# B-Stingers, Fuse, String stops, are Pilla glasses next?



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just trying to keep track of the latest "can't miss" fads in the sport...

Any product that bursts onto the scene with outrageous claims makes me very suspicious. 

Wondering what the shelf life of the Pilla glasses will be now. Folks who have them say they like them, but if I just dropped $600 on a pair of sunglasses, I'd probably say the same thing, regardless of what difference they made.

Interestingly enough, a local archer showed up at our state event wearing a really nice pair of shooting glasses with a removable bridge that did not obscure his vision. Knowing this archer, the clever cost-effective solution he discovered surprised me not at all. I'll be buying a pair for myself.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shoo...s/103923180.uts&WTz_l=DirectLoad;cat103923180


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The brand that 4x Olympian Kim Rhode (USA Shotgunning) uses. 

http://shop.randolphusa.com/ranger-falcon-kit-p5878.aspx


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't think good optics are a fad. But I suppose the buzz of a new product has a shelf life.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I don't think good optics are a fad.


Nope. Archers wearing sunglasses is nothing new.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Even better price on the Berettas here:

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/58...-_-pf_ci_google-_-pf_ci_google-_-pf_ci_google


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I don't think good optics are a fad. But I suppose the buzz of a new product has a shelf life.


You are correct, good optics are not a fad......but they are for archery (specificaly recurve).....

When I see Korean women team use them, I start to pay attention.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Idk I think comparing a $30 pair of tinted polycarbonate to the Pilla lenses is like comparing a $30 spotting scope to a leupold. There is a difference.

I think it's here to stay for a while. They are a USA archery sponsor now so it doesn't look like they are going to done after this outdoor season. 

If someone thinks that a better optically correct set lenses give them an edge I'm not going to look at them like some sheep through my $25 pair that make the target look like it's 10 feet to the left of its actual position and laugh. 

I have a lot more things to worry about than my optics, but if it makes them physically and psychological feel better and shoot better - then 260 -300 isn't that bad. Not much more expensive than a doinker platinum hi-mod long rod.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Interestingly enough, a local archer showed up at our state event wearing a really nice pair of shooting glasses with a removable bridge that did not obscure his vision. Knowing this archer, the clever cost-effective solution he discovered surprised me not at all. I'll be buying a pair for myself.
> 
> http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shoo...s/103923180.uts&WTz_l=DirectLoad;cat103923180


I'm in the market for shooting glasses, to use as sunglasses on the archery range. Trouble with most safety shooting glasses is they offer no UV protection. This looks like a Beretta Race, no UV protection.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> They are a USA archery sponsor now so it doesn't look like they are going to done after this outdoor season.


So is B-Stinger. But I think they all might have learned a lesson after making outrageous claims, then seeing the top US archers switch to something else anyway.

Now that Pilla has uncovered the fact that archers will spend hundreds of dollars on a single pair of sunglasses, it won't be long before a few other companies will get in the game. Randolph would be the next most likely candidate based on their experience with shooting sports.

As for the spotting scope comparison, optical quality is all relative. There comes a point of diminishing returns, after which you're just spending money in a desperate attempt to buy points, to feel good, fit in, or show others how much money you have. I think Im Dong-hyun proved how important it was to have a razor-sharp optical image.  About the same as Mary (Zorn) Hamm telling me she doesn't use a clarifier because the center of the blur is still the X. LOL.

So, what about those string stops anyways. ha, ha.


----------



## fluke (Aug 12, 2012)

there's also the italian Castellani featuring the same Carl Zeiss optics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GtcBs8nXo

they are 78euros for a polarized pair, everything else is 54.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'm not going to look at them like some sheep through my $25 pair that make the target look like it's 10 feet to the left of its actual position and laugh.


I find that a bit hard to believe, as my PB double 70 score, for years, was shot while wearing a $15 pair of Bass Pro sunglasses.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

I feel uncomfortable wearing my $90 oakley's at times. I think a nice set of Pilla's would be like a Rolex for me (an no I don't have one). It would look real good in my drawer because I would be afraid to lose/scratch/break it.

I think diminishing returns is really the point. The Oakley M Frames have a removeable nose piece are ballistic glasses (shrapnel proven) are UV protective, and cost between $100 and $200 depending on the model. Like LW said, if guys can shoot amazing scores in $15 glasses, then even these may be overkill. $600 would go towards yet another riser for me long before a pair of sunglasses. Now if they were given to me that would be another story... but based on my shooting another reality as well.

My $0.02 or $2,000,000 if that makes it more clear.


----------



## PaulME (Jun 11, 2014)

And I always thought Oakley's were overpriced - some of this stuff makes them look dirt cheap.

Sunglasses have HUGE profit margins, 90+% of what you are paying is for the name and marketing, and the general sunglass market is basically controlled by Luxotica.
A comparison of spotting scopes to sunglasses is meaningless the two are not comparable - unless you want to use it to feel better about the $600 sunglasses.

I'm a newbie to archery but have competed in other sports and learned my lesson that its the athlete not the equipment.
I'll return to the corner now:wink:
Paul


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Bee stinger did put out serious claims backed up by talk from Chula Vista once upon a time - at least from the articles and posts I've read. That was marketing hype at its best - but they are still a good product. 

But my question then; what are the over the top claims being made by pilla?


I don't have a pair of Pillas - I'd never pay that much for sunglasses without at least being able to try them on, if ever. I'm just Cautious about being hard on people for what they want to purchase - unless they are being outright deceived by marketing promises that clearly don't live up to the hype.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> I find that a bit hard to believe, as my PB double 70 score, for years, was shot while wearing a $15 pair of Bass Pro sunglasses.


Totally serious, the sunglasses I had at Forrest park were that bad when looking through the edge of the lenses over the nose.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> no more lefts and rights throughout the day, all you’re going to have is consistent accuracy every time you draw back your bow





> I’ve always had to take my sunglasses off because of the nose bridge obstruction.





> The new design eliminates the nose piece altogether


I wasn't aware they invented glasses without obstructions.



> but the glasses were perfect for eliminating glare and just so good to help the eyes focus


You mean like any polarized glasses will do?



> We’ve already worked with some of the top USA Archery shooters to design the first ever archery specific glasses and enjoyed great success on the world stage


Which really would be something had those same archers not already dominated the world stage (we see this pattern in marketing over and over again - which came first, the success or the product?).



> the proud provider of countless champions including...Kim Rhode (Gold Medalist)


That's news to me... And apparently to Kim too 



> Kim Rhode prefers to shoot wearing the Ranger XL. She’s worn RE Ranger shooting eyewear since her start in competitive shooting more than 16 years ago, at the age of 12. According to Rhode, “I choose to wear Randolph shooting glasses because they give me a competitive
> edge.


http://www.randolphusa.com/news-rel...hode-on-silver-medal-at-the-beijing-olympics/


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dacer said:


> Totally serious, the sunglasses I had at Forrest park were that bad when looking through the edge of the lenses over the nose.


