# What you can get for ~ $700 (a.k.a. Have we lost our bloody minds?)



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

For the price of one of these (that you can't do anything with by itself, mind you):

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/hoyt-formula-hpx-27-recurve-riser.html

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/w-w-inno-cxt-27-recurve-riser.html


You could buy any one of these:

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/Shotguns/Semiautomatic%7C/pc/104792580/c/105537780/sc/105538680/Weatherby-SA-08-Deluxe-Semiautomatic-Shotgun/755679.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fshooting-shotguns-semiautomatic%2F_%2FN-1102349%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_105538680%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%253Bcat104792580%253Bcat105537780&WTz_l=SBC%3Bcat104792580%3Bcat105537780%3Bcat105538680

http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM442164&pdesc=Bushmaster_Carbon_15_Centerfire_Rifle_Package&aID=510A2&merchID=4006

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/Centerfire-Rifles/Bolt-Action%7C/pc/104792580/c/105522480/sc/105523380/Browning174-A-Bolt-II-Hunter/709993.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fshooting-centerfire-rifles-bolt-action%2F_%2FN-1102332%2FNs-MIN_SALE_PRICE%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%253Bcat104792580%253Bcat105522480%26WTz_stype%3DGNU&WTz_l=SBC%3Bcat104792580%3Bcat105522480%3Bcat105523380

Only the guns have hundreds of years of intricate engineering and thousands of hours of field testing designed into them, and will hold their value through generations.

I just think we've just gone completely nuts sometimes.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Or, you could just go get a whole bow:

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/mathews-monster-7.html


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Only the guns have hundreds of years of intricate engineering and thousands of hours of field testing designed into them, and will hold their value through generations.
> 
> 
> John


I guess the gun companies have already recouped their R&D cost, hundreds of years ago. I should go back to throwing boomerangs. They only have one moving part and you don't have to walk 180 meters to retreive them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hank, just compare the number of parts that go into each item, what they do, the liabilities (and lawyers) involved, etc., etc. 

There really is no comparison.

Even a top of the line recurve handle should never cost more than about $300 IMO.

Methinks we're getting the shaft...

John


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Good Post!!! Hey!! That's a good price on the Carbon 15---especially at GM. Heck, dealer on that is like $629. Who wants to mess with an FFL for 50 bucks!


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Oh yeah, I like how gun prices have dropped, in many cases, but bow prices have sky rocketed. They mention how much R&D (blah blah blah) makes cost go up and since the market isn't as big, the expense is more. Gee, when I went into the business 18 years ago, they made a big deal how bowhunters were paying for the R&D for target shooters. Hmmmm. What a bunch of excrement. It's all about greed. If you got the money, they got the bows. :wink:


----------



## andyman1970 (Apr 2, 2008)

Archery is definitely another one of my more expensive hobbies (possibly as expensive as my drums / percussion hobby). A lot of new recurve gear is prohibitively expensive, and I suspect that price tag is keeping some folks out of the sport. This is a common concern I hear from prospective folks interested in learning, but unsure of how to fund their new interest.

At least there's a steady stream of gently used gear on the FITA classifieds.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

A lot of gear is also very cheap, you don't need the most expensive top-of-the-line gear when starting out. Should not be a reason to keep folks out of the sport.


----------



## fingers81 (Apr 18, 2010)

Good point Straat, I paid $150 for my TQ and I've have plenty of fun with it.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

straat said:


> A lot of gear is also very cheap, you don't need the most expensive top-of-the-line gear when starting out. Should not be a reason to keep folks out of the sport.


Exactly, and if you look at the quality of the low end stuff, it's truly as good as the best you could get a few years back. Well, maybe 20.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LW: Can you justify this one then...
http://www.turnerbikes.com/turner-bike-models/dhr frame 3200 dollars frame only.
vs 
http://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Mens-NEXT-PowerX-Dual-Suspension-Mountain-Bike/4231518
Whole bike.


Though that said, Im still riding my 2005 Turner.
I have pride in my Turner.
I have paid for the latest concepts and helped fund future developments.
I have something different and not as mass produced.

Its easy to make rip off products. copies of someone elses ideas. and i dont beleave in funding that "IF" i have the choice.

Its also easy to make last years product in new colours. but then again, its up to the buyer to choose to keep what they have.

There is one good thing though.

High prices opens up oppertunity for more people.
Low prices keeps it a closed shop.
For example mountain bike frames have shot up in value, and the number of new brands have florished...
Have you lost your minds, or is life getting better, Are doors about to open.
We have bought a CNC mill and lathe, CAD and CAM applications because its worth while. and i see this being a trend that no company will miss.
we have a CAD drawing that we are working on cutting strategies, tool paths and clamping. 

I dont see it as a bad thing, those that can afford it, will, and those that cant, will have more options?


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> LW: Can you justify this one then...
> http://www.turnerbikes.com/turner-bike-models/dhr frame 3200 dollars frame only.
> vs
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Mens-NEXT-PowerX-Dual-Suspension-Mountain-Bike/4231518
> ...


Archery is a lot less expensive than mountain biking. A decent hand made 
wheel set is about the same price as a pair of the very best limbs.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

Over here that hpx is like 860 dollars, what staggers me is the immense price difference between for say a formula excell and a hpx ...? It's like 3 times more expensive. I doubt there is very little difference in material costs. Off course it looks more slick and it has a wobbly limb bolt but that can't be worth 500 dollars?


----------



## Sleipnir (Dec 22, 2011)

What's with the apples and oranges comparisons?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> At least there's a steady stream of gently used gear on the FITA classifieds.


Yea, thank God that archers tend to be like golfers, and some just can't live without the latest and greatest, meaning their equipment will soon be sold at 1/2 what they paid for it... 

I'm also thankful that in the right hands, a 10 year-old riser shoots just as well as a new one.

Sid, I know other sports can cost more. You can pull whatever examples you want, and some have before... I'm just amazed at the cost of one single handle these days. I mean, is there 10X difference between an entry level ILF riser and the newest top of the line riser? Really?

As in golf, I think they use the price of top end risers to pay sponsorships, contingencies, and marketing costs.

John


----------



## tigersdad (Jun 13, 2009)

So, John, what do you want from Cabela's - the Weatherby shotgun, the cool factor Bushmaster or the Browning? I have a heavy AR15 and think the lightweight carbon-15 from Bushmaster would look nice next to my Carbon Inno...........cept I bought the Inno for so much less as it was used (hardly can tell). Your thoughts are probably right on as those firearms will last and last. I don't know how many risers Win&Win or Hoyt sell or Border its' Limbs but I am glad someone buys them so I can get them used. Like my cars. I don't believe in price controls, but don't want to veer off into a discussion of non-archery issues.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII (Feb 19, 2009)

Hey John, What about your Bernardini Luxor? or any other top end Riser? 

If they are not worth the Money why do you use them?

For me anything is worth exactly what you are willing to pay for it. 

Andre



limbwalker said:


> Yea, thank God that archers tend to be like golfers, and some just can't live without the latest and greatest, meaning their equipment will soon be sold at 1/2 what they paid for it...
> 
> I'm also thankful that in the right hands, a 10 year-old riser shoots just as well as a new one.
> 
> ...


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

But at least you can shoot the bow in the house when the weather sucks and you just need to have some fun!


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

SHADOW-MKII said:


> For me anything is worth exactly what you are willing to pay for it.


That right there is probably one of the most basic laws of consumer economics.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> For the price of one of these (that you can't do anything with by itself, mind you):
> 
> http://www.lancasterarchery.com/hoyt-formula-hpx-27-recurve-riser.html
> 
> ...


back in 94-95 when I decided I had enough of chasing international skeet championships (where the standard tournament gun was a Perazzi Mirage or a K gun [6-8 thousand for either] I started back into archery. DP had the first Yamaha Super Feel I had ever seen and guess what? those gorgeous risers were pretty close to the same cost as the HPX. I still have two complete bows that I bought used for 1000 for both (plus stabilizers, beiter plungers etc)

when I started playing high level table tennis-the best rubber sheets available were 5-6 bucks a sheet. now, you can spent 75 dollars on a sheet of rubber (you need two per bat and two bats if you are a tournament player) and they wear out in 2 months if you practice as much as other good players do

the stuff I bought for 5 bucks is no longer the best but its still good-its 35 a sheet. I started playing seriously in 77

the best ball was a quarter-now 2 dollars.

I guess everything is relevant


----------



## tkaap (Nov 30, 2009)

m013690 said:


> That right there is probably one of the most basic laws of consumer economics.


That's what the "Economics is Fun" dude always says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1I5n2-ro_Q

-T


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Top of the line Target Rifles aren't cheap either. A simple, single bolt action Anschutz will set you back over $2,000. And that was decades ago when I was thinking of doing Biathlons. I had a distant cousin that was spending 5 figures on various firearms. Each (I have no idea what, they looked fairly modern, "You won't believe what this cost ..."). Top of the line is always going to be ridiculous. Looks like new Anshutz are over $3k now:
http://www.altiusguns.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=37_42&products_id=144


I recently outfitted myself with all new Hoyt Horizon riser, limbs, stabilizer, arrows etc... for under $700.

