# New Hoyt Launch September 10



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

I’m surprised I haven’t seen any buzz about this on here yet. Sometime tomorrow Hoyt will do their new launch. I have been playing with an Epix and my older X-tour limbs lately and love the shot feel and reaction of this setup. If the new stuff improves on that, well, shut up and take my money.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

The advertisement I saw said revolutionary.


----------



## Lorne (Jun 5, 2016)

Great, the ibow 10...Can't wait to stand in line for 6 hours to get one.


LG


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Should be a pretty major design change in the compound lineup as well.


----------



## RMBX10 (Jun 20, 2002)

It is sure to be the most extraordinary, game-changing, revolutionary product since last year's radically awesome, most technologically advanced product! I plan to order three of them tomorrow to increase my chances of having one delivered to my local dealer by January.


----------



## Mark Talley (Aug 10, 2016)

RMBX10 said:


> It is sure to be the most extraordinary, game-changing, revolutionary product since last year's radically awesome, most technologically advanced product! I plan to order three of them tomorrow to increase my chances of having one delivered to my local dealer by January.


Only to see Lancaster discount them by 30% the following year as old hat.


----------



## maxpowerpc2000 (Apr 5, 2010)

I hope they get rid of the formula and just stick with ILF. I have so many ILF limbs that I would love to shoot again.


----------



## Lentz (Mar 14, 2010)

It states 2020. So next year is the release?


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Lentz said:


> It states 2020. So next year is the release?


2020 model year. Just like cars.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

It's a great marketing strategy, it has to be.
Hoyt has used it year after year, but then again, so have most other companies. 
Sad part is that a lot of us keep falling for it.

Viper1 out.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Pre-release leak,

Names are:
Hoyt *Even Epix-er*
Hoyt *Formula X+1*


----------



## horsehands (Jul 25, 2012)

No wait, the hunting gurus says Hoyt's going out of business. Orders will likely be canceled. We got a guy driving by every few hours to let us know when they chain the doors shut. lol


----------



## maxpowerpc2000 (Apr 5, 2010)

bobnikon said:


> Pre-release leak,
> 
> Names are:
> Hoyt *Even Epix-er*
> Hoyt *Formula X+1*


Scary thing is that it seems legit.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

My velos limbs are awesome...I can't believe they are dumping them after only one year.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scott, you're really surprised there hasn't been any discussion here? Posts 5 and 6 cover the reasons why.

Let's all get in the way-back machine and recall a time when the formula system was going to "revolutionize" everything, shall we?


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Aren’t the current national and world records with a formula bow? 

I always forget how much Hoyt hate this forum seems to have. All I can say is I have a lot of arrows through my X-tours and they are exceptional limbs. I have shot the Velos and they seem equally as good and either limb in concert with the Epix has a great feel. I am holding out hope for a barebow ready riser as well.


----------



## DarkMuppet (Oct 23, 2013)

SBills said:


> Aren’t the current national and world records with a formula bow?


Current WA world records --

MALE

*Formula*
70m (720 round)
Double 70m 
18m indoor 
(All Brady ...  )

*ILF*

1440 round
90m
70m
50m
30m
25m Indoor



FEMALE

*Formula*

None

*ILF*

Everything



I'd like to see Hoyt do something new and exciting and not just the usual yearly tweaks for a change. Maybe try a carbon recurve riser or a front "tec bar" for barebow maybe ?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scott, it's not the equipment - it's the marketing hype. We see it from the same company every single year. So the responses are just a reaction to that. I think a lot of us think their gear is just fine. We just get sick of the marketing tricks.

And not all of Brady's bows have been formula over the past few years either. I think the formula thing is going away. It was a solution looking for a problem all along. Besides, all of Brady's records would have been shot with a Mathews bow if they paid better.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

DarkMuppet said:


> Current WA world records --
> 
> MALE
> 
> ...


The "All Brady" bit means there is no point giving the "Formula" gear credit for any of it. Although it is also fair to conclude it isn't any worse than ILF stuff.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Scott, it's not the equipment - it's the marketing hype. We see it from the same company every single year. So the responses are just a reaction to that. I think a lot of us think their gear is just fine. We just get sick of the marketing tricks.
> 
> And not all of Brady's bows have been formula over the past few years either. I think the formula thing is going away. It was a solution looking for a problem all along. Besides, all of Brady's records would have been shot with a Mathews bow if they paid better.


back when Liz ran a shop and Earl was still alive, I sat with him at perhaps the last ATA show he attended, and discussed the Conquest that I started shooting in late 95 and which I used off and on for over a decade-after Martin dropped its Aurora Project and when the Aerotech's stiffness was hard on my elbow. So I said-how come there isn't a New Conquest riser this year at the Show. And he said-well Jim, I've been making and designing bows for decades. I had five years to really think about all I did (due to his no compete contract when he sold Hoyt to Easton) and what makes the best bow-and when I designed the bow you shoot-I put every bit of knowledge I had accumulated over those many years into it. It was the best riser I could design in (93 or so IIRC) and its the best bow I could design if I were doing it today.

and he went on to say something to the effect that he might not sell as many bows but he also noted that when someone used their hard earned money to buy a Sky-they could be assured they got his best effort and next year, their Sky was not subordinate to a new version


----------



## Robert43 (Aug 2, 2004)

tassie_devil said:


> The "All Brady" bit means there is no point giving the "Formula" gear credit for any of it. Although it is also fair to conclude it isn't any worse than ILF stuff.


That sums it up in 1


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Anybody else hit refresh on the web page or facebook a couple times already today out of morbid curiosity?

I did...:embara:

I still hold out hope that a 27" ILF will return. Not that I will buy it, but in a few years I would pick up a used one... :wink:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 17, 2003)

Hi bobnikon; You would be best served with a Gillo 27" ILF riser, whether new or used. There wasn't enough volume in 27" risers for Hoyt to continue making them, but the barebow world has increased the sales of 27" risers dramatically.


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

I cant wait to see how they've reinvented the wheel this time around. Obviously its even rounder than last years so you godda buy it! Sad part is Hoyt's well groomed fan base wont bat an eyelash at dropping all those special edition Brady Ellison Formula X risers they just got and getting whatever this is. 

In a way though its healthy for the market. The high turn around rate for Hoyts makes it so our JOAD kids can get really nice bows second hand for cheap.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

bobnikon said:


> Anybody else hit refresh on the web page or facebook a couple times already today out of morbid curiosity?
> 
> I did...:embara:
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Hi bobnikon; You would be best served with a Gillo 27" ILF riser, whether new or used. There wasn't enough volume in 27" risers for Hoyt to continue making them, but the barebow world has increased the sales of 27" risers dramatically.


