# Difference in high $ limbs



## rostov (Mar 12, 2015)

I have 30# W&W Inno EX Primes, and for one time had 30# SF premium carbon/wood limbs. I think they were 5% faster. Using them at 70m my sight marks were different by 7 on a Shibuya DX. Was too cold and windy here to make good groupings conclusions but the SF's dropped like flies at 90m.

For indoors I had much better results. I averaged 50.17+ per 6 arrow ends for 18m/40cm targets with the SF. 53.88+ for my W&W.

Maybe it's the placebo effect. Anyway, the bottom line is that at that time I could afford it (someone dumped them 2nd hand on auctions -- was only 60% more than what retailers sold SF's for, brand new)


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Two shooters one shoots whatever the high end Hoyt is (formula). the other SF premium. Guy with used Hoyt riser and premium limbs is KILLER. Guy with latest and greatest can't keep up. True story. It's the Indian not the arrow, to quote Viper 1. 




.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Yup the difference between the cheap stuff and the expensive stuff may be durability or warranty and manufacturer support but when you pay that much for them the archer typically treats them like they are egg shells. No wonder they seldom fail 

As far as accuracy between the two it's mostly archers confidence in his\her equipment. If you you've purchased the highest end equipment it makes it a lot harder to blame the equipment for the bad day of shooting. You can compare a cheap rig with an expensive rig on a shooting machine and you won't be able to measure the difference. but give the two systems to an archer and there will be a tremendous placebo affect. Don't misunderstand me that placebo affect can be significant and it is also what keeps a lot of our manufacturers in business but the actual measurable difference between the two are negligible. 

Now you'll get a lot of people who weigh in and say things like smooth draw or balance through the shot or vibration of the limbs or sound or. bla bla bla.. most of these are bio-metric or "feel good" feedback this is how humans try to justify their decisions. We use "feel good" feedback to try to impart a perceived value difference where none really exist. 

There is a famous experiment where researches took small groups of people and handed them 4 or 5 pairs of jeans and asked them to rate them in quality and feel. The groups would rate them and talk about the smoothness of the texture and the quality of the stitching and the alignment of the loom marks... They were asked how strongly they felt about the differences and they were adamant that there was a significant measurable value difference and they would definitely pay more for the quality jeans and would expect to pay less for the lower quality jeans. After all that the researchers explained that the jeans where the exact same brand and had no appreciable difference between them. Humans are really adept at applying value to feelings and they will do it regardless of the measurables. This is the basis of all marketing and it runs rampant within the archery industry. 

There we go pot stirred, this thread will probably go 15 or 20 pages now.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

I've shot the best equipment made and shot my best scores more consistent with the cheap bow I started with. Now I have the best that's made and have no excuses except the "me" part...I would say that it is all in your brain how much better the equipment can be. You can't buy points. That part is up to you. But if you can afford better and love archery as much as most of us do....buy the best you can afford.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

I would say that the more expensive limbs are probably marginally better. A few more fps, improved draw force curve, better fit/finish, better match match between upper/lower limbs, and tighter tolerances overall. Much if this, like arrow straightness, is likely primarily a higher level of QC/QA. If you are out there trying to shoot all 10's at 70m on the Olympic team, then yeah you will want those and they may indeed benefit you (think also about the ability to get spares and replacements that are closely matched). For the vast majority of us, however, it likely makes little effective difference. Ideally, you would try them in a blind test and let that determine it. On the other hand, archery is such a mental sport that whatever boosts your confidence is a good thing and may itself be worth the extra money, knowing that you are shooting "the good stuff".


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

In my experience some limbs are easier to tune and shoot than others. However those which are harder are generally well outside the "standard" geometry.
I regret the sets of very expensive new limbs I've bought. I regret none of the used limbs I've bought, all of which were pretty high end when new.

For barebow the riser, grip and tab are far more important for me. They make a huge difference. 

Grant


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

IMHO?....at some point?...it seems we all struggle with this very question from time to time...here's my opinions based on some experiences...

I've owned several sets of ILF limbs that live in the lower middle class side of town...and the 3 that come to mind are...

