# Converting a Formula riser to ILF...



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm envisioning something that replaces the limb bolt with conventional bolt that goes through a pocket that accepts the ILF limb fork. I may have to work on this one...


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Is this what you're talking about? http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1125301


----------



## st8arrow (Apr 25, 2005)

I always liked that concept.....too bad it never came about.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

It's the limbs that makes the Formula system work. Not the riser.


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

kshet26 said:


> Is this what you're talking about? http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1125301


Don't know about that device, seems it can loosen after a while and also creep to either side. Has it been tested long term?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I do recall that when it was first posted here. I wasn't a real fan of that design though. Looked overly complicated (and expensive) to me. Surely there's is a stainless steel solution that would be very simple and inexpensive. I could be completely wrong, but I have one in mind that seems like it should work.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

On a formula, is the limb bolt or the pocket(fulcrum) closer to ilf standard position?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The formula dovetail is in the same position, but the fork has been extended, placing the limb bolts closer to the grip. This resulted in a shorter sight window, which is why you see so many 27" risers now. 25" ILF risers are fine for most folks, but 25" formula risers have a sight window equivalent to most 23" ILF risers, which isn't enough for some folks who shoot from 18 meters to 70 meters.

What I'm imagining is a device the essentially extends the fork of the ILF limb, but stays mounted to the riser under the limb bolt.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

ok. I'm confused now. Wouldn't this make the formula system/design obsolete? Why not just shoot ILF?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Because some of those formula risers are very nice and have great shooting qualities. Just hate that they lock people into those formula limbs. Too limiting and too expensive compared to ILF. I have a hard time recommending a formula bow to a JOAD family for this reason, and I've seen the frustration by some who have formula bows when they need to get new limbs. 

I can think of quite a few folks who've ditched their formula bows for ILF rigs, but not many, if any, who've ditched their ILF rigs to go to the formula bows.

It's just a shame that the excellent design and quality of those formula risers is not available to those who prefer the availability, affordability and selection of ILF limbs.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

I think we should be pushing for more adaptations from ILF to Formula, so that eventually Formula becomes the standard.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

And there are plenty of ILF risers with excellent shooting qualities as well. I've always figured the reason people go with Formula is that it's the "new shiny" and they shoot so well because the Hoyt is pouring all of their R/D (for recurve) into that system and just retro-fitting the limbs to be ILF compatible. I think I'm not explaining my thoughts very well, but I am trying to understand why putting ILF limbs on a formula riser is a more preferable solution to just getting a nice ILF riser in the first place.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> I think we should be pushing for more adaptations from ILF to Formula, so that eventually Formula becomes the standard.


That won't happen until the Formula format becomes more affordable and available.



Last_Bastion said:


> And there are plenty of ILF risers with excellent shooting qualities as well. I've always figured the reason people go with Formula is that it's the "new shiny" and they shoot so well because the Hoyt is pouring all of their R/D (for recurve) into that system and just retro-fitting the limbs to be ILF compatible. I think I'm not explaining my thoughts very well, but I am trying to understand why putting ILF limbs on a formula riser is a more preferable solution to just getting a nice ILF riser in the first place.


I think what John is trying to do is address a needs that's he's noticed in archers that have, or would like, to go down the formula route only to be twarted by the cost and lack of availability of formula limbs. As he mentioned, the formula risers are fine pieces of equipment, but it's difficult to support a JOAD archer that has his or her heart set on going that route.

Yes, there are plenty of great ILF risers out there, but there are a lot of land mines out there that can knock a JOAD archer out of the sport as they get older. Sometimes it's helpful in the long run to find ways to remove roadblocks rather than sending them down another path only to have them seeing the road they wanted to be on and become discouraged.

The other plus is John is showing these kids how to overcome roadblocks rather than just giving in and going another direction.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

The only reason I shoot a Formula riser is so that I can shoot Formula limbs. If more manufacturers started introducing the dual compatibility system on the MK Alpha, we would be able to close this gap and shooters would be able to shoot either limb system.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

Mulcade said:


> That won't happen until the Formula format becomes more affordable and available.


But if more companies started moving toward Formula (or offering adapters, like uukha does) then the prices would, necessarily, come down.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

The Formula format is starting to become more accessible, with MK Korea manufacturing Formula compatible limbs.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

Also, Hoyt is starting to lower prices on their risers. I think it's only a matter of time before they lower prices on their limbs.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> Also, Hoyt is starting to lower prices on their risers. I think it's only a matter of time before they lower prices on their limbs.


