# Current and future recurve riser materials and technology: aluminium vs carbon vs ?!



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

A thought bubble I had few days ago:

For last couple of decades quality recurve risers have been predominantly made of forged/CNC aluminium alloys (6000s/7000s). Carbon composite risers have made some inroads in recent years but as yet failed to replace aluminium as the mainstream riser material, as did aluminium for magnesium decades ago. Carbon does have its advantages over aluminium; indeed it is superior in terms of vibration dampening due to its extremely high tensile strength and can be made considerably lighter than aluminium handles (though perhaps due to cost issues most "carbon" risers these days seem to have metal backbone, negating much of advantages in terms of lightness). Many archers (including majority of elite competitors) seem to prefer more of responsive feedback from aluminium risers over "dead" feel of carbon risers, choosing to use stabilisers and dampeners for vibration absorption. I suppose that bit is personal preference but for whatever reason carbon risers haven't won the archers over...yet. I also wonder if the issue of paints on carbon risers eventually chipping or wearing out may be a bit of detractor for many archers; a lot of people would rather spend $700 for one good riser and be done with it for life. Looks do matter in terms of sales and the inevitability of shiny paints being damaged in not-too-distant future is an unwelcome news, even if it doesn't affect performances of the riser. Some carbon risers I understand are also more difficult to work with in terms of adding attachments. Any other major pros and cons of carbon risers as opposed to aluminium risers?

With the clear advantages in terms of vibration dampening but subjective disadvantages about "dead feeling" and paint chipping, I wonder if carbon risers will ever replace aluminium as the vogue or whether we will have to wait into indeterminate future for next new revolution in material sciences for aluminium (and perhaps carbon) to be replaced. Perhaps monolithic carbon (rather than carbon-aluminium composite) will become cheaper as to make lighter carbon risers more affordable. I don't see a good way around paint chip/wear issue as there's no easy way to put semi-permanent colour to carbon fibres, as you can for aluminium by anodisation. Perhaps one way to get around these criticisms of carbon risers is to encase carbon backbone with a thin layer of aluminium or titanium (sort of reversing current process of metal backbone + carbon casing for mainstream carbon risers), allowing for anodisation and some feedback from vibration, though I do not know how practical that would be, stability of composite product or whether such product will have any advantages in terms of weight. I suspect there's a reason this hasn't been tried to date. I wonder what your thoughts are.

If carbon is not the answer, I wonder what the next big things in the riser materials will be. Maybe archers prefer feedback from aluminium risers and they are here to stay for decades to come and carbon risers will stay more of novelty. Perhaps 7000s aluminium will become more economical and replace 6000s over next few years (may help in terms of vibration dampening due to its higher tensile strength). Perhaps graphene may become easier and cheaper to form the backbone for risers in our lifetime. But as I see it the paint wear issue will be more difficult to solve, unless something like strong titanium alloys could be made more cheaply, though its density is heavier than aluminium so the final product may end up heavier. Anyone knowledgeable in material science or in the knows of riser technologies in the pipeline want to chip in?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Titanium.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

It's more sturdy than aluminium and can be anodised. Cost we know is an issue. But also the density is about 50% higher than aluminium, so doubt we can make a titanium riser to be lighter than a similarly shaped aluminium riser; we will be lucky to get it to be similar in weight...


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Hollowed Titanium Frame.


----------



## engtee53 (Jan 8, 2020)

I agree that the only other known material that has not been exploited is titanium. The problem with titanium, when used as the material in golf driver heads, is that it is prone to cracking after being deformed and recovering, because it is being used so thin. It takes thousands of shots, but I have seen a few fatigue and crack. I'm not sure how the material would react if it was designed not to flex.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

The short answer is Titanium.

The long answer is as follows:

The real problem with what your handle is made out of is, it doesn't affect your scores. Unless it adds (or subtracts) too much weight, or has an uncomfortable grip, or things break off or come unscrewed on it, it truly and honestly doesn't affect where the arrow actually goes and what your scores look like. This is true of both compound and recurve and really any bow type.

The other problem is trying to convince shooters that it does affect their scores. Meaning, it's of very high to almost critical importance that there has to be some other reason than just weight and appearance to get a shooter to stop shooting the bow they have and get them to buy a new bow made out of the new material, at sometimes an enormous premium in cost. 

It's perfectly fine to entice a buyer to buy a new bow made of out something else, but the problem is when you try to convince them that they'll shoot better with it because it's made out of the new material over against what they're going to replace it with. 