SF Gold Standard Foam 32# Mediums

SF Foam/Carbon Elite 32# Mediums

Samick Wood/Glass Universal 26# Mediums that cost me $169.95 New

With the limb bolts socked down?...I was getting 30#s @ 28" with those Samick Universal limbs and was spitting Super Club arrows across the chrono at 188/190/189fps on a PSE Zone riser...and these are the limbs that caused me to highly favor wood/maple/bamboo cores over the foam core limbs...though I did own another set of foam core limbs but they lived on the rich side of town and were called...

W&W Inno Ex Powers: 32# Mediums....and while pound for pound they would crush an arrow tuned for lesser limbs?...I still didn't care for the feel of Foam Cores especially when fortified with many layers of CF.....they actually felt "beyond crisp" and ventured straight into "Crunchy" 

My 35# Sky DBL CF/Bamboo Core TR7 Mediums were sweet drawing but?...they weren't what I'd call "snappy" and they also weren't quite as stable as I thought they might be with their DBL UD CF but lacked any layers of what my current Hoyt F7's have...Cross Weave CF...and with Select Hard Rock Maple Cores and QUAD Carbon lay-up?...my Hoyt F7's are by far the best limb I've ever owned and here's where I see the biggest difference between low dollar and high dollar limbs (when well selected and purchased)....

*"TUNING"*

My W&W Inno EX Powers and Hoyt F7's are the most stable limbs I've owned and it's a toss up of which is more stable...but both sets were the quickest and easiest to hit tune with as there was no monkey business...every shot reaction told a very defined, in my face, *"EXTREMELY CONSISTENT"*...story...of which way I needed to go to hit tune.

now whether or not that consistency ultimately equates to more points on a scorecard or not?...I believe that answer is still left up to the archer...but imnsho?....

I dang sure can't see where it would hurt!...except in the wallet! LOL!


----------



## Rotor (Nov 17, 2013)

Greater arrow stiffness corresponding to the increase in limb efficiency.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Partly due to demand and supply. Economics 101.


----------



## RickRendo (Jan 31, 2014)

Most of us,if not all, would be better off putting our money in the arrows we shoot and not the bows. The person with the form, mental game and the best arrows he can afford will win more tourneys regardless of the bow being shot then the person shooting the best that money can buy, but has just mediocre form and can't hold it together on the line where each shot counts.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Rotor said:


> Greater arrow stiffness corresponding to the increase in limb efficiency.


*^^THIS^^*

is actually the most concise and accurate answer too the question posed.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

RickRendo said:


> Most of us,if not all, would be better off putting our money in the arrows we shoot and not the bows. The person with the form, mental game and the best arrows he can afford will win more tourneys regardless of the bow being shot then the person shooting the best that money can buy, but has just mediocre form and can't hold it together on the line where each shot counts.


^^^^
What he said. 

I have had SF Axiom plus, MK Inpers and now Kaya K2s, they were all easy to tune and only the woman behind the bow made the difference. 

Archery is a mental game. If your brain exits the shooting line, I don't care if you walk down to the target and try to stab the arrow into the bullseye, it'll still miss. 

A good riser is a better investment. And sight. And if the arrows don't match, or they are of poor manfacture or your fletching job sucks, there will be consequence.

My scores went UP when I went from a Core Spark to a used Hoyt Matrix. So much so that I took one short stabilizer OFF because I didn't need it any more.

Then I got a Shibuya RC Ultima and relegated the Dual Click to the back up bow. and man was that every enlightening.

They also went further UP after a couple of other changes, most notably--- form and focus.

I have since gotten over wanting to spend $650 on high end limbs-- well, new at least.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

based on chronological order IIRC i've owned the ff limbs since 2003:


hoyt vectors
hoyt carbon plus
hoyt M1s
samick extreme
pse elite
pse expressions
w&w winex
w&w (forgot name but next lower model to winex)
borders cxg
borders hex5
samick athlete

general comments:

..the hoyts were all ok but slow
..samick extremes were fast but hard to pull through the clicker...and pulled 4-5# higher than marked weight at lowest setting 
..winex and pse were excellent but not as fast as borders
..borders are superb( easy to draw with similar performance speedwise to my other limbs 4#-6# heavier) but i found the recurve of the hex5 hard to string..
..got the samick athletes recently and plan to use them only for shorter distances..26# only

the other limbs were in the 32#-42# range..