Brent


----------



## twofinger (Feb 12, 2012)

I have been out of the archery loop for a while and have thought about shooting again with my pse magna flight hoyt meridian and a samick aggula with winstorm carbon limbs and x7 arrows that i bought from the hoyts here in st. louis in the 90's the bows shoot well the arrows are straight its my aim that sucks. i have said that when i run out of equipment then i am done with archery i can not justify paying over a thousand dollars for either a compound or a recurve target bow. I am a sunday afternoon shooter thats it, how many more of us are there compared to the high end shooters i have said for a long time we need a low, middle & high range of equipment. I am thankful that i was able to by my recurve for about 300 dollars total. Would i have liked to bought a hoyt yes i would have.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

lets look at this another way.

LW: would you be prepaird to pay 700 bucks for a bow that had somethign different in it.

For example, I can see the change from CNC to carbon layup requiring some technical innovation. or at least a change of thought. but i suppose that a manufacturing process, rather than a benefit to you? afterall, what is the difference?

Lets take this for a comparison.
I know there are limbs out there that were available back in the 1990's that have the same mass and DFC as limbs that are sold as top of the range of two years ago both by the same maker.
and that these limbs have the same Torsional resistance, or at least as good as makes any difference.

Would you be less dissilusioned with the price tag if you could actually feel a difference?
would you be more happy if the price represented a difference to you?

(i dare say raw materials are shooting up in price, but thats a different story)


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

andyman1970 said:


> Archery is definitely another one of my more expensive hobbies (possibly as expensive as my drums / percussion hobby). A lot of new recurve gear is prohibitively expensive, and I suspect that price tag is keeping some folks out of the sport.


Try SCUBA diving if you really want to go for your lungs. (pun intended)

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you look at the manufacturing, research and liability costs involved, there really should be no reason a piece of aluminum that holds some limbs in place should cost more than about $300 or so. I mean, it's a piece of aluminum with almost NO moving parts for crying out loud.

Compare that to all the parts in a single AR-15, along with all the liability and attorney fees that go along with something like that and the rifle should well be 3x the cost.

Granted, some of it is simply volume, and I get that. But you can't tell me the same amount of engineering and manufacturing costs go into either item. Not even close.

Shadow, yes, my Luxor is an expensive riser. However in my case it was comp'd for the prototype testing I did on that model back in '06. Otherwise I doubt I would have ever paid that much for it. But who knows. 

I will say that those who have handled a Bernardini Luxor can tell you that it's the finest piece of recurve handle engineering and manufacturing you'll ever see. At least in an aluminum riser. It's exquisite, and the limb alignment system is pure genius - better than any other available. Add to that the integral barebow weights and the fact that it was - at the time - the only 27" riser available in the world, and yes, I can see paying a little more for that particular riser.

Sid, yes, I would expect to pay a little more for a riser like the W&W with the additional carbon engineering and testing involved. At least with a riser like that you can see where the costs are going. 

But $700? Really? I'm pretty sure a family in Puerto Rico could live for a whole year on that.

John


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

John - I think you're missing one key factor in Hoyt's case.... that's not a $700 riser, it's a $1400 riser. You can't shot one without the other 

With that said, I don't see people running from them. Quite the opposite as I'm surprise at the amount I see on the line. I will hopefully be getting an RX myself this year. But, I'll be selling some of my other "toys" to get it. It's really the only way I could justify spending that amount of money on another "toy".

So.... who's interested in a Trek 5200 Carbon road bike?!?


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Matt Great point. 
Daniel, Sean and I counted how many RX bows we have in our club, and I can tell you (not including the HPXs) we have in the neighborhood of 13-15! The FRX shoots well, in the hands of an experienced shooter, but then again, any bow will do that in the hands of a good shooter! That said, and having shot many combinations of risers and limbs, including Bernadini, Martin, W&W, Yamaha (the sound of the HPX reminds me of the sound of the Yamaha!!--loved the sound of that bow), etc. I do have to say the FRX is one of the most forgiving bows out there, and it flat out shoots. It is quiet, and really smooth. I am not knocking all the others, but I do like my FRXs. Our son is even shooting one now and has an HPX on the way. 
So, I like the HOYT products, and IF anything happens and goes wrong, as we experienced a couple of weeks ago, HOYT is on top of it and reacts quickly, like within a day, there was new product at the door.
I look at prices this way, if you want it you'll find a way to get it. If it is a $1400 (brand new) FRX, and you have to sell some other stuff to get it, like Matt Z is doing, then you'll have what you want, and what the top archers seem to be shooting (from the pics at Worlds) on the recurve line is the HOYT Formula RX!! JUST SAYIN'!




Matt Z said:


> John - I think you're missing one key factor in Hoyt's case.... that's not a $700 riser, it's a $1400 riser. You can't shot one without the other
> 
> With that said, I don't see people running from them. Quite the opposite as I'm surprise at the amount I see on the line. I will hopefully be getting an RX myself this year. But, I'll be selling some of my other "toys" to get it. It's really the only way I could justify spending that amount of money on another "toy".
> 
> So.... who's interested in a Trek 5200 Carbon road bike?!?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Okay, I have read everything above, and it is all makes sense from an end product perspective, but that is not what drives pricing. I am not sure who on this thread, other that Sid of Border, has ever priced a product or service. I have, and there are far more factors (elements of cost) that go into what you need to charge in order to make money; it is one thing to acknowledge that these exist, and a far different thing to understand the proportion of product cost that goes into each of these factors. It is real easy to look at an end product and judge its price based upon comparison to other products. I used to buy special purpose manufacturing equipment. A little desktop machine that bent leads for electronic component’s cost over $10,000 (back in the 90's). I used to ask folks that if they saw that machine in their driveway next to a car, which would they choose. It was a ridiculous comparison, but it made a point. Build it in large volumes, the machine would probably cost a tenth of what we had to pay for it. 

Back when I was in the mountaineering business I visited a major manufacturer of backpacks. They showed me how they built packs under their label and how they cut cost to provide a lower priced product to sell under the branding of a major equipment retailer. I was having a pricing discussion recently with a person that owns an independent hamburger stand. The basic concepts for pricing the $4.29 hamburger special are not much different than pricing a backpack, TV set or airframe for a 747. When trying to reduce price, you have to look at each element of cost and figure out how to reduce it. That is one reason why so much manufacturing has moved overseas where more than just labor costs are reduced. 

The guitar market is one area where new manufacturing methods and technology have driven down costs with the result of providing excellent quality instruments for a reduced price. The change was led by one manufacturer and spread across the industry to others that had to keep up with the change. Overseas manufacturing has also been a major contributor to reducing the price of other sectors of the guitar market. Now you can get higher quality instruments at each price point. Guitars have the advantage of a larger market than bows.

Archery is a niche market, especially recurve. Maybe that is why compound bows can be built less expensively. You ever wonder why the US has only two companies making Olympic recurve equipment (well, 3 now that Sky is back)? And PSE only makes one riser design above the entry level.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Archery........Still priced within the average person's or Family's budget, in general.....Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays.....NOT so much....Wanna hear something crazy??....Show up at any local bass fishing Tourney, and ask those folks how much money they have tied up in a day, or weekend of bass fishing...Boat, motor, trailer, truck/SUV to pull it, rods, reels, tackle, gas money....And entry fee's...These folks spend ALOT of $$$ to catch fish, thats for sure... The price of Archery has went up, thats for sure...But as Jim C. posted, the price of everything else has also....Harperman


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I googled a little bit, and my very rough estimate is that there are about 30 times as many guns produced (15million) a year as there are bows (500,000, and most of those are compound). That is a huge volume advantage for lower gun pricing. Even if a gun requires 10 times the initial design/engineering overhead, it's still got a 20x advantage in pricing power. 

Bow manufacturers are guilty of no more greed (I don't agree with that word - more accurate I think is 'quest for profit') than are bagel manufacturers or sock manufacturers or fruit juice manufacturers. Profit is not a dirty word (everybody's income comes from it), and the quest for it is what brings the free world so many wonderful choices.
I have read about when, in the 70's and 80's, immigrants or defectors from the Soviet Union came to America and visited an American supermarket for the first time and confronted with such an overwhelming variety and volume of food of every kind, all in one place, many of them would be so overcome with emotion that they would literally collapse in sobs and tears of joy. The bounty they witnessed could not even be imagined in their 'profitless' economy of communism.

Every one of those food producers is trying to make as much profit as possible - great! And we all benefit from their relentless 'greed', because the free market forces each of them to be as creative and efficient as their competitors, which is what drives innovation and progress. 

Just my opinion. And my estimate on the gun and bow volume could be way off, although I did try to get an accurate sense of it from googling/reading around on it.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

lksseven said:


> I googled a little bit, and my very rough estimate is that there are about 30 times as many guns produced (15million) a year as there are bows (500,000, and most of those are compound). That is a huge volume advantage for lower gun pricing. Even if a gun requires 10 times the initial design/engineering overhead, it's still got a 20x advantage in pricing power.
> 
> Bow manufacturers are guilty of no more greed (I don't agree with that word - more accurate I think is 'quest for profit') than are bagel manufacturers or sock manufacturers or fruit juice manufacturers. Profit is not a dirty word (everybody's income comes from it), and the quest for it is what brings the free world so many wonderful choices.
> I have read about when, in the 70's and 80's, immigrants or defectors from the Soviet Union came to America and visited an American supermarket for the first time and confronted with such an overwhelming variety and volume of food of every kind, all in one place, many of them would be so overcome with emotion that they would literally collapse in sobs and tears of joy. The bounty they witnessed could not even be imagined in their 'profitless' economy of communism.
> ...