Thanks Rob.

I do actually own a Gillo 27, and a Fivics Titan 27 and a Hoyt GMX 27.... So it isn't a matter of needing one...

But it is a bit of a soap box for me. Every year I ask Hoyt and every year they leave me hanging. 

Cheers
Erik


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

bobnikon said:


> Pre-release leak,
> 
> Names are:
> Hoyt *Even Epix-er*
> Hoyt *Formula X+1*


No really.

The XCEED!!! You can't make this stuff up...


----------



## bruce_m (Jan 23, 2012)

Dang. You beat me to it. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Haters gonna hate but I think it looks awesome. Much prefer the new limb alignment system and yay barebow weighting options.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Drool


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What exactly about it is "revolutionary?" 

Interesting to see a company so concerned about I.P. steal the Gillo barebow weight idea. Vittorio should be very flattered.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Kind of a disappointment but I had built up hope for something like this in Formula. Lots of interesting stuff in that video.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> *What exactly about it is "revolutionary?"
> *
> Interesting to see a company so concerned about I.P. steal the Gillo barebow weight idea. Vittorio should be very flattered.


The limb comfort adjustments is pretty much in line with that term.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The sodium level in here is slightly elevated.


----------



## Mark Talley (Aug 10, 2016)

Beautifully done.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Limb "comfort" adjustments? You mean the ability to move the pivot point? 

I should have added that the limb alignment system appears to be right out of W&W I.P. as well. Pity really, as the dowel system was pretty rock solid, even if it was a pain to adjust.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

I wonder if there is more to come. Looks like just Grand Prix so far...??? Can't imagine they wouldn't put the same tech into their flagship bow, unless the xceed is the new flagship...


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

This same limb alignment system expect for the movable blocks was on the Formula X. I actually much prefer it to the dowel system so think that is a great move. As TMD said it gets kind of salty in here. I can say I spoke with Doug a little bit at Vegas and it is really apparent from even a short interaction how much passion he has for recurve design. The fact that Hoyt is providing provisions for a barebow weight is a huge step in my opinion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ability to change limb pre-load by moving the pivot point - interesting. Not sure that's something the typical archer will ever need to do (or should do) but I can see it being useful for tuning. I don't understand how they say that won't change the tune though, since that seems to be the most valuable outcome of that feature. 

Ability to weight (or not) the limb pockets - long overdue. Hopefully the weights stay put once they are screwed in. If so, that's a good add.

Barebow weight - no brainer. Again, overdue.

New alignment system - probably a good idea overall considering the trouble most people have with the dowel alignment system and the thin brass washers. I liked that on my Axis, but it is time consuming and not super precise. If they wanted the ability to move the pivot point, they had to do away with that dowel alignment system.

No 3rd axis alignment anymore is a very good thing IMO. One less unnecessary adjustment for the user to get wrong/fiddle with.

Overall I'd say those are good changes. A couple steps in the direction of simplifying things and one potential advancement (time will tell how useful it is).

Doug is a smart guy and you're right - it's easy to see his passion for designing recurves. I've talked to him about his designs a few times and he clearly loves what he does.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Is it too soon to take stock of all the "innovations" that are no longer featured on certain risers, or should we wait? 

Hmmm,

Tec bars
Stealth shots
Pivoting limb bolt head
3rd axis limb alignment 
Dowel alignment system
(Formula system?)

what did I miss?

The trouble with constantly innovating is that the features that were once advertised as "innovative" but are later dropped can appear to convict the manufacturer of misleading the consumer. I'm sure that's not their intention, but it can be frustrating for the long-time customer.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

bobnikon said:


> Pre-release leak,
> 
> Names are:
> Hoyt *Even Epix-er*
> Hoyt *Formula X+1*


Oh so close!

Hoyt XCEED
Hoyt Formula Xi


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Hoyt Exceed - "equipped with patent pending string tension technology"

I don't really know what that means. Does that mean the riser comes equipped with limbs? 

All kidding aside, i really like the looks. The fanning array of the struts looks really cool.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Revolutionary is a stretch.
But I'd certainly call it evolutionary. Basically variable deflex.

I am surprised the pivoting bolts are out. I rather like that innovation and I've retrofit a few non-Hoyt risers. Keeps the limbs looking nice (probably why they removed it).

Lacking a 27" seems short sighted given that others are already developing 29".


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Lacking a 27" seems short sighted given that others are already developing 29".


Niche market. Lose production on your big sellers just to satisfy a few of us whiners. Bottom line doesn't support it. But I would still like to see them do limited runs.


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Ability to change limb pre-load by moving the pivot point - interesting. Not sure that's something the typical archer will ever need to do (or should do) but I can see it being useful for tuning. I don't understand how they say that won't change the tune though, since that seems to be the most valuable outcome of that feature.


I can see this being useful for archers that may be a little nervous/unsure around the clicker to be able to customize the feel and provide options to them and for tuning too. If you're struggling with trying not to cut arrows for a growing archer who is budget constrained or want to get a little more life out of a set of limbs, etc. you could use this system to buy a little time...who knows, you might get an extra 1lb or so OTF by moving the pivots out.

I can't see how it wouldn't change the tune either...you move the pivot point up and your draw weight OTF is going to increase so it's going to change the tune...maybe Doug is meaning that it won't significantly change the tune.


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

bobnikon said:


> Niche market. Lose production on your big sellers just to satisfy a few of us whiners. Bottom line doesn't support it. But I would still like to see them do limited runs.


Don't hold your breath...I think Hoyt has pretty much walked away from the niche side of things.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> .... Vittorio should be very flattered.


Really I am...:darkbeer:


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Now that they have a barebow riser, if they play the game like Best, Spigarelli and Bernardini, they won't have to change it for 10 to 15 years, and that is okay. If the engineering is sound then it should have a long life.

That is one way to support a niche market. Leverage your engineering and development costs over a longer time period.

Barebow is growing fast. Now they have something in the catalog in case demand explodes.

It looks nice, but, I am happy with my 27 inch Luxor. For existing barebow archers you need to create a case for change. For new, this could be an option, especially for those that are brand loyal to Hoyt.

I am brand loyal to anyone who makes a riser long enough for me that is not so heavy it makes my arm fall off.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> What exactly about it is "revolutionary?"
> 
> Interesting to see a company so concerned about I.P. steal the Gillo barebow weight idea. Vittorio should be very flattered.


Don't neglect the fact that Stolid Bull put weight in front on the riser before the Gillo came to be. They just packaged it differently. This will probably be the approach used from now on. The days of cylindrical weights in riser holes may be over.