They need to. Their prices have been way out of line - esp. for their limbs - for some time now.

Pushing the market toward the formula geometry doesn't make much sense. The ILF design wasn't broken. Not sure why it needed to be fixed, esp. when the formula design hasn't proven to be makedly better. Put the same archers behind either design, and they will shoot the same scores.

But my point here is not about the which design is better. My point is that Hoyt has always made some of the best, if not the best, risers in the world. Their design, fit, finish and features are always second to none. It's a pity they are trying to force families who already are hemmhoraging cash on registration, coaching and travel, to spend more on limbs that are no better than their ILF counterparts and in many cases, worse. 

The difference in riser quality is still not enough IMO to make up for the difference in limbs.


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

You could say that the limb configurations prior to the creation of ILF limbs wasn't broken either. I disagree with your statement that Hoyt makes lower quality limbs than other ILF manufacturers. We're seeing top shooters move to the non-Hoyt formula limbs, which may be an indication that the Formula system is the right path, but Hoyt isn't the right manufacturer to be relying on for limbs.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Last_Bastion said:


> But if more companies started moving toward Formula (or offering adapters, like uukha does) then the prices would, necessarily, come down.


You have a chicken and egg scenario here. You have a LOT of limb makers who make ILF limbs that are doing good business. There are still only a handful of makers that have gotten into the formula market. The makers who aren't there yet are probably waiting until the market is such that they would make a profit on developing a formula line.

Personally, I see the formula line to gain in market share, but I don't see it replacing ILF anytime soon. There are just too many ILF pieces out there so it's going to take a LONG time to phase them out. :grin:


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

Of course it will take time, and it may never phase out ILF bows. However, if the major limb manufacturers started making Formula limbs, I think they would have a fairly sustainable market, and they would force Hoyt to both lower prices and increase quality.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Yep, it's the limbs. The Formula riser was mostly created to accommodate the limbs. I thought that was rather obvious.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> You could say that the limb configurations prior to the creation of ILF limbs wasn't broken either. I disagree with your statement that Hoyt makes lower quality limbs than other ILF manufacturers. We're seeing top shooters move to the non-Hoyt formula limbs, which may be an indication that the Formula system is the right path, but Hoyt isn't the right manufacturer to be relying on for limbs.


Your example contradicts your statement.

If you're a loyal Hoyt fan, that's fine. I'm a loyal SKY fan and I admit my bias for their products. 

But as the coach of many dozens of JOAD and AA archers, not to mention the assistance I've been asked to provide for literally 100's of archers on this and other forums, I can tell you that for what you get, Hoyt's limbs are overpriced. Combine that with the limited selection for the formula line, and that's a double whammy on families who are already paying more than they want to for equipment. For those who can easily afford the high end formula limbs, fine. But their entry level and intermediate stuff is easily eclipsed by brands like W&W, SF and Samick. 

Looking at the most recent World Cup event, it appears the ILF system is not dead or even going anywhere anytime soon. I think the data would show you can shoot the same scores with either system.

But again, I did NOT start this thread to compare formula vs. ILF so if that's what you want start your own thread.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> Of course it will take time, and it may never phase out ILF bows. However, if the major limb manufacturers started making Formula limbs, I think they would have a fairly sustainable market, and they would force Hoyt to both lower prices and increase quality.


It's completely irrational to think that W&W or Samick are going to start manufacturing "formula" risers, so this simply won't happen. Their archers are winning just fine with "old fashioned" ILF gear.



> You could say that the limb configurations prior to the creation of ILF limbs wasn't broken either.


Limb configurations, no, but the attachment system took a big leap forward when we went from the TD-3 to the TD-4. I believe if Earl had seen any advantage to lengthening the limb fork, he would have done it then.

To me (and I'm not an engineer) the big advantage of the formula riser is not the lengthened limb fork, but the "bridged" support for the dovetail fitting. Look at all the risers that are very dampened and quiet, and they all have a similar feature. The original Mathews TR-7 that Rod, Vic and Brady shot had a similar geometry of mass behind the limb pocket and a relatively thin section through the middle of the riser. Lay a Formula riser on top of a TR-7 and you'll see more similarities than differences.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> I think we should be pushing for more adaptations from ILF to Formula, so that eventually Formula becomes the standard.


that will never happen. It has no advantage over ILF, other than to force people to use Hoyt limbs with their risers. Formula just over comes a problem with torsional stability with newer generation Hoyt limbs. 