I would have thrown them in the garbage or shot without them on. You may have noticed I put my sunglasses on to retrieve arrows and score, and then took them off right before I started shooting. Been doing that for 10 years now. However, I'll be experimenting with the Beretta's this summer, thanks to the clever Bobby Jones.

John


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> So, what about those string stops anyways. ha, ha.


Yeah....I was expecting to see them a lot this year, but most I can see is 3-4 out of 100+ recurves on biggest UK tournaments.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> Yeah....I was expecting to see them a lot this year, but most I can see is 3-4 out of 100+ recurves on biggest UK tournaments.


Looks like the Koreans jumped right on board with those, eh?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Look, I want to be clear - B-Stingers, Fuse, Hoyt risers and Pilla eyewear are clearly all top-notch products. It's just when I see how the marketing hype affects young impressionable shooters and puts more pressure on families to buy, buy, buy, that I'm not a fan. 

Or when it leads folks to believe they can't be competitive with anything else. 

Honestly, I would have expected to see more string stops on recurves by now. That much did surprise me. I was somewhat amused however when the one archer at the most recent event we hosted who had them, reluctantly admitted he was having problems with them and was considering taking them off. This same archer just months ago couldn't stop talking about how great they were. So...

Time is the ultimate test for these products. Well, that, and whether the Koreans ever adopt any of them. ha, ha.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Woah, there, John. Are you making fun of the "the official technical eyewear provider for USA Archery"? Because, according to the latest USA Archery Update email they now offer ""The Mask," a unique non-traditional frame that offers full adjustability and the ability to grow with the archer" which features "Pilla's new cutting-edge blue lens technology." 

That's right, the color _blue_ is now cutting-edge technology. And you'll want to keep that in mind because USA Archery members get a whopping 10% off through July 9th (and a free hat with advertising on it)! USA! USA! USA! 

:wink:


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

For me, I'm happy they are sponsoring USAA. We should all be exacting consumers, who make our buying decisions based on our needs and wants. How about we just say thanks and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

midwayarcherywi said:


> For me, I'm happy they are sponsoring USAA. We should all be exacting consumers, who make our buying decisions based on our needs and wants. How about we just say thanks and let the chips fall where they may.


That is a legit position to take, and I respect it. However, Pilla, like Easton and B-Stinger, isn't a sponsor out of the goodness of it's heart, like a patron, it is a sponsor as a business investment it expects to get more cash out of than it pays in. Sponsorship in cases like this isn't charity. Already, the sponsorship has given Pilla a featured spot in the "USA Archery Update" email sent out to USA Archery members. That's a paid ad/press release, but it isn't called an advertisement because they are a sponsor. In fact, the newsletter doesn't even call them a sponsor, it calls them "the official technical eyewear provider for USA Archery." These posts, these reactions, are an example of the result of the falling of the chips. Pilla dropped them, via USA Archery and other marketing channels, and this is one of the results.

I think it is reasonable to be a little cynical about the corporate sponsorhips that affect USA Archery's behavior.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

The BIGGEST reason to consider good optics for shooting is visual distortion, which is especially a problem with wrap around lenses. Light refraction can make your sight pin shift and throw off your accuracy. Its not much, but at long distances in elite level competition could it make a difference? Absolutely.

Are most of us going to be so thrown off by <1mm of refraction that running out and spending $600 on a pair of sunglasses will improve your score? Yeah...probably not.

For my money I'll stick with Oakleys, for a few reasons - the first being that their entire line is (or at least was a few years ago) ANSI certified and is (or was) the only make approved for combat use by the US military.

The second reason is that at one point I used to sell their product and was invited to see their optics testing procedures and compare a few different pairs of sunglasses (taken from peoples heads to test). The two that really got me were focusing HD cameras on a target through a pair of glasses and shining a pair of lasers through the lenses and being able to witness the visual distortion of various pairs of glasses. (I believe there is also a video on their site somewhere showing this off as well)

Again, is a tiny bit of light refraction worth worrying about? Not for most people I dont think, but another thing to consider when picking out glasses to shoot with.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm having trouble understanding how glasses can "throw off" your sight when, if you have consistent head position, you are looking through the same exact spot in the lens every shot anyway. What am I missing? 

Warbow, you're spot-on. I wonder sometimes whether USArchery is getting as much from the relationship as the "sponsor." We don't get to see the terms, so how would us members ever know? 

What I do know is that there are now 1000's of JOAD archers who think they can't be competitive unless they're wearing shooting glasses that cost more than the bed they sleep in. What's $600 amortized out 5-6 years for a future college student? A lot of books, that's what.

USArchery needs to be very careful about the message they send to our youngest archers when they promote our sponsors. Esp. when time has shown that many of the products aren't really that innovative or game-changing at all.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Warbow said:


> That's right, the color _blue_ is now cutting-edge technology


Just as an aside and some discussion of the actual functionality of the lens. I tried the blue lens at SoCal and I wouldnt suggest it. It changes the red rings into black and the blue rings a paler blue. It would make aiming off terrible.

Though the mask is in my price range with the standard dark lens. I liked the clarity of the glass in comparison to my Oakleys. The Pillas were noticeably better in terms of clarity.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I'm having trouble understanding how glasses can "throw off" your sight when, if you have consistent head position, you are looking through the same exact spot in the lens every shot anyway. What am I missing?
> 
> Warbow, you're spot-on. I wonder sometimes whether USArchery is getting as much from the relationship as the "sponsor." We don't get to see the terms, so how would us members ever know?
> 
> ...


Well, at current college text book prices $600 pays for as few as *3* books, depending on the book and subject matter :mg: But your point stands all the more so, they are *really* gonna need that cash with book prices that high...

And your point about consistency and eye wear makes sense. "Perfect" optics could be more important in ball sports where you have to use interpolation and depth perception. In archery you just have to see the target through your sight. Olympic pistol shooters focus on the front post, so they are shooting at a *fuzzy* target, and they punch really tiny holes in that fuzzy target. So it isn't necessary to see the target perfectly to shoot it accurately. Not saying "perfect" optics aren't desirable, just that they likely aren't required for archery. Heck, I'm already wearing glasses, so "perfect" doesn't even enter in to it, though I have wondered what it might be like to get a set made with the optical center offset towards my left to better center on the target while at anchor - and I'll get on that right after my form is perfect


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Arsi said:


> Just as an aside and some discussion of the actual functionality of the lens. I tried the blue lens at SoCal and I wouldnt suggest it. It changes the red rings into black and the blue rings a paler blue. It would make aiming off terrible.