Larger markets allow for more complex engineering. It is easier to drill holes than to create a front mounted weight system. I am seeing the same sophistication hitting climbing. Primitive belay devices we used years ago are being replaced by complex engineering designs that you could not sell enough of in the old days to pay for development. Plus guys were building stuff in their garages before becoming rich.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Did you see the Formula announcement? All it has really new is the adjustable limb thingies.

But.... Will the things off the ILF riser fit the Formula risers?


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

The 3rd Axis limb alignment is still there. It shims under the rockers. As they don’t seem to be able to guarantee straight risers this feature can be a god send.

I have always hated the dowel system - even on my Axis that was actually straight. So this was the on thing on the Formula X that I saw as a selling point ;-)

I get what everyone is saying - but it is all just marketing spraf- just the same as the Ultra Graphene TFT Plus Max Nano Carbon Supreme. But consumerism caught up with archery in the 1990s. If anything Hoyt seem to change less than W&W. The unusual change being that this year is an ILF year but they have tweaked the Formula X as well.

If you gave Brady a ProMedallist he’d probably still clean up but you didn’t and haven’t - so somehow there is a negative about a brand giving an athlete good support? I don’t understand that.

As Hoyt have been giving a lifetime warranty on risers since 2011 nobody is forcing anyone to part with their cash. Just watch the international coverage - still plenty of HPX, IonX, GMX etc. Equally if you are the kind of person who buys new cars and gets a kick from having the latest whiz good luck to you. Hopefully you know that it doesn’t do anything for your actual results but may shore up a psychological weakness.

So most important factor is is it pretty? Personally I’d say yes to both. I’d be happy shooting either of those bows. I have a whole bunch of 27” risers and I’m not entirely convinced that people get from them what they think they get from them.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course ;-)

Stretch


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Barebow weights were not in stock but I just got the Xceed in black. I was just about to pull the trigger on an epik but have never bought a brand new riser and decided today was the day.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> If you gave Brady a ProMedallist he’d probably still clean up but you didn’t and haven’t - so somehow there is a negative about a brand giving an athlete good support? I don’t understand that.
> 
> 
> Stretch


If that was in reference to my comment, someone once again took what I said and (wrongly) assumed what I meant. It is great that Hoyt is supporting these archers. Brady was quoted more than once when he switched from Mathews how disappointed he was in Mathews for pulling out of the recurve game. They really left him no choice. Hoyt made a smart business decision at the time and it's worked out for both of them. Nothing wrong at all with that. I'm glad Brady can make a living shooting arrows.

But let's not delude ourselves by thinking these bows are the only ones he could have used to set the WR. Hoyt paid good money to get the archers who were capable of that score specifically so they could claim how superior their equipment is. If W&W paid more than Hoyt to these archers, they would get to take credit for those accomplishments. Sometimes I SMH when we all know it's the archer's accomplishment and not the equipment, particularly in a sport with gear as basic as recurve archery.


----------



## Montalaar (Jan 26, 2008)

I actually do like the looks of the new ILF, though i wont ever buy one. But i do not understand the actual purpose and function of the string tension gadget either.

I wonder, however, what the new Xi will weigh. It looks quite heavy from the pictures, given the high volume of aluminum.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I will really be impressed when I see Fawn shooting one and know that she was paid the same as Demmer and Dillinger to shoot it.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So Hoyt owes archers innovation and success.

Ok.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

John, no the comment re Hoyt supporting the archer were not directly aimed at you. But read through these threads this time every year and Hoyt get absolutely dumped on. Same comments that don’t seem to be used for other brands that churn their range just as much.

Yes Brady could have won the Olympics twice with a Mathews but it didn’t go that way. Equally he might have won nothing with a Mathews. We’ll never know.

All you have to do is look at the range of bows that are being shot and the number of 10s being shot with them. There is a smorgasbord of bows to choose from. Pick the one you like the look of, the feel of, the brand/unbrand, ethics, engineering, simplicity, colour... whatever. But why does everyone feel the need to dump on everything else?

So - strange Shox things aside - do any of the things Hoyt have tried really scream “it’s a blatant scam” to you? I’ve owned 4 and 2 were great (for me). HP geometry - crappy for me but worked great for some. Ad nauseum. Even the Radian grip had its admirers. Formula limb fit - what’s the big deal? It works just as well as everything else. I shot a Stylist for years - why is proprietary limb fit an issue if you like the limbs? If you want to shoot W&W limbs then OBVIOUSLY it’s not for you. 

Maybe I have a different outlook as all the bows when I first shot had proprietary fit. When Spigareli brought out the Hoyt fit 1300 riser it was “wow can they do that?”. Now because we hate Hoyt so much we invented the term International Fit.

So nothing personal at all in these comments. I still can’t believe that people are using stabilisers that cost half as much as the bow. In the 90s it was maybe 10-15%. The consumerism is bonkers but it’s not going away.

2c

Stretch


----------



## Alik (Apr 3, 2019)

Montalaar said:


> I wonder, however, what the new Xi will weigh. It looks quite heavy from the pictures, given the high volume of aluminum.


Hoyt has a video on that on YouTube. If I remember correctly, it was 1250ish g


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> John, no the comment re Hoyt supporting the archer were not directly aimed at you. But read through these threads this time every year and Hoyt get absolutely dumped on. Same comments that don’t seem to be used for other brands that churn their range just as much.
> 
> Yes Brady could have won the Olympics twice with a Mathews but it didn’t go that way. Equally he might have won nothing with a Mathews. We’ll never know.
> 
> ...


Stretch, I think most folks dump on Hoyt's over-the-top marketing hyperbole, not their products. At least I know that's true in my case. I like Doug and think he's a great engineer and I also think Hoyt makes great bows. But so much of the engineering that goes into their bows simply isn't necessary IMHO, and is intended as much for marketing separation as it is for actual performance. I mean, at what level does an archer need to shoot before they will notice the difference between the aggressive and the hybrid setting on the limb pivot positions? And to say it won't change tuning just isn't being honest. Maybe not for sub-300 archers but for folks who can keep bare shafts on the bale at 70, moving those pivot points will definitely change their tune enough to need further adjustments to compensate. 

Please understand it's not the equipment, but the marketing that most folks object to.


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

Montalaar said:


> But i do not understand the actual purpose and function of the string tension gadget either.


It appears that it allows you to increase/decrease the amount of 'limb pre-load', which may or may not be a useful feature for the average archer. - John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

jhinaz said:


> It appears that it allows you to increase/decrease the amount of 'limb pre-load', which may or may not be a useful feature for the average archer. - John


I would agree - like the 3rd axis alignment, it's something that makes sense to an engineer to include, but in practice 99.999% of archers should never touch it. The problem I see with it is that moving that pivot point will change your tune, and if you want to play with the setting at all, you will have to do so before you ever tune your rig. Maybe that's what folks will do, but once it's tuned, if you change your mind or want to experiment, you'll have to start the whole process all over again.