And that's the dilemma of what your handle is made out of. If you're convinced that it will improve your score, you'll go back and forth to the Rubber Room and the shooting line both, endlessly trying to confirm if the plastic bow is responsible for your performance that day, and the metal one wasn't. Because the next day, there's a 50/50 chance you'll shoot the metal one better, and then suddenly the plastic bow is holding you back. And round and round it goes, torturing the shooter until they go broke, go insane, quit archery or all three. 

If OTOH, you choose the material for a functional reason - has the right weight, has the grip you like, looks great - you stand a much greater chance of staying out of the insane asylum, and on the shooting line working on your shot and having fun. But, you also have a much lower chance of being willing to pay the premium for a handle made of something else, if a) you like the looks, etc. of the one you already have and b) the new bow isn't really any better in those regards.

I won't go into the manufacturer's role on this, although it's easy to see what horn of this dilemma they're choosing to present to their potential customers. But you got to sell bows to stay in business so.... 

So it all depends on why you're getting the new bow and throwing away the old one. Then what the handle is made out of has a different level of importance, accordingly.

lee.


----------



## Mike Lawless (Sep 6, 2017)

theminoritydude said:


> Hollowed Titanium Frame.


Maybe. If you look to other places titanium has been used, such as pro level bicycle frames, golf clubs, tennis rackets, even race car components (this one one I have first hand experience with. The drag car has a few Ti parts) etc, the flirtation with complex shapes has been short. Bicycle frames had cast steering heads, bottom brackets and wheel drop-outs, with tubing welded or bonded to them. Very expensive and not all that much lighter than steel. Most of that stuff is carbon fiber now. It's fairly easy to build a bike frame that is super light, stiff where it needs to be, and compliant where you want it to be. 

The roads all lead to carbon or some similar composite if the lightest weight/strength ratio is desired. 

But based on desired overall weight, simplicity and low cost, it'll be hard to beat aluminum for the foreseeable future. JMO


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

lees said:


> The short answer is Titanium.
> 
> The long answer is as follows:
> 
> ...


All excellent point. I am quite happy with the first riser I got last year and have no plans for getting a new riser for some years, so not much of an ulterior motives there. But did want to know where the technology is likely headed towards.

I have heard of thin titanium "veneer" cracking eventually, that's why I thought wildly about carbon core with aluminium/titanium shell, reverse of how most "carbon" risers are made currently with metal core. Perhaps with different ratios of carbon vs aluminium/titanium (looks like strongest titanium alloy is about twice stronger than 7075 aluminium) such construction will be marginally lighter than mainstream aluminium or carbon riser of 1300gram; and with filled core rather than hollowed chamber it may be durable, less subject to fatigue and cracking. It will also allow for various design variation with anodising. I have no idea about its ability to dampen vibration, whether more akin to aluminium or carbon riser but that's more of a personal choice anyway. Sounds realistic, need to wait for carbon fibres and titanium to become cheaper or ridiculous?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Explored Titanium already, but found it to be still too much expensive for real production products.
Peek is more promising, may be not so far in future ... Advanced polymers are a field still to be explored 
Superstrong laminate wood can be an option...

P.s. 70xx alloy returns too many vibrations in recurve risers, apart fom beiing more expensive than 60xx alloys


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Vittorio said:


> Explored Titanium already, but found it to be still too much expensive for real production products.
> Peek is more promising, may be not so far in future ... Advanced polymers are a field still to be explored
> Superstrong laminate wood can be an option...
> 
> P.s. 70xx alloy returns too many vibrations in recurve risers, apart fom beiing more expensive than 60xx alloys


Signor Frangilli, do you mean 7000s aluminium return more vibrations than 6000s? Interesting as I thought vibration tends to decrease with tensile strength, which 7000s are superior by more than two-fold. Is there any advantage to 7000s over 6000s then?

Advanced polymers and other plastics, if carbon core + aluminium/titanium shell is not feasible, maybe in our lifetime hopefully...


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Titanium is wishful thinking. As an engineer, I can tell you Titanium is a golden ticket to destroying your tool heads really fast. It's hardness index is too high. You have to machine it very slowly and at high spindle speeds, frequently stopping to resharpen cutting edges, or you'll break your tool head. Drives production cost through the roof. Not realistic for mass production. Not surprised nobody makes one yet.