Good to know. I suppose that is the point, to try to make the contrast between red and yellow greater. The GNAS ring colors we still use do not give good contrast to the center spot, something that the NAA chose to ignore over the years even as they debated target design in the 40's and 50's (well before the NAA adopted the FITA 10 ring target). Your point about aiming off isn't one I would have thought off off the bat.



Arsi said:


> I liked the clarity of the glass in comparison to my Oakleys. The Pillas were noticeably better in terms of clarity.


I'm not surprised. Even as I'm a bit suspicious of the heavy marketing push by Pilla, I do find their claims of optical clarity credible.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I'm having trouble understanding how glasses can "throw off" your sight when, if you have consistent head position, you are looking through the same exact spot in the lens every shot anyway. What am I missing?


Sorry, that would be with glasses vs. without - removing/replacing mid round due to weather, indoor vs outdoor, etc.


----------



## bjones00 (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Interestingly enough, a local archer showed up at our state event wearing a really nice pair of shooting glasses with a removable bridge that did not obscure his vision. Knowing this archer, the clever cost-effective solution he discovered surprised me not at all. I'll be buying a pair for myself.
> 
> http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shoo...s/103923180.uts&WTz_l=DirectLoad;cat103923180


Hey that's me. 
That is the same pair I bought for that day. I had a Gift Card burning a hole in my pocket and thought to myself I bet I could accomplish the same thing as those expensive glasses at a fraction of the cost.
After playing with them for several weeks shooting with them both on and off I'm not sure I can really prove they helped my score but they for sure helped with eye fatigue. The sight pictures were clearer and more consistent from day to day in different conditions. I will say I shot some of the best matches I have shot in a few years that day at state. For the sake of this thread we can say it was the new glasses and perhaps not all of the increased practice time I put in to test them. 

Do you NEED shooting glasses? Probably not.
Are there pluses to having shooting glasses? I would say so.
Do you need to spend $400-$600 on a pair? NOPE.

My thoughts...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bobby, at that price, I'm going to play with a couple different colors for sunlight, indoors, etc. 

Not sure why I never thought of Beretta glasses before. It's not like wrap-around glasses without nose pieces were just invented a few months ago.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I've shot with glasses, clear or coloured always. Never had my target jump anywhere, I've always managed to shoot at it more or less. I change from prescription sunglasses to normal glasses depending on light conditions, often between sets, never had to change any sight marks or anything due to that. Never had any interference with normal eyeglass frames, even my sunglasses are pretty thick plastic framed. Think more Armani than Beretta.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Don't know how I missed this:


> *
> PILLA INC Becomes Official Technical Eyewear Provider for USA Archery*
> 
> By USA Archery | April 16, 2014, midnight (ET)
> ...


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=2275616

It is rather clear that this isn't merely an announcement of the sponsorship deal, it is a press release for **Pilla** via USA Archery filled with advertising jargon and sales pitches. I'm actually kind of appalled at it. It is one thing to accept sponsorship money and slap the sponsor's logo on the website and at events, it is quite another to send out the companies advertising claims and copy under the USA Archery byline. I also find it questionable whether the non-profit National Archery Association dba USA Archery should have its CEO explicitly endorsing Pilla sunglasses in an official press realease.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Actually Warbow, that's nothing compared to the nonsense that was claimed about the B-stingers, complete with quotes from the head coach and RA's.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Actually Warbow, that's nothing compared to the nonsense that was claimed about the B-stingers, complete with quotes from the head coach and RA's.


I remember some of that, but I thought USA Archery had gotten over that kind of nonsense. 

Also, Pilla need to stop making this ridiculous claim:



> The lenses are *certified to be optically perfect*, each one individually inspected by a Zeiss engineer to ensure the highest standard. PILLA’s proprietary lens technology boasts double the optical clarity of polycarbonate, the industry standard, and benefits from cutting edge performance enhancing coatings.


Nonsense. Optically excellent? Sure, that I'll buy, but *perfect*? Not a chance. If Pilla lenses are optically perfect, then so is polycarbonate, because half of perfect is still perfect. So they don't, and can't, mean perfect.

It is a fact that impact resistant polycarbonate has a low "Abbe number", a indicator of how well the material bends light waves of different wavelengths the same, meaning polycarbonate lenses have more dispersion and thus more chromatic aberration than materials with a higher Abbe number. Pilla use a material with impact resistance and a higher Abbe number, I'm not sure what, though, perhaps Trivex? Anyway, while some materials are *better* and have less dispersion, no material is actually optically "perfect" - and I dislike companies that make exaggerated claims, especially when they have no need to do so. 

Pilla actually has some convincing things to say about optical clarity and their lens production for their ballistic lenses:

http://gun-shooting-instruction.com...12/01/Pilla-eye-protection-technical-info.pdf

So I really wish they'd retire the "optically perfect" nonsense when they mean "excellent". They seem to make a very high quality product, so I'm really not getting the need to exaggerate. I'm not sure if *anything* is actually perfect. 

A Google search of the zeiss site ""optically perfect" zeiss site:www.zeiss.com/" doesn't give any returns for glasses of any kind. Where as searching for ""optically perfect" zeiss pilla" gives all sorts of hits, from Pilla. Zeiss doesn't actually seem to make the claim Pilla does. Not sure what to make of that. Could be a flaw in my Google Fu.




(Here's the right link to the Press Release, BTW.)


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

I'll just add this to the thread


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TomG said:


> I'll just add this to the thread


'nuff said.  

Well played Tom.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

It seems that a lens which can create extra contrast on the multi-color target to make it optically similar to the Field target would have some benefits in my mind. I wonder if it effects the contrast of the aperture against the target or if there is a specific aperture color which would contrast?

Either way it isn't gonna make $600 difference.

-Grant


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I've tried on a pair of Pilla glasses that a very good shooter next to me was using at a tournament last Sunday. They were beautifully made/engineered. But they still bent the light coming into my eye, meaning that if I looked at the target through the lens, and while continuing to look at the target, lifted the glasses up to see the target with my naked eye, the target moved. 

Meaning, if you shoot them in training, you better shoot them in the competition, come rain or shine, or be prepared to aim off/or change your windage on the fly.

Again, though, they were a beautifully made product.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I'm having trouble understanding how glasses can "throw off" your sight when, if you have consistent head position, you are looking through the same exact spot in the lens every shot anyway. What am I missing?
> 
> Warbow, you're spot-on. I wonder sometimes whether USArchery is getting as much from the relationship as the "sponsor." We don't get to see the terms, so how would us members ever know?
> 
> ...


"if you have consistent head position, you are looking through the same exact spot in the lens every shot anyway."

John, I'd say the critical words above are "if", and "exact". I don't know of very many archers who can get in 'exactly the same' spot on every shot ... "exact" in the context of winning scores often being decided by judges with magnifying glasses because arrows are so close to a line. A tiny disparity (say, the width of a thread) in head/eye angle or how the glasses are sitting on your face this arrow will create a bigger distance 70meters downrange.