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

The archery manufacturing community is notorious for not publishing quantifiable and measurable physical properties about their products and applying physics to why that particular product is better than other products. Aircraft aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, cross weave, foam. Give me a break. completely useless terms, and yet people pay high $$$ because they have these fancy words attached to them.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Yeah. Unlike tennis. Or baseball. Or golf. Or cue sport. Ping pong. Badminton.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> The archery manufacturing community is notorious for not publishing quantifiable and measurable physical properties about their products and applying physics to why that particular product is better than other products. Aircraft aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, cross weave, foam. Give me a break. completely useless terms, and yet people pay high $$$ because they have these fancy words attached to them.


My thoughts exactly


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Honestly, name any other industry that specs things like this against its competitors.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

rharper said:


> Honestly, name any other industry that specs things like this against its competitors.


If the differences are negligible you wouldn't want to supply measurables. What you would try to do is use marketing and buzz words to create a perceived difference where none exists.

The Cyclone vacuum cleaners when they first came out made a lot of claims as to why they were better. Now that 90% of the vacuum market is Cyclonic the marketing hype has kicked in.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Does anyone think there is a HUGE difference in limbs. Much like anything, there is a point of diminishing return at higher costs. Just like cars. Every industry does not give particular details out as it would give a competitor something to beat/latch onto to prove it's better.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

"Aircraft aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, cross weave, foam" I'd really like to know why you feel these are useless attached terms.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

So exactly what is aircraft aluminum??? 1100, 2024, 5056, 6061, 7075 aluminum? The aircraft industry uses them all, along with every other industry that uses aluminum. There are certain aluminums that the aircraft industry uses that most others don't but most people don't even know what they are such as aluminum-lithium alloys. Titanium? that is a really expensive material that offers no real tangible advantage over other materials, such as aluminum or stainless steel. It has advantages, but bows don't take advantage of their physical properties. Carbon fiber? a lighter weight version of glass. There is some advantage to that. But depending on where it is used, the weight advantage is a negative to the main purpose of the component - for example - stabilizers. Cross weave? that is how multi layer fibers are layed. Its like saying blue it is like saying riser made from melted aluminum. Foam? weight advantage yes, long life durability? no. Every surface edge or void is a crack initiation point. Fatigue life is reduced by this.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

So it seems you have your opinionated reasons why archery companies should not use certain materials because they are over-rated and expensive, but does this not give you enough information to steer clear of something you don't want? Do you feel no one else knows basic material characteristics so the "hype" of marketing fools them into buying something that has no performance advantage. We all know archery is hugely mental. So even if something does not offer an appreciable advantage, maybe the mental aspect is the advantage. Besides, if someone wants to dump a silly amount of money into their hobby for whatever reason (even if it's the new cool thing) who is ANYONE to tell these folks any different if they want to spend their money. Just make an informed decision by asking questions.

As a coach, I'll tell parents all day long to not dump a huge amount of money because they won't see any difference in their kids score. I'll not recommend the highest price stuff to adults either. But it's their choice.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Touch a nerve? Interesting extrapolations you are making here.

Archery companies can make anything they want, any design they choose, any material choice, and charge anything they want. And people are free to choose to buy what ever they want.

My issue is that equipment manufacturers don't provide real tangible information about their product. Take limbs for example: they do not provide physical lengths other than strange terms like long or short. From one limb manufacturer to another, are longs exactly the same or is there a range? How about mass? That affects the speed of the limb during the shot process which in turn affects the velocity of the arrow. What about the actual draw force curves for their limbs? Again, that affects the speed of the arrow for different draw lengths and where the stacking begins to occur for those people that have very long draws or how inefficient the limbs become for those with very short draws. What about minimum arrow mass for different draw lengths to prevent damage to the limbs. But the focus is on carbon cross weave foam core limbs. Now limbs made with carbon cross weave foam cores does have an impact on the limbs performance. But it is the other parameters that provides real tangible information about the limbs.

You as a coach should appreciate this more than the average person because the critical information helps you to help your student select the right components that is right for that particular archer and their shooting goals and abilities.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

As an engineer, yes it's interesting. As a coach, I personally don't need this caliber of information for the folks I teach because it means nada for them. Nor would it mean much for MOST of the folks out there besides the few on top of the recurve food chain where single points make a difference. Even with that, it's the person shooting it making the difference on any given day. Published information given out by, for instance arrow companies, are all over the map. So even when they do, you still have to go off the experience of others who tried it out already.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

"......the weight advantage is a negative to the main purpose of the component - for example - stabilizers."