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> Signor Frangilli, do you mean 7000s aluminium return more vibrations than 6000s? Interesting as I thought vibration tends to decrease with tensile strength, which 7000s are superior by more than two-fold. Is there any advantage to 7000s over 6000s then?
> 
> Advanced polymers and other plastics, if carbon core + aluminium/titanium shell is not feasible, maybe in our lifetime hopefully...


Vibration increases with tensile strength because the bow resists flexing more and returns more of the shot energy into your arms. That is the perceived "vibration".

Riser materials are poor remedies for vibration. A stabilizer with a rubber damper does a lot more than a different aluminum grade ever will.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

rjbishop said:


> Vibration increases with tensile strength because the bow resists flexing more and returns more of the shot energy into your arms. That is the perceived "vibration".
> 
> Riser materials are poor remedies for vibration. A stabilizer with a rubber damper does a lot more than a different aluminum grade ever will.


Wait, I thought I read earlier that aluminium has more of vibration than carbon due to lower tensile strength but now you are telling me vibration increases with tensile strength, what am I missing?

I know dampener/stabiliser system is critical for dissipating vibration but thought one of advantages (or disadvantages depending on how you look at it) of carbon was reduced production of vibration. As I understood it, magnesium<6000s aluminium=<commercial titanium<7000s aluminium<high strength titanium<carbon fibre in terms of tensile strength, with reverse order for vibration. Between high strength titanium and 7000s, former is up to 2.5 times more durable in terms of tensile strength but over 50% heavier in terms of density and much more (how much?) expensive. That’s why I mulled about carbon core + aluminium shell idea, with ratios to enable some reduction in weight over the risers currently in market. Would that kind of composite product give any benefit in terms of vibration or long term durability over 6000/7000 aluminium?

I wonder if it will be correct to assume 6000/7000 aluminium risers are here to stay for awhile, largely given prohibitive costs involved in making titanium or monolithic carbon risers of acceptable weight (1300gram or lower). Going into realms of speculations...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> I wonder if it will be correct to assume 6000/7000 aluminium risers are here to stay for awhile, largely given prohibitive costs involved in making titanium or monolithic carbon risers of acceptable weight (1300gram or lower). Going into realms of speculations...


Carbon fiber risers have reached the lowest possible weight in 2006 already, with first Fiberbow riser at less than 600 grams, but diffusion has been very limited, despite Mauro Nespoli winning Team Silver medal with it at Beijing 2008 Olympic Games and Oscar De Pellegrin winning Parlimpic individual Gold at London 2012 Olympic games. 

So cost to make an ultra light riser by carbon is not prohibitive, but simply market for it is very limited, in terms of people acceptance more than pure weight, and this explains better than any technical aspect why we are discussing of a non existing problem. 
The majority of the ARCHERS like an average 25" risers weight around 1300 grams, and so this is the starting design parameter, not the resulting one, so why to look for more expensive solutions than aluminium if final weight must be 1300 grams?


----------



## Lindos (Oct 28, 2019)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> acceptable weight (1300gram or lower)


Acceptable weight for barebow archers seems to be 1300 g or higher. I would love to see more risers in the proximity of 1800 g and I am pretty sure this is a growing market, as the barebow community seems to be the fastest growing sub-community of archers internationally.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Good points by you both, Vittorio and Lindos. I do wonder what’s behind the market preference for heavy risers; while my riser at 1300g is comfortable, I personally wouldn’t want it to be much heavier; left arm has never been strong, a long story. Interesting that fiberbow brand never became popular, a shame. Is it hollowed rather than filled carbon frame? Looks like majority of archers prefer sense of feedback of aluminium (and choice of durable fancy colours doesn’t hurt), guess aluminium will stay...


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> Wait, I thought I read earlier that aluminium has more of vibration than carbon due to lower tensile strength but now you are telling me vibration increases with tensile strength, what am I missing?
> 
> I know dampener/stabiliser system is critical for dissipating vibration but thought one of advantages (or disadvantages depending on how you look at it) of carbon was reduced production of vibration. As I understood it, magnesium<6000s aluminium=<commercial titanium<7000s aluminium<high strength titanium<carbon fibre in terms of tensile strength, with reverse order for vibration. Between high strength titanium and 7000s, former is up to 2.5 times more durable in terms of tensile strength but over 50% heavier in terms of density and much more (how much?) expensive. That’s why I mulled about carbon core + aluminium shell idea, with ratios to enable some reduction in weight over the risers currently in market. Would that kind of composite product give any benefit in terms of vibration or long term durability over 6000/7000 aluminium?
> 
> I wonder if it will be correct to assume 6000/7000 aluminium risers are here to stay for awhile, largely given prohibitive costs involved in making titanium or monolithic carbon risers of acceptable weight (1300gram or lower). Going into realms of speculations...