And do add to what you have said...bear in mind that many markets have very low margins. It is often difficult to turn a profit, especially in a limited or niche market. I also throw boomerangs. Talk about a niche market. A good boomerang costs between 30 and 40 dollars and it is a shaped piece of plywood; granted a small sheet of marine or aircraft grade 1/4 inch 10 ply Finish birch plywood costs about $120. You can get a lot of boomerangs out of each sheet (I make them and have not used up my first sheet yet). I am sure that they could be sold for 5 to 10 dollars a piece if they could sell enough of them. I am happy that we have companies willing to fill our needs, both by continuing to provide exising products, or pushing the industry forward though new engineering and R&D.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Harperman, don't get me started on the amount of money people spend on hobbies these days. It's part of the reason we're in the economic shape we're in - because everyone feels the need to "keep up with the Jones' " and companies are all too happy to produce even more expensive toys for the grown up boys (and girls) to play with. 

Hank,



> Maybe that is why compound bows can be built less expensively


The problem I have with that statement is that it's the SAME COMPANIES producing both bows! They already have the equipment and expertise to produce both bows, and arguably MUCH more engineering has to go into a compound than a recurve due to cams and timing and let off ,etc., etc. A recurve designer needs to consider none of that stuff.

I've said this for years now, but the average family is just simply priced out of participating in tournament archery. This is why 3-D is so popular - because it's so much more affordable. I see the looks from the JOAD parents all the time when I explain how much tournament fees are, membership fees and then what a "competitive bow" setup will cost. That's before they ever even save up for travel expenses. This truly is a wealthy person's sport, which is probably why we see very little real diversity among the participants.

I don't have anything against a company profiting from their R&D and manufacturing. I just wish some of this gear was more affordable for the average family, that's all. Then the kids could compete against one another, rather than have their parents compete against one another's bank accounts.

John


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

:moviecorn


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, I get it... rant off... 

After thinking about this a while, I will admit that there are better options for budget-priced bows out there than ever before. So I guess that's the balance for the $700 riser. I am constantly buying entry level gear for kids new to the sport, and I can't believe what I can get them for just over $100 these days. It's amazing. And I'll be the first to congratulate Hoyt on their excellent attention to the mid-level market with the Formula Excel and the Horizon risers. 

I see a LOT of Sebastian Flute gear shooting these days. Good on them for bringing some affordable, quality gear to the market. I have many archers (and their parents) that are very pleased with those products.

John


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I paid over $500 for my used Bernardini Nilo, and honestly it was worth every penny. Everytime I put it next to another riser I can see exactly where that money went, and it's been beside top risers from just about everyone. Unless I get the 27" riser sickness or somebody finds a way to cheap physics and get a barebow riser to rotate like its got stabs I think its unlikely I will buy another for as long as better ILF limbs keep coming out.
That is where I like the Italian manifacturers, they engineer as excellent a product as possible and then just keep producing it to keep up with demand. They don't seem to have the constant need to re-engineer and outdate their previous models, they just do it right the first time. I have no problem playing for that.

Now if you want to complain about equipment costs look at arrows and stabs! Its highway bloody murder that you spend 40-50% of the bow cost just attaching and launching what are no more than carbon and aluminum tubes from it. $450 for a sex of x10s if you skip the tungsten points!

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, Bernardini's are like that Grant... 

And I agree 1000% on the Italian gear. So simple, yet everything is so well thought out. I had a chance to handle a Spig. Explorer the other day, and for under $400, its got everything you'd need, and nothing you don't. I've had nothing but good luck with any Italian riser I've ever used.

John


----------



## Ultra Limited (May 11, 2006)

The cost / worth comparison hit home. I'm selling two .50 cal percusion muzzle loaders probably locally, in very fine conditon, with their 100 yard targets, and I'll be lucky to get 600 for the both. All to help fund that vec turbo. Just doesnt seem right!


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

It goes back to what was said earlier: "Everything is worth exactly what you're willing to pay for it." If you feel its the parents bank account competing against each other rather than the kids and their skill, that's the fault of the parents and the attitudes they inspire in their kids. Colin Powell said in his memoirs that when he was a new general, he visited units and found that regardless of how many rounds of tank ammunition they were given for practice, the best units always won battle readiness competitions. He said their commanders seemed to have the attitude "We're gonna win if they give us one damn round!" He said the poor units continued to be at the bottom of the stack no matter how much they were given.

Now, granted, quality is valuable. I raced bikes for a lot of years, and there is a huge difference between a $600 steel road bike and a $3500 carbon fiber bike that weighs 1/2 as much. And I won't deny that I've got a pretty nice bow now myself. But I got my first tournament win with a $300 complete bow. The archer makes the bow, not the other way around. That's true to a much higher/further extent than most people are willing to acknowledge, and I completely agree that your "Keeping up with the Jones'" reference is the primary culprit.

Yeah, it would be nice if the bows were less expensive, but as for the average family being priced out of the sport, I think that is as much an indictment on "the average family" as it is on the manufacturing/retail establishment. And bear in mind that archery is an equipment sport that happens to extend to lower age ranges than other similar "equipment" sports. Again, to compare with my experience in cycling. Kids don't get into cycling at summer camp and then come home and ask mom and dad to join a cycling club. So, in comparison to other age-comparable sports to the JOAD crowd, those parents are considering the cost of archery against things like baseball, basketball, soccer, or (maybe) hockey, not against cycling, golf or kayaking. It's apples to oranges, but they (as new parents to the sport), may not recognize that.

Fact is, and I think we all know it, the archer makes the bow, not the other way around. I shot a tournament two weeks ago where I saw a kid (maybe 16 y/o) shooting an Inno CXT, with Inno Power limbs, SUR-LOC sight -- everything top of the line. Thing is, at the end of the day, he shot under a 300(/600). No slam on the kid and whomever spent the money on his rig. If you can afford it, have at it. The onus in that case falls on the parents of the kid shooting next to him to explain to thier own son that it's the archer that wins, not the bow. And if those parents are new and inexperienced as yet, then the onus (hopefully) should pass on to that kid's coach/instructor to explain the same thing to the parents. I think that's the way to help keep them from feeling "priced out of the sport." That and helping them understand the difference between an "equipment sport" and a ball sport.

But my 2 cents worth usually require change...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The onus in that case falls on the parents of the kid shooting next to him to explain to thier own son that it's the archer that wins, not the bow. And if those parents are new and inexperienced as yet, then the onus (hopefully) should pass on to that kid's coach/instructor to explain the same thing to the parents. I think that's the way to help keep them from feeling "priced out of the sport." That and helping them understand the difference between an "equipment sport" and a ball sport.


Excellent point. You are absolutely correct IMO.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Valkyriemc said:


> The cost / worth comparison hit home. I'm selling two .50 cal percusion muzzle loaders probably locally, in very fine conditon, with their 100 yard targets, and I'll be lucky to get 600 for the both. All to help fund that vec turbo. Just doesnt seem right!



That's the problem with production muzzleloaders. Unless you have someone who specifically will pay what you want, used ones carry as little value as used archery equipment. Muzzleloading is a lot like archery in many respects.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

titanium man said:


> They mention how much R&D (blah blah blah) makes cost go up and since the market isn't as big, the expense is more.


Where exactly has this been stated? I've not seen it on a manufacturers website or official press release ever. 

Archery is still ridiculously cheap to get into. But like everything else, there exists the facility to pay more if you want to.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But like everything else, there exists the facility to pay more if you want to.


That's a great way to put it. I say that about golf a lot. You can spend as much as you want, but don't expect it to show on the scorecard! A $500 driver never fixed anyone's over-the-top outside-in swing, and no $700 riser ever fixed anyone's collapsing, weak bow arm and sloppy release. Not to mention a lack of interest in training...  ha, ha.

John


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

My selfbow cost....sweat.

But, the high price bows give you confeeeedeence....:darkbeer:


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> A $500 driver never fixed anyone's over-the-top outside-in swing, and no $700 riser ever fixed anyone's collapsing, weak bow arm and sloppy release.
> John


How could you possibly post *that* where Golfers and Archers wives might see it?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Hank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately for folks with niche needs, that is not how it works. Products must stand on their own in terms of profitability. When you price a product, you can take advantage of shared infrastructure and services, but if 50% of the engineering budget goes into a product that accounts for 5% of sales, then you have a problem, regardless of whether the engineers are already on the payroll. The same applies to other elements of cost that go into the price of a product. Every product is expected to make a certain margin. If a product falls short, then one of the following must occur: profit must be made up by other items in the catalog, the price must be increased with the hope that sales stay at acceptable levels, or the product must be dropped. Folks that buy compound bows probably do not want to be subsidizing the recurve community. There are also inefficiencies associated with lower volume products. A manufacturing run of 200 compound risers is much more efficient than a run of 50 recurve risers. The % of machine time spent building product versus non value added setup time is much higher. This is not as simple as just looking at how complicated the product is. The issue is providing sufficient incentive for companies, like Hoyt, to stay in the recurve business when they can turn their focus toward the highly profitable compound market, or even more narrowly, the hunting bow market.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dangit Hank, there you go applying logic again, and ruining my perfectly good rant! 

Of course, I know you're right. Like Steve said, I'm just glad that some folks are willing to buy the brand new stuff and I can get it in a year or two when the newer stuff comes out. I appreciate early adopters with "shiny object" syndrome 

Whiz, there are WIVES here? Yikes!