I still like my solution - the Gargoyle Flip-Up baseball sunglasses. Flip up to shoot, flip down for everything else that day.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

LOL, I shoot with these http://www.dx.com/p/polarized-glare...s-with-uv400-uv-protection-51212#.U7bMFvmSx8E

They were even cheaper when I bought them. Those glasses probably cost less than a dollar to make, and I can shoot a 10 @70m just as easily with or without them. 0% visual distortion. They are also the first glasses I could shoot with, without looking trough the frame.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

lksseven said:


> I've tried on a pair of Pilla glasses that a very good shooter next to me was using at a tournament last Sunday. They were beautifully made/engineered. *But they still bent the light coming into my eye, meaning that if I looked at the target through the lens, and while continuing to look at the target, lifted the glasses up to see the target with my naked eye, the target moved.
> 
> Meaning, if you shoot them in training, you better shoot them in the competition, come rain or shine, or be prepared to aim off/or change your windage on the fly.
> *
> Again, though, they were a beautifully made product.


Yup. THIS is exactly what I was talking about. Not optical anomalies from looking through a slightly different section of the lens.

That said, they appear to be marketing these as vision enhancing, rather that, "Dang its bright out, I need sunglasses" so I'd guess the idea is that you always wear them...?

I dont know...I dont really see the value. I just wear a hat and take off the sunglasses while I set up my bow so that my eyes adjust to not having them. Like someone else said- when the Korean ladies all start using them, I'll pay more attention.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

I will vouch for the Randolph shooting glasses as was using them 35 years ago to set records in rifle shooting, some still stand. There is something to be said for making the target stand out against it's surroundings, definition. A new prescription this week has left me in search of a pair of clip-on sunglasses to an out of date frame shape/size, shooting glasses. Ugly as sin a pair were found that fit at a local sport shop, the wife and kid's laughed at there hideous appearance. During my pre-dawn deer dodging drive to work yesterday morning the new shades were clipped on, walla, green becomes neon green, and brown (deer) stick out like they are out of place. There is truly a lot to be said for definition in lenses.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

A look through colored lenses, unretouched, there is no universal color that works in all conditions, what works in low light or cloudy conditions, washes out in bright sun.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks W8lon, that's an interesting observation. 

And yes Larry, you're very clever. Those flip-up "baseball" sunglasses are very appropriate for archery, I'd think. Gonna have to try those as well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So, what's next? 

We had B-stingers, Fuze blades, string stops, Pilla glasses, and AAE Wav vanes. None of which, mind you, have the Koreans used, and yet they still dominate.

What's the next fad? super strings? 

Oh, I forgot the super-special fiber optic aperture (That our top archer quickly dispensed with). 

Searching, Searching, Searching.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> So, what's next?
> 
> We had B-stingers, Fuze blades, string stops, Pilla glasses, and AAE Wav vanes. None of which, mind you, have the Koreans used, and yet they still dominate.
> 
> ...


John, as a non-elite archer I just wish USA Archery would create a one stop shopping website where I can get a turn key package complete with all the latest USA Archery endorsed Official Super Gear that will make me into a winning competitive archer. I don't want to risk buying any gear that doesn't Pay for Praise at USA Archery because I know such gear must be worthless. Perhaps a kid's package would be good as well? And a subscription upgrade policy so that gear that is no longer a sponsor can be swapped out faster than a executed commissar can be retouched out of a Russian archive photo... :dontknow:


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

Would you include Tungsten points for countries that almost exclusively use foam targets? Especially if they make them in the same weight as steel ones.


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

I am also wondering about all this weight on stabilizers... I always had heavy setups but some of the ones I see out there are ridiculous. And it seems to be mostly in the US.

I'm not sure this will last too long.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> John, as a non-elite archer I just wish USA Archery would create a one stop shopping website where I can get a turn key package complete with all the latest USA Archery endorsed Official Super Gear that will make me into a winning competitive archer. I don't want to risk buying any gear that doesn't Pay for Praise at USA Archery because I know such gear must be worthless. Perhaps a kid's package would be good as well? And a subscription upgrade policy so that gear that is no longer a sponsor can be swapped out faster than a executed commissar can be retouched out of a Russian archive photo... :dontknow:


Okay, that was a little over the top. Someone cut Warbow off. ha, ha.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TomG said:


> I am also wondering about all this weight on stabilizers... I always had heavy setups but some of the ones I see out there are ridiculous. And it seems to be mostly in the US.
> 
> I'm not sure this will last too long.


Yea, I agree. Have you ever seen a single Asian archer, including Koreans, who've used such a setup? It's simply not necessary.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Okay, that was a little over the top. Someone cut Warbow off. ha, ha.


Comedy is hard. Sigh... :embara:


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

i was shooting today in regular old Raybans. Worked just fine.


Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, I agree. Have you ever seen a single Asian archer, including Koreans, who've used such a setup? It's simply not necessary.


I might quibble and say "a heavy stabilizer setup isn't necessary if you have equal or superior skill to the guy next to you. If you don't have as much skill as the guy next to you (yet), but you do have the strength to control heavier stabilizer weights than the guy next to you, then the extra weight can be an equalizer. I've experimented a lot with stabilizer weights, and - up to the point where it's too much - more weight definitely locks the sight picture on the bullseye and keeps the bow more still during the shot sequence, resulting - for me - in tighter groups and higher scores. 

The trick - for me - is figuring out the difference between my optimum practice stabilizer weight versus my optimum competition stabilizer weight. Competition nerves/adrenaline/longer holding time can conspire to make your optimum practice weight 'too heavy' over the course of the competition (don't ask me how I know ...)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, the latest batch of Korean men look like they could easily handle whatever weights they chose to put on their bows.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Oh, I forgot the super-special fiber optic aperture (That our top archer quickly dispensed with).
> .


Last I saw Kaminski is back to using the AAE aperture last i saw. And a few other internationally are using it - some of the men from the Netherlands for example.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

The only legit reason I've read so far from this parade of anti-fanboy-ism & the $30 lenses look the same as $300 lenses inferences - has been the pressure it can put on young, teenage archers - possibly hurting their mental game. (though honestly if they are at the point where this sport is 90% mental game for them, I highly doubt, they are going to be effected by the pychological effects of marketing hype) 

The reset of it is just complaining about marking hype, that takes place in literally every consumer goods industry, and the high price tag of these products. 

So do they work completely has the hype makes some believe? No, probably not, but elites aren't using them if they are costing them points on thier score cards, and medals. Yes the people using them were already elites, so what? 

We all have things we spend money on and things that others spend money that we believe to be ridiculous. If someone buys a $300+ pair of sunglasses and all it does is give them more confidence and THEY are happy with the purchase then good for them. That is literally all the matters.