I probably shouldn't have said vibration. My bad. The latter is still correct. What I mean though is higher tensile strength results in more residual energy being transferred to the archer because of how stiff the riser is, that is the "vibration" they feel. There is a difference however between shock and actual vibration. 

Again though, dont get too wrapped up in the numbers and the theoretical riser science. Just choose the bow you think it prettiest and go do some shooting.


----------



## levgelb (Jul 7, 2014)

I think 3D printing would be the way to go here. But just the powder for SLM printing of Ti-6Al-4V is around $500/kg, so the printing cost would probably be a few thousand dollars, even before finishing and adding bushings and such. (And profit!)


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

All shapes and al weights have been done already with any kind of material and combinations (apart very new ones like Peek /carbon). There are combinations that can sell quantities, other that are for niche products only. 

Risers surely NOT selling well:
- shape with external bridge of any kind, front or back
- heavier than 1.4 kg and lighter than 1.2 kg
- more expensive than 800 US$
- Pink or Yellow color 
- not ILF compatible
- too stiff or too soft

No riser material of any kind in the list, just features ....


----------



## Timevoid (Aug 19, 2018)

I think Win&Win is onto it already. Graphene. But until the market matured carbon will be around for a long time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene








Why graphene hasn’t taken over the world...yet


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

It really depends on which market you’re talking about. For some reasons, W&W CXT still sells very well after more than 11 years, and it’s 1100g+.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

rjbishop said:


> I probably shouldn't have said vibration. My bad. The latter is still correct. What I mean though is higher tensile strength results in more residual energy being transferred to the archer because of how stiff the riser is, that is the "vibration" they feel. There is a difference however between shock and actual vibration.
> 
> Again though, dont get too wrapped up in the numbers and the theoretical riser science. Just choose the bow you think it prettiest and go do some shooting.


I think I am starting to get what you mean. So for clarification, carbon risers will have more of residual energy transfer/vibration compared to aluminium/titanium due to higher tensile strength but due to some other mechanical property tend to absorb it better and less of it is felt in the arm, producing those "dead feel"? If we are looking at the looks, can't get past those anodised aluminium risers! 



Vittorio said:


> All shapes and al weights have been done already with any kind of material and combinations (apart very new ones like Peek /carbon). There are combinations that can sell quantities, other that are for niche products only.
> 
> Risers surely NOT selling well:
> - shape with external bridge of any kind, front or back
> ...


Signor Frangilli, your list of unpopular features for risers make sense. While I wonder why 1.2-1.4kg is most popular (why not lighter for example) there probably is no logical/scientific explanation, just personal preference of vast majority of archers. Just one thing, may I ask what do you mean by too stiff or soft, are you referring to the feel of the shot or something else...?


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

levgelb said:


> I think 3D printing would be the way to go here. But just the powder for SLM printing of Ti-6Al-4V is around $500/kg, so the printing cost would probably be a few thousand dollars, even before finishing and adding bushings and such. (And profit!)


What you just said as well as Bishop's comment about titanium being extremely difficult to work with, destroying tool heads make me think it's not going to be the vogue anytime soon, with strength vs density ratio better than but still comparable to 7075 aluminium...



theminoritydude said:


> It really depends on which market you’re talking about. For some reasons, W&W CXT still sells very well after more than 11 years, and it’s 1100g+.


It sells steadily but CXT and other carbon risers haven't displaced aluminium as the mainstream, I thought. Does it shoot much differently from other carbon risers, say TFT (+/-G) or Radical Pro, with lighter weight and all?

I know it's probably a different kettle of fish but I wonder why not many other than Uukha have come up with monolithic carbon limbs yet, sticking with foam or wood/bamboo core. It can't be the lack of technology, with all the R&D money Hoyt and Win&Win are spending. Did they decide that monolithic carbon is not better, just different from wood or foam core and not consistent with their long-term visions?


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> What you just said as well as Bishop's comment about titanium being extremely difficult to work with, destroying tool heads make me think it's not going to be the vogue anytime soon, with strength vs density ratio better than but still comparable to 7075 aluminium...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Facilities and cost. That's mostly what it boils down to.