The other major manufacturers of ILF limbs dont have that problem. Plus you add the fact that the range of poundage is less for a Formula limb, and you get a system that is not as good as the ILF system. 

MK just made the riser so they had the entire limb market, not because they thought it was better. You notice the riser is not purely formula. If they thought formula was the way to go, they would have made a purely formula riser. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So I wonder how many other manufactures will follow MK's lead? 

I just wish Hoyt would come out with an ILF riser that mimics the RX but for ILF limbs. Of course, by doing that they would be "admitting" their formula design isn't better, so I doubt we'll ever see that.

They have kinda painted themselves in a corner, and by doing so, opened up a HUGE hole in the beginner and intermediate level market at a time of tremendous growth. SF has really taken advantage of that, and we're seeing other companies fill that void with ILF offerings of their own.

By offering such a limited ILF selection, I think Hoyt really stunted their sales. But I'm not sure that wasn't their intent all along - choosing to just offer "high end" Olympic bows and avoid competing with the entry and intermediate level offerings from China and Korea.

I could see the logic in that too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There just has to be a simple solution to converting a formula riser to ILF compatibility. Like an elongated stainless steel "sleeve" that fits over the limb fork and is secured down by a limb bolt. I'm not sure why that wouldn't work.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I just wish Hoyt would come out with an ILF riser that mimics the RX but for ILF limbs. Of course, by doing that they would be "admitting" their formula design isn't better, so I doubt we'll ever see that.


How does the RX differ from the Grand Prix GMX?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The RX has significantly different geometry at the limb pockets and the weight distribution is not the same. The GPX without the tec bar would be a fairer comparison, but still the limb pockets are not the same as the formula design.


----------



## archeryal (Apr 16, 2005)

SF now offers Formula limbs in their Velocity line. You can see a number of shooter in the World Cup using MK limbs on Formula risers. 

I'm not sold on the engineering advantage(s) of the Formula system. The "paralever" speed advantage sounds like smoke and mirrors. A slightly finer system for adjusting limbs (side to side) is not a compelling reason to switch.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> SF now offers Formula limbs in their Velocity line.


Interesting.

Well, Hoyt wins again. They probably knew that other manufacturers would eventually start making limbs to fit their risers, and they would sell more risers because of it. But then, doesn't that put them right back where they were 5 years ago when so many folks were using Hoyt risers with other manufacturer's limbs on them?

I don't really care one way or the other, but if more manufacturers start making limbs for formula risers, as a program leader, I will start to recommend the formula risers more often. I can't in good conscience now because the cost:benefit ratio just isn't there vs ILF.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

This has been on the back burner for awhile. maybe its time that I get some protypes made up for testing???


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2129338&p=1069115320#post1069115320


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, I'm thinking more of an adapter that would bolt onto the riser, and stay there, allowing you to use the ILF limb as if it were a true ILF riser. Just a extension for the fork to fit into, held in place by the bolt.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

in olympic recurve individual podium finish at Shanghai World Cup both men and women, 

NO formula bow, all ILF and no Hoyt limbs. Win Win and Mk limbs, 

Only Aida in the mixed team shot with a formula and hoyt limbs and got on the podium. 

Several archers finished close, but not on the podium shooting Quattro limbs or formula riser. 

I didnt see what all the team archers shot that made the podium. 


Chris


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

Chris, I yield to your knowledge of MK Korea's intentions. However, you should not seek to draw an inference from one set of tournament results. I could say that the entire men's podium at the World Cup Final were Formula shooters. I could also remind you that the Men's Olympic Gold Medalist won that title with a Formula bow.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Kendric_Hubbard said:


> Chris, I yield to your knowledge of MK Korea's intentions. However, you should not seek to draw an inference from one set of tournament results. I could say that the entire men's podium at the World Cup Final were Formula shooters. I could also remind you that the Men's Olympic Gold Medalist won that title with a Formula bow.


yes, he won with it because he was paid to shoot it. Had Hoyt not paid him, he would not have shot that bow. And a number of archers shot formula when it came out. Then changed. I have seen the used market on AT flooded with formula risers and limbs, and the price is still dropping on them. 

