# Aluminum riser vs carbon riser



## dacpac (Sep 26, 2013)

What is the difference in shot feel for an aluminum riser compared to a carbon riser. I was looking at the Inno Max, the Inno Axt and the Mk x10 risers. I see lots of Koreans use aluminum risers rather than carbon risers. Is there a specific reason?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

There is one technical real reason only to use carbon instead of aluminum to make risers: lightness 
Same reason why all top race bycicles are made by carbon since several years. 
Carbon mesh structure allows empty structures that can give extreme lightness in comparison to equivalent alu solutions. 
So, the only real carbon riser existing is the Fiberbow 6.3, that weights around 650 grams only including the wooden grip, the steel clicker plate and the 7075 alu bolts
All other so called carbon risers are moulded using a composite of carbon fibers and other syntetic materials that make them of the same weight or even heavier than corresponding Alu risers. Then the only selling point for them is the supposed better vibration absorbement. Supposed only. 
Composite Alu-carbon structures like original W&W Expert and Expert NX or recently the Smart Riser one may be a bridge between the two worlds, but at the end they make the final solution more expensive in terms of cost.
The reality around W&W, Kaya, SF and other similar "almost carbon" solutions is cost. A moulded riser with any material will ever have an initial investment for the mould that in volumes will be compensated by the much cheaper production cost.
In terms of riser production costs, apart from the mould cost, the scale from cheper to more expensive is as follow:

Simple stratified wood
Moulded fiberglass
Casted magnesium aluminum (SF axiom - Kap T-Rex- Hoyt TD4)
Forged aluminum (W&W Winact, SF forged)
Moulded "almost" carbon (SF Pro Accent, W&W Inno carbon)
Forged + carbon reinforcemnt (W&W NX)
Milled aluminum (MK, Hoyt, Best, Spigarelli, and all the others )
Moulded "empty" carbon structure (Fiberbow)
Milled aluminum + carbon reinforcements (Smart Riser) or Syntetic fiber + wood (Fiberwood)

Of course, my list is from manufacturers cost point of view, ony. Selling points and marketing then makes things looking very different to public...


----------



## rstgyx (Apr 13, 2013)

Vittorio said:


> There is one technical real reason only to use carbon instead of aluminum to make risers: lightness
> Same reason why all top race bycicles are made by carbon since several years.
> Carbon mesh structure allows empty structures that can give extreme lightness in comparison to equivalent alu solutions.
> So, the only real carbon riser existing is the Fiberbow 6.3, that weights around 650 grams only including the wooden grip, the steel clicker plate and the 7075 alu bolts
> ...


/thread


----------



## dacpac (Sep 26, 2013)

So do Koreans use aluminum risers over carbon because of price? I would think that they get their bows for free so it wouldn't matter.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

dacpac said:


> So do Koreans use aluminum risers over carbon because of price? I would think that they get their bows for free so it wouldn't matter.


bow weight preference.....

Most of the Korean men like a heavier riser. You will see most shoot with weights attached to the riser in top stab hole and bottom ( and some with even a back weight). You will see more weights on the stab ends. They dont shoot carbon risers as they tend to be lighter unless made artificially heavy. 

Most Korean women shoot lighter kit. You will notice almost all have minimal weights on the stabs, all have one top stab with weight. Some like Park Sung Hyun even shot a cheap $40 plastic sight to keep weight off the bow. You will see more carbon hybrid risers on the women's side. ( HyeJin Chang, Choi Eun Young etc).

They shoot what they like. Several of the newer shooters shot Win Win and Hoyt ( Ki Bo Bae, HyeJin Chang etc) and some of the older team members shoot Samick (Yun ok Hee, Park Sung Hyun etc). 

Of course i am sure there are a few exceptions......


And Vittorio has it right. his post is the answer. 

Chris


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

feel is about the only reason-- carbon risers simply have a different shot/after shot feel...

there could be an issue with flex between aluminum and carbon- but it's a guess


----------



## dacpac (Sep 26, 2013)

Well the inno max weighs more than the Mk riser and one ounce less than the axt. And talking about weight distribution why do they choose to have a top weight instead of distributing that weight onto the stabs? Wouldn't it be more stable that way?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

difference in feel of the shot. 


weights on the riser seem to make the bow sit better in the hand. Weights on the end of stabs help balance the bow at full draw. two different things. 

all of it is preference.

Chris


----------



## dacpac (Sep 26, 2013)

But putting weights on the stabs will also help have the bow sit better in your hand. Wouldn't it?