Having said that, I am 100% sure there will be amateur archers who will even go so far as to set the pivot points in different positions between the upper and lower limb, for no other reason than to change the tiller of the limbs, in which case all bets are off. Let the tail-chasing commence! LOL


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I can’t wait for this time next year.


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I would agree - like the 3rd axis alignment, it's something that makes sense to an engineer to include, but in practice 99.999% of archers should never touch it.


I'm familiar with 3rd axis adjustment on a bow sight/scope but I'm not sure where 3rd axis adjustment is on a recurve riser (if that's what you were referring to). - John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

jhinaz said:


> I'm familiar with 3rd axis adjustment on a bow sight/scope but I'm not sure where 3rd axis adjustment is on a recurve riser (if that's what you were referring to). - John


Pg. 18-19

https://s3.hoyt.com/uploads/2019/879812934352ea6795128ab9b2a41d4c2946fc3b.pdf


----------



## KungPOW (May 17, 2016)

The name of the bow is perfect... Exceeds my budget...


----------



## Robert43 (Aug 2, 2004)

With all these adjustments it will be a fidlers delight


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Pg. 18-19
> 
> https://s3.hoyt.com/uploads/2019/879812934352ea6795128ab9b2a41d4c2946fc3b.pdf


Well that was an enlightening read for me. I wasn't aware Hoyt recurve risers had any adjustment other than LLA. Thanks, - John


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I will really be impressed when I see Fawn shooting one and know that she was paid the same as Demmer and Dillinger to shoot it.


I'll have to check with her next time she is at the range-I thought she shot her spigarelli in Canada but its been a few weeks since I have seen her because I am running outdoor practices and she teaches at the indoor range at the same time


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Pg. 18-19
> 
> https://s3.hoyt.com/uploads/2019/879812934352ea6795128ab9b2a41d4c2946fc3b.pdf


So do we know for sure the rockers don’t come with shims to micro adjust limb plane? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> So do we know for sure the rockers don’t come with shims to micro adjust limb plane?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have no idea, but I don't see why not. 

As Robert says, it will be Fiddler's delight 2.0 (or is it 3.0 by now). Honestly, it's probably a good thing these risers are so expensive as it will save a lot of amateurs a bunch of time and anxiety by not being able to afford one, and those who might be able to take advantage of all the adjustments don't have to buy them anyway.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

I just watched the LAS breakdown, and John Wert says they do still have the limb plane adjustment in the rockers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> I just watched the LAS breakdown, and John Wert says they do still have the limb plane adjustment in the rockers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


sigh. Well I'll say a prayer for anyone who feels the need to tinker with them. The trouble with the ad copy on that item is that they state it keeps the limb in alignment all the way through the draw cycle. As Vittorio has pointed out several times - limbs can and do change planes as they are drawn.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Stretch, I think most folks dump on Hoyt's over-the-top marketing hyperbole, not their products. At least I know that's true in my case. I like Doug and think he's a great engineer and I also think Hoyt makes great bows. But so much of the engineering that goes into their bows simply isn't necessary IMHO, and is intended as much for marketing separation as it is for actual performance. I mean, at what level does an archer need to shoot before they will notice the difference between the aggressive and the hybrid setting on the limb pivot positions? And to say it won't change tuning just isn't being honest. Maybe not for sub-300 archers but for folks who can keep bare shafts on the bale at 70, moving those pivot points will definitely change their tune enough to need further adjustments to compensate.
> 
> Please understand it's not the equipment, but the marketing that most folks object to.


Yup I hear you and actually agree on a lot of what you say. However, I am no great shakes but put a Formula RX next to a Prodigy RX and there is a very big difference in the feel. Now that doesn’t mean it shoots better. But I always shot my best scores with a bow that felt right. So I’m not sure I’d subscribe to the not any progress theory. (And I really like the RX)

I agree that it is hard to see how moving the string tension would not affect tuning but maybe so. I guess a lot of people will spend a lot of time playing with it.

On the 3rd Axis I’m glad they have it. My 72” PRX with Velos would be unshootable without it. But I also recognise that it is a crutch for the twist in the 27” riser. Shifting dowel shims did not get the job done. And yes, agree with the point further down the thread that you then need to test how the alignment unfolds through the draw. Equally with my Quattro woodcore they shot fine “a fraction out” the Velos not so much. So I continually come back to the idea that the cutting edge “performance” comes at a cost. Even the Radian you could throw together and reliably have it shooting pretty well in less than an hour.

I actually shoot Hoyt because generally I like how they feel. I have tried a bunch of W&W risers and never liked the feel (not the last 3 or 4 years worth of models). I have yet to shoot a carbon riser I liked. And (apologies for the blasphemy) but I never liked any of the Italian risers (maybe the Spigareli DMS and 1300 but that was compared to other 1990s bows). And I really wanted to like a few especially the Bernadini Luxor (And I didn’t like the GMX either)

I don’t like the marketing over-hype either, it doesn’t feel honest. I’m more of a “we’ve tweaked this and we think it is pretty cool” kind of person. But then the “Born with expectations that my body and practice regime will never match” advertising really gets my goat. 

To be frank I think the W&W Mk1 Winact was the best all round limb I ever shot. Shame I never owned a set. Maybe pick up a set secondhand and put them in an Exceed 

Stretch


----------



## maxpowerpc2000 (Apr 5, 2010)

I have a faktor from a couple years ago and now it's obsolete. Wish these new features were retroactive somehow to older riser so I don't feel envious of others.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> https://s3.hoyt.com/uploads/2019/879812934352ea6795128ab9b2a41d4c2946fc3b.pdf


I counted 31 “WARNING”s in the document. I think I’d be afraid to own a Hoyt riser these days.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

maxpowerpc2000 said:


> I have a faktor from a couple years ago and now it's obsolete. Wish these new features were retroactive somehow to older riser so I don't feel envious of others.


Yea, I can see the progression though. The dowel alignment system lasted a long time, all other things considered. 20 years, right? That's a long lifespan in today's market for any product. The hybrid "pro dowel system" with the shims was kinda awkward. This newer system makes much more sense, will be easier to adjust correctly and harder to screw up. Those are all good things IMO, even though hardly any of them are necessary for the vast majority of shooters.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

maxpowerpc2000 said:


> I have a faktor from a couple years ago and now it's obsolete. Wish these new features were retroactive somehow to older riser so I don't feel envious of others.


Does your Faktor shoot any worse than it did on Monday? 

That is the real point behind most of this thread. There is very little here that adds any bang over your Faktor. (Unless you shoot barebow).

