# Hoyt Arcos...GMX Reborn?



## ahw (Dec 4, 2019)

Looks like a continuation of that line: GMX, Epik, Alero.... etc


----------



## wiatrog (Dec 27, 2014)

Hoyt decided to get into the GMX clone market! [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk


----------



## tylerjkrahn (Aug 25, 2020)

Not a bad looking bow for decent price


----------



## monterey (Feb 16, 2015)

It has some styling of the Avalon. It looks good.


----------



## metalanton (Sep 21, 2016)

So many risers that look the same these days...i really like the looks of the arcos much better than the exceed. And cant imagine they shoot too differently. Of course the exceed has the adjustable plunger and adjustable height ilf plates...which I can definitely live without. I was also noticing how similar the kinetic sovren is to the arcos and it's a 100$ less and 7075 aluminum hmmm.


----------



## tylerjkrahn (Aug 25, 2020)

The sovren framework is a lot more winex than Hoyt. I think the arcos is the best looking Hoyt riser in the last while. Any of them could outshoot me anyway, might as well have one that looks good!


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

It look like an Avalon, The one appeared on "The Simple Art of Winning"








Would Hoyt bring back the Radian too?


----------



## metalanton (Sep 21, 2016)

Tyler can you elaborate on how the framework is more win win on the sovren? Are there major differences in the Hoyt vs win geometry? Say for example on the atf-x Thanks.


----------



## tylerjkrahn (Aug 25, 2020)

Win and win is more grid like. They design a lot of the kinetic bows.


----------



## metalanton (Sep 21, 2016)

Gridlike seems like a good thing to me.


----------



## bruce_m (Jan 23, 2012)

I also think the XACT looks very much like the Horizon Pro.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Compare Arcos with the original Avalon + first, before compare it to any other brand..















and BTW, the original Samick Ultra and the Ultra R now followed this geometry too.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

The MK 1 Avalon that predated this by a few years had a bigger top hole so arguably even closer in looks (sans the bolt on limb pocket). Lower section on the Arcos looks much wider. Big question is where the balance is. Low CoG like the GMX or more central like the Avalon.

I agree, it is hardly innovative but it’s a bit harsh to complain about someone ripping off their own design. Mind you it’s pretty pricey compared to other clones... I am assuming also China made? Hmmm.

Stretch


----------



## j_0_h_0 (Sep 10, 2016)

looks to me that you are spot on


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

UK_Stretch said:


> ...... Low CoG like the GMX or more central like the Avalon....


It is quite identical to the Alero except the grid


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

I mean, the geometry should all be the same no?


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

huckduck said:


> I mean, the geometry should all be the same no?


Arcos is pretty much an Alero with Avalon grids, There was a discussion GMX vs Alero about the geometry: 









Alero vs GMX


Just out-of-the-box comparison quickie. Black is hard for me to photograph with my meager skills. Also, the GMX may look longer in some photos because it has attachments and is raised off the table, closer to the camera. #1...I really like it. #2...I can't wait to shoot it. #3...You will...




www.archerytalk.com




Their geometry were not the same. 

In addition, I was not even convinced that GMXs followed the true TD4+/GM geometry neither.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

"Their geometry were not the same."


You determined this how?


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

They were both touted as being original Earl Hoyt geometry... I'd say that they were mistaken... I'm sure the Alero with the grid pattern felt much stiffer and maybe had a different balance which may make it appear that it's a different geometry... however that is not the case here... I am almost positive it's original Earl Hoyt


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Maybe we need to define "original geometry". Stiffness or grid design doesn't have anything to do it imho. The geometry I think about relates to deflex/reflex. In this regard, I have no reason to doubt Hoyt's claims that the Alero, GMX, Epik, as well as the new Arcos, all adhere to the original Earl Hoyt "classic" geometry.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

The Arcos looks like a slimmer version of the Avalon to me.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Seattlepop said:


> Maybe we need to define "original geometry". Stiffness or grid design doesn't have anything to do it imho. The geometry I think about relates to deflex/reflex. In this regard, I have no reason to doubt Hoyt's claims that the Alero, GMX, Epik, as well as the new Arcos, all adhere to the original Earl Hoyt "classic" geometry.