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

dacpac said:


> But putting weights on the stabs will also help have the bow sit better in your hand. Wouldn't it?


Depends where you put the weight and how much. Typical front heavy will stabilise out at full draw, while a more neutral balance would achieve the effect you're talking about.

As for the carbon vs aluminium, I liked the sound difference and the dull thump you get from a carbon riser. My CXT is not much lighter than most alu risers out there.


----------



## alaz (Mar 8, 2009)

Considering the different ways to make a riser...forged, carbon/composite, millet, pure carbon...
Is there a best way, or is it personal preference and feel?
Is one material/method inherently better?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

alaz said:


> Considering the different ways to make a riser...forged, carbon/composite, millet, pure carbon...
> Is there a best way, or is it personal preference and feel?
> Is one material/method inherently better?


Considering that FITA Men scores over 1350 have been already shot with risers of all existing technologies (but pure wood and pure plastic), answer is of course NO.

In perspective, I have to think to new solutions to make risers like 3D printers and more advanced materials. For instance, a couple of years ago one person was mentioning to me his project to make a titanium riser by a 3D printer used only in aerospace industry (up to now). 3D printers will allow small scale productions and technical solutions simply impossible by present technologies. But up to now I have only seen grips and small accessories. Time will tell ...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

anmactire said:


> Depends where you put the weight and how much. Typical front heavy will stabilise out at full draw, while a more neutral balance would achieve the effect you're talking about.
> 
> ....


COG of the stabilized bow can't be too much in front of the riser, so the riser itself and the stabilizers have to give a neutral balance in full traction as well as during travel of the arrow before it leaves the string. The bow should not rotate too fast, that means that a very light bow with a very lght long rod only with a weight on top of it only may be steady at full draw, but becomes unstable after release. So, you will definitely need to distribute some weight around in order to compensate the excessive rotation. Additional weight can go on back weights, on side rods, partially distributed over the long rod or in the riser itself. Hevier riser, lighter stabs, and opposite.. result can be the same. But if you design a riser to be balanced by itself as much as possible, like all BB risers should be, then need for additional stabs and distributed weight will be minimized, and Italian design for riser is ever in this direction.
At present I'm involved in the design and development of a very new riser that is going to be introduced second half of this year (hopefully) that will have a fully customizable lower balance sytem to make it suitable for recurve and BB as well, by a simple and very effective solution (don't ask, it is too early to show pictures around... ) and also in the development of a new Fiberbow stab system based on large and thick real 3K carbon tube for those that want the weight of the long rod also partially distributed on its lenght (very effective for compound, but for recurve as well) 
Both designs are going to the same direction... balance and distribution of system weight ... let see what will happen when they will be availbale for market test....


----------



## Green Ring (Aug 13, 2012)

Aluminum thermal conductivity is much higher than carbon composite.

I much prefer shooting a carbon riser in winter as it does not suck all the heat out of my bow hand.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

the main difference in carbon and metal is mass/volume. carbon is "stronger" than metal only in that you can use a larger volume of it, come out ahead in strength, but that doesn't work when volume is a constraint.

the other difference is in vibration transmission and feel. metal is relatively stiff and transmits vibration, carbon can flex and thereby damps it. that may or may not feel better.

I like carbon bows, but considering the cost difference, I am not convinced they are worth it at present. when the price drops to equivalence then I can't see why aluminium will continue to exist.


----------



## alaz (Mar 8, 2009)

caspian said:


> the main difference in carbon and metal is mass/volume. carbon is "stronger" than metal only in that you can use a larger volume of it, come out ahead in strength, but that doesn't work when volume is a constraint.
> 
> the other difference is in vibration transmission and feel. metal is relatively stiff and transmits vibration, carbon can flex and thereby damps it. that may or may not feel better.
> 
> I like carbon bows, but considering the cost difference, I am not convinced they are worth it at present. when the price drops to equivalence then I can't see why aluminium will continue to exist.



The cost between an inno max and some al risers is minimal...in same cases the inno max is less expensive. 

Given that the carbon can "flex," is that a bad quality, insofar as risers go?


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

caspian said:


> the main difference in carbon and metal is mass/volume. carbon is "stronger" than metal only in that you can use a larger volume of it, come out ahead in strength, but that doesn't work when volume is a constraint.
> 
> the other difference is in vibration transmission and feel. metal is relatively stiff and transmits vibration, carbon can flex and thereby damps it. that may or may not feel better.
> 
> I like carbon bows, but considering the cost difference, I am not convinced they are worth it at present. when the price drops to equivalence then I can't see why aluminium will continue to exist.