I personally don't understand the offensive that seems to be taken with some of the products mentioned. 

That all aside - hope you all had an entertaining, relaxing 4th.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> though honestly if they are at the point where this sport is 90% mental game for them, I highly doubt, they are going to be effected by the pychological effects of marketing hype


You seriously doubt the marketing works on 12-18 year olds?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I personally don't understand the offensive that seems to be taken with some of the products mentioned.


Mostly just amusement until I see how it affects some young archers and their parents, and then it becomes a bit irritating. That's all. 



Dacer said:


> Last I saw Kaminski is back to using the AAE aperture last i saw. And a few other internationally are using it - some of the men from the Netherlands for example.


It's just funny to me how these American fads never seem to catch on anywhere in Asia.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

there are no shortage of sheep willing to hand over their money. Pillas run up to $600 locally. I saw someone using a set of the "mask" goggles the other day.

indoors.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I suppose this was the one that drew my attention to this issue in the first place.

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...t-Stung-Testing-New-B-Stinger-Stabilizer-Bars

You have to admit it's pretty epic.


----------



## Brenton (Oct 4, 2005)

$600 for a pair of glasses that make you look like a tosser… no thanks.

Marketing 101…. Wanna sell something… increase the price, but give it away for free to the "cool kids".


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Larry, the latest batch of Korean men look like they could easily handle whatever weights they chose to put on their bows.


Haha! I agree about their heft - they're not will-o-the-wisps. 

I think stabilizer weights are like bat weight in baseball. Some hitters like a light bat, some like a heavy bat. No 'one' right answer to that.

But the question that keeps coming back to me, from a theoretical angle, is - up to the point of not having complete control of the weight over the course of the day's shooting, why isn't 'more' better? If 'more' isn't better, then why have the stabilizer at all? Obviously a stabilizer with 3 oz is better than no stabilizer. So - other than the limit of "that's too much weight to control" (which will be a different amount for each archer; and a different amount for the same archer at different points in the year and his/her career), what makes one arbitrary weight amount the 'right' one, and this other arbitrary weight amount the 'wrong' one?

We've talked about this before, but last year a friend of mine was shooting with Brady for the day at an event, and asked him how he'd settled on the amount of weight on his stabilizer, and Brady replied "I just hang weight on it till is feels right." That sounds like a pretty good litmus test to me.

But I get your point that the main complaint is that adding more weight is 'the fashion of the moment', and a lot of archers add weight just because 'everyone's adding weight' without thinking it through or experimenting for themselves what the right oz is.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

lksseven said:


> But the question that keeps coming back to me, from a theoretical angle, is - up to the point of not having complete control of the weight over the course of the day's shooting, why isn't 'more' better? If 'more' isn't better, then why have the stabilizer at all? Obviously a stabilizer with 3 oz is better than no stabilizer. So - other than the limit of "that's too much weight to control" (which will be a different amount for each archer; and a different amount for the same archer at different points in the year and his/her career), what makes one arbitrary weight amount the 'right' one, and this other arbitrary weight amount the 'wrong' one?


"Enough" is usually better than "not enough" .... and usually better than "too much". In archery as in many areas this a generally applicable principle which you could apply to draw weight, arrow length, stabilizer weight etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I suppose this was the one that drew my attention to this issue in the first place.
> 
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...t-Stung-Testing-New-B-Stinger-Stabilizer-Bars
> 
> You have to admit it's pretty epic.


Hmm...



> "I can see that the archers are much more stable when they use the B-Stinger Stabilizers," said Lee. "This is a biomechanical advantage for us to use."


Well, the "B" word was invoked, so it must be true...because if anyone *claims* something is biomechanically efficient or advantageous, it must be, no scientific study needed. :embara:

/s

I'm not sure how something that isn't "bio" (the B-Stinger) can be called a "biomechanical" advantage :dontknow:

From the wiki:


> Biomechanics is the study of the structure and function of *biological systems* such as humans, animals, plants, organs, and cells[1] by means of the methods of mechanics.[2]


Semantics? Or is there a more fundamental disconnect?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Doesn't matter IMO, since it was so short-lived in the hands of the world's top shooter(s). Besides, has anyone EVER seen a Korean shooting a B-stinger or Fuze stabilizer? Even one?

I mean, X10 - check. Axcel sights - check. Doinker stabilizers - check. But B-Stinger or Fuse? Stealth shots or Pilla? Sorry. 

It would seem that the more hype a product comes in with, the less likely it is a top archer will actually be using it when it counts. At least, that's the pattern lately.

Right now, this guy can get any archery product he wants, free of charge. So, what's he using?

Perhaps my favorite is the $12 square aperture. ha, ha. Unless of course he has a $2.50 Hoyt Super Rest on that bow, in which case THAT would be my pick.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Perhaps my favorite is the $12 square aperture. ha, ha. Unless of course he has a $2.50 Hoyt Super Rest on that bow, in which case THAT would be my pick.


What about the <$1 shoelace or piece of scrap paracord finger sling? 



limbwalker said:


> Doesn't matter IMO, since it was so short-lived in the hands of the world's top shooter(s). Besides, has anyone EVER seen a Korean shooting a B-stinger or Fuze stabilizer? Even one?
> 
> I mean, X10 - check. Axcel sights - check. Doinker stabilizers - check. But B-Stinger or Fuse? Stealth shots or Pilla? Sorry.


What I'm struck by in the press release is the use of the term "biomechanical." It is clear (IMO) that the term is being used as an empty buzzword. If I were to use a lever, for example, to move a rock, that would be an example of *mechanical* advantage, not biomecahnical advantage. The lever is a machine and does not magically become a "biomachine" when it is used as a tool by people. The same goes for the stabilization of any long rod, including B-Stingers. That Coach Lee would misuse, or perhaps even misunderstand, the concept of biomechanics is troubling, especially given how often he and USA Archery use it as a blanket justification for so much of the NTS.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Warbow said:


> From the wiki:
> 
> Biomechanics is the study of the structure and function of biological systems such as humans, animals, plants, organs, and cells[1] by means of the methods of mechanics.[2]
> 
> Semantics? Or is there a more fundamental disconnect?


Tricky. You can talk about the biomechanics of a biological system and the mechanics of a physical system but what do you do with a hybrid system e.g. a cyborg (or archer  ). for example Archer, Bow, Arrow Behaviour in the Vertical Plane

I've always considered bow balancing with by adjusting stabilizer weight to be a "bio-mechanical optimization" as although you are just (mechanically) changing the bow weight the effect is a bio-mechanical one on the archer.

Best example of advanced technology is the Brady Ellison (patent pending) paperclip.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Joe T said:


> Tricky. You can talk about the biomechanics of a biological system and the mechanics of a physical system but what do you do with a hybrid system e.g. a cyborg (or archer  ). for example Archer, Bow, Arrow Behaviour in the Vertical Plane
> 
> I've always considered bow balancing with by adjusting stabilizer weight to be a "bio-mechanical optimization" as although you are just (mechanically) changing the bow weight the effect is a bio-mechanical one on the archer.