Please explain.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

The purpose of a stabilizer is to increase the inertia of the bow. The greater the inertia, the less reactive it becomes to input torques. For a stabilizer, the general formula for the inertia is Inertia=(1/3)*Mass*Length^2 For a fixed length stabilizer, lower mass means lower inertia, thus lighter materials means less inertia. Mass is an important factor in that the archer needs to be able to hold the mass, so too great of a mass may become detrimental to the archer, to light of a mass, the archer isn't getting as much Inertia as they want. Adding length has a greater impact on the inertia of the stabilizer. But longer stabilizers are heavier for the same materials. Also, longer stabilizers pushes the center of gravity out further away from the pivot point. Too far forward, then v-bars are needed to move the center of gravity backwards. But this adds more weight. But is also adds more inertia. If one knows the critical properties of the stabilizer components, balance points and inertia properties can be calculated ahead of time to figure out what are the right combination of parts are needed to achieve a specific goal.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

rharper said:


> As an engineer, yes it's interesting. As a coach, I personally don't need this caliber of information for the folks I teach because it means nada for them. Nor would it mean much for MOST of the folks out there besides the few on top of the recurve food chain where single points make a difference. Even with that, it's the person shooting it making the difference on any given day. Published information given out by, for instance arrow companies, are all over the map. So even when they do, you still have to go off the experience of others who tried it out already.


True, learning how to shoot is important, and for most people in the learning process, technical specs are meaningless to them. But I will disagree that technical specs only matter to those shooters that are trying to get an extra point or two. Equipment is expensive regardless of what level of a shooter one is. Technical specs helps in the selection process. Relying on peoples opinions/experience results in the classic line "Your Millage May Vary". What works for one person may not work for another, and vice versa, what didn't work for one person may be ideal for a different person. Opinions/experience can be correct or incorrect. With precise technical specs, that helps in the whole process. If there are two pieces of hardware that is technically the same? well opinions/reviews/marketing can sway the purchase decision. If the hardware has different physical properties, the combined set of components on a complete bow can have completely different opinions from other bows that have different components. Here it then becomes subjective. Does the bow shoot better because of part A? or is it shooting better because of the combination of parts A, B, C, and D. Choosing a new part A and the bow shoots better may not be soley due to part A but that it is a better fit with parts B, C, D. 

Specs are important to all levels of shooting. The manufacturing industry wants to keep us ignorant so they can resell the same product with a new color and claim its new and better.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Mr. Roboto said:


> So exactly what is aircraft aluminum??? 1100, 2024, 5056, 6061, 7075 aluminum? The aircraft industry uses them all, along with every other industry that uses aluminum.


Actually?...a word is missing and that word is "Grade"....or?..."Quality"...which would mean that the "Aircraft Grade Aluminum"...Comes with "Certs"... (certifications that it is and has been supplied by a qualified source material vendor) who also maintains "Traceability Records" so that when a plane has a catastrophic failure and falls from the sky due to "material failure" the heat code can be traced to all applications and any other aircraft containing that same batch of material can be notified and grounded until remedial action has been taken....for these reasons certified material source vendors are extremely diligent about testing their materials prior to sales to insure the material meets or exceeds claimed strengths so?....it's not just "a type" of aluminum.



Mr. Roboto said:


> The purpose of a stabilizer is to increase the inertia of the bow. The greater the inertia, the less reactive it becomes to input torques. For a stabilizer, the general formula for the inertia is Inertia=(1/3)*Mass*Length^2 For a fixed length stabilizer, lower mass means lower inertia, thus lighter materials means less inertia. Mass is an important factor in that the archer needs to be able to hold the mass, so too great of a mass may become detrimental to the archer, to light of a mass, the archer isn't getting as much Inertia as they want. Adding length has a greater impact on the inertia of the stabilizer. But longer stabilizers are heavier for the same materials. Also, longer stabilizers pushes the center of gravity out further away from the pivot point. Too far forward, then v-bars are needed to move the center of gravity backwards. But this adds more weight. But is also adds more inertia. If one knows the critical properties of the stabilizer components, balance points and inertia properties can be calculated ahead of time to figure out what are the right combination of parts are needed to achieve a specific goal.