Stiffness of the carbon has to be comparable to that of most aluminium risers. I would be tempted to test this actually and wouldn't be at all surprised if the aluminium actually flexed measurably more, given that strength and stiffness to weight is a favourable quality of carbon fibre composites. It does damp well. I don't bother with dampers on my rods with my CXT. 
I also got my CXT cheaper than the normal cost around here so I was happy with the cost.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

alaz said:


> The cost between an inno max and some al risers is minimal...in same cases the inno max is less expensive.
> 
> Given that the carbon can "flex," is that a bad quality, insofar as risers go?


some alloy risers are also priced at silly levels considering what their peers go for. I don't count that as a factor.

I don't think a small amount of flex is bad. alloy risers will still flex. the defining factor is repeatability, and I don't think either material has a clear advantage there.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

anmactire said:


> Stiffness of the carbon has to be comparable to that of most aluminium risers.


probably not, actually. the problem with making a recurve riser out of carbon is that the stresses involved don't suit the mechanical strengths of carbon terribly well. you can counter this by using plenty of it, but that removes one of the major advantages of composites - light weight.

I believe it's one of the reasons there isn't a proper carbon target compound yet. it would have to be parallel limbed, and I don't think the target market wants that yet.



> I would be tempted to test this actually and wouldn't be at all surprised if the aluminium actually flexed measurably more, given that strength and stiffness to weight is a favourable quality of carbon fibre composites.


possibly, yes tot he flexing.

as to the stiffness:weight, don't forget that that relies on being able to use as much of the material as required to achieve superiority over metal. while volume is a factor, metal has many advantages.


----------



## jtremolo (Feb 11, 2009)

This is mostly a mental thing but... As an engineer that works with a lot of composites, I was always afraid that I'd look at my CXT wrong and have it delaminate on me. It never did, but it was always playing in my mind since I've seen it happen way to many times to other non-archery products. I've since switched to an aluminum riser, which has helped my mental game because I'm not worrying about it exploding on me 



anmactire said:


> Stiffness of the carbon has to be comparable to that of most aluminium risers. I would be tempted to test this actually and wouldn't be at all surprised if the aluminium actually flexed measurably more, given that strength and stiffness to weight is a favourable quality of carbon fibre composites.


The problem is, risers have a complex geometry and complex loading on them, while carbon fiber is really only strong uni-directionally. This means you end up adding fibers in all different directions to make up for it and you get what we call "Black Aluminum". It ends up with approx. the same strength as aluminum at a slightly lighter weight. Carbon fiber is very weak in shear stresses though so you end up adding material to compensate, and it can't be threaded well, so you add metal inserts for hard-points(which on oly. there are a lot of). In the end you get a riser that weighs approx. the same, has approx. the same strength, but has better vibration damping.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

jtremolo said:


> --------
> ... In the end you get a riser that weighs approx. the same........


Are you sure? May be with composite materilas risers, like W&W an Kaya ones, but surely not with real carbon risers like Fiberbow ones... A Fibebow 6.3 weights approx. 650 gr including accessories, less than 1/2 of an Inno Max... And it has been used for target shooting much over 50# for years with no problems. Personally I don't like very light risers, but for those that want or need one, real carbon riser is the solution.


----------



## TheRohBoat (Sep 4, 2012)

I hate to hijack this thread, but I would tell OP to actually shoot the risers before you buy them. Do not take anyone's opinion or account. I was told that the carbon in my CXT was supposed to take out all kinds of vibration compared to an aluminum riser. However I found this to be hugely untrue. With a stabilizer, the amount of high frequency is way too much, and without a stabilizer the vibration in general is completely unacceptable for the amount of money I paid. But of course by the time my bow arrived and I had shot it, it was too late and I was bound to my purchase. Unless I am crucially missing something here, I would highly recommend AGAINST a carbon riser unless an Inno MAX is a significant improvement over the CXT, which I can't imagine it is. I plan to try to move to Hoyt (or maybe a TR-7 (wishfully hoping for 27" version)) next winter as I read somewhere that their limbs are improving. I've always wanted a TEC bar.

Of course, I am talking only about feel. I do not believe my bow hinders my ability to shoot or anything like that. Many other use CXTs to great success.