Geometry usually refer to the pivot point relative position to the 2 limb pocket/bolt position, as well as the limb mounting angle in the limb pocket.
The "original Hoyt geometry" usually refered to the TD4+/GM designed by Earl Hoyt Jr. the last riser design by him as Hoyt product was the Radian, which already a little more reflex from TD4+/GM. and Gillo riser was designed based on the Radian.

Since TD4+/GM was a Magnesium riser, I have a little doubt the mechanical reaction and performance would be the same for Aluminium. even if the same geometry was adapted. while Gillo's approach made more sense to me


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

"...limb mounting angle in the limb pocket. "

Any idea how much has that changed over the years?


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Seattlepop said:


> "...limb mounting angle in the limb pocket. "
> 
> Any idea how much has that changed over the years?


Very often follow the deflex/reflex level of the riser. 

For the same pair of the limb being adjusted to have the same poundage on GMX and GM, the initial insert angle was different, bigger different were observed for for Radian, Avalon, Axis, Aerotec, Matrix, and Nexus. on the other hand Gillo G1 was quite close to Radian.


----------



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

Some facts to help get things back on the rails.

1. Earl had nothing to do with the Radian. Randy Walk designed that bow.

2. There was never any change in pivot point datum to limb angle on any riser design I was involved in between 1991 and 2010. I can’t speak to more recent designs, but every riser I ever consulted on (Radian, Avalon, Axis) or personally designed (Aerotec, Matrix, Helix, Nexus, Eclipse, etc.) between those years had the exact same geometry (adjusted for lengths like 23 and 27 of course). Some pockets allowed for more adjustment travel than the original GM design, which was rather limited, but the fundamental geometry was the same.

3. The original GM served as the geometry basis used by the designer of the GMX.



Seattlepop said:


> Maybe we need to define "original geometry". Stiffness or grid design doesn't have anything to do it imho. The geometry I think about relates to deflex/reflex. In this regard, I have no reason to doubt Hoyt's claims that the Alero, GMX, Epik, as well as the new Arcos, all adhere to the original Earl Hoyt "classic" geometry.


I believe this is correct.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

>--gt--> said:


> Some facts to help get things back on the rails.
> 
> 3. The original GM served as the geometry basis used by the designer of the GMX.


Apart from pivot-pocket-angle etc, Is there any other major geometric charactor make GM distinct from other Hoyt risers and adapted by GMX? It was found weight distribution and stress distribution of between GM and GMX were quite different.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Around year 2000 my friend Giulio Diolaiti, owner of Arco e Frecce store and Best Archery brand in Italy (we established the shop together in 1985 but I left two years after), had a discussion with Gianni Bernardini about exclusivity for the By Bernardini risers (my son shot in Atlanta in 1996 with Bernadini Ghibli riser and Best Archery Carbon limbs made by Border) and said me that he could make a riser by himself better than Ghibli. Giulio was a graduated mechanical designer, and I remember him putting on a table a large piece of paper and one Ghibli and one Radian fully disassembled on it, then checking angles and geometries on both, and designing on the paper the Zenit riser "the hard way", with pencil, eraser, square and compass. Shorter than Ghibli, 15 degrees pockets, center bushing 1 mm offset, center bushing in same vertical position as the Radian, but full wood grip compatible to Avalon and very simple structure design for easy milling. The Zenit is still made today almost exactly as it was in year 2000 when Michele started using it.
In 2014 I designed the G1 as a logical evolution from the Zenit, adding align system and variable weights system for BB use and torsional control, but keeping geometries exactly the same and grip and bolts also fully compatible. And G2 and GQ followed keeping same geometries, with GT now just 5 mm more reflex as the only one change. The rule ever says "if it works, don't fix it" and good designers know it very well.
Just to comment that design in risers are all slight evolutions from previous ones, and the so-called "Earl Hoyt" geometry in my experience has much more to do with the curve of the limbs than with the design of the risers.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

I found several 27 inch riser were not direct geometrically scale up version of their 25 riser. The pivot position were more centered.