John


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Can you say WARF !!!

Matt


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Dangit Hank, there you go applying logic again, and ruining my perfectly good rant!
> 
> Of course, I know you're right. Like Steve said, I'm just glad that some folks are willing to buy the brand new stuff and I can get it in a year or two when the newer stuff comes out. I appreciate early adopters with "shiny object" syndrome
> 
> ...


I have made a killing buying used off of ArcheryTalk. That is why I have more risers than I need. I keep running into deals that I cannot pass up. I have a beautiful Bernardini Nilo and Best Zenit thanks to this forum. Keep the deals coming folks !!!!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

And to add to your driver comment,

I sold my wife on my original Border HEX5 limbs with the argument that the lower draw weight would reduce wear and tear in a sport where shoulder surgeries are epidemic. How else could I rationalize to her, buying a set of high tech bendy things made of space age materials that cost as much as a machined piece of aluminum with no moving parts?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Uhm, ehem, did you say you had a Best Zenit?  Tell me more...


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Uhm, ehem, did you say you had a Best Zenit?  Tell me more...


Yes, left handed. Bummer huh?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Used is the only way to go - I am still bummed that I let Steve buy that nilo out of my backyard - that was a steal. I picked up a used Luxor and LW I have to agree with you it is the finest piece of archery equipment I have laid hands on.

Matt


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Used is the only way to go - I am still bummed that I let Steve buy that nilo out of my backyard - that was a steal. I picked up a used Luxor and LW I have to agree with you it is the finest piece of archery equipment I have laid hands on.
> 
> Matt


Who knows. I may be the odd man out. I think you, John and I all have draws over 32 inches, and I am the one with the 25 inch Bernardini riser.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hank, bummer indeed. I have a set of limbs that make a 72" bow on that 25" riser though  

John


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

whiz-Oz said:


> Where exactly has this been stated? I've not seen it on a manufacturers website or official press release ever.


Gee, didn't know I'd have to also give a bibiliography with sources.

Bowhunting and compounds have long provided the capital, so greater innovations could be found in technology and engineering. Recurve archery doesn't butter the bread in the archery world, and it never has. It's a very small percentage of the sport, but still provides name recognition many desire, so they put forth the product and items target archers desire. This has been going on the past 35 years I've been an enthusiast, competitor and dealer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You said something that makes sense... that recurve target archery provides status and name recognition on the international stage for some companies that they can't get in any other market. I'm of the opinion that top of the range equipment is as much about status as it is about anything else. And the companies know this and play to those desires in that portion of the market.

John


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

titanium man said:


> Gee, didn't know I'd have to also give a bibiliography with sources.
> 
> Bowhunting and compounds have long provided the capital, so greater innovations could be found in technology and engineering. Recurve archery doesn't butter the bread in the archery world, and it never has. It's a very small percentage of the sport, but still provides name recognition many desire, so they put forth the product and items target archers desire. This has been going on the past 35 years I've been an enthusiast, competitor and dealer.


Can i add something a little odd into the mix. We are doing just dandy over here, no compounds and a small hunting side to our niche.
We make about 1000 bows a year, and have produced our own level of innovation.
No scale of economes. but we hold our own in any areana.

does that make you question the Costs of R&D the mass production boys go through.
I think the Earl hoyt geometry has recovered its costs, as has the Gold medalist geometry? and dare i ask, have W&W/Samick developed any geometry gains over the work Earl Hoyt did?
What has been done on the R&D side?


----------



## Hunter Dave (Jul 17, 2007)

Yeah, $700 for the latest riser or set of limbs is crazy. I think it would be great to see a top archer compete with a 20 year old kit such as an old Gold Medalist riser and some C+ limbs. My guess is that the scores probably wouldn't change much. The downside is that would tend to drive up prices for used equipment...and I wouldn't like that. :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dave, as someone else pointed out, you don't have to look too far. Many of the foreign competitors were using "outdated" gear at the recent world indoor event and shot quite well. It wasn't that long ago that Butch was shooting some very old (by today's standards) limbs at the Grand Prix event in Antalya, and I've seen him dust off the old FX limbs repeatedly and score very well with them. You could consider Vic's limbs "ancient" too, coming out of Earl's presses at SKY. At least, the ones he was shooting on his out-of-date and out-of-production Mathews riser. Brand loyalty and being a "proper" representative for a particular company is more important to some archers than others. Depending on where they are in their career, an archer may have either more or less freedom to choose. It's typical to see the younger archers toeing the line and the older, more accomplished archers, mixing and matching a little.

John


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

Hunter Dave said:


> Yeah, $700 for the latest riser or set of limbs is crazy. I think it would be great to see a top archer compete with a 20 year old kit such as an old Gold Medalist riser and some C+ limbs. My guess is that the scores probably wouldn't change much. The downside is that would tend to drive up prices for used equipment...and I wouldn't like that. :wink:


When I was first thinking of upgrading my set-up not too long ago, my wife talked me out of it, and after I got over the initial disappointment, I tried to justify and make myself feel better by explaining to her (and make myself believe) that any of the top archers (and a whole lot of not so top archers) would outshoot me even if we traded gear. And I know I am absolutely right about that.

Fortunately for me, she was talking me out of buying it for myself so she could buy it for me as a graduation gift when I got my Masters last week!!!! _ (but that still doesn't negate the truth of the previous assertion...)_


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Hunter Dave said:


> Yeah, $700 for the latest riser or set of limbs is crazy. I think it would be great to see a top archer compete with a 20 year old kit such as an old Gold Medalist riser and some C+ limbs. My guess is that the scores probably wouldn't change much. The downside is that would tend to drive up prices for used equipment...and I wouldn't like that. :wink:


.SHHHHHHH.........Come on, man!...You KNOW that would never work!!..The newer the gear, the better the scores, is the RULE!!...(Now dont post anything like that again, I'm looking for some good old gear myself!!...L.O.L...)................Harperman


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

titanium man said:


> Gee, didn't know I'd have to also give a bibiliography with sources.


Well, you said "They say". 
So who exactly are "They"?
If you can't identify who they are, then your statement about what they say is inattributable. 

You are asserting something as a fact, but providing absolutely no justification behind it. 
Being that only companies involved in producing recurve bows can make that statement, who you refer to is in fact, obvious. 

That you cannot provide evidence that any of these specific companies have made that statement, makes your generic statement totally worthless. 

Why would you publically undermine your own credibility on an Internet forum, by offering up worthless statements of conjecture? 
What am I supposed to believe about contributions made by titanium man? 
Should I believe you or just assign your writings to that huge pile of internet noise?

What can you say that will encourage me to believe you?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

titanium man said:


> That's the problem with production muzzleloaders. Unless you have someone who specifically will pay what you want, used ones carry as little value as used archery equipment. Muzzleloading is a lot like archery in many respects.


I dunno, used archery gear in good condition seems to hold its value fairly well, with current make ILF gear often going for 2/3ds retail on the AT classifieds. You have to expect some depreciation since buying used gear can be a risk vs. new.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Not to mention that the models aren't changed each year to stimulate sales...:set1_STOOGE2:



limbwalker said:


> For the price of one of these (that you can't do anything with by itself, mind you):
> 
> http://www.lancasterarchery.com/hoyt-formula-hpx-27-recurve-riser.html
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Whizzy...you don't need any encouragement. I think you probably do enough self talk to handle that end of your life.:yo:





whiz-Oz said:


> Well, you said "They say".
> So who exactly are "They"?
> If you can't identify who they are, then your statement about what they say is inattributable.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

:jeez:I think the R&D stuff comes primarily from the salesmen at point of sale to dealers. It helps to justify the increased in MSRP and the bump in dealer cost. However, if you asked most company's I would suspect they would say the same thing...the cost of development for new gear and the added cost of bringing it to market, and the cost of advertising it...yada yada. But, frankly, each company has the same economic challenges we do, i.e. increase in material cost, increase in labor cost, increase in insurance, increase in general overhead, increase in equipment etc...all adds to the cost of the item. Not to mention the devaluation of money...well, it's damn tough to be in business. So, to create an income stream they need to produce equipment that stimulate excitement, promises better results, and/or give the buyer a better image of themselves (sex appeal).

If company's could produce at overhead rates of 20 years ago..well the new risers of today would reflect that pricing scale.

Hell, I can remember when bread was 25cents a loaf.....is the bread better today then it was then...????

I'm sure Sid would agree with this.

My 2 cents.
Art


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

ArtV said:


> :jeez:I think the R&D stuff comes primarily from the salesmen at point of sale to dealers. It helps to justify the increased in MSRP and the bump in dealer cost. However, if you asked most company's I would suspect they would say the same thing...the cost of development for new gear and the added cost of bringing it to market, and the cost of advertising it...yada yada. But, frankly, each company has the same economic challenges we do, i.e. increase in material cost, increase in labor cost, increase in insurance, increase in general overhead, increase in equipment etc...all adds to the cost of the item. Not to mention the devaluation of money...well, it's damn tough to be in business. So, to create an income stream they need to produce equipment that stimulate excitement, promises better results, and/or give the buyer a better image of themselves (sex appeal).
> 
> If company's could produce at overhead rates of 20 years ago..well the new risers of today would reflect that pricing scale.
> 
> ...


I remember when college tuition was $30/hr. Now it's over 10 times that when in true cost of living it should be only 4 times. Nuts.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Warbow said:


> I dunno, used archery gear in good condition seems to hold its value fairly well, with current make ILF gear often going for 2/3ds retail on the AT classifieds. You have to expect some depreciation since buying used gear can be a risk vs. new.