I've been to the Hoyt factory in Salt Lake City numerous times to pick their brains on bow manufacturing. I asked these same questions and was told that one does not simply just make carbon bows. Do to OSHA and other federal regulations, carbon fiber product manufacturing has to have its own dedicated facility, containment system, and machinery. Carbon fiber dust and the resins involved in its manufacturing are extremely hazardous to humans, and accidentally mixing carbon fiber into recycled aluminum billet shavings would render the stock useless, its a PITA to deal with carbon fiber and it takes a lot of time and money to do so, so for this reason, Hoyt does not make carbon bows. The limbs are easier because they use pre-fab carbon fiber plies Hoyt purchased elsewhere. I would assume the same applies to many other bow companies. Its too expensive to expand into carbon risers because you would need an entire separate factory to contain it.

Uukha and Win&Win are able to do it because they have other facilities they share with other companies already manufacturing carbon products. Win&Win makes their carbon risers in the Wiawis Bicycle factory and Uukha makes their bows in a facility they share with a Formula 1 car parts factory if I remember right.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

rjbishop said:


> Facilities and cost. That's mostly what it boils down to.
> 
> I've been to the Hoyt factory in Salt Lake City numerous times to pick their brains on bow manufacturing. I asked these same questions and was told that one does not simply just make carbon bows. Do to OSHA and other federal regulations, carbon fiber product manufacturing has to have its own dedicated facility, containment system, and machinery. Carbon fiber dust and the resins involved in its manufacturing are extremely hazardous to humans, and accidentally mixing carbon fiber into recycled aluminum billet shavings would render the stock useless, its a PITA to deal with carbon fiber and it takes a lot of time and money to do so, so for this reason, Hoyt does not make carbon bows. The limbs are easier because they use pre-fab carbon fiber plies Hoyt purchased elsewhere. I would assume the same applies to many other bow companies. Its too expensive to expand into carbon risers because you would need an entire separate factory to contain it.
> 
> Uukha and Win&Win are able to do it because they have other facilities they share with other companies already manufacturing carbon products. Win&Win makes their carbon risers in the Wiawis Bicycle factory and Uukha makes their bows in a facility they share with a Formula 1 car parts factory if I remember right.


Maybe part of the the reason W&W make their risers in China while making many of limbs in Korea, i.e. more stringent OHS and environmental regulations in Korea that make carbon riser production. Difficult? I always wondered about why they produce risers offshore.


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> Maybe part of the the reason W&W make their risers in China while making many of limbs in Korea, i.e. more stringent OHS and environmental regulations in Korea that make carbon riser production. Difficult? I always wondered about why they produce risers offshore.


All trade and labor costs. China can make it cheaper, they're production mecca for the world, that's why most every day items are made there. The W&W rep in Vegas this year told me the limbs are made in Korea because they're easier to make and can be done in house.


----------



## Lindos (Oct 28, 2019)

rjbishop said:


> Facilities and cost. That's mostly what it boils down to.
> 
> I've been to the Hoyt factory in Salt Lake City numerous times to pick their brains on bow manufacturing. I asked these same questions and was told that one does not simply just make carbon bows. Do to OSHA and other federal regulations, carbon fiber product manufacturing has to have its own dedicated facility, containment system, and machinery. Carbon fiber dust and the resins involved in its manufacturing are extremely hazardous to humans, and accidentally mixing carbon fiber into recycled aluminum billet shavings would render the stock useless, its a PITA to deal with carbon fiber and it takes a lot of time and money to do so, so for this reason, Hoyt does not make carbon bows. The limbs are easier because they use pre-fab carbon fiber plies Hoyt purchased elsewhere. I would assume the same applies to many other bow companies. Its too expensive to expand into carbon risers because you would need an entire separate factory to contain it.
> 
> Uukha and Win&Win are able to do it because they have other facilities they share with other companies already manufacturing carbon products. Win&Win makes their carbon risers in the Wiawis Bicycle factory and Uukha makes their bows in a facility they share with a Formula 1 car parts factory if I remember right.


Thank you very much for all this info. This is very, very interesting.