A fair point. I suppose it really comes down to whether or not "biomechanics" as a term of art is used that way or if it is as narrow as the wiki suggests. I'm not in the field so I don't know. The "about" from the journal you cited:



> Papers published in Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
> 
> Tissue Biomechanics,
> Orthopedic Biomechanics,
> ...


I'm still thinking that "mechanical" is the word we are looking for when describing the advantages of a machine such as a bow with a B-Stinger. But that could just be me pushing back against buzz words :dontknow:


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I'll chime in here about the PILLA shooting glasses, because we have them! Yes I am willing to try something out and willing to spend them money for them. The amber ones are good on really bright days, for pistol shooting! The BLUE lenses, for archery make that YELLOW stand out, like the vermillion lenses make the orange clay bird stand out in shotgun sports. The blue makes the red to purple/maroon, and therefor make the yellow stand right out. Better in my book for focusing on that big yellow spot. Wonder if Brady E. has tried them?
I hope they will be at Nationals so every skeptic can try them out. I see we have OVER 900 registered! Record attendance! 
All I can say is try them, you MIGHT like them. I'm not advertising for PILLA, just stating what I have seen through my own eyes, with the lenses on them.



w8lon said:


> I will vouch for the Randolph shooting glasses as was using them 35 years ago to set records in rifle shooting, some still stand. There is something to be said for making the target stand out against it's surroundings, definition. A new prescription this week has left me in search of a pair of clip-on sunglasses to an out of date frame shape/size, shooting glasses. Ugly as sin a pair were found that fit at a local sport shop, the wife and kid's laughed at there hideous appearance. During my pre-dawn deer dodging drive to work yesterday morning the new shades were clipped on, walla, green becomes neon green, and brown (deer) stick out like they are out of place. There is truly a lot to be said for definition in lenses.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lizard said:


> I'll chime in here about the PILLA shooting glasses, because we have them! Yes I am willing to try something out and willing to spend them money for them. The amber ones are good on really bright days, for pistol shooting! The BLUE lenses, for archery make that YELLOW stand out, like the vermillion lenses make the orange clay bird stand out in shotgun sports. The blue makes the red to purple/maroon, and therefor make the yellow stand right out. Better in my book for focusing on that big yellow spot. Wonder if Brady E. has tried them?
> I hope they will be at Nationals so every skeptic can try them out. I see we have OVER 900 registered! Record attendance!
> All I can say is try them, you MIGHT like them. I'm not advertising for PILLA, just stating what I have seen through my own eyes, with the lenses on them.


What, there isn't a free pair in the swag bags? :-(



I don't think I've seen anybody really criticize Pill "light management technology" in terms of not being a quality product. The discussions are more about its marketing, cost and whether other products can be as useful. I've no doubt many people have good reason to like them.

And, 900 registrants! :mg:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Lizard, I have no doubt they are quality sunglasses. I'm sure I'd like them too. But that's not the point. The point is that there has been a string of archery-related products lately from which we've seen a lot of hype. I don't remember the lineup of hyped products like this when I started in this sport 10-11 years ago. This is a recent phenomenon, and one I find pretty amusing and somewhat sad really. As if the same exact scores are not being shot, or never were shot, prior to these products.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Doesn't matter IMO, since it was so short-lived in the hands of the world's top shooter(s). Besides, has anyone EVER seen a Korean shooting a B-stinger or Fuze stabilizer? Even one?
> 
> I mean, X10 - check. Axcel sights - check. Doinker stabilizers - check. But B-Stinger or Fuse? Stealth shots or Pilla? Sorry.
> 
> ...


http://worldarchery.smugmug.com/TARGET-OUTDOOR/2011-TORINO/Day-8/i-HVm3zrm/A


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Just about sunglasses...:

1) using them means to get some light drop to your pupil. Not a god thing in low light conditons (obvious). Noone drives in the night with sunglesses .. 
2) sometime you mut use them: front wind protection, very helpful if you use contact lenses, and of course front light (south -oriented fields)
3) color correction may help specific archer's problems, like "yellow" target panic
4) frame may help in aiming. A well "undocumented" technique uses the corner of the frameover th enose as aiming reference. Used by some top level archers with ordinary glasses, and some others have imitated them using sunglasses. 
I don't want to comment about any specif brand, just to confirm that sunglasses make the greatest overal profit of any existing product, may be apart coffee.. 
Michele has lost his (cheap) sunglasses (coming back from the Arizona Cup were he has shot with them because of the wind) and now is looking for a replacement. Few days ago he was shooting with a pair of China copy of the classic Ray Ban, around 5 US$ ... But he said he needs a different (front round) shape as his side way of anchoring was geting interference frome the frame. Arrows were anyhow in the gold at 70 mt... 

John, being in archery business usually means to exaggerate things to show they are "better", "superior", "magic" and so on. This is our market and average archers are there, like any other market, waiting to be convinced to buy very expensive useless products. It is quite different from beìng an independent coach that can comment about anything in tentatively neutral way. Handling and making archery products as side business, I'm quite suffering of this situation at present. So I went opposite, NOT claiming my products are "fantastic", but just saying that they "work". Not good for my business, but makes me feeling better.


----------



## gster123 (Dec 17, 2012)

Vittorio said:


> Arrows were anyhow in the gold at 70 mt...


Michele could probably shoot with a welders mask and hit the gold!


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

gster123 said:


> Michele could probably shoot with a *welders mask* and hit the gold!


Now, I would like to see USA Archery get behind that. 

Some benefactor gives them a few bucks and claims some research shows that a welding mask decreases string deflection off the chin, increases eye protection in the case of another benefactors limbs delaminating, and has a high LCF (look cool factor). Top atheletes claim that they shot decent scores while employing this innovative technology, (they also drank water this morning but that can't be the causal factor). 

Sorry, need more coffee this morning.
Cheers


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

straat said:


> http://worldarchery.smugmug.com/TARGET-OUTDOOR/2011-TORINO/Day-8/i-HVm3zrm/A


Precisely. You help me make my point. That's two of the world's top archers who've now gone from Fuse blades to Doinker. In at least one case, from Doinker, to B-Stinger, to Fuse blades, and finally, back to Doinker. ha, ha. All the while, pretty much shooting the same scores with all of them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So I went opposite, NOT claiming my products are "fantastic", but just saying that they "work". Not good for my business, but makes me feeling better.



You're such a Heretic.  ha, ha.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I suppose this was the one that drew my attention to this issue in the first place.
> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...t-Stung-Testing-New-B-Stinger-Stabilizer-Bars
> You have to admit it's pretty epic.