I've seen some strange behavior when people buy used. A couple of years ago, I posted Navigators at cost, brand new in the tube, with points, and didn't get any legitimate nibbles. Yet, I've seen people selling 11 out of 12 fletched "used" arrows, at rather proud pricing, and they are scooped up quickly. I think it also depends on what area you're from, and how available various equipment is to you.

I think risers keep value as opposed to limbs, as it's buyer beware with limbs and used compounds. When buying used compounds, you are also at the mercy of how long it has been since the cables have been changed, and usually, people change these first, so sometimes that part can be negotiated into the asking price.

In regards to muzzleloaders, it's mostly a liability issue. Gun shops around here won't give anything for a used black powder rifle, as they have no idea how well it was taken care of, cleaned, whether the barrel is pitted, etc. etc. The best way to sell one of these is from individual to individual. For that matter, it is pretty much the same when trading bows to a dealer.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

titanium man said:


> I think risers keep value as opposed to limbs, as it's buyer beware with limbs and used compounds. When buying used compounds, you are also at the mercy of how long it has been since the cables have been changed, and usually, people change these first, so sometimes that part can be negotiated into the asking price.


Good point. I was thinking mostly of FITA Recurve gear. I don't shoot compounds so I have no idea how they depreciate, but I get the impression that because new designs keep coming out and because compound shooters like to shoot the latest and greatest even more than recurve archers that they may depreciate almost as fast as computers :mg: :dontknow:

For a while there seemed to be a number of the formula bows in the classifieds--not sure why, maybe people just spent more than they could afford and needed to sell them?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm not so sure that compounders like the latest and greatest any more than recurvers do. Not with the number of folks that I've seen or heard of running out to buy the newest design... Esp. at that price.

John


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

I sell something when I get low on beer money.....:darkbeer: Now I bet Whizzy wants an explanation, with a substantive graph, and receipts to insure that is an accurate statement. :wink:

Sorry, Whizzy, couldn't help it. Cause someone, they, those who know, them over there, as it's told...made me do it.

Art, the dreaming, latent dislocated, semi functional, bow shooting. feather splitter, suffering for lack of an Oz fix. Dude :icon_1_lol:


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Well, for sure,,,,,lack of sales will tell a company they have hit the price point on an item.



limbwalker said:


> I'm not so sure that compounders like the latest and greatest any more than recurvers do. Not with the number of folks that I've seen or heard of running out to buy the newest design... Esp. at that price.
> 
> John


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not so sure that compounders like the latest and greatest any more than recurvers do. Not with the number of folks that I've seen or heard of running out to buy the newest design... Esp. at that price.
> 
> John


The "latest and greatest" is a standard of modern living. We, especially Americans, have come to expect an update to most things in our lives year after year. 

Computers have always been like that with the rapid development of technology. But now look at the auto industry, a decade ago and new model of a car came out every 2-4 years and when it did, it was a slightly revised tail light. Now not only do you get major updates, some models are scrapped and new ones appear within a few years. I remember when Hoyt was the exact same way with their bow line....


----------



## kshatriya (Jul 14, 2010)

I'll agree that compounders don't necessarily like the latest and greatest any more than recurvers.
Compound manufacturers put out new bows every year.
Win&Win's CXT has been out for at least a year, and they updated the product cycle, so it's unlikely to be replaced this year either. The Italian risers haven't seemed to undergo any major new variations in the past year. 

For recurvers, perhaps it's just that the lates and greatest doesn't happen as often.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Matt, our "standard" isn't exactly being adopted by the rest of the world - and for good reason. Much of that "standard" in the U.S. is based purely on profit potential (= greed) and not the fact that there is truly a need for something better. Slick marketing has been perfected in the U.S., and it trains us all to believe that our lives won't be complete without the latest gadget. This is so that companies can continue to sell us new stuff every year. It's part of a consumer/disposable lifestyle that will be the death of this planet in the end.

Americans - esp. Texans - will declare that they have the "right" to buy whatever they want and use whatever they want. It's their money after all, right? Well, I often wonder who we get that "right" from. Our forefathers, or our grandchildren?

In the natural resource business that I'm in, we often talk about borrowing the land from our descendants, not inheriting it from our forefathers. I often wonder when "Conservatives" stopped being so conservative.

John


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Darn good points John...especially about the conservatives....which I am one, but sometimes duck (with no quack) when I see so called conservatives living life style. We have an area here where for years everyone seemed to build a McMansion....absolute consumptions on a big scale. Two little old dried up people in a house needing an intercom to find one another. Average home operating over head just to maintain the house (not including mortgage) $20,000 per year..not a typo.
Consumption at it's finest..Drive through some of these neighborhoods on a rainy day and see all the sprinkler systems blowing out water...makes you want to knock on the front door and ask them a few questions.....Like, "Have you ever took the time to check how many rocks you have between your ears?" sorry I'm about to rant..Ahhhhhh the American way.



limbwalker said:


> Matt, our "standard" isn't exactly being adopted by the rest of the world - and for good reason. Much of that "standard" in the U.S. is based purely on profit potential (= greed) and not the fact that there is truly a need for something better. Slick marketing has been perfected in the U.S., and it trains us all to believe that our lives won't be complete without the latest gadget. This is so that companies can continue to sell us new stuff every year. It's part of a consumer/disposable lifestyle that will be the death of this planet in the end.
> 
> Americans - esp. Texans - will declare that they have the "right" to buy whatever they want and use whatever they want. It's their money after all, right? Well, I often wonder who we get that "right" from. Our forefathers, or our grandchildren?
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Heck with the cost of a riser...how about shafts. $300 plus dollars for a set of shafts??? Seems a person could just as well us a shaft like Eastons Lightspeed. It has less grain weight than some of the high priced shafts, the tolerances seem to be real close. So, why shoot the high priced ones?

I mean...a dozen blank shafts costing half what a riser cost???


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

ArtV said:


> Heck with the cost of a riser...how about shafts. $300 plus dollars for a set of shafts??? Seems a person could just as well us a shaft like Eastons Lightspeed. It has less grain weight than some of the high priced shafts, the tolerances seem to be real close. So, why shoot the high priced ones?
> 
> I mean...a dozen blank shafts costing half what a riser cost???


Speaking of shafts...How about Easton dropping the Redline series of arrows, then what, 2 years later, bringing out the Carbon One arrows...Carbon One shafts look very similar to Redlines, to me....But they are a bit more in price....I am glad to see that Easton is making another small diameter shaft with good specs, though.....Harperman


----------



## Flyers 1 (Feb 10, 2012)

Archery purchases like most things in life--moderation. That seemed to work for me when I recently started recurve.That plus the archery shop did not try to "oversell" a newbie. I was treated with respect and fairness.They now have a dedicated customer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Flyers, that's good to hear. Still some good folks out there.

Just the other day, I was pointing out to a student and their parent who were desperate to get the young man (11) on to carbon arrows that all of the original 1300 fita scores were set with aluminum arrows, glass/wood limbs and dacron strings. 

Esp. for the younger/smaller archers, the advantages of expensive gear over the basic equipment is barely even there. But that sure doesn't seem to stop some parents from spending $1K or more on archery gear for 10, 11 and 12 year olds. Pretty unbeliveable. I have to really contain myself at times when I see some kid from modest means with an old bow and aluminum arrows wipe the floor with a room full of kids toting the latest gear. 

Thankfully, this is a sport that allows us to still be very competitive with middle-of-the-road equipment. I just wonder sometimes if people really understand that.

John


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Having been in archery for 39 years already and having had personal experience in all possible archery activities and positions, including commercial, I can only comment that the problem of our sport is in the low numbers. 
Not many archers, buying small quantities (worldwide) for each item, with an incredible number of companies trying to make money form this very limited market, talking about the target archery market, of course.
So, you immediately loose the relationship from real value of the product and its price in the market.
Let’s make an example:
- a very nice designed tab with good cordovan original leather and plenty of small metallic pieces for different functions and a molded finger spacer, everything with a colorful card for instruction in a strong transparent blister packing.
European street prices:
- Soma Fivics Saker 1 & 2 - 39.00 Euro
- KSL AA brass version - 54.00 euro
- Soma Joomong self copy of the Saker II - 15.00 euro
- ACO copy of any of the above : 9.90 euro 
I have bought 2 pcs of the ACO at 9.90 each at Decathlon Shop in Nimes last month. Leather is not real cordovan, but all other parts are practically same as the original. I will change the leather to cordovan and adjust them to my daughter use in replacement of her original Soma Saker I tab. 
For sure, Soma introduced the design concept first, and then tried to sell volumes, even making a cheaper version of the same tab at the same time, but only real volumes in purchases for a specific tab or any other small archery item can be made by a chain like Decathlon in a large archery market like France. But, in this case Decathlon will buy tabs from China, not form Korea, at China prices for large volumes. So, probably, purchasing cost for this for Decathlon is in the range of 4 Euro or less only, less than 1/3 of the price of the dealer price of the originals.
So, how much can an aluminum riser really cost to public if volumes sold can be same as for the tab at Decathlon? 
Cheapest riser around in my knowledge was the T-rex from W&W, retailing at 69.00 Euro.. Now re-branded SF ... 
How much it can go down in price if purchased directly from China in volume by Decathlon, or Wall Mart, if you want?
Numbers, friends, numbers ... without large numbers, our sport will remain a very expensive one...