Formula is not that old yet, but i say to you .....Where are the F3's ? where are the F4's? Where are the F7's? Where are they at the world cup level? Why did Hoyt discontinue them? Why does Hoyt now have 5 different Formula risers? 

You seem to think Formula is the latest greatest, but i would have to disagree. I see more G3 limbs being shot than any of the F series aside from the Quattro. 

even in Asia, you will more than likely see someone shooting a GMX, than any other Hoyt riser. On the Korean team, the only two archers who shoot formula are the two that Hoyt pays. Im and Oh. 

And they shoot MK, Winwin and ILF when shooting local tournaments in Korea. 


Chris


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

All of your top shooters shoot what they shoot because they're paid to shoot by that company.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

moat but not all. 

Any Hoyt GMX risers you see with Korean ladies, they do not get paid. Win win pays them for shooting the risers/ limbs. In Asia you see a lot of Win Win as they are a major sponsor. Mk Korea pays nothing to shoot their gear. Nothing. So if you see any archer shooting Veracity limbs or Mk riser, they are shooting it because they want to. Same with the GMX riser. They choose to shoot that over the money. You use to see more Fivics and Samick sponsored gear, but there have been a few scandals and now its less. 

Sometimes they shoot a setup they love for local tournaments, and shoot the paid bow kit for international shoots. 

But i do not see any archers there shooting Formula that are not paid to shoot it. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Kendrick, give it a rest. If you want a formula vs. ILF thread, start your own.

This is about converting the formula riser limb bolts so they can accept a standard ILF limb - which many archers might find very useful. Esp. those who already have formula risers that they like very much (for good reason) but are not happy with their choices or availability.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

sorry to have derailed the thread. I should know better. 



Chris


----------



## Kendric_Hubbard (Feb 5, 2015)

Alright, to put my two cents in on your intended topic, it would be extremely hard to adapt the riser to make it work with ILF limbs. I think you would have better luck designing adapters for ILF limbs to make them work with the riser design.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> it would be extremely hard to adapt the riser to make it work with ILF limbs.


I just don't see it this way. Maybe what I have in my mind won't work at all. But I think maybe it will. Now to find someone who will build it...


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

I think the hardest part would be to build a single device for the several types of formula risers. Keeping a device from turning and only using one point of contact and securing might be problematic. 

I do think it should be simple to build one for each riser. There would need to be a way to keep it from moving in the limb pocket if there is one and it would need to fit in the limb pocket of the risers that have enclosed limb bolts. 

That being said I would envision a plate that has a through hole, not a fork, that gets bolted to the riser using a replacement bolt that matches the adjustable limb bolt currently in the riser. The underside of this plate would mate with the riser with some system to keep it aligned properly. Then another hole with a locking system to move the "pro limb bolt" to. 

If what I see in the pictures is correct, the dove tail peg is the same? or is there a modification that needs to be done there as well. If that dovetail peg is the same, you would use the same dovetail detent system and not have to do anything with that.

None of my JOAD kids have a formula riser so I have not had the opportunity to study one. There are a few adults in our club that have them but I never really took measurements or looked real careful at one.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> It's the limbs that makes the Formula system work. Not the riser.


the only systemic component to Formula is the attempt by Hoyt to lock archers into using their limbs. Formula is no different to ILF in fundamental operation. the limb root is held in position by a bolt and flexes across a bridge at the end of the root. Hoyt merely made the bridge longer to remove simple compatibility with all the ILF gear out there, and sticking a screw bushing into the limb root (as opposed to the perfectly good one that everyone else has on the end of the pocket) doesn't change that at all. nor does the "wow, we can look through it" bridge - you're just paying more for CNC time to remove metal.



theminoritydude said:


> Yep, it's the limbs. The Formula riser was mostly created to accommodate the limbs. I thought that was rather obvious.


there is nothing special about the limbs, and if you think that ILF limb roots don't flex already - think again. don't believe every piece of slick marketing you read. Formula was created mostly to increase Hoyt's profits by convincing sheep that Formula was something revolutionary that they'd lose without.



limbwalker said:


> What I'm imagining is a device the essentially extends the fork of the ILF limb, but stays mounted to the riser under the limb bolt.