I kinda fancy an X because I like the Slate colour. (Still not as nice as the 1996 Platinum though...)

Stretch


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I like my 27" G1 platinum pretty well.  But you're right - that '96 Platinum was very nice. I know some folks who still covet those risers, and for good reason!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> Does your Faktor shoot any worse than it did on Monday?
> 
> That is the real point behind most of this thread. There is very little here that adds any bang over your Faktor. (Unless you shoot barebow).
> 
> ...


Or the Platinum Matrix from 2005.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

how 'come your Matrix fades to black on top but not the bottom?


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Also, they went back to the set screw for the tiller bolts instead of the collet system. I don’t if one is better than the other. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I will really be impressed when I see Fawn shooting one and know that she was paid the same as Demmer and Dillinger to shoot it.


Can you show us their contracts?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I have so many risers lol. Yes I ordered mine in orange yesterday, but will it shoot any better than my Wing Slimline Comp II?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> how 'come your Matrix fades to black on top but not the bottom?


Good catch, I never noticed that... but must be a reflection. Here is another photo before adding a matching weight at the main bushing:


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Personally I think Hoyt is trying to see how holes it's can or in it's risers....

You don't get a second chance to make a first impression.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Good catch, I never noticed that... but must be a reflection. Here is another photo before adding a matching weight at the main bushing:
> 
> View attachment 6927059


Ah, it was reflecting something. Those anodize jobs back then had quite a few ends that faded dark. I like that one without it though.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob Furman said:


> Personally I think Hoyt is trying to see how holes it's can or in it's risers....
> 
> You don't get a second chance to make a first impression.


You know what would be an interesting exercise is to figure out which risers had the most and the fewest removable parts, and then see how many medals had been won with either.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Fewest parts - I’d go with the TD2 - just the 2 thumbscrews and the grip. Helluva lot of hardware won with that bow back in the day.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Fewest parts - I’d go with the TD2 - just the 2 thumbscrews and the grip. Helluva lot of hardware won with that bow back in the day.


Yup.

Best Zenit would be high on the list too.


----------



## DarkMuppet (Oct 23, 2013)

Stash said:


> limbwalker said:
> 
> 
> > https://s3.hoyt.com/uploads/2019/879812934352ea6795128ab9b2a41d4c2946fc3b.pdf
> ...


Yeah, the damn things are now flammable according to their ads!

😄


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

*Risers are not flame resistant. WARNING: Do not light your rider on fire.

But seriously, sports equipment is hard to get liability coverage for, a "weapon" sport even more so. I had a hard time finding coverage for Tuning Forks, and I had to explain that they're not used actively in shooting. I can't imagine trying to get coverage on risers, limbs or arrows.

Ya gotta cover your bases / ass.


----------



## DarkMuppet (Oct 23, 2013)

WARNING!!

Do not use in a storm!!! 😄


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

DarkMuppet said:


> WARNING!!
> 
> Do not use in a storm!!! &#55357;&#56836;


They melted down Mjolnir and Stormbringer to make it???


----------



## DarkMuppet (Oct 23, 2013)

bobnikon said:


> DarkMuppet said:
> 
> 
> > WARNING!!
> ...


Probably the only thing melted down to make it were an over stock of last year's models.... 😉


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Or the Platinum Matrix from 2005.
> 
> View attachment 6926793


Nice but not as nice as a 96 Avalon (And not as cracked either :mg

Stretch


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

Gregjlongbow said:


> Also, they went back to the set screw for the tiller bolts instead of the collet system. I don’t if one is better than the other.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My friend and I suspect that Hoyt went back to solid bolts + set screw is because they are probably cheaper to produce than collet systems and the difference in performance isnt very noticable. Hoyt be looking to beef up their profit margins probably.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

fango0000 said:


> My friend and I suspect that Hoyt went back to solid bolts + set screw is because they are probably cheaper to produce than collet systems and the difference in performance isnt very noticable. Hoyt be looking to beef up their profit margins probably.


The Hoyt Avalon had the collet bolts. When the brought out the Avalon Plus they changed to the solid type. We were told it was a cost saving exercise with a benefit of a 10g reduction in weight. Don’t know how much of that is relevant today. On my first Avalon Plus, no matter what you did the top tiller bolt drifted. But there was a fault with that riser as I never had drift problems on any of the bows I had after.

Mentally I prefer the collet system it seems more reliable. However, in practice I’ve only ever had problems with the solid bolt system once. So this feels like a backward step but the Lancaster video implies that the solid bolt is the preference for feel.

Certainly the price hike form the Formula X to the Xi seems a little steep given the microscopic changes. If buying I’d seriously think about just going with the X and pocketing the cash.

Stretch


----------



## Eugene Sung (Apr 29, 2014)

Is it safe to say that the Velos limbs will not be updated for 2020?


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Looks like LAS got some LH and RH Xceeds in several colors over the weekend.... unfortunately not what I ordered


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

I hope Hoyt put some R&D and improvement into their satin anodizing finish. My 2016 GMX was (I believe) the first year of the satin finish and it has changed colors at the grip where the hand contacts it. Whether its the hand oils, sunscreen or whatever, my green GMX is lime green at the grip. Its not worn either. Although I love my GMX, the finish change is very disappointing. I would guess the satin finish is a cheaper than a polish finish. I shot a Spig for over 20 years and no color change.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Just thought I’d update folks since I got my Xceed. The STT to me is a noticeable difference, and it does affect the tune slightly. Shot with it a good bit yesterday and this morning. It’s hard to tell the difference in feel if you go incrementally through the settings, but if you go from most aggressive to most smooth the difference is quite apparent. I did have to go a full turn in either direction depending on which setting I had it on to keep roughly the same arrow flight and tune at 70. I liked the feeling of the aggressive pre load setting, but I scored much better with the most smooth. Timing was sharper and more consistent. At the most smooth setting, it is a very smooth riser. Same limbs as on two other setups, and I really notice the smoothness. It’s also noticeable through the entire draw cycle, and not just the end. The initial five of the limb is softer on the smooth setting. Other characteristics: The reaction is super dead, and if you like that this is for you. I tweaked my weights around to make it a little bit livelier and I prefer that, but it’s easy to do with weights. The finish is freaking gorgeous (Hoyt sent me the wrong color, but I ended up digging it). So far so good. We’ll see how it feels in competition, but so far I like it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phill Betts (Dec 26, 2004)

We really need a way to quantify the improvements and determine if they really are improving.


----------



## h00fhearted (Dec 29, 2018)

I just don't get it. 12 months ago the Forumla X was redesigned and with the best engineering advancements. Now, Hoyt re-redesigns it again with a "Xi". What was wrong with the original "X" after only 11 months?