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> Not many archers, buying small quantities (worldwide) for each item, with an incredible number of companies trying to make money form this very limited market, talking about the target archery market, of course.
> So, you immediately loose the relationship from real value of the product and its price in the market.


Vittorio, from the perspective of a dysfunctional price/value relationship in the market, this is true but for, actually, a different reason. From the perspective of basic economics, having many sellers (high supply) to a limited market (low demand) sets a given market up for the opposite of higher prices. It "should" drive prices down, that is, in a purely competitive market - competitive sellers and buyers, that is, with homogeneous product(s).

What it appears to be in competitive archery equipment is that you have a few, limited, suppliers of a type of equipment in a market that has a high barrier to entry for any other maker of this level of equipment; therefore, the market becomes fragmented - a high end market with limited sellers and low end market with many sellers. We could spend an inordinate amount of time trying to determine why such barriers exist or if they really do exist but for in our own minds and buying patterns, but in the end, the market is created in decision choices of the buyers fueled by their observations of the best in their endeavors along with aggressive advertising of a few sellers. IOW, very few sellers can compete in the one market and many can compete in the other - driving the different markets farther apart in price/value relation rather than closer.


----------



## Flyers 1 (Feb 10, 2012)

John
I saw this at our son's JOAD Club. Twelve year old with top of the line Hoyt equipment after 1 year of shooting. His skill hasn't increased and he doesn't even seem to want to be there anymore.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Flyers, what some parents don't realize is that their kids are expressing an interest in the sport specifically for the purpose of seeing what kind of fancy new toys they can get their parents to buy for them. Once they've acquired those new toys, they realize that it's they themselves that have to improve, and scores cannot be bought, so they quit. I've seen it over and over again.

Parent's that "reward" their kids with more expensive equipment are doing neither themselves or their kids any favors.

John


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Flyers, that's good to hear. Still some good folks out there.
> 
> Just the other day, I was pointing out to a student and their parent who were desperate to get the young man (11) on to carbon arrows that all of the original 1300 fita scores were set with aluminum arrows, glass/wood limbs and dacron strings.
> 
> ...


The step up to 50 meters from 30 meters during the year of the kid's thirteenth birthday is a big one. I think that a nice light set of Easton Carbon One arrows is appropriate. The alternative way to reach the distance is to push a kid into a higher draw weight bow that might hurt them.

If you want to level the playing field so that everyone is competitive with middle-of-the-road equipment, drop the distances. So that Cubs shoot 40 meters, Cadets 50 meters, possibly with an 80 cm target. Then there's much less benefit to Carbon arrows and everyone can play. Lot's less stress on the kids that way, too.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Thankfully, this is a sport that allows us to still be very competitive with middle-of-the-road equipment. I just wonder sometimes if people really understand that.
> 
> John


I always joke about going into competition with an old Hoyt 5PM or an 1980's GM riser just to see how they match up to modern equipment.

TAO


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Shooting the Ohio State Indoor Championships this past weekend thinking I had the oldest recurve rig (Hoyt Matrix / Vector limbs) on the line. But Dan Zelinski steps up with an original Sky Conquest (custom VanHalen paint job mind you) and shooting 1816 Jazz Arrows. Archers were giving him a hard time about the arrows until he did this...









And a 30 to boot. It was awesome to see!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

HikerDave, how do you then explain Denise Parker shooting at 70 meters with 28 lbs. at her draw length, with aluminum arrows?

We just assume that aluminum arrows won't get the job done outdoors anymore. Most that assume this have never even tried it.

John


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Yeah Dan has a cool Conquest. But if you want to go ancient-Steve Robinson-who has won more Ohio titles than probably any five other archers combined-has shown up at this event in the past with some bows from the PAA glory days. At U of D in 2000 he had a 30 year old Darton that looked like it had been painted by the same guy who painted some of Tina Turners "go go" boots from that era. I think he had the top recurve score too


----------



## Gene M (Nov 16, 2010)

Can't help but toss my 2 cents in. I worked my way through college teaching sailing at 2 very wealthy yacht clubs. Sailing may not be the sport with the highest cost of entry but is is sure way up on the list. Anyway, we taught kids from 8 to 18 and they were incredibly aware of how much everything cost from the clothes they wore to the boats they sailed. One of my favorite memories is when one of my 10 year old students, not a very good sailor but always having the latest and greatest gear, was making fun of another of my students because he was sailing a 10 year old boat. The kid with the 10 year old boat told the other kid "If it was good enough for my brother to win the Junior Nationals with, it's good enough for me". The kid with the 10 year old boat went on to win the Junior Nationals himself. Later I found out he also came from one of the wealthiest families in the area which really means something considering the area. Luckily, his parents had their priorities right and passed them on to their kids.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Vittorio, from the perspective of a dysfunctional price/value relationship in the market, this is true but for, actually, a different reason. From the perspective of basic economics, having many sellers (high supply) to a limited market (low demand) sets a given market up for the opposite of higher prices. It "should" drive prices down, that is, in a purely competitive market - competitive sellers and buyers, that is, with homogeneous product(s).
> 
> What it appears to be in competitive archery equipment is that you have a few, limited, suppliers of a type of equipment in a market that has a high barrier to entry for any other maker of this level of equipment; therefore, the market becomes fragmented - a high end market with limited sellers and low end market with many sellers. ......


Sorry, but your analysis is very far from present reality of the (target) archery market. 
1) many sellers to limited market drives down the prices
No, because almost all sellers only produce in very small quantities new items every year that are only "similar" to the others, but claimed to be "innovations", therefore the price can't go down, it only goes up for the medium-high level ranges of products as of the limited production quantity of any new item. 

2) you have a few, limited, suppliers of a type of equipment
No, you have so many possible choices for any kind of equipment that simply you cannot take all of them in consideration (as any pro shop owner perfectly knows). This was may be true in terms of number of manufacturers for arrows only until some years ago, and top level competition arrows are still suffering from this problem, but that's the only one item were your "limits" are still partially existing. 

3) a market that has a high barrier to entry for any other maker of this level of equipment
No, archery market is the most open existing. European distributors like JVD, Bignami or SSA offer to European dealers a continuously updated choice of total over 60,000 different archery products (of course, colors and sizes are different items, but number of fully different items remains much >10000). A medium pro shop has a range available to public of around 3000 different items, and can offer to customer (if he/she really insists) full access to other 40,000 different at least, just ordering from one of the major European distributors I mentioned. Only existing barrier is made by the local pro shop that usually wants to sell what they have in stock without making special orders to distributors, and by distributors that really have enough of 40,000 items to manage and don’t want to have more 

4)a high end market with limited sellers and low end market with many sellers
No, high end market has an almost infinite number of sellers, continuously increasing, but the low end market has a very limited number of sellers, as low end market needs volume and volumes are not enough for more manufacturers to survive.

Now just a small question: 
If a distributor must keep an updated live stock of 40K different references to serve his customers (shops) , who’s going to pay for the cost of this stock?


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

As a business man, I can assure you Vittorio has it just about spot on. Manufacturers make demands not only on annual sales, but also on amount of inventory ordered. If a retailer does not meet the levels of his contract then the retailers price per item goes up narrowing his potential profit margin.

Therefore, a retailer is going to stock those items he feels he can sell, which lowers the demand of manufacturers to produce less of the unordered items...which as Vittorio stated, drive the cost of those items up. Since recurve archery is the step child of compounds the recurves will take the biggest hit in price increases to cover the manufacturing cost. The cost for a manufacturer to produce a recurve riser and a compound rise is probably pretty close to the same on a one to one unit cost basis, but the overall profits for a compound is more because of units sold.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

ArtV said:


> As a business man, I can assure you Vittorio has it just about spot on. Manufacturers make demands not only on annual sales, but also on amount of inventory ordered. If a retailer does not meet the levels of his contract then the retailers price per item goes up narrowing his potential profit margin.


I found out from the manager of the range where I teach that recurve bows do not count towards inventory orders. Some manufacturers only count compound bows towards discount points. Amazing since I've seen a large surge in recurve archers over the last 5 years. I've been loyal to one brand for the last 25 years but I'm now making other suggestions to newbies. If I start competing again I'm thinking of painting the logos off of my limbs. Pity.

TAO


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> Now just a small question:
> If a distributor must keep an updated live stock of 40K different references to serve his customers (shops) , who’s going to pay for the cost of this stock?


Unsold inventory means lack of demand on the part of buyers for the products. Unsold inventory also means eventual overall lower prices to liquidate the inventory. Increased demand, more buyers, means more sold inventory. Increased demand without increasing inventory, either coming from current sellers or more new sellers, means higher prices.

Now, for niche market of target archery, if our claim is that these bows are overpriced, that means that their selling cost provides an extra amount of profit margin over the rest of the archery market; therefore, the incentive for increased inventory already exists. That's the definition of overpriced - price exceeds cost by abnormal margin per (semi)similar markets. 

I guess what I don't follow in the analysis is that we have too few buyers in the market (see unsold inventory) with plenty of sellers (see increased inventory) causing higher prices - it may well be real on the ratio of sellers to buyers but should drive prices down till enough sellers says "uncle" and get out of the market. 