If it is so epic, then why did so many of the other stabalizer companies come out with their own versions of the B-Stinger? Was there a lot of marketing hype involved in the initial roll out? Absoutely!! But the product did deliver and did so for a broad level of shooters. 

I admit, I started using them back in July of 2009 when they first introduced their competition line and have not found any reason, to date, to sell them. :wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Equipment trends come and go. Remember when everyone, even the Koreans, were using Beiter Centralizer rods? How many copies of those rods were there. I know I had some Doinker Quadraflex rods myself. And then we all learned that smaller diameter, super stiff rods with stiff dampers held more steady. 

By "coming out with their own versions of the B-stinger" do you mean producing a stiffer rod?


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

True that!! Yes, it seems like the major manufacturers all needed to come out with their own versions of the super stiff rod in answer to B-Stinger's roll out...


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

Maybe this is opening a can of worm but isn't this all part of what is necessary to create a more sustainable sport? By sustainable, I mean paid athletes and coaches. This is very different from what we are used to but might be a necessary evil...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

TomG said:


> Maybe this is opening a can of worm but isn't this all part of what is necessary to create a more sustainable sport? By sustainable, I mean paid athletes and coaches. This is very different from what we are used to but might be a necessary evil...


I have to agree. Fashion only is driving all vital markets! New versions, new sales, new level of performance, more money around for all inside the business. I have spent two years handling imports in Italy of large quantities of Android tablets. A basic 7" tablet with one core processor can do almost everything you need at that level of screen size, and can retail cheaper than 49 Euro now. But then you "must" have a dual core tablet, and then a Quad core, and then an Octa core ... just o continue to play Candy Crush... Of course, I'm happy with these "needs" ..:darkbeer:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

About stabs..
Michele today was testing different configurations of stabilizers on G1 riser, and ended up with a 343 at 70 mt with:
- Doinker Estremo Long Rod
- D.A. (Italian company) 6" extender
- Doinker adjustable V-Bar
- Bernardini V-bar bolt 
- B-stinger short rods
- Doinker and Fivics weights mixed up
- Fivics and Doinker dumpers 
6 different brands to reach the right balance (for today..). He has a big box ful of any kind of pieces from all manufacturers to play with. The probelm is that sometime you can't reach a good balance with pieces from one manufacturer only...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Vittorio said:


> I have to agree. Fashion only is driving all vital markets! New versions, new sales, new level of performance, more money around for all inside the business. I have spent two years handling imports in Italy of large quantities of Android tablets. A basic 7" tablet with one core processor can do almost everything you need at that level of screen size, and can retail cheaper than 49 Euro now. But then you "must" have a dual core tablet, and then a Quad core, and then an Octa core ... just o continue to play Candy Crush... Of course, I'm happy with these "needs" ..:darkbeer:


Don't forget that your camera always _needs_ more megapixels - even if the lens can't actually resolve to that resolution. You can't have too many pixels for all of those internet cat photos.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

montigre said:


> True that!! Yes, it seems like the major manufacturers all needed to come out with their own versions of the super stiff rod in answer to B-Stinger's roll out...


Hmm. I may have to go back and see which came first, the B-stinger, or the Platinum Estremo. Was the B-Stinger as small diameter as the Platinum Doinker? I don't recall it being that skinny.

Tom, after having seen your setup, I'm not surprised you'd suggest such a thing. LOL!


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Hmm. I may have to go back and see which came first, the B-stinger, or the Platinum Estremo. Was the B-Stinger as small diameter as the Platinum Doinker? I don't recall it being that skinny.
> 
> Tom, after having seen your setup, I'm not surprised you'd suggest such a thing. LOL!


My bee stingers are 0.700" OD. Doinker lists the OD of the hi mod platinums as .750.

But the estremo rods are .650 I believe - same as the avancee series

In 2009 doinker was producing the "elite target series" stabilizers and the quadraflex line.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks for the background there. I know the press release was Jan. 2010 but I don't recall when the Estremo's came out for Doinker. However, I do have enough back story on both companies to know who I will support.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Thanks for the background there. I know the press release was Jan. 2010 but I don't recall when the Estremo's came out for Doinker. However, I do have enough back story on both companies to know who I will support.


If I could get myself over the $568 price tag for a hi mod platinum set, long rod & side rods, I'd probably be shooting them too. But I'm perfectly happy with my second hand bee stingers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yup, they're pricey alright. 

I still recall how well my 2nd hand A/C/E "High Resonance" long rods shot years ago. Honestly, I'm not sure I could tell the difference between those, the B-stinger and the Doinkers. Like I said, at some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in. For stabilizers, it's probably around that $150 price point for a long rod, I'd say.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

As far as ultra-stiff stabilizers go, Easton was probably the first with the AVRS X-10 rods in the late 90's, 1" diameter A/C construction. They were ultralight, stiff, but dampen better than anything I've ever used. They still have somewhat of a cult following, just wish that I could find matching sidebars.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Dacer said:


> If I could get myself over the $568 price tag for a hi mod platinum set, long rod & side rods, I'd probably be shooting them too. But I'm perfectly happy with my second hand bee stingers.


Wait until you see the pricing for the new Doinker Hero bars...

-Steve


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Hmm. I may have to go back and see which came first, the B-stinger, or the Platinum Estremo. Was the B-Stinger as small diameter as the Platinum Doinker? I don't recall it being that skinny.
> Tom, after having seen your setup, I'm not surprised you'd suggest such a thing. LOL!


The platinum Doinker is a little larger in diameter. The Doinker Hi-mod Estremo was introduced in 2011, I believe, if memory serves me, so that puts it 2 years after B-Stinger came out with their competition models. I was shooting Doinker's Elite series when I switched over to B-Stingers, but would have stayed with Doinker if they had the same offering of an uber stiff rod at that time.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I just visited Pilla website. Is it just me or those top compound archers of today LOOK REALLY SILLY wearing those?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's not just you. They are silly looking to me as well. Personally, if we're looking to make the sport more attractive, this is a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I'm still shooting dirt cheap Kaya Soul maker stabs. None of these fancy new stabs have been used to shoot higher scores that those (FITA 1386 etc.). I think law of diminishing returns applies after your basic cartel etc stabs, which tend to break a bit. After that, there's no real world difference, if you can get right balance for you.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> I'm still shooting dirt cheap Kaya Soul maker stabs. None of these fancy new stabs have been used to shoot higher scores that those (FITA 1386 etc.). I think law of diminishing returns applies after your basic cartel etc stabs, which tend to break a bit. After that, there's no real world difference, if you can get right balance for you.


Not sure I can disagree with this. The cheaper rods tend to break, come loose, etc. But honestly, if you look at the rods the Koreans are using to shoot ridiculous scores with, you won't see a lot of well-known brands.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Not sure I can disagree with this. The cheaper rods tend to break, come loose, etc. But honestly, if you look at the rods the Koreans are using to shoot ridiculous scores with, you won't see a lot of well-known brands.