----------



## mikesven (Sep 23, 2019)

h00fhearted said:


> I just don't get it. 12 months ago the Forumla X was redesigned and with the best engineering advancements. Now, Hoyt re-redesigns it again with a "Xi". What was wrong with the original "X" after only 11 months?


Problem with the "X" was that it didn't have an "i" after it. Needed to add an "i" to keep the marketing team on their feet and your pockets lighter. :set1_rolf2:


----------



## Gaspert (May 9, 2018)

Alot of the sentiment in this thread seems very anti-progress and is a quite a dangerous mindset to have. 

There's no reason to complain about Hoyt trying out new things. Sure Hoyt's marketing team makes a bit of a stretch calling things innovative, but as the consumer we don't have to purchase these items. At the end of the day if a new feature is good, the cool we now have more things that will help with our shooting. If not, no one will buy the product and Hoyt will drop it from the product and go back to the drawing board. 

This is exactly the feedback loop that drives innovation in any field and competition between businesses.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gaspert said:


> Alot of the sentiment in this thread seems very anti-progress and is a quite a dangerous mindset to have.
> 
> There's no reason to complain about Hoyt trying out new things. Sure Hoyt's marketing team makes a bit of a stretch calling things innovative, but as the consumer we don't have to purchase these items. At the end of the day if a new feature is good, the cool we now have more things that will help with our shooting. If not, no one will buy the product and Hoyt will drop it from the product and go back to the drawing board.
> 
> This is exactly the feedback loop that drives innovation in any field and competition between businesses.


You've bought what they are selling alright. 



> At the end of the day if a new feature is good, the cool we now have more things that *will help with our shooting*


This is exactly what they want you to believe.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Gaspert said:


> Alot of the sentiment in this thread seems very anti-progress and is a quite a dangerous mindset to have.
> 
> There's no reason to complain about Hoyt trying out new things. Sure Hoyt's marketing team makes a bit of a stretch calling things innovative, but as the consumer we don't have to purchase these items. At the end of the day if a new feature is good, the cool we now have more things that will help with our shooting. If not, no one will buy the product and Hoyt will drop it from the product and go back to the drawing board.
> 
> This is exactly the feedback loop that drives innovation in any field and competition between businesses.


Any bow used in the Olympic Games of 2020 must be commercially available not less than six months before the games begin. That’s the simple answer as to why certain products have been introduced in the past few weeks.


----------



## Gaspert (May 9, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> You've bought what they are selling alright.


I'm not going to argue with you over whether or not I've bought into what they're selling. That fact is irrelevant and your attempt at pulling me into a Kafka trap doesn't even address the matter.
My point is that improvement necessitates an attempt at trying new things. If you're always making bows with the same exact features, why would anyone ever upgrade bows?

Take the new Gillo GT risers for example. I love that Vittorio and the people at Gillo have tried something new with their pivoting limb pockets and UFO side rods. Granted, while the "String Tension Technology" isn't a big change like in the Gillo GT, It's a step in some direction. Surely having any new features, beats the bland set of Win&Win bows that have been released over the past few cycles; No real improvement between the AXT -> ATF or CXT -> Nano TFT -> TFT-G. 



limbwalker said:


> This is exactly what they want you to believe.


See how you've bolded a section of what I said? You're taking what I said and twisting it. I said "if" it's a good feature. If it's not a good feature, then leave it alone and its still have a standard formula pocket.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

That’s why Galileo was persecuted.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> That’s why Galileo was persecuted.


He refused to bow?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

No,

People ‘in charge’ wanted to stay ‘in charge’ and they’d do anything to shut the guy up because he’s going to change the public’s attitude, and that threatens the church.

Surely you know that.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> Any bow used in the Olympic Games of 2020 must be commercially available not less than six months before the games begin. That’s the simple answer as to why certain products have been introduced in the past few weeks.


Any bow? Or just bows with (large) brand names/advertising on them? Would you not be allowed to shoot a selfmade bow/accesoires?


----------



## mikesven (Sep 23, 2019)

straat said:


> Any bow? Or just bows with (large) brand names/advertising on them? Would you not be allowed to shoot a selfmade bow/accesoires?


This rule is in place for the majority of olymipc style sports that use equipment. I'm not 100% sure on the selfmade/modified side though?
I had worked in the cycling industry doing marketing for years and it was the case there as well, although some manufactures got sneaky about how they went about this to try their best to keep technology to themselves as an advantage. British Cycling had made their last state of the art bikes available to the public, yes, but closer in price to that of a super car than a bicycle.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

straat said:


> Any bow? Or just bows with (large) brand names/advertising on them? Would you not be allowed to shoot a selfmade bow/accesoires?


As logos are allowed on equipments at the Olympic Games, rule is enforced to avoid that any product gets enlarged logos or brand names on it just for the Games. Equipment used at Games must have been available to public with same cosmetic at least 6 months before the start of the Games. So no new cosmetic should be shown at Games if not existing before, and this tends to automatically forbid the use of new items there, as a general interpretation. Some doubt of course exist if you are going to use totally anonymous items, like self made ones. but interpretation is "no logo" "no problem".


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

mikesven said:


> This rule is in place for the majority of olymipc style sports that use equipment. I'm not 100% sure on the selfmade/modified side though?
> I had worked in the cycling industry doing marketing for years and it was the case there as well, although some manufactures got sneaky about how they went about this to try their best to keep technology to themselves as an advantage. British Cycling had made their last state of the art bikes available to the public, yes, but closer in price to that of a super car than a bicycle.


UCI is more restrictive, World archery rules do not disallow the use of equipment which is not commercially available.



Vittorio said:


> So no new cosmetic should be shown at Games if not existing before, and this tends to automatically forbid the use of new items there, as a general interpretation.


Of course you could for example shoot new limbs with commercially available, old cosmetic...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gaspert said:


> I'm not going to argue with you over whether or not I've bought into what they're selling. That fact is irrelevant and your attempt at pulling me into a Kafka trap doesn't even address the matter.
> My point is that improvement necessitates an attempt at trying new things. If you're always making bows with the same exact features, why would anyone ever upgrade bows?
> 
> Take the new Gillo GT risers for example. I love that Vittorio and the people at Gillo have tried something new with their pivoting limb pockets and UFO side rods. Granted, while the "String Tension Technology" isn't a big change like in the Gillo GT, It's a step in some direction. Surely having any new features, beats the bland set of Win&Win bows that have been released over the past few cycles; No real improvement between the AXT -> ATF or CXT -> Nano TFT -> TFT-G.
> ...