I guess the argument can be that inventory is being withheld to keep prices high, which would require some form of collusion, which is not in line with having many sellers. Or, we can say inventory is limited by capital restrictions on the part of new sellers entering, i.e., a barrier to entry into the niche market.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

ArtV said:


> As a business man, I can assure you Vittorio has it just about spot on. Manufacturers make demands not only on annual sales, but also on amount of inventory ordered. If a retailer does not meet the levels of his contract then the retailers price per item goes up narrowing his potential profit margin.


Art, that makes sense. Your margin goes down in that situation. Here's a thought, though. Can you simple raise you prices to gain back your margin, and given this move, would your competitors follow suit, raising archery equipment prices as a whole? Not likely unless all of the many were under same contract and didn't meet same demands - implying a tight control on the part of manufacturers - which seems likely only if few control the actions on the part of the many. Even in the tightly, top-down, controlled oil industry, less buying = lower prices (eventually if long enough ). If we all stop buying gas, leaving them with more inventory, they lower prices to get us back, not raise them.

Only in very small markets, where you have small numbers of buyers and very small number of sellers, say a certain hobby of limited participation, can the lack of competition produce exorbitant prices and margins, and there, a manufacturers' fixed production costs to supply the limited demand usually justify the margin anyway - low turnover x higher margin = reasonable return. I guess that's what is being argued for archery, but not sure it totally fits if we say there is too much product just not enough buyers.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> HikerDave, how do you then explain Denise Parker shooting at 70 meters with 28 lbs. at her draw length, with aluminum arrows?
> 
> We just assume that aluminum arrows won't get the job done outdoors anymore. Most that assume this have never even tried it.
> 
> John


Seems supernatural. But that data point is why I've ordered a set of relatively light 30 pound limbs from Border rather than going with a heavier draw weight. When I get the limbs I'll try the bow with a set of 1913 platinum arrows that I have and report the results here.

I could barely reach 70 meters using Genesis (1820) arrows with 36 pounds on the fingers and the sight turned inside. But I have some pretty slow limbs, made by you-know-who.

There was a girl Cub shooting 50 meters and aluminum arrows at 2011 JOAD outdoor nationals because her coach insisted on this. Everyone else had carbon arrows, up to X10s with hand-turned points.


----------



## baaghji (Nov 25, 2011)

Sanford said:


> Art, that makes sense. Your margin goes down in that situation. Here's a thought, though. Can you simple raise you prices to gain back your margin, and given this move, would your competitors follow suit, raising archery equipment prices as a whole? Not likely unless all of the many were under same contract and didn't meet same demands - implying a tight control on the part of manufacturers - which seems likely only if few control the actions on the part of the many. Even in the tightly, top-down, controlled oil industry, less buying = lower prices (eventually if long enough ). If we all stop buying gas, leaving them with more inventory, they lower prices to get us back, not raise them.
> 
> Only in very small markets, where you have small numbers of buyers and very small number of sellers, say a certain hobby of limited participation, can the lack of competition produce exorbitant prices and margins, and there, a manufacturers' fixed production costs to supply the limited demand usually justify the margin anyway - low turnover x higher margin = reasonable return. I guess that's what is being argued for archery, but not sure it totally fits if we say there is too much product just not enough buyers.


From an economics standpoint Sanford is right. Economic theory says that if supply is high (40,000 different products being mentioned early as a high number) and demand is low (not enough archers wanting to buy equipment) then prices should go down. However, the fact that there are many sellers does not necessarily mean that supply is high. If there are many sellers that only produce 5 risers (for example) a year, then supply is still low. Kind of like the exotic car market. There are quite a few makes available to choose from, but they delibately keep production amounts low to a)make the ownership of the car more prestigious, b)increase the possible sales price because supply is low while demand from those who can afford them is higher. Because the supply is low (even though there are many sellers), prices increase. A large number of sellers does not necessarily mean high supply.
Another monkey to throw in the works is that economic theory is based on rational behavior of the parties involved. That's not the case much in the US anymore. And marketing is designed specifically to override rational behavior and get you to do what is best for someone else, not for you. So, even though the economic theory is sound, there are some ways that perhaps the situation is not being perfected understood.
Of course, it could also just be that companies are greedy and will charge as much as they possibly can and will even spend money to get you to pay more for something that they haven't changed in years...nah, that'd never happen.


----------



## DBrewer (Jul 17, 2010)

HikerDave said:


> I could barely reach 70 meters using Genesis (1820) arrows with 36 pounds on the fingers and the sight turned inside. But I have some pretty slow limbs, made by you-know-who.QUOTE]
> 
> It's probably not just the limbs...1820’s are very heavy arrows…they’re as heavy as full length 2315’s. My guess is that if you went up to 2013 XX75 Platinums you’d have no problems what so ever reaching 70 meters with your current set up…for what it’s worth.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Excellent points on all the above! That goes to my first post re purely competitive market, which we know is more in abstract (good one for a jumping point in discussion) for all but a few markets; hence, we also have markets like for the $700 riser, which we call the "higher end", "niche", "discriminatory", etc....

In keeping with the $700 riser, we have to think, if the current producers can get all they want in profit to the point of not needing to produce more, causing a shorter-supply/higher price, then, if we doubled the buyers, what mechanism would cause them to lower prices? My point was to the suggestion of needing to raise the level of buyers to get prices down - don't see how given the lack of incentive to lower them. Just more pressure on the same market, and surely, these companies won't just lower prices as their profit increase. They ain't that nice about their practices.



baaghji said:


> Of course, it could also just be that companies are greedy and will charge as much as they possibly can and will even spend money to get you to pay more for something that they haven't changed in years...nah, that'd never happen.



Being greedy, they have no reason to change profit scheme until forced to by less buying of their product or increased competition on their selling side. Of course, we have to go along and also buy from the competition. I would fully go along with the notion that more buyer potential would entice more product and lower prices, but it has to create a corresponding change on the other side of the equation. If not, one side stays lopsided.

I do see Vitorrio's point from a different perspective, though. If the market were much broader in scale, and larger in participants, both from the buyer's and seller's sides, it would be more efficient in pricing. That is true from the point of making the market for bows more competitive.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just for grins, I'm going to set up a bow with wood/glass limbs, a dacron string, and aluminum arrows to shoot at 70 meters, and see what kind of scores I can achieve. Just for a comparison to historic scores (thinking 1970's here) it would be fun to do.

John


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Just for grins, I'm going to set up a bow with wood/glass limbs, a dacron string, and aluminum arrows to shoot at 70 meters, and see what kind of scores I can achieve. Just for a comparison to historic scores (thinking 1970's here) it would be fun to do.
> 
> John


I've shot X7's at 70 meters, my bow was pointed at the clouds in order to reach the target and it was a long count before I heard them hit.

John, keep us posted on the results.

TAO


----------



## baaghji (Nov 25, 2011)

Sanford said:


> In keeping with the $700 riser, we have to think, if the current producers can get all they want in profit to the point of not needing to produce more, causing a shorter-supply/higher price, then, if we doubled the buyers, what mechanism would cause them to lower prices? My point was to the suggestion of needing to raise the level of buyers to get prices down - don't see how given the lack of incentive to lower them. Just more pressure on the same market, and surely, these companies won't just lower prices as their profit increase. They ain't that nice about their practices.


Increasing the number of buyers could still lead to a decrease in prices of some of the products. Once economies of scale get into the picture, companies will see that decreasing price and increasing production will lead to higher net revenues. However, that would not be the case for all products. There will always be risers that are overpriced to some consumers because there is also demand for something that is too expensive for mere mortals to buy. However, it could lead to a much larger market in the "lower" end, which in turn could lead to higher quality of less expensive risers as companies compete for the average person's business. Lots of "could"s in there, but until it happens there's no real telling where the market would go, just theory and hypothesis. There are advantages to a business to lowering prices if they can find enough buyers, but they would still put a premium on "elite" equipment, just like golf, guns, and cars.

And you are completely right in saying that consumers hold the key. If something is not being bought, it will be discontinued or the price will be reduced. A company will not change what is working to get them the highest revenue possible. If we as consumers made it clear (through our buying habits) that the prices of the newest and greatest gear are too high, companies will either stop offering them or they will reduce the price. Getting consumers to do that though...


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

baaghji, very good points. I would follow that to mean that if the market changed to high volume, high turnover, lower margins will produce the same overall return. That's a good point. Like you said, though, consumers hold the key to changing a whole market segment model, if that is even possible - though, decent $129 hunting recurves are selling pretty good these days. Yes, definitively more to it than we have white-space here to talk on it.


----------



## michelin (Feb 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Just for grins, I'm going to set up a bow with wood/glass limbs, a dacron string, and aluminum arrows to shoot at 70 meters, and see what kind of scores I can achieve. Just for a comparison to historic scores (thinking 1970's here) it would be fun to do.
> 
> John


I suspect you will manage very well - *IF* you procure yourself a kevlar string (still period correct)instead of dacron. 

I have tried with my 30 year old rig, and the lesson I learnt was the cheapest item on the bow had the greatest influence on result !


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Doubt I'll bother with the Kevlar. My biggest concern is finding an aluminum arrow that will work at my draw length and weight. 32" aluminums get pretty heavy!


----------



## Artist (Jan 18, 2011)

John, this has been a pretty interesting thread. I agree with you about it being about the archer and not the equipment. I got back into archery last year and ended up buying a Hoyt Formula Excel with the basic Formula Excel limbs and I shoot aluminum arrows. I could have bought any bow I wanted but, went with what I did because, I know it has to do more with me than the equipment.

