# Return of the RX geometry, new hoyt recurve!



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

£650 for that. Wow


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Hmm. There obviously is a demand for that geometry if they've caved (now the 3rd Prodigy variation).


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

So, will there be a Prodigy RX XT??? And even better, followed by a Grand Prix Prodigy RX XT...


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

bobnikon said:


> So, will there be a Prodigy RX XT??? And even better, followed by a Grand Prix Prodigy RX XT...


And the Stealth Shots for them too!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

arsi said:


> and the stealth shots for them too!


lol.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Already up for pre-order on Lancaster.

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/hoyt-prodigy-rx-25-recurve-riser.html


----------



## FlyingWatchmake (Apr 15, 2012)

And it's in a 27 as well...


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

Sweet. The RX's just got a little less valuable, so now I can buy another one!


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Huh. 

Try as I may to desire Hoyt's last few offerings, I still can't find any reason to put down my GMX.


----------



## jeeperb (Jan 9, 2004)

acco205 said:


> Sweet. The RX's just got a little less valuable, so now I can buy another one!


Youll have competition i have been looking for one for awhile people seem to be holding onto them
fYi there are two in the classifieds today but black and pink dont interest me &#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56833;


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

MickeyBisco said:


> Huh.
> 
> Try as I may to desire Hoyt's last few offerings, I still can't find any reason to put down my GMX.


Considering they keep "rediscovering" that geometry I don't see why you would?

-Grant


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> So, will there be a Prodigy RX XT??? And even better, followed by a Grand Prix Prodigy RX XT...


of course there will be. how else will they convince you to spend money to replace a perfectly good piece of equipment next year?


----------



## rookcaca (Oct 10, 2002)

I think it is a good move on their part.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Great move. "Snappy" isn't for everyone (ionx/hpx)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

They've got folks right where they want them. 

Meanwhile, the Best Zenit hasn't changed in how many years? 

And Vic still shoots his Mathews TR-7 with Conquest limbs.

Oh well. I guess it's the American way, right? Spend it if you got it! (and even if you don't).


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

So John, Can you recall how many years Butch shot his Matrix with FX limbs? Being sponsored by hoyt. No matter what was the new "flavor" of the year.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Happy to see them keeping the Earl Hoyt geometry in the Formula lineup.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Best Zenith: almost same after 15 years 
Best Moon, same after 12 Years
Fiberbow 6.3 is practically same as model 5.99 born in 2006
Bernardini Nilo shoul be around 16 years old with minor changes only.

Anyhow, brand loyalty dominates our age, and owners of an "A" product will tend to buy "new" versions of it. So all Apple I-phone users will tend to buy a new I-phone average every two models, and Hoyt and W&W, but also all compound makers, try to give to their customers same kind of option. 

Small manufacturers can not even imagine to introduce major changes on their risers too often; 6 years should be a reaosnable projected life for their risers, but sometime they make them "wrong", life becomes much much longer and sales unavoidably suffer ...


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Maybe this is why I don't do Hoyt. It's like new and improved Tide. Same product, different box with shiny new Titanium magenta fade colors. That and the idiotic expense.

Maybe that's why I'm leaning towards an Italian riser because if it ain't broke don't fix it. And maybe that's why I'm leaning towards the Gillo G2 because Vittorio has pretty good idea what works and what doesn't. 

Save me a gray one, Vittorio, when they're available.


----------



## Kim Jong Skill (Dec 19, 2014)

So what IS the original Earl Hoyt geometry and whats the difference between this and the original prodigy?


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

jeeperb said:


> Youll have competition i have been looking for one for awhile people seem to be holding onto them
> fYi there are two in the classifieds today but black and pink dont interest me ����


I know a handful of people who are. I wish I would have snatched up another one when they were on closeout at LAS for $500. I bought mine used for around $350 about a year ago. Noticed about a $100-150 jump for a used one shortly after they discontinued it.

Who knows though. I shoot indoor, outdoor, field and 3D, so that whole vertitune thing might win me over in a few months.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

Kim Jong Skill said:


> So what IS the original Earl Hoyt geometry and whats the difference between this and the original prodigy?


I'm sure someone here can give you a better understanding, but it is the geometry used on the GMX and later Formula RX. Its smooth and stable, but people complained because it was averaging a few FPS slower than the competition, so they made it more aggressive, seen on the HPX, GPX(I think?) and later Ion-X. Snappier, faster shot, but generally less forgiving. I know many of the RA's shot it for a while and went back to the RX, claiming it was better.

The prodigy came out last year and used the same geometry as the HPX/Ion-X. For those (like me) who still think the HPX geometry sucks, there was no motivation to buy a new riser from hoyt. This new one uses the old geometry, so we essentially have an RX with more holes in it and vertitune now.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

We all (most of us anyway) seen to know this is just more marketing hype, yet they keep selling. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I think border hit the nail on the head a while ago.

When asked about a launch date for the hex 7's shortly after the 6's came out the explained that they were ready for sale but given their market share they had to wait for a certain amount of "market saturation" before they could make them available.

Sound strategy, just not one you should share on an open forum.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> Guys -
> 
> We all (most of us anyway) seen to know this is just more marketing hype, yet they keep selling.
> 
> Viper1 out.