I disagree..."Stabilizers" where originally applied with the intent of "Stabilizing" (via enhanced balance)

Increased Inertia: was just an added benefit later discovered by math freaks with chronographs! LOL!!!


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Just curious, has any of you ever read through my ramblings about stabilizers?

They are here, and there. In the haystack.


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Some of this is classic marketing... Companies trying to differentiate their products. Patents and copyrights may play into it too. Some is innovation... Trying new materials and features to see if they stick, and charging a premium for them. The game is price discrimination - have a product at a price point each person is willing to pay. Starbucks is a great example, where you can get everything from a $1 cup of coffee to a $5 cappufrappofoam whatever. That is a 5x price difference with virtually no performance difference, almost purely subjective and preference. Some of it is social status too - most of us have noticed some people walking into work with that big Starbucks cup with their name conspicuously written on it. Some of it is psychological - a feeling that we must put a certain amount of resource into something in order to obtain a satisfactory result, or in hopes of producing an extraordinary result.

I do agree that little standardized testing is done to find the actual differences. This is why Hank's work is so interesting. At some point, if there is enough demand for it, there will be something like a Consumer Reports or Underwriter's Laboratories for archery gear, or the Archery Trade Association will begin publishing standard measures (like IBO and ATA arrow speeds for compound bows).

Of course all of this is trumped by personal preferences and capabilities. Measurement can be subjective (feel) and objective (scores).

All things considered, I think the phenomenon is primarily price discrimination with a bit of actual benefit. Whether or not a given archer can realize or enjoy that benefit is another matter, unrelated to the product itself. Personally, I prefer the middle or lower-middle priced gear. The least expensive gear is likely to have issues due to cutting corners to keep costs low, whereby the expensive gear is paying top dollar for minor benefits that are unlikely to be realized.

LOL, this is why top shooters are often sponsored and provided premium equipment to conspicuously shoot with. It plants that seed that the fancy gear can put you on the podium too, although that same archer could probably outshoot you with your own equipment. And equipment manufacturers often support tournaments and media coverage for advertising purposes.

It's all good, just normal product differentiation and price discrimination with a bit of asymmetrical information. Caveat emptor.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Jinks, you know that when people throw out the words aircraft aluminum that they are not talking about certs, but trying to say that that aluminum is somehow better. All aluminum has certs. Certs only comes into play to make sure you are not using the wrong grade of aluminum for the particular application. Certs don't even guarantee the quality of the batch of aluminum. I have worked on aircraft projects where we have lost tens of thousands of dollars in labor when the certified 7075 aluminum had voids in it that was revealed when machining it. Then we had to start doing 100% UT inspections on it. Manufacture certs don't cover that catastrophic problem.

The "math freaks" were the ones that explained the physics why stabilizers stabilize the shot.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I find that what Hank has been doing is some outstanding work that clearly compares limbs to limbs. I am quite sure that limb manufacturers have the performance curves that Hank has been putting together. They just don't publish them. And yet it is the shape of the curves that defines their performance.

We as an archery community should be demanding the technical performance specs of the hardware. They can still do what ever they want to do to market their product and focus on what ever feature they want to try to distinguish their product from other products. Just include a technical data sheet about their product. 

If Hank put together a web page about his Limb research, it would be one of the most popular web pages for anyone that is looking for limbs. An hour on that web page would be well worth it before shelling out $700 on some limbs. How many people spend hours on the internet to save $5 on an $50 product, and yet blindly dump $500 on limbs based on perceptions.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I honestly think a stab could easily be defined by four objective characteristics:
Weight, length, spine and CofG. That last one wouldn't even really be all that important. The others are simple measurements to any archer since they relate to arrows. The first to are already given anyways.

It would be simplicity itself to then develop a "spine chart" where a person would cross reference the stab length with anticipated end weight to ensure they were going to work with a given stiffness. Of course like arrows there would be some personal form factors but it sure wouldn't be the blind stab in the dark we currently experience.

A DFC, mass and perhaps lateral tip deflection value for a limb woyld also be of great assistance for at least conparative purposes.

Grant


----------