My point is that they keep making little changes so they can sell you the idea that those things will do as you suggest - "help you with your shooting" - when in reality, this sport is not about the technology or little engineering tweaks at all. The sad thing is that anyone who has competed for very long at a reasonably high level, knows this, including the people who are making those little engineering tweaks. 

So, had you not suggested these minor changes would help a person with their shooting, I probably would not have responded. IMO that is the wrong attitude to have in this sport - to look at technology as some kind of answer to a problem when in fact 90%+ of our results are based on anything but technology. 

There have been improvements that make the equipment more CONVENIENT for us to use, but those things don't help our shooting. 

When I was competing, I always loved shooting against someone who thought their equipment made a significant difference.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> No,
> 
> People ‘in charge’ wanted to stay ‘in charge’ and they’d do anything to shut the guy up because he’s going to change the public’s attitude, and that threatens the church.
> 
> Surely you know that.


You didn't get the two ways to interpret "bow".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> You didn't get the two ways to interpret "bow".


I got a chuckle out of it.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> No,
> 
> People ‘in charge’ wanted to stay ‘in charge’ and they’d do anything to shut the guy up because he’s going to change the public’s attitude, and that threatens the church.
> 
> Surely you know that.


Not going to expand since this is an archery forum; but that is no where close to what actually happened, especially since Copernicus, a religious monk, already developed the idea of heliocentrism a century early, and was not censured by the Church.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> My point is that they keep making little changes so they can sell you the idea that those things will do as you suggest - "help you with your shooting" - when in reality, this sport is not about the technology or little engineering tweaks at all. The sad thing is that anyone who has competed for very long at a reasonably high level, knows this, including the people who are making those little engineering tweaks.
> 
> So, had you not suggested these minor changes would help a person with their shooting, I probably would not have responded. IMO that is the wrong attitude to have in this sport - to look at technology as some kind of answer to a problem when in fact 90%+ of our results are based on anything but technology.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with limbwalker. In saying that, Steven Hann over at Archery Supplies suggested in one of his recent videos that the small changes on the compound bow in the last 30 some years have actually had a long-term effect on scores generally for the masses. I haven't kept up with it myself, but I'd venture to say he's probably right. Scores at the elite levels haven't moved much, except maybe a little higher X-counts. But for the great unwashed, of which I'm a life-member personally, upgrading that old Browning with the wood handle and aircraft steel cables on round wheels to a bow made in the last 5 to 10 years may, repeat may, improve scores. 

Back when I had my compounds, i do recall that i shot slightly better scores with my '15 and later PSE's than I did with my hoyt tribute. The tribute was 1979 target bow tech and I could just barely graze a 290 indoors no matter how much I shot it. But I was an about a 293-295 shooter with my PSE's on a fairly regular basis despite the fact that the tribute was 2 or 3 orders of magnitude funner to shoot and I shot it way more than the modern bows.

Am I saying throw away your 10 year old compound bow? not no, but heck no. How about your 20 year old bow? Maybe, if it's pulling stuff out of your wrists and arms or you can't get parts, yeah you might consider it. A 30 year old bow? At that point, I'd buy a newer one but not sell the old one necessarily, if for nothing but nostalgia reasons.

Otherwise, I agree with limbwalker; bow companies have to look at the short-term (meaning next year) and they still have to sell bows next year if they want to survive. So, at this particular point in history, it's mostly a tossup on if a new feature would actually help you shoot better. I'm thinking something major like a 40lb limb option on a target bow that previously only had 50/60, or a new grip that fits your hand better, and so on - those would be major changes that could really help your scores. A new riser that's 3" longer, or taking out a cage here and adding one there, nah not so much. 

On the recurve, where I am now whether I like it or not, hitting the bale more than once is the main priority on my plate. So I have enough fish to fry before I have to start worrying about a little deflex or reflex here and there, or even what my string is made of. So I can't really say what would help me at all equipment-wise. I'd trust limbwalker's reports on what does and doesn't help, for sure....

lee.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Some companies release evolutionary changes yearly, other release revolutionary changes once they are ready for market.
The consumer gets to decide which one is worth their money.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> Not going to expand since this is an archery forum; but that is no where close to what actually happened, especially since Copernicus, a religious monk, already developed the idea of heliocentrism a century early, and was not censured by the Church.


That’s because Copernicus did not push the idea.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> Not going to expand since this is an archery forum; but that is no where close to what actually happened, especially since Copernicus, a religious monk, already developed the idea of heliocentrism a century early, and was not censured by the Church.


That’s because Copernicus did not push the idea.

It’s like the difference between Carl Marx and Lenin.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

grantmac said:


> Some companies release evolutionary changes yearly, other release revolutionary changes once they are ready for market.
> The consumer gets to decide which one is worth their money.


Very true. And fortunately for the manufacturers, the average lifespan of an archer isn't nearly as long or deep as the average archer's bank account. 

It's not uncommon at all to see people stay in the sport for less than 5 years, but spend over $1K/year on gear during those 5 years.

The manufacturers have to get to the new people because those who have been around the sport - particularly recurve and barebow shooters - know enough to know that moving a little metal around on a handle isn't going to make any difference in their scores.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Seattlepop said:


> You didn't get the two ways to interpret "bow".


I noticed that you did not disagree with what I just said.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> I noticed that you did not disagree with what I just said.


Don't be embarrassed that you missed the pun. It happens to all of us. Well, some more than others.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I wasn’t interested.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I’ll tell you what I’m interested in.

I’m interested in not just having one way of setting up limb alignment the way it was done since the day HOYT Avalon appeared on the market.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> That’s because Copernicus did not push the idea.


Yeah its not like he didn’t write a book (that was published and circulated) about his findings or anything like that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> Yeah its not like he didn’t write a book (that was published and circulated) about his findings or anything like that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Look at this another way; if I had said Copernicus, it wouldn’t be an apt example because......?

If you don’t get it, I can’t help you.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

There’s a reason why I’m an advocate of designs for the simple minded.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> Look at this another way; if I had said Copernicus, it wouldn’t be an apt example because......?
> 
> If you don’t get it, I can’t help you.