I could be totally wrong, but I feel like its a pretty small percentage of the community that sells off their old gear to buy stuff in the same way people ditch phones. 

Or course it keeps selling. People want to upgrade, people want a second bow, people want a first bow. I can see someone seeing this and deciding its a good time to sell the excel and buy something nicer, but I'm willing to bet the number of people presently shooting an RX or HPX who see this as a major upgrade is pretty small.

As I stated before, I'm considering buying one. But then, I've been considering buying a second RX since before the prodigy was released.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

massman said:


> So John, Can you recall how many years Butch shot his Matrix with FX limbs? Being sponsored by hoyt. No matter what was the new "flavor" of the year.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom


Not sure. Four or five years? Not sure when he switched to the W&W, but I know he shot W&W for the 2011 and 2012 trials events. When I was with the team in Turkey in 2007, he was shooting a very old pair of FX limbs, as well as an even older pair of Earl Hoyt Jr. wood core C+ limbs.

But Hoyt has really ramped it up with the Formula line. When they were producing ILF risers, they didn't seem to change at this pace. I guess they figured out that marketing really works because people really are sheep.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

MickeyBisco said:


> Huh.
> 
> Try as I may to desire Hoyt's last few offerings, I still can't find any reason to put down my GMX.


Me either...it's more than I'll ever need. I did a lot of research before buying a gmx, I found most of the information about them was true, and I couldn't be happier with it.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm not a fan of any particular brands. I'm going to have to say this: most of you here have no idea what you're missing.


----------



## Lostnthewoods (Jan 24, 2013)

I find it somewhat sad that hoyt puts so much energy in this re-marketing nonsense while ignoring the 23" Olympic riser market almost completely. Thank goodness for the X-Appeal or what would a younger archer looking for a higher end US made riser do? Has Hoyt not noticed the growing number of young female JOAD archers?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Lostnthewoods said:


> I find it somewhat sad that hoyt puts so much energy in this re-marketing nonsense while ignoring the 23" Olympic riser market almost completely. Thank goodness for the X-Appeal or what would a younger archer looking for a higher end US made riser do? Has Hoyt not noticed the growing number of young female JOAD archers?


A while back someone deplored the lack of 23" risers. However, it was quickly shown that there were no less than 20 or so models already available that come in 23". Perhaps Hoyt simply doesn't see the need to enter a saturated market.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Lostnthewoods said:


> I find it somewhat sad that hoyt puts so much energy in this re-marketing nonsense while ignoring the 23" Olympic riser market almost completely. Thank goodness for the X-Appeal or what would a younger archer looking for a higher end US made riser do? Has Hoyt not noticed the growing number of young female JOAD archers?


Or they could stop being xenophobic and shoot the riser that works rather than being stuck on US made?

-Grant


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Lostnthewoods said:


> I find it somewhat sad that hoyt puts so much energy in this re-marketing nonsense while ignoring the 23" Olympic riser market almost completely. Thank goodness for the X-Appeal or what would a younger archer looking for a higher end US made riser do? Has Hoyt not noticed the growing number of young female JOAD archers?


Hoyt Formula risers offer covers perfectly 23" ILF riser market by their 25" riser. 
As a matter of fact, the 25" Fomula has a 23" ILF window (and 27" fomula has a 25" ILF window), so by adding XS limbs to it you can get a 64" bow already.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I guess the question is, do people who ask for 23" risers even know why they should (or should not) be using 23"?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Lostnthewoods said:


> I find it somewhat sad that hoyt puts so much energy in this re-marketing nonsense while ignoring the 23" Olympic riser market almost completely. Thank goodness for the X-Appeal or what would a younger archer looking for a higher end US made riser do? Has Hoyt not noticed the growing number of young female JOAD archers?


As much as I want to agree with you, I'm sure they feel they have the ladies and younger archers covered, as Vittorio says, with the 25" formula risers, or the 23 and 21" Excel risers. Who else makes a 21" ILF riser? Nobody I know of. That is a perfect entry level ILF riser for our shortest draw archers.

Hoyt has always been on the top of the riser heap IMO. I don't understand why they are making so many models right now with so many different geometries (most of which completely confuse the average buyer). But they must think it's the way to go, and they certainly have the $ to make it happen.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Pictures from AZ Cup have Brady shooting the Prodigy RX. Lots of people I talk to all say that the RX is the better riser between the HPX/Ion-X and RX, some even saying they regret having sold their RX. Im definitely interested in getting a Prodigy, but I still have my MK Alpha to play with too :/


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

We have heard plenty about the preference of the "original RX" geometry over the more "aggressive" geometry of the HPX, ION-X and the Prodigy.

Can somebody please explain, just what is it about this original geometry, that makes it more advantageous over the more aggressive one?