I think many of us get caught up in chasing technology as if it's the "Holy Grail" answer to everything. It's not, in my opinion. I liked reading some of your experiences with students and the types of equipment they use. I've also had the same kind of experiences when teaching in another field. 

Great thread, thanks.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I'm shopping around for a new car, and I was offered less on a trade-in for my perfectly good, running condition Pontiac Sunfire than my bow would sell for on AT.


----------



## hunter terrior (May 15, 2008)

I spend the money because I love archery but agree its getting a bit ridiculous. Once you got your set up the cost is minimal. I wanted to start golfing but could never cope with the $50 for 18 holes. Alsp, I know when I go to the gun range I usually burn through $100 in ammo in an hour or 2.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, green fees can get steep for sure. But memberships at the little courses here in rural TX are still pretty reasonable. Get me down into the $10/round area, which I can handle. Otherwise, yea, I'd be priced out of that one too... I learned to assemble my own golf clubs so I could keep the costs down - I need extra long custom fitted clubs because of my height and I wasn't about to drop $500+ on a set of golf clubs. I can build a custom set for 1/2 that amount.

Stash, when you look at what you can get a used car for here in the Houston area, and compare that to a single new bow, it's surely another head-scratcher...

John


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

If you want to compare it to guns...

Pistol shooting. Buy your pistol, ammo, optics if applicable, range fees, loading jig, wadcutters, powder, primers, magazines, match grade components, gun safe etc.. It's still going to cost.

You can do it pretty cheaply.. SF/KAP/W&W/Samick etc. make perfectly good gear for the average archery at a good price point.

To be honest, I'm happy to pay for quality. A GMX isn't a cheap riser, but it's as accurate as can be, sturdy, bulletproof, and will last as long as I want it to (until something flashy lures me in most likely). I might have paid 20 times more for my sight than the casual archer shooting next to me, but how many times has it let me down, and will it let me down? None. Can't say the same for his. And so on


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Range fees? What are those? ha, ha, ha. 

Burrito, next time you lay your Glock next to your GMX, consider the testing, engineering and manufacturing costs that must have gone into each. And if that doesn't convince you, just count the parts. 

John


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

But look at the market for Glocks... So few pistols in a time frame have had similar market penetration. Not bad for Gaston Glock, who had no ideas about pistol design before having a go at it just to fill a contract. I'm a fan of the trusty 101 year old Colt 1911, but when you consider the market for military pistols versus target archery equipment, even the cost per unit for just the Glock 17 makes their costs look a bit... much. 
I wonder how much the WW2 issue 1911's were to make?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

About the same as carving a block of aluminum and drilling some holes in it...


----------



## Artist (Jan 18, 2011)

I use to be a competitive smallbore target shooter. I still have all of my equipment but, I finally stopped shooting because, I couldn't afford it anymore. More and more of the matches that I was shooting were NRA sanctioned which meant that you had to be a member or join on the spot. Either that or pay more for the entry fees. This was in the 70's and 80's. The price of ammo kept going up as well. Archery is a lot cheaper once you have everything you need, as you said. Plus, I don't have to wear ear plugs. Freedom at last!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Right on! This is why I like Archery! We have shot IPSC, NSCA, NSSF stuff, lots of recoil in those guns, very little recoil, in comparison, in archery!

So the original question was what can you buy for $700, I'll have to say, to you John, a pretty darn accurate, smooth shooting FAST bow in the HPX! Just heard that B.E. is shooting (with his HPX) 222-228 ft/sec! Heck when are they gonna get it up to 300?!!! JUST KIDDING, but I bet someone is thinking that same thought and trying to figure it out! 
John, I liked what you said about the RX, I love mine, her name is Pearl! Our whole family is shooting them, and Jim and Ian are moving on to the HPX! We have SEVERAL people shooting the FRX bows in our club, and nobody has a bad thing to say about them. If you save your pennies up and can get one, it is well worth the investment!!
Now, I am going to go shoot my bow, practice for this weekend's INDOOR NATIONALS in Fairfield Ohio!!







Artist said:


> I use to be a competitive smallbore target shooter. I still have all of my equipment but, I finally stopped shooting because, I couldn't afford it anymore. More and more of the matches that I was shooting were NRA sanctioned which meant that you had to be a member or join on the spot. Either that or pay more for the entry fees. This was in the 70's and 80's. The price of ammo kept going up as well. Archery is a lot cheaper once you have everything you need, as you said. Plus, I don't have to wear ear plugs. Freedom at last!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Liz, you too could shoot over 220 fps. if you wanted.  I personally shot a Nano Pro arrow (not the lightest arrow I can use!) at over 220 fps. the other day. I could do this all day long if I had nothing to do but archery and wanted to shoot over 50# like some are doing. We saw this before with a few archers from Australia who were shooting in the low to mid 50# range. What are they doing now? 

It's as if some folks have forgotten how many design changes have been tested with recurve bows already. Martin Archery has had recurves with little or no deflex in the risers for many years now, and their bows are usually faster than a corresponding Hoyt or Bear recurve because of it. 

This is nothing new, and it's been tried before. Earl Hoyt Jr. came up with the geometry of the TD-4/GM risers for a reason. He could have easily designed those with less deflex. I don't know why there isn't more discussion regarding why he didn't. I'd love to hear the folks promoting the HPX explain that one.

I'm glad you all like your new bows. Really. But frankly, there are some who have adopted what I call the "Nascar" approach of "ford vs. chevy vs. dodge vs. toyota and applied it to archery. To me it seems kind of silly. Bows are just tools. Pick the one you like and shoot it as well as you can. 

I shot the RX with the F3 limbs, as I've said. I was impressed with it's shooting manners. Very pleasant bow to shoot. But honestly, the speed was very unimpressive. That's not a slam on any particular manufacturer, it's just a statement of fact. Who wants to give up 3-5 fps. if they don't have to? And why would I want to shoot a bow with less deflex, a lower brace height, and a higher likelihood of stacking at my super-long draw length to just get back to the speed I already get from the bows I have?



> If you save your pennies up and can get one, it is well worth the investment!!


Perhaps. But with one child in college now, and another heading to A&M in the fall, I have to be a little more careful about how I invest my money. Esp. when I'm still shooting personal best scores, at my age, with the gear I have now 

John


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> higher likelihood of stacking at my super-long draw length


John, do you think this impedes your results to the general public with you being at (what I would consider) the high range of draw length or is it all relevant?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Don't guess I understand the question Matt. If you mean the results I saw from the F3/RX combo vs. the other limbs I own, they were all shot at the same draw length.

I think it's easy to see how less deflex may favor archers with shorter draw lengths. But again, I wish someone would please explain why Earl Hoyt Jr. arrived at his geometry when he could have made any kind of bow he wanted. And now why the departure from that?

Anyone? I honestly would like to know an objective answer to that question.

Liz, my questions for you would be: 1) what speed would B.E. be shooting with a W&W Inno, all other things being equal. Of course, we'll never know the answer to that. and 2) have you and the archers at your club who are all shooting the HPX tried the Inno in it's latest form? To me, that's one exceptional bow both in shooting qualities and in performance, and they didn't have to move away from the more traditional geometry to achieve it.

John


----------



## kshatriya (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm no high level archery, but I'll vouch for the Inno CXT having very good shooting qualities.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Sorry for my vagueness, I was thinking if there is a sweet spot for limb / riser data and feel at say 28" vs. being "over extended" at 32.5". Meaning, if you are so far outside the draw length range that your results, both data and feel, are not typical in proportional performance of a 28"? (not sure I'm making any sense here  )


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, you're making sense. I've never claimed to be reporting results for anyone but myself. YMMV, of course. 

Two perfect examples of this are the new HPX and the SKY Conquest Advantage risers. They are both fairly "neutral" in geometry, meaning much less deflex than the traditional TD-4/GM/Axis/Everything else that's been made in the past 20 years. And that's perfectly fine if that's what a person needs. Shorter draw lengths are bound to see an increase in performance. That's just simple geometry. But a riser alone does not dictate performance. The limb design has to be considered as well. Some limbs will perform better on less deflex, while some need more for a particular draw length.

Bows are not "one size is best for all" so each archer needs to figure out - now that they have options in both the formula and ILF systems - if they want a riser with more or less deflex. 

But I can tell you that for an ape like myself, less deflex does not look very appealing. You simply cannot design one geometry to fit all archers. It doesn't work that way.

John


----------



## DanZ (Feb 17, 2009)

This is an interesting thread.

IIRC I was told once that Vladimir Yesheyev had a setup that shot close to 230fps.

John, I like your idea of seeing what you can do with a classic FITA setup. Someone should host a throwback FITA tournament. Do you know what size shaft Darrel shot his 1341 with?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think it was a 2014, but I can't be sure. Looking at the charts, I'd need at least a 2214, and maybe a 2314, if it's even made. That's one heavy arrow! ha, ha.

John


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

343 points is what to aim for at 70m. I think that Poikolainen's former WR was the last one shot with X7. Next ones were with diva/ace/x10 iirc.

To compare, you should probably use td4+ with c+ limbs. It was shot 1988 and is still national record, but Tomi was one of the last ones to change to carbons. He REALLY likes to stay with proven equipment :wink:


----------



## reaperjb7 (Jan 3, 2008)

guns vs bows...Do you know what site you are on? I'd take the recurve every day...And I hate recurves lol


----------