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

Vittorio said:


> Carbon fiber risers have reached the lowest possible weight in 2006 already, with first Fiberbow riser at less than 600 grams, but diffusion has been very limited, despite Mauro Nespoli winning Team Silver medal with it at Beijing 2008 Olympic Games and Oscar De Pellegrin winning Parlimpic individual Gold at London 2012 Olympic games.
> 
> The majority of the ARCHERS like an average 25" risers weight around 1300 grams, and so this is the starting design parameter, not the resulting one, so why to look for more expensive solutions than aluminium if final weight must be 1300 grams?


No to derail too far here...has there ever been a study of what the 'ideal weight' of a riser is for Olympic recurve or have we just done this study via watching the market trends based on what sells or doesn't? W&W's carbon risers fit into the 1300g bracket so I believe that they don't really fit into this pure mass comparison and Fiberbow is about the only manufacturer I know of to have produced a true lightweight riser. Is the 1300g mass just because this is the mass that we're all used to historically based on the materials available at the time or some other reason?

I'm just curious as my own personal preference would be to have a lightweight riser and limbs with mass on my stabilizers if needed...similar to reducing rolling mass in car/bike racing.


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

Lindos said:


> Thank you very much for all this info. This is very, very interesting.


The hazards in working with CF are very similar to asbestos and silica so hepa filters, negative pressure air extraction/filtration, etc. are required by OHSA...and then we cut our CF arrows in our basements or garages with maybe an N95 dust mark or safety glasses on  - an oh&s practitioner's nightmare!


----------



## Timevoid (Aug 19, 2018)

Maggiemaebe said:


> No to derail too far here...has there ever been a study of what the 'ideal weight' of a riser is for Olympic recurve or have we just done this study via watching the market trends based on what sells or doesn't? W&W's carbon risers fit into the 1300g bracket so I believe that they don't really fit into this pure mass comparison and Fiberbow is about the only manufacturer I know of to have produced a true lightweight riser. Is the 1300g mass just because this is the mass that we're all used to historically based on the materials available at the time or some other reason?
> 
> I'm just curious as my own personal preference would be to have a lightweight riser and limbs with mass on my stabilizers if needed...similar to reducing rolling mass in car/bike racing.


Yes this is really annoying me. At least i pick carbon because i want it light weight and less vibration. Instead both Win&Win and Uukha puts in ballast into their risers to make them fit into 1100-1300 average weight of metal risers.
I rather add weight to the end of the stabs then have a heavy riser.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Maggiemaebe said:


> No to derail too far here...has there ever been a study of what the 'ideal weight' of a riser is for Olympic recurve or have we just done this study via watching the market trends based on what sells or doesn't? W&W's carbon risers fit into the 1300g bracket so I believe that they don't really fit into this pure mass comparison and Fiberbow is about the only manufacturer I know of to have produced a true lightweight riser. Is the 1300g mass just because this is the mass that we're all used to historically based on the materials available at the time or some other reason?
> 
> I'm just curious as my own personal preference would be to have a lightweight riser and limbs with mass on my stabilizers if needed...similar to reducing rolling mass in car/bike racing.


Signor Vittorio Frangilli mentioned earlier in the thread that any riser outside the weight range of 1200-1400gram is not popular in the market, and I wonder why too, I personally wouldn't mind trying how lighter riser plays. Looks like titanium is a wishful thought in this regard, so looking at carbon into foreseeable future, and neither Uukha or Win&Win (the two big producers of carbon risers in the market) seem interested in light options <1100gram. Maybe because market is still predominantly on aluminium (many do not like those dead feeling and paint chips of carbon after all) and carbon is barely out of niche thing so not practical to divert resource to enable standard and light carbon riser production? I do wonder what is it about mechanical property of carbon that enable vibration dampening (possibly too much) despite extreme tensile strength.



Maggiemaebe said:


> The hazards in working with CF are very similar to asbestos and silica so hepa filters, negative pressure air extraction/filtration, etc. are required by OHSA...and then we cut our CF arrows in our basements or garages with maybe an N95 dust mark or safety glasses on  - an oh&s practitioner's nightmare!


:mg: Horror at the common practice of arrow cutting without much of PPE that I know of; but then having lived in a hospital residence with asbestos container on the roof for two years, probably an extra drop in the bucket. Guess shouldn't be cutting my own shafts and take up the arrow cutting services...but then doubt those guys have kosher PPE for this task


----------



## OrancoAaron (Mar 19, 2020)

win and win is highly invested into graphene as of right now, as we saw in the tft-g and the ns-graphenes.


