I have seen have ever been made by 25" (or 26" ?) riser, but someone in 2007 when I started the Luxor 27 project mentioned to me that Talenta made a 27" risers in the mid of 90's
> Never found any picture of this, it it ever existed.
> The Luxor 27 had to be a ... Luxor 26 in the original idea. We wanted to re-surrect the Ghibli, that was 25.5", not pure 25", so original idea was to go to a family of 26" and later 24" riser. But then, we went to the 27" lenght in order to make it easier for strings and limbs already around.
> Anyhow, Border was making 72" limbs since mid of 90's already, in my memory.


This may not be the one, but it's a 71"/73" Talenta. It was bought by Hartmut Ziplies in the late 80's and has been shot (successfully) ever since. The riser is about 24" (see last image, compared to my regular 25"), but the long limbs can be set in two different positions. This is a barebow specific riser, lacking holes for sights etc and has a hidden weight under the bottom limb pocket...


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Vittorio said:


> A G1 29" riser has been investigated as possibility, but with present existing milling technology and riser design, keeping the parallelism of pockets and strightness matching our standards and considering small volume, cost jumps sky hight. No way to make it cheaper, so no way to make it.
> 
> Gillo GX project will solve the probelm, but it will take a couple of years more (and a lot of money in development) to reach preseries stage, and for sure 29" will come later than 25" and 27". Let say, GX-29 by mid 2021, best guess.
> A 31" riser is presently unrealistic even to imagine.


Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread, but the post I quoted was from March 2021. That was almost a good prediction. But I am glad the 31" riser idea was wrong.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

Hikari said:


> Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread, but the post I quoted was from March 2021. That was almost a good prediction. But I am glad the 31" riser idea was wrong.


You were saying?









Gillo GT 31" Recurve Riser


Create a fast shooting Recurve or Bare Bow build with this long and stable 31" monster of a riser when you pair it with a set of short limbs ILF limb compatible Floating Limb pockets allow over 30 % finger weight adjustment range Integrated shock absorbers control post-shot vibration Body...




lancasterarchery.com


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

liquidator4711 said:


> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know. Vittorio did state in 2018 that the 31" was unrealistic. I am glad he made it a reality.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

Hikari said:


> I know. Vittorio did state in 2018 that the 31" was unrealistic. I am glad he made it a reality.


Yeah, well. A 2000 USD price tag makes it a bit unreal for most of us... That is definitely on the expensive side.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

liquidator4711 said:


> Yeah, well. A 2000 USD price tag makes it a bit unreal for most of us... That is definitely on the expensive side.


You are right, Vittorio was not clear whether he meant unrealistic to build or to buy... 

Still, I admire Gillo for what they are doing for archery. Even if it is for giant _RIGHT_-hand archers (I am LH).

I am just waiting for the first person to shoot that 31" riser with XL limbs. That might be even too big for Fredrik Lundmark! (It might even lead to XS limbs.)


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Hikari said:


> You are right, Vittorio was not clear whether he meant unrealistic to build or to buy...
> 
> Still, I admire Gillo for what they are doing for archery. Even if it is for giant _RIGHT_-hand archers (I am LH).
> 
> I am just waiting for the first person to shoot that 31" riser with XL limbs. That might be even too big for Fredrik Lundmark! (It might even lead to XS limbs.)


Since man went to the moon, humanity proved that "impossible is nothing" and, I have to say, just a matter of cost.
Some products are made for the mass market, others are made for a niche market, others are made just to show that they can be done, for advertising purpose only.

GT 31 ILF is in the second category, but GT 33 Formula can be in the third one if we decide to try to assemble one. Some top Hoyt Formula shooters in Las Vegas asked to Michele what was the limit with XL Hoyt limbs ...33.5" for the riser plus limbs = > 80" bow ... the answer!
GT 31 ILF LH is of course possible if someone is ready to pay for the positioning tools and to buy a minimum of 5 pcs, but you don't expect it to cost so ... cheap ... like the RH version.
1300 US$ risers are already in the market for many years, > 1500 US$ risers for a couple of years already. You pay what you want to get, in a niche market, and don't forget that many people are paying already 1500 US$ for just a mobile phone made in tens of thousands of units ...