Even under the same geometry, Aluminium riser deflects more than Magnesium ones under load. Magnesium is stiffer, 

So when talking about the Hoyt geometry, Is it just the geometry? or Is it the effect of the geometry? the same geometry alone would not getting the same performance under different material and designs.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chang said:


> I found several 27 inch riser were not direct geometrically scale up version of their 25 riser. The pivot position were more centered.
> 
> Even under the same geometry, Aluminium riser deflects more than Magnesium ones under load. Magnesium is stiffer,
> 
> So when talking about the Hoyt geometry, Is it just the geometry? or Is it the effect of the geometry? the same geometry alone would not getting the same performance under different material and designs.


"Original" Geometry as I said, is referred to a full bow, IMHO. to a 24 to 25" riser in a wooden bow called Hoyt Gold Medal. But you can't simply enlarge it in total to 27" riser an longer limbs, or 29" riser and same limbs and so on, as BH will increase dramatically and efficiency will decrease at same time. The geometry of each length of riser has to be studied and designed by itself to squize the best from that riser in conjunction with existing lengths of limbs, which by themselves have to be designed n order to combine their curves with existing risers of any length. We are already in a situation of almost infinite combinations existing, so infinite geometries if you also add different pre-load of limbs to any of them. 
Stiffness of riser has nothing to do or a really minor effect on the working geometry of a full bow.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> Stiffness of riser has nothing to do or a really minor effect on the working geometry of a full bow.


Aluminium riser like Avalon appeared to have a bit more bending and even twisting when compare with GM. In particular the bow window session. Avalon's boundage did not increase as much as like on GM which wringing down the same amount of limb bolt. 

The most significant improvement from the TEC/bridge and Carbon enforcement design were actually the increased stiffness.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chang said:


> Aluminium riser like Avalon appeared to have a bit more bending and even twisting when compare with GM. In particular the bow window session. Avalon's boundage did not increase as much as like on GM which wringing down the same amount of limb bolt.
> 
> The most significant improvement from the TEC/bridge and Carbon enforcement design were actually the increased stiffness.


Bridged risers are for sure stiffer than smipler ones, and 6061/6082 alloys are stiffer than 6063, while 7075 is stiffer than 6061/6082. But mentioning "carbon" does not define any sort of stiffness, becaouse of so many diffent carbon/ composites and inner sructures existing. 
But if we talk about geometry,we talk abou the design and shape of the full curve of a bow, not about how much a specifica design is stiffer than another
.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> Bridged risers are for sure stiffer than smipler ones, and 6061/6082 alloys are stiffer than 6063, while 7075 is stiffer than 6061/6082. But mentioning "carbon" does not define any sort of stiffness, becaouse of so many diffent carbon/ composites and inner sructures existing.
> But if we talk about geometry,we talk abou the design and shape of the full curve of a bow, not about how much a specifica design is stiffer than another
> .


When people talking about a geometry from a stiff riser like GM, I would expect geometry work quit different for softer riser if adapted.. in particular a design claimed to follow "original". 

I believe "re-born" would be more on the feel/reaction/performance etc character of the bow instead of just the look. and I think there is a GMX looked alike design around.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chang said:


> When people talking about a geometry from a stiff riser like GM, I would expect geometry work quit different for softer riser if adapted.. in particular a design claimed to follow "original".
> 
> I believe "re-born" would be more on the feel/reaction/performance etc character of the bow instead of just the look. and I think there is a GMX looked alike design around.


May be we have to find agreement about the definition of geometry.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I'd probably go with the person who has actually designed bow's definition, but that's just me.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> May be we have to find agreement about the definition of geometry.


Agreed, by just look at static geometry alone, there were virtually no difference between Aerotec and Matrix, Helix and Nexus.

and there are visible different here between GMX and Alero though.. if you look at this photo from a old discussion here, where geometriy wise Alero is very close to Arcos.



















and I remember it was mentioned here sometimes ago that Matrix was designed to have the same feel just like the GM.

Is geometry similarity sufficient to prove a new design is the reborn of a previous design?


----------