----------



## BreizhPunisher (Sep 15, 2019)

It is just my personal opinion, But I believe the ligt weight carbon bow by fiberbow didn't work really well because it was not coming from one of the big historic makers (aka. Hoyt or Win&Win)
We use to see that to enter succesfully in the market, for a new brand, they need to convince/sponsor pro and hope they will get visibility by winning big events.
But the case of Mauro Nespoli, despite his victories, show the opposite. Maybe if they managed to have another few shooters in their crew or if Nespoli have continued longer before switching to Fivics.

So if we want to have lightweight riser, since Hoyt will not enter anytime soon in the carbon market, only Win&Win can be a big enough trendsetter to start something.
They already tried, I believe successfuly given the niche market, with the Inno CXT ligth (1043g) but was marketed mainly for women (especially for the color panel).
They will need of course to convince their pro-staff to onboard with it.

The scenario works if of course, ligthweight riser doesn't affect, or affect positively (thanks to more confort), the shooting performance.
But I always hear that weight further away from the riser is often the best option for stability. And Nespoli results tends to prove they can be at least as performing than traditionnal one.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Riddle me this: Which bow is more resistant to being pushed around in the wind? Using a 25" CXT as an example, is it more stable if you add 2 oz of weight below the grip as provided for which gives you a riser weight of approx 1288g or is better to leave it at 1232g and add the 2 oz to the long stabilzer? Short rods? My unsophisticated WAG suggests adding it below the grip which is what I did.


----------



## BreizhPunisher (Sep 15, 2019)

@Sealtlepop

Good remark, I didn't think about the stability versus heavy wind.
I guess we should talk about inertia. A litgher riser may move further vs an heavier one, but will be quicker to come back to intial point after a gust of wind while the heavier one will be slower and require more energy.
When you have 20s to shoot your arrow this info can be critical.
Maybe the current 1300 average is the best balance between both world ?

Any people with experience with super ligth riser in heavy wind ?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Riddle me this: Which bow is more resistant to being pushed around in the wind? Using a 25" CXT as an example, is it more stable if you add 2 oz of weight below the grip as provided for which gives you a riser weight of approx 1288g or is better to leave it at 1232g and add the 2 oz to the long stabilzer? Short rods? My unsophisticated WAG suggests adding it below the grip which is what I did.


And here we go to the full understanding of stabilizers.... 
With a very light riser, you will need in any case more weight on top of all rods to get same "stability" at full draw, that is only related to static mass at that moment. But more weight on stabilizer means the need to have also much better (stiffer) stbilizers, to avoid unpleasent effects and, in the worst case, the riser moving too much while arrow is still on the string. Stabilizing a very light bow for significant poundages is definitely NOT easy and requires expensive rods. 
You will end up using a very light riser if you have problems in rising an heavy one, only, or you are using very light poundages, otherwise you will soon get back to a standard (1.2 to 1.4 kg) weight riser, as easier to tune and stabilize for average needs. 

My daughter has been forced to use Fiberbow 5.3 during 2013 World championshiops as her left elbow was not able to keep up with the weight of her usual bow "after release" (pain) . She has been able to shoot in the wind in Beleck at her usual level, but as soon as her elbow recovered, she got back to usul setup. Today she is not trainng at all, but whe she shoots, her riser is a standard GT 25 with 6 disk weight on bottom and quite a lot of weights on GS8 stabs with 5" extender, despite<34# on her 25 3/4 arrows. She says that with less weights she can't control the bow properly as.... of no training.

Carla in Belek in 2013


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Seattlepop said:


> Riddle me this: Which bow is more resistant to being pushed around in the wind? Using a 25" CXT as an example, is it more stable if you add 2 oz of weight below the grip as provided for which gives you a riser weight of approx 1288g or is better to leave it at 1232g and add the 2 oz to the long stabilzer? Short rods? My unsophisticated WAG suggests adding it below the grip which is what I did.


When I was shooting with my CXT riser, I ended up doing the same thing, but I don't think it had anything to do with wind. It seemed that if I had no weight on the riser, that I had less control of my shot. More left/right misses on the target. Put a few oz's on the riser, and the shot became more consistent. I attributed it to leverage being off because the riser was too light.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

OrancoAaron said:


> win and win is highly invested into graphene as of right now, as we saw in the tft-g and the ns-graphenes.


Yeah but it's cutting edge stuff, really expensive. I might take decades for it to be economical enough to form backbone of the riser rather than small additions to carbon as done now. What is its advantage over carbon in terms of material science apart from tensile strength, still have tendencies for crack and chip?