Actually, those brands that Koreans shoot are the well known brands in europe. I don't think I've ever seen a recurve archer with B-stinger stabs, and can't remember any compounders either right now. I shot Doinker back in day, but haven't seen them really for years, apart from few archers who are sponsored by US companies. There were few carbon blades when they were introduced, mostly with Hoyt sponsored compounders, but that hype died pretty quickly. All recurve sponsorships around here come from Korea so you see a lot of W&W, Soma/Fivics etc, with some Shibuya and Beiter here and there. And a lot of old A/C/E stabs.


----------



## indebtmd (Dec 21, 2013)

While I completely agree that a majority of the high end equipment can easily be replicated by an archer using equipment at the fraction of the cost, from a technology and engineering standpoint, the high end equipment and sales is where companies really make a lot of their money that they can put back into research and development. Now you can argue that there's really no need to improve on something that already works, but I think the continuous push for R&D keeps every company on their toes and really keeps archery relevant. "New" and "modern" tech is the basis on how every company, not just archery companies, draw in customers. There are indeed plenty of downsides to this model, but there are plenty of upsides too. It wouldn't surprise me at all that if you put a beautifully CNC machined aluminum riser next to a beautiful wooden riser that kids and teenagers would opt to pick up the aluminum one. Now...the hard part is getting them to pick up either of those when placed next to their iPhones, computers, and video games.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

So a few additional and perhaps final thoughts from me on this topic. 1) Thank you Pilla for supporting archery at USAA. 2) If USAA does not lure sponsors and promote them, dues may rise and services may decrease, or both. 3) Young teens will make consuming errors and those errors are the basis for growth and knowledge.

As a teen I made poor consuming choices. I would think every teen does. My first car was a used Chevy Vega. Enough said. I paid for that mistake dearly in never ending repair expenses. I also learned how to be a backyard mechanic. A poor mechanic, but with how many things needed to be repaired on the car, I couldn't afford to take that piece of garbage to the shop every time something broke. l learned quite a few things; mostly about myself. 

So if someone's kid gets a pair of $500 glasses and regrets it, that lesson will stick with them for life and make them better consumers. By the way, I'm not so sure that my 18 year old is so gullible as to be swayed by hype, but if he is, I'll stand back and let him make the mistake, the same way my dad allowed me to buy a Vega.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't see how a kid is supposed to regret a $500 purchase when it was never their money in the first place? 

I agree we all made poor consumer choices at a young age, but for most kids these days, there are no consequences since many of them are out of high school, or even out of college, before they've ever held a job and had to pay for anything out of their own pocket.



> 1) Thank you Pilla for supporting archery at USAA


What are you thanking them for? Do you actually know? 

I hope USAA is getting out of these arrangements at least as much as these sponsors are. But that's a topic for another discussion I suppose.

Until then, I'll just continue to observe what the top archers are using to win with, and just as importantly, what they stay with. 

John


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> I don't see how a kid is supposed to regret a $500 purchase when it was never their money in the first place?


Because that $500 could have been better spent on a couple of TRANSFORMERS ACTION FIGURES!!! @@"


----------



## PaulME (Jun 11, 2014)

I really don't think its engineering that is pushing this but marketing. Real engineering would be looking for and documenting measurable differences (and I have not seen any of that). Marketing counts on look, feel, hype, intangibles etc. Plus - and this is the big one - they have to constantly come out with new "better" stuff so you keep buying/upgrading. My original degree is ME, I went to the dark side and got an MBA later.

I'll trot out my old examples.

I started out as a cyclist in high school, saved up my money (yea it was my money) and bought an OK touring bike and built up some lightweight wheels. Entered my first race, got shelled out the back... If only I had one of the top of the line racing bikes then I could do better. Saved up all my money working at bike shops etc got a top of the line bike reynolds 531 all campy nuvo record (I'm dating myself). What happened - got shelled out the back - hmm maybe I need to TRAIN. Learned that and got fairly good. Of course this was in the era when campy nuvo record was top of the line and did not change for YEARS. The bicycle industry got wise to that and now makes changes to their parts groups yearly - and I no longer buy top of the line as the lower level stuff is the same as top of the line several years ago and its the rider not the bike.

Fly fishing - got to have the latest high modulus graphite rod at $500+++ to fool a fish and throw a fly line. Ignore the fact that true experts (and I'm not one of them) can cast an entire fly line with no rod just using their arm. It's what the market will pay, and the people that buy this stuff want toys.

Autocross with the Porsche club. Lots of these people have way more money than talent. The first thing they start doing is throwing money at tires, suspension etc in an effort to go faster. The local club used to take all the class winners and have them run in a rental car at the end of the day to see who would be fastest - well the guy that won went faster in the rental mustang with a 4 cylinder engine and an auto transmission than 80+% of the people did in their Porsches. Not sure any of them got the point that they would need to learn to drive much much better before they get a real advantage from modifying their car.

Same pattern repeats in many/most sports that have serious hardware requirements.

I'll admit top end stuff is nice (assuming you can afford it), at the peak level it can give an edge which may be predominantly psychological (but if you believe you have an edge that may be the difference you need at the top). If your not there yet your far better off training and practicing than spending money.
If its kids spending their parents money they are never going to learn this.

Paul


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Excellent points Paul. I couldn't agree more. 

We've reached the point where marketing is driving just about ever consumer good these days. It's not a model I have much use for, which will come as no surprise to anyone here. 

I'm all for R&D to produce a measurably better product. I think we all want that. But if all a company has is marketing hype and quotes from sponsored athletes (or coaches) who were already at the top of the sport, I'm not convinced. When a non-profit whose purpose is to serve the membership jumps on board to provide their own subjective rhetoric, that's when my bs flag gets tossed. 

Archery is a sport that's easy to measure. I'm not sure why so many "innovative" products always seems to lack objective data when it's available to everyone right there on line.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> But if all a company has is marketing hype and quotes from sponsored athletes (or coaches) who were already at the top of the sport, I'm not convinced. When a non-profit whose purpose is to serve the membership jumps on board to provide their own subjective rhetoric, that's when my bs flag gets tossed.


It is credibility laundering. That is one of the purposes of product endorsement - like money laundering for marketing hype. A credible person or organization's credibility is used to prop up the credibility of a product. This boosts the credibility of the product while reducing the credibility of the the endorser. So, while USA Archery may get some cash out of this (or perhaps just "free" sunglasses) they also *lose* something, some of their credibility and authority. I don't think USA Archery should be explicitly endorsing sponsors products in exchange for cash or other considerations, and certainly not in joint press releases (nor in pressuring RA's to use certain products (if that happens)).


----------