Back to topic, don't mix up risers length with risers designs. Many makers have introduced 27" risers since my first Luxor 27 in 2007, but the majority of them have failed to perform at reasonable level. in BB (and Reacurve olympic as well). Making 27" and longer risers is not as easy as it may seem ....


----------



## GRAY Archery (Dec 1, 2016)

Vittorio said:


> A G1 29" riser has been investigated as possibility, but with present existing milling technology and riser design, keeping the parallelism of pockets and strightness matching our standards and considering small volume, cost jumps sky hight. No way to make it cheaper, so no way to make it.
> 
> Gillo GX project will solve the probelm, but it will take a couple of years more (and a lot of money in development) to reach preseries stage, and for sure 29" will come later than 25" and 27". Let say, GX-29 by mid 2021, best guess.
> A 31" riser is presently unrealistic even to imagine.


Interesting, I think its possible but it boils down to cost. If you are extruding the billet like our friends at PSE and I Think Bow tech then maybe. I agree that it will be very expensive and you might sell a couple hundred but not enough to justify the capital outlay to just get the billet correct. And yes to keep it straight will be fun.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Vittorio said:


> Since man went to the moon, humanity proved that "impossible is nothing" and, I have to say, just a matter of cost.
> Some products are made for the mass market, others are made for a niche market, others are made just to show that they can be done, for advertising purpose only.
> 
> GT 31 ILF is in the second category, but GT 33 Formula can be in the third one if we decide to try to assemble one. Some top Hoyt Formula shooters in Las Vegas asked to Michele what was the limit with XL Hoyt limbs ...33.5" for the riser plus limbs = > 80" bow ... the answer!
> ...


I really appreciate Gillo making these risers, even if they are right handed.  And I expect them to be expensive--having worked in manufacturing, I understand the relationship between quality and sale volume and it is not a linear relationship. I am certainly happy to pay for well-made and unique things (whether my wife is happy about it is another matter, but I am sure you understand).

I am trying to imagine an 80" bow (that is not a Japanese yumi). 

I am curious about your last statement. If you were designing a riser for a 70" bow, why would a 25" riser with long limbs be easer than a 27" riser with mediums? Why is a 27" simply not a "bigger" 25"? (assuming the archer is bigger too)


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Hikari said:


> ..... Why is a 27" simply not a "bigger" 25"? (assuming the archer is bigger too)


You can't simply enlarge all dimensions going from 25 to 27 and from 27 up. If you follow the 25" bow geometry and curves, then Deflex will increase continuously, final BH for assembled bow will become longer and longer, and for sure a 29" riser with long limbs and 12"BH will be simply almost useless under 33" DL, not to mention the incredible quantity of aluminum and related cost wasted to mill it. More than this, a longer window will make the riser more suitable to twist on top at full draw, but increasing mass on that area to fight twisting creates a very unbalanced riser. Manufactures making 27" risers from 2008 to follow the trend all drop in these mistakes, designing very unbalanced, inefficient and heavy 27" risers. Today's situation is in general a bit better, but making long risers is still more art about knowing where the compromises should be, rather than a simple enlargement of an existing design of a smaller version.
P.S. --> and short risers need totally different compromises, too ...


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

Hikari said:


> Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread, but the post I quoted was from March 2021. That was almost a good prediction. But I am glad the 31" riser idea was wrong.


Funny because I just ordered the 31" riser 😂 and I'm putting my xl uukhas on it to accommodate my 34" dl. String angle with even a 29" riser was not good... Had to put a kisser button and use it as a nose button to make contact with the string somehow.


----------