BreizhPunisher said:


> It is just my personal opinion, But I believe the ligt weight carbon bow by fiberbow didn't work really well because it was not coming from one of the big historic makers (aka. Hoyt or Win&Win)
> We use to see that to enter succesfully in the market, for a new brand, they need to convince/sponsor pro and hope they will get visibility by winning big events.
> But the case of Mauro Nespoli, despite his victories, show the opposite. Maybe if they managed to have another few shooters in their crew or if Nespoli have continued longer before switching to Fivics.
> 
> ...


I think you have valid points in terms of CXT normal and light versions. I think lighter weight might make some people (like me) wield the riser with more ease, relying on weights on stabilisers rather than riser mass for stability. Given its steady sales it looks like it is at least competitive against heavier risers, aluminium but carbon. But given how it didn't revolutionise the equipment market perhaps it didn't suit everyone. Wonder if W&W will continue with light(er) carbon riser R&D or is the market too small for it to be worth its time.

I suppose the general view is that aluminium and carbon are both here to stay, with carbon not dethroning aluminium as the mainstream anytime soon (especially with Hoyt not planning on carbon risers in foreseeable future) and while other new materials such as titanium (for those who want anodised finish and/or lively feel), resin or graphene (for dampening of vibration) may eventually become viable it is quite a long way off. Should I patent carbon backbone/aluminium shell riser design in the meantime?


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Vittorio said:


> And here we go to the full understanding of stabilizers....
> With a very light riser, you will need in any case more weight on top of all rods to get same "stability" at full draw, that is only related to static mass at that moment. But more weight on stabilizer means the need to have also much better (stiffer) stbilizers, to avoid unpleasent effects and, in the worst case, the riser moving too much while arrow is still on the string. Stabilizing a very light bow for significant poundages is definitely NOT easy and requires expensive rods.
> You will end up using a very light riser if you have problems in rising an heavy one, only, or you are using very light poundages, otherwise you will soon get back to a standard (1.2 to 1.4 kg) weight riser, as easier to tune and stabilize for average needs.
> 
> ...


I think you answered my earlier question as to rationale for 1200-1400gram preference for risers in majority of cases, thank you. Given the conversation went on to that of stabilisers, when you mean by expensive/stiff stabilisers to tolerate more weight, do you mean top-of-range Doinker or Beestinger, rather than more economical choices like AAE, Easton or W&W ACS/HMC? I also find it interesting that your daughter is using 5 inch extender despite her short arrow length. I think I read your statement somewhere that extender should be 5 inches or longer. The rationale for that escapes me right now, but may I ask how long her long and side rods come to? I would have thought that 28-30 inch long rod could be somewhat unwieldy given her draw length and height by inference.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> Signor Frangilli, do you mean 7000s aluminium return more vibrations than 6000s? Interesting as I thought vibration tends to decrease with tensile strength, which 7000s are superior by more than two-fold. Is there any advantage to 7000s over 6000s then?
> 
> Advanced polymers and other plastics, if carbon core + aluminium/titanium shell is not feasible, maybe in our lifetime hopefully...


7000 series aluminium vibrates "PINGS" like a tuning fork, hit really HARD every time you fire an arrow.. Natural frequency is SUPER high. You would not like a 7000 series recurve riser.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> I think I am starting to get what you mean. So for clarification, carbon risers will have more of residual energy transfer/vibration compared to aluminium/titanium due to higher tensile strength but due to some other mechanical property tend to absorb it better and less of it is felt in the arm, producing those "dead feel"? If we are looking at the looks, can't get past those anodised aluminium risers!
> 
> 
> 
> Signor Frangilli, your list of unpopular features for risers make sense. While I wonder why 1.2-1.4kg is most popular (why not lighter for example) there probably is no logical/scientific explanation, just personal preference of vast majority of archers. Just one thing, may I ask what do you mean by too stiff or soft, are you referring to the feel of the shot or something else...?


Carbon risers, if left hollow would transmit felt vibration to your bow hand. This is why the hollow carbon fiber frame, must be filled with vibration absorption material.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

nuts&bolts said:


> 7000 series aluminium vibrates "PINGS" like a tuning fork, hit really HARD every time you fire an arrow.. Natural frequency is SUPER high. You would not like a 7000 series recurve riser.


Sad face as I was considering a riser from MK when I reach my eventual peak draw weight in years’ time to last the rest of the career...


----------