----------



## BBgunA (Feb 4, 2014)

Great thhow d, interesting! 
I would compare this to arrows... 
Aluminum shafts are made of different kinds of processes as well a the carbon. Then there are the hybrid. #4 is about standard weight of a riser... Think alot has to be added to keep these speed bows together. Noticed how much rubberized dampening material has been put onto a riser... 
Keep thoughts coming in


----------



## jtremolo (Feb 11, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> Are you sure? May be with composite materilas risers, like W&W an Kaya ones, but surely not with real carbon risers like Fiberbow ones... A Fibebow 6.3 weights approx. 650 gr including accessories, less than 1/2 of an Inno Max... And it has been used for target shooting much over 50# for years with no problems. Personally I don't like very light risers, but for those that want or need one, real carbon riser is the solution.


The reason the fiberbow is lighter is because it takes better advantage of carbon's properties. I wasn't saying it couldn't be done, it just takes extensive design and testing to get it right. I have no doubt fiberbow makes a great riser.


----------



## jtremolo (Feb 11, 2009)

TheRohBoat said:


> I hate to hijack this thread, but I would tell OP to actually shoot the risers before you buy them. Do not take anyone's opinion or account.


Research doesn't hurt but, this is by far the best advice for anyone looking to buy a bow.


----------



## WhiteRider (Jun 2, 2013)

With the release of the Win Win AXT, I would be curious to see someone do a side by side test of the AXT next to and identical set up with a CXT. This to me would seem like the most probable test of Carbon vs Aluminum in terms of Riser material. The AXT is based off of the same design of the CXT with a few minimal visible changes so this would eliminate people trying to argue that the different riser designs cause a difference. This really seems like one of the best side by side comparisons that could be done with Alum and Carbon. Would be curious if anyone has already done this or if someone is looking to do it in the near future.


----------



## alaz (Mar 8, 2009)

WhiteRider said:


> With the release of the Win Win AXT, I would be curious to see someone do a side by side test of the AXT next to and identical set up with a CXT. This to me would seem like the most probable test of Carbon vs Aluminum in terms of Riser material. The AXT is based off of the same design of the CXT with a few minimal visible changes so this would eliminate people trying to argue that the different riser designs cause a difference. This really seems like one of the best side by side comparisons that could be done with Alum and Carbon. Would be curious if anyone has already done this or if someone is looking to do it in the near future.


I would really like to see that as well. What type of tests would be used? For scores? The Korean women who have shot the AXT are doing very well. Would you test something else?


----------



## TheRohBoat (Sep 4, 2012)

I don't think scores will be a good indicator. The koreans will shoot high scores out of any bow. Like I stated, it is probably just the feel that matters to them. The best way to do this is to mount piezoeletric transducers at every point in the riser, then have them output to some sort of data acquisition. Particular attention should be paid to the vibration at the HAND. Win and Win says "never hits your arm!" and has all these videos of "string-follow-through" but all that means diddly squat if there is a lot of shock to the hand. 

Stiffer stabilizers and stiffer bows probably mean that vibrations will last longer with greater amplitude. Stiffness, I think, is overrated.


----------



## arrowyn (Jul 4, 2013)

+1 on Vittorio's first answer

I think material wise, part of it is the feeling (as others have stated already) of the material determines choice. From what I've seen / read / experience, both technically / strength wise, flex, materials handling etc . . . they both fit the job of archery. Carbon has the advantage as if its done right, one can manage the flex / weight / size more than aluminum (which is already set but both can be adjusted via alloy / treatment / technique etc). I prefer aluminum which seems to have this response. Sometimes I can tell if a shot is good just how it feels. Sorry I'm being nebular but sometimes the way the shot feels, and I know its def in the gold or where I was aiming at. Wood has that response, and with alum or wood I can finesse the shot. But wood is more affected environmentally. Carbon, it dampens too much and I can't feel anything with it, so good thing I have lots of aluminum risers to pick from. 

but if you're going to buy a CXT or something expensive, try it out like Rohboat mentioned . . .


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Personally I like the dampening of a well designed carbon riser. After too many years of abusing my body in construction work I feel the shock of aluminum risers transferring through wrist and elbows. Was fortunate enough to pick up a W&W TF Apecs N.O.S. last Fall. The dampening is fantastic to say the least as it took some work playing with stabilizers to get it to roll at all.

Another aluminum riser which I liked created far more elbow and shoulder discomfort after long shooting sessions. Sight screws had to be blue loc tite fastened to riser as they vibrated loose many times. Stabilizers were re-tightened after every end with the aluminum riser as well. A SureLoc sight rattled apart on this riser as well. Perhaps my sensitivity to vibration and shock was my reason to look towards carbon, and fortunately I found the TF Apecs, no loc tite required!


----------