John, apart from the mounting staying attached to the limb rather than the riser, it seems the Uukha adapters would do what you want? (I know they won't fit normal ILF limbs due to width issues, just looking at the concept.)

http://www.uukha.com/en/Adaptateurs-en.php


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I do think it should be simple to build one for each riser. There would need to be a way to keep it from moving in the limb pocket if there is one and it would need to fit in the limb pocket of the risers that have enclosed limb bolts.
> 
> That being said I would envision a plate that has a through hole, not a fork, that gets bolted to the riser using a replacement bolt that matches the adjustable limb bolt currently in the riser. The underside of this plate would mate with the riser with some system to keep it aligned properly. Then another hole with a locking system to move the "pro limb bolt" to.
> 
> If what I see in the pictures is correct, the dove tail peg is the same? or is there a modification that needs to be done there as well. If that dovetail peg is the same, you would use the same dovetail detent system and not have to do anything with that.


The dovetail dowel is the same that was used in their ILF risers. No need for any modifications there. And for the adapter I'm thinking of, it wouldn't matter if it swiveled on the bolt because when you insert the limb, that would align it automatically. But again, it's just a concept I have in my mind at the moment.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I didn't buy into the marketing, since I have yet come across an ad from Hoyt that mentioned anything about the increased flexing of the limb root, though it was mentioned that due to the increase distance between the limb bolt and the dowel, less pressure is exerted on either components. Not that it does anything.

Safe to say that with a longer absolute limb length, draw becomes smoother with everything else remaining the same. You could argue that smoother offerings from ILF exist, but that is another issue altogether.

As for certain brands resisting the formula limb, sources have it that it is actually an engineering challenge to create those limbs with a low enough rate of failure to justify creating a line for it.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Bob, I'm thinking more of an adapter that would bolt onto the riser, and stay there, allowing you to use the ILF limb as if it were a true ILF riser. Just a extension for the fork to fit into, held in place by the bolt.


John,

I liked that idea as well, but went with a limb style adapter because of cost. As is, I should be able to keep the cost under $100.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Bob Furman said:


> John,
> 
> I liked that idea as well, but went with a limb style adapter because of cost. As is, I should be able to keep the cost under $100.





limbwalker said:


> Bob, I'm thinking more of an adapter that would bolt onto the riser, and stay there, allowing you to use the ILF limb as if it were a true ILF riser. Just a extension for the fork to fit into, held in place by the bolt.


On another note, one of my design requirements for this adapter is to not change the bow length and be able to use your existing string keeping as close to original as possible.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Bob Furman said:


> On another note, one of my design requirements for this adapter is to not change the bow length and be able to use your existing string keeping as close to original as possible.


Which is how the MK Alpha riser works. Same string length for both limb types. The tiller bolt is what changes. 

The adapter should work similiar.

Chris


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> I didn't buy into the marketing, since I have yet come across an ad from Hoyt that mentioned anything about the increased flexing of the limb root, though it was mentioned that due to the increase distance between the limb bolt and the dowel, less pressure is exerted on either components. Not that it does anything.


and yet you're apparently believing the spiel about it being a "system"? hmm, less pressure. where does the energy go? laws of physics etc. oops, laws of marketing triumph again.



> Safe to say that with a longer absolute limb length, draw becomes smoother with everything else remaining the same. You could argue that smoother offerings from ILF exist, but that is another issue altogether.


no, it's not actually. buy a 23" ILF riser and long limbs and you get exactly the same thing. again, marketing.



> As for certain brands resisting the formula limb, sources have it that it is actually an engineering challenge to create those limbs with a low enough rate of failure to justify creating a line for it.


lol, 'resisting'. more likely it's not worth chasing the tiny market with a Formula riser.

engineering challenge?? seriously? Border did it out of a cottage. the likes of W&W and Samick could do it overnight if they wanted to. the reason they don't is there's no money in chasing someone else's attempt at a proprietary form factor that works no better and has a far more limited customer base.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The marketing was specifically using the decreased load on the pivot as the selling point. It made no mention ( if they mentioned it, I wasn't aware of it) and hence I say, I did not buy into the marketing hype. Please get this right.

Your question about where the energy goes to is one that is best answered by comparing the integrated area under the draw force curve and the half square of the exit velocity of the arrow multiplied by its mass. You do know that, don't you?

A shorter riser (23") paired with a long pair of limbs with more limb length hanging over the pivot points, results in more moving mass. Result will be slower cast. 