It wasn't an apt example anyway, considering that you were using it out of context. Galileo was not prosecuted by the Church for anything dealing with science. In fact the Church in Europe was a strong advocate for science and scientific advancement. That is why so many scientists from that period of time were also monks and clergy. Galileo was put under house arrest (in a palace mind you) because he insulted publicly the most powerful man in the world. Not advocating that what was done was right or anything. Propaganda history just pisses me off, and I just can't let it go. (Off my soup box)


----------



## josh_gml (Jun 21, 2019)

Jim C said:


> back when Liz ran a shop and Earl was still alive, I sat with him at perhaps the last ATA show he attended, and discussed the Conquest that I started shooting in late 95 and which I used off and on for over a decade-after Martin dropped its Aurora Project and when the Aerotech's stiffness was hard on my elbow. So I said-how come there isn't a New Conquest riser this year at the Show. And he said-well Jim, I've been making and designing bows for decades. I had five years to really think about all I did (due to his no compete contract when he sold Hoyt to Easton) and what makes the best bow-and when I designed the bow you shoot-I put every bit of knowledge I had accumulated over those many years into it. It was the best riser I could design in (93 or so IIRC) and its the best bow I could design if I were doing it today.
> 
> and he went on to say something to the effect that he might not sell as many bows but he also noted that when someone used their hard earned money to buy a Sky-they could be assured they got his best effort and next year, their Sky was not subordinate to a new version


This may be Offtopic, but what did make the Martin Aurora so great? I find it hard to believe that the bow was that different from the other bows of the time, lets say the Samick Ultras and Hoyt Avalons.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> It wasn't an apt example anyway, considering that you were using it out of context. Galileo was not prosecuted by the Church for anything dealing with science. In fact the Church in Europe was a strong advocate for science and scientific advancement. That is why so many scientists from that period of time were also monks and clergy. Galileo was put under house arrest (in a palace mind you) because he insulted publicly the most powerful man in the world. Not advocating that what was done was right or anything. Propaganda history just pisses me off, and I just can't let it go. (Off my soup box)


I did not say that Galileo was punished because he chose the scientific approach and that went against the church. What they had there were two conflicting theories, but one was ground breaking and new, while the other was “established fact”. I found my example very appropriate.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

It’s essentially about new ideas being suppressed so that the incumbent won’t have their authority challenged. It’s not about who was taking the scientific approach or not, but since you have brought it up, I’d like to ask if you really thought that the church was serious when it says that a geo-centric universe was the result of their scientific observation, and not because someone influential claimed it is. Again, very appropriate discussion topic right now.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Fast forward to present day, we now know, both of them were wrong.


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

Does anyone have any feedback on how the new Hoyt adjustment system is working for them? Preferences, lessons learned, advice, etc.? Thanks in advance


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

josh_gml said:


> This may be Offtopic, but what did make the Martin Aurora so great? I find it hard to believe that the bow was that different from the other bows of the time, lets say the Samick Ultras and Hoyt Avalons.


Jim loaned me his Aurora for a little while. It was VASTLY different than the Ultras and Avalons. Much more solid, much quieter, innovative if not challenging limb alignment system. It was a great riser. Wish it had been made in a 25" and later a 27" because that's a riser I could enjoy shooting for a long time. If you've never had the chance to shoot an Aurora riser, give it a try. It's a unique one alright.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

The Aurora was Mike Gerard's baby. He's here sporadically and can give you all the details. He did tell me that he and Martinus Grov collaborated extensively. He went a slightly different path with the Aurora and Martinus, of course went on the produce the BMG Extreme.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> I did not say that Galileo was punished because he chose the scientific approach and that went against the church. What they had there were two conflicting theories, but one was ground breaking and new, while the other was “established fact”. I found my example very appropriate.


And again that was not what happened. That is the propagandist revisionism view that has been fully debunked. Heliocentrism has been around for centuries so claiming it new is false. Yes geocentrism was the more accepted viewpoint at that time because at that time there was more evidence supporting that hypothesis, but it wasn’t the only model. For example Kepler in his astronomical model which predated Galileo was also Heliocentric. Again Kepler published his theory as well, and no Kepler did not end up censured. 

So no Galileo did not come up with heliocentrism, nor did he conclusively prove it as a truer model than geocentrism. That didn’t happen until Newton.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> It’s essentially about new ideas being suppressed so that the incumbent won’t have their authority challenged. It’s not about who was taking the scientific approach or not, but since you have brought it up, I’d like to ask if you really thought that the church was serious when it says that a geo-centric universe was the result of their scientific observation, and not because someone influential claimed it is. Again, very appropriate discussion topic right now.


The Church has never made any official position on the matter. Church was not into controlling science. What the Church did especially in Italy was to support economically various scientists, and encourage scientific thought among the academic clergy.

There is no instance in the history of the Church where it officially stated that to be a good Christian you must believe in geocentrism. 

Like I wrote elsewhere there were quite a few, and in fact the majority of scientists in the 15th and 16th centuries who felt that there was much more evidence that the sun and planets and stars revolved around the earth. It required more powerful telescopes, as well as the development of learning more laws of physics before more compelling evidence was provided. It wasn’t until the findings of Newton that it was proven the earth revolved around the sun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just wow.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> And again that was not what happened. That is the propagandist revisionism view that has been fully debunked. Heliocentrism has been around for centuries so claiming it new is false. Yes geocentrism was the more accepted viewpoint at that time because at that time there was more evidence supporting that hypothesis, but it wasn’t the only model. For example Kepler in his astronomical model which predated Galileo was also Heliocentric. Again Kepler published his theory as well, and no Kepler did not end up censured.
> 
> So no Galileo did not come up with heliocentrism, nor did he conclusively prove it as a truer model than geocentrism. That didn’t happen until Newton.
> 
> ...



Heliocentrism was “proposed” in the 3rd century, there was effectively no research done on it and like any other ideas that had no grounding in research, can be considered as a passing thought. Copernicus proposed it in the 16th century but did not gain the kind of traction because it was a mathematical model, similar to anyone proposing the idea that a static plane does not really exist in a quasi-flexible aluminium structure without really demonstrating it. The new and novel manner in which Galileo pushed the heliocentric model of the “universe” really came into being when an observational instrument was utilised in the 17th century, that was the trigger point for the Roman inquisition. These information are freely available online to you and I do not believe there is any disagreement in regards to the details, I did not claim that Galileo came up with heliocentrism, I know full well that it was Copernicus, but the example that I wanted to show was how a new idea that went against the established norms would quickly be shot down at every turn by those who deem themselves “authority”, because it would threaten their standing. I couldn’t have used Copernicus instead because he wasn’t censured as you rightly mentioned, for reasons that I hope is clear to you now. We can have a discussion about historical accuracies at your pleasure, which is always very welcome.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Just wow.



Good. Watch and learn.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

....


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

ar·ro·gant /ˈerəɡənt/

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

Sorry to interject here but does anybody at all have anything related to *New Hoyt Launch September 10* to say rather than a centuries old subjective science/religious debate?

I'm actually genuinely interested to hear if people are finding the new tuning system effective or not and other thoughts. I'm considering a new riser and am debating between the Hoyt or Gillo GT and would love to hear peoples' thoughts.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Arcus said:


> ar·ro·gant /ˈerəɡənt/
> 
> adjective
> having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.



At least have the courage to identify your target. You’re an archer.


----------