Lastly, it is not my business who should find it an engineering challenge. That was what was told to me, I am not in the position to reveal it either, because it was told to me in confidentiality. It's too bad, but that's just how I want to keep things.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm sorry I even started this thread now.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

Why wouldn't the UUkha adapters work for other limbs? Since, in theory, Formula and ILF are standardized, shouldn't an ilf-formula converter work on any brand of limb?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

The issue with the Uukha, as has been discussed in a couple different threads, is the Uukha limb butts are kind of unique, the fit is based on those shapes and hence, from those who have had them, they don't seem to fit on other limbs. The concept is good, and with tweaking I am sure could work, similar to Bob's sketch-up.

Back to the OP. I think the linked thread had a good idea, and I am sure someone with some mad machining skills could come up with something even better. Obviously space and design becomes an issue with the new bridges from the dovetail to the bolt on the Prodigy pockets vs the old swoop style of the original formula series. One thing I would like to see, if implemented, is a threaded adapter, likely on the bolt that screws into the existing tiller bolt hole (PSE maybe used something like this???) to receive a damper/stab as those would be lost going with the ILF limbs on a Formula riser. Maybe the outside of the adapter "bolt" could be hex to allow a wrench to torque it in?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yup, that's what I envision. A decent machinist or CNC shop could produce adapters that are secured by a limb bolt and function as a basic "sleeve" into which the ILF fork would fit. The problem might come from different dimensions of various ILF limb forks, but surely there is a way to work around this. 

If someone could produce pairs of adapters that could fit a formula riser, and cost $75 or less per pair, I think they could sell a lot of them. If those were available, I would not hesitate to tell my students to get a formula riser and at least begin with ILF limbs until they can justify the Quattros or the MK formula limbs.

There are just SO many pairs of used and affordable new ILF limbs out there, it's a big advantage to be able to use them, esp. for families struggling with how much they are already spending on this sport.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Not sure if this is from the department of redundancy department but here is a commercial adapter it is the sleeve idea limbwalker mentioned and like the one linked to earlier.

http://onlinearcheryequipment.co.uk...uukha-limbs-to-hoyt-formula-risers-1876-p.asp


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

That only really works with the Uukha limbs due to their unique dimensions. Its also a limb conversion, and limbwalker is suggesting a system that doesn't change the limbs, just the riser.


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

My take on this is that technology is changing all the time. I believe the first compound bow was a two wheeler with cams that was designed by a student for a physics paper. Yet when the Allen came out with the first design,it was a four wheeler with nothing that looked like regular limbs. Then Jennings changed the limb technology,,we got split limb 4 wheel tech,,,than more evolution took place and we ended up with what was originally designed back in the thirties, Arrow tech has changed,,,limb tech has changed,,string tech has changed. Hoyt changes design to get competitive advantage. They offer many options. Right now I think they have perhaps got it right with this new formula that just came out. Yes their limbs are expensive. My biggest problem is you can't get them. Always seem out of stock. One of the reasons I never went with Hoyt formula. There are many good options for ilf. I love my AXT with my SF elite+ carbon limbs. 

The formula tech is what it is. Exclusive,,it was,,,the best,,just another option. Everyone on here knows what wins tournaments. Form and mental toughness,,and confidence in one's equipment. I always explain to the kids and parents the expense when starting out. It is their choice to pick what is best for their child or their child makes the choice. Do we need an adapter for formula bows,,I think not. Limbwalker,,you have given me a wealth of knowledge on here,,but on this one I disagree.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's fine. I'm not completely convinced myself that it would be worth the effort. It just saddens me that Hoyt chooses not to offer more than one world class ILF riser. I shot the GMX and am not it's biggest fan. I shot the RX and really liked it, but for the limbs and their availability and cost.

John


----------



## PaulME (Jun 11, 2014)

John
If you can sketch it I'll make a couple for you free as you give a huge amount of info to everyone here.
Only limit would be no complex curves as my machines are all manual (its a hobby for me - Bridgeport mill, Monarch lathe...).
My assumption is you can find someone much closer to you that can do the same thing, and this type of thing lends itself to sitting down and sketching up ideas.
Paul


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

kshet26 said:


> That only really works with the Uukha limbs due to their unique dimensions. Its also a limb conversion, and limbwalker is suggesting a system that doesn't change the limbs, just the riser.


Perhaps they are specific to the Uukha limbs but there is absolutely no reason why it couldn't be adapted as a generic device, if you read limbwalkers quote below seems to be exactly like what he was talking about?, either way the idea is sound all one needs to do is lengthen the ILF limb just a bit so that it reaches the existing limb bolts. That seems like a way more simple solution then adding another limb bolt.



limbwalker said:


> There just has to be a simple solution to converting a formula riser to ILF compatibility. Like an elongated stainless steel "sleeve" that fits over the limb fork and is secured down by a limb bolt. I'm not sure why that wouldn't work.


Here is the adapter that BobFurman referred\linked to in his post, and seems to be exactly what Uukha did and I think this is a perfectly elegant solution.








Frankly I think it's silly to to cobble together an adapter to use ILF limbs on a formula riser. You are always going to get better performance using matched equipment. But if you are a beginner trying to use weak limbs for form development or something like that and then you'll buy the formula limbs later well I could see that being a viable reason. However, if you want a high performance system the answer is to use equipment that is matched. Some one early on said that the formula risers weren't where the advantage was. I agree they are just another hunk of aluminum that the ,limbs are strapped to. they are drooled over because they are the newest thing. Sort of like foam core limbs everyone was saying that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now after we've had time to test and reflect a lot of shooters are going back to the wood core limbs because they prefer them. The point difference between the formula system and a good ILF systems is precisely 0. I always find it entertaining how shooters chase after the next greatest hardware panacea when the focus should be on practice and their wetware.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

regardless of the design, in order to keep it from moving or twisting on the riser limb bolt (for some sort of floating system), you will need more than one other reference point. You can't keep the system aligned properly with only two reference points. You need three or more reference points. A sleeve might include even more reference points but the problem there is as everyone has already mentioned, is that the differences in limb widths will be an issue.

If you use a spot on the riser as a reference point like the dovetail peg, then you might be able to do it with 2. This is what the system in the early responses was using. (the bolt on the side of the formula bridge)

To do what Limbwalker envisions I could see a bolt on attachment that uses the bridge for it's reference point. It might require removal of the dovetail recess pin (like the modification of the hardlock system on the axis) in order to replace it with a dovetail slot. Then a bolt on the tiller end replacing the limb bolt. Move the limb bolt to the attachment. 

Hmm. I may have to see if I can get my hands on a formula riser to see how hard it would be.

DC


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You are always going to get better performance using matched equipment. But if you are a beginner trying to use weak limbs for form development or something like that and then you'll buy the formula limbs later well I could see that being a viable reason


Or just a growing archer. Work with teenagers for about 10 years + and you'll see this movie over and over and over again. 

I'd love to be able to recommend the Formula risers, as I believe they are one of the top 3 or 4 riser designs ever, but I cannot due to the problems with the limb (not available, overpriced, underperforming) in the mid and lower range. I have no issues with the Quattro's as they seem to finally be able to compete with the best Korean limbs.

But there are a LOT of limbs in-between a set of $100 starters and Quattro's or even MK's or Kaya's. And that's the problem. No reason to change risers. Lots of reason to change limbs.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

b0w_bender said:


> You are always going to get better performance using matched equipment.


that might be the case were the Hoyt marketing fallacy that recurves are a matched system be true. recurves are modular and generally interchangeable, given an appropriate allowance for a lack of true standards.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

caspian said:


> that might be the case were the Hoyt marketing fallacy that recurves are a matched system be true. recurves are modular and generally interchangeable, given an appropriate allowance for a lack of true standards.


Ya when I say matched I mean "intended to be used with" I think most ILF limb manufacturers expect they will be used on an ILF bow. of course I'm sure they would prefer their own riser but certainly at least on an ILF riser. Not cobbled together to fit on some other system they were never intended for. Look I'm a big DIY guy and a Frankenbow and Warf maker but but I'm not duct taping things together to make high performance equipment. If you want the best performance out of a formula riser then buy formula limbs. It was the OP's contention that there are a lot of great limbs that could be adapted to formula to take advantage of their benefits. My point is after you start bolting on pieces of metal and or sleeves and baling wire perhaps the original performance those limbs were intended to offer may not be as affective. 




limbwalker said:


> Or just a growing archer. Work with teenagers for about 10 years + and you'll see this movie over and over and over again.


Well for me it's been more like 9 years and, I agree they change a lot which is why I steer them away from formula until they are ready for a more stable platform. Seems those teenaged folks outgrow their pants and shoes overnight not to mention their equipment.


----------



## Ineras (Apr 24, 2015)

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but...

































They just reengineered the Uukha adapter to work for all ilf limbs. Search F to ILF adapter on ebay, less than $35 USD.
Not quite a fixed adapter on a formula riser, but cheap enough to buy a pair for every set of ILF limbs you would want to use on a Formula riser.
Just thought I'd share what I stumbled across while browsing, since this topic has come up several times.


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

Uukha makes ILF to formula limb adapters. They are designed the same as Uukha limbs but would be interesting to see someone try it on non Uukha limbs and see if it works. Don't see why they couldn't. 

https://www.uukha.com/en/accessoires-en.php#0


----------



## Ineras (Apr 24, 2015)

I don't think the Uukha adapter would work for non-Uukha limbs. Uukha limb forks are much thinner and shorter compared to other ilf limb forks.


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

They are thinner, but it doesn't effect limb seating. Uukhas fit any riser.

In regards to their formula adapter, their website does confirm they only fit Uukha limbs. Geometry wise, I'm sure it hypothetically could fit any limb, I'm guessing the only reason you couldn't is because Uukha limbs use different size threads for the detent pin bushing.


----------



## Ineras (Apr 24, 2015)

I believe its the fork attachment on the Uukha adapter that's the issue. Here's a quick comparison between my old SF limbs and my Uukha limbs:
View attachment 6488911








The fork length might interfere with the slope on the Uukha adapter, and you would have to change the hardware to accommodate the thicker fork.


----------



## SD40 (Dec 25, 2005)

Thank's for the Tip. For the price I'll try a pair.





Ineras said:


> I believe its the fork attachment on the Uukha adapter that's the issue. Here's a quick comparison between my old SF limbs and my Uukha limbs:
> View attachment 6488911
> View attachment 6488913
> 
> ...


----------



## archeryal (Apr 16, 2005)

If, for instance, you have medium (68") 40# ILF limbs on a 25" riser, would they also yield 40# 68" on a 25" Formula bow? I heard that string length needs to be adjusted and that the draw weight is not the same.


----------



## Ineras (Apr 24, 2015)

Should come out the same, the dovetail location is the same on both Formula and ILF. It's the tiller bolt location that's different, which is why formula bows have a shorter sight window than the same length ILF. That's why some long draw guys I shoot with who use a 25" ILF riser with longs had to go with a 27" riser with mediums when they switched to Formula. Of course, this is also affected by the geometry of the riser.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

> You could say that the limb configurations prior to the creation of ILF limbs wasn't broken either.


The difference is that we moved to ILF for compatibility and ease of use, not particularly for performance. At least, that is my understanding; someone with more years on the sport might be able to interject. On the other hand, Formula limbs are mechanically the same attachement system, and the advantages they provide are not particularly concrete.



> if the major limb manufacturers started making Formula limbs


I'm quite convinced that Hoyt itself is the main reason this does not happen. Why would they license the patented Formula design when they can keep it limited and lock in people to buy their limbs when you want to buy one of their risers? Instead, just charge other manufacturers a licensing fee if they want to use it, and you win money on every limb sold for any riser you make, guaranteed. Meanwhile, W&W and other brands look at it, notice no significant advantage, and keep making ILF limbs. If it had been demonstrated by now that Formula limbs increase scores, then they would be willing to pay the price, but otherwise why pay to a competitor to make a priduct that is ultimately not provably better?



> Looking at the most recent World Cup event, it appears the ILF system is not dead or even going anywhere anytime soon. I think the data would show you can shoot the same scores with either system.


I completely agree with this. Even more, let's look not only at the raw data, but the archers' possible reason to shoot the equipment they shoot. Pretty much any recognizable archery that shoots a Formula bow at a World Cup event is sponsored by Hoyt, so of course they shoot Formula limbs. Meanwhile, what do archers that shoot non-ILF Hoyt risers shoot? I don't have the numbers, but I am quite certain that Hoyt limbs are a minority, from what I have seen. Some even joke that a GMX and Korean limbs are the "classic Korean" setup.

My point is that even if the number of Formula shooting archers is significant, it is probably largely dictated by sponsorships and the limitation of Hoyt deciding to focus on Formula. So any such data should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

I just realized I replied when I was on the first page, and all my points were already debated


----------