I have an answer prepared, if anyone is curious. But I would very much like to hear yours first.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Matter about riser geometry has been discussed many times here in the past for recurve (last time here was when Sky introduced the Advantage riser), and is well known by compound archers and explored already in all details. Of course, difference exists because of the brace height, comparing same limbs geometry on different riser geometry, because if you change the limbs geometry at the same time, you will end up with simply a different mass distribution along the bow. 
Many years ago Earl Hoyt made his TD2 design splitting limbs from riser on same combined curve of his previous one piece version, and the "Hoyt" geometry was born, surely the most succesfull bow design concept ever implemented. It was of course a compromise, in both total curve and limbs curve, but such a a fantastic one! In the years, many have tried to go to really different geometries in limbs and risers, and several small variations to it exist today in the market, mainly in limbs curves, then in limbs pocket basic angles. But you can not simply change the curve (deflex to reflex) of the riser without adjusting to it also the curve of the limbs if you want a really performing system: they have to work toghether, at the end. Changing riser only has been tried many times already, I remember my son testing the Bernardini Mito in late 94 for instance.. But only one variation has proven to be successfull up to now: Fiberbow geometry, that went opposite, making the riser more defelx(around + 1/2 inch) instead of more reflex (of course it has some contras, but it works for the reson it has been designed in for). Reflex geometries have all lost in practical comparison to earl Hoyt original geometry, and will until limbs will be totally redesigned to allow more stright riser making. Unfortunately, I don't make limbs (yet ..)


----------



## rookcaca (Oct 10, 2002)

My last Hoyt was and Ion X, I could not get that bow to shoot for me know matter what I tried. I finally said enough, sold it and bought a Inno Cxt, problem solved, set it up and was back to shooting well. I am not sure if it was the more aggressive geometry or the grip, but it was very frustrating. I even tried aftermarket grips and modifying another.

I would love to the RX to experience Hoyt's less aggressive geometry, I know I did not care for their more aggressive offerings. Now their Quattro limbs where awesome.


----------



## Ms. X Hunter (Nov 14, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> I guess the question is, do people who ask for 23" risers even know why they should (or should not) be using 23"?


I have a 23" in riser b/c I gleaned from the "lack of 23" riser thread" (and others) that "younger/shorter ladies/ people" benefit from the shorter riser because of better cast (arc? Flight? lol) outdoors and a smoother draw. 

Are there other reasons to use/ not use a shorter riser?


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

When I first started shooting some years ago, my coach recommended a 23" riser and medium limbs. After a break of some years, I found 23" risers were harder to find so I went to 25" and short limbs. At my height (roughly 5'6") I could go either way. But considering that the risers I consider buying while I am upgrading don't come in 23", then there you have it. That said, I have a friend several inches shorter than I am and she had a 5 month wait for a 23" Spigarelli Explorer -- which might be because of the length of the riser or just Spigarelli being a teeny bit slow.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

I've shot a 23 / meds as well as 25/ shorts and the one thing I've noticed about the "23" / 27" riser discussion is this: Those that generally downplay the lack of choices or point out the various offerings have rarely had to actually buy one. While there's many listed, they aren't often easy to actually procure. 

Especially in lefty.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm going to leave the 23" debate alone for a bit, and hopefully by the time we finish talking about geometries, the issue of short risers would go away.

My observations/deductions lead me to opine that the issue with the more aggressive geometry, is string clearance. 

Most original Earl Hoyt Jr geometries on a medium setup have realistic brace heights at 9 inches or more. Across the board, on average, it hangs precariously between having the string not clear your bow arm, and having a clean shot. Why have a bow that wastes that 9 extra inches to cast the arrow? Why not have 2 or 3 inches out of that 9 do something useful? Why design a riser/limb geometry that braces at 9 inch?

So the arrow stays longer on the string for a HPX and ION-X. Big deal. One could say the same for someone drawing AMO 30", compared to one who draws 28". Yet no one could say that the guy with the longer draw is disadvantaged. 

Which brings us to the topic of "Steath Shot (TM)". Notice that it happened on the ION-X, one generation after the HPX, both sharing the same geometry. In all fairness, I think the Stealth Shot works. Most guys who use the ION-X would need it. This is due to the increased offset of the riser's mass center to the right (for RH), increasing the string's deviation towards the bow arm during the last portion of the cast, particularly with BOG technique, where the bow arm is closer to the string. Students of the NTS method may find this to be quite irritating. The Stealth Shot seems to prevent that from happening, and in a sense, it is not a product that enhances the bow, but rather, I look at it as a band-aid to an injury that was designed to enhance performance.

Fast forward to the Prodigy and the XT. The Prodigy that I had tested and tuned, did not display the characteristic "initial twist" that I was expecting to see during the draw. The arrow (at centershot) draws back in a perfectly straight line, and I do not know how else to attribute it, other than the addition brace at the limb pocket area. This meant that the string had a lesser degree of lateral oscillation, reducing the probability of the string slapping the bow arm, which meant improved string clearance.

Before you sell you ION-X and HPX (or give up on them and put leave them in your attic/basement/time capsule), give it another chance, and give the Prodigy (non-RX) a go.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Are you saying the Stealth Shot works on the ION-X because it offsets the weight of the Tecbar? If you're saying the fact that they stop the string is what makes them work, from the pictures I've seen of them being worn, the markings don't appear to be outside the string's position at brace.

I like limbwalker's approach on issues like this. When I see sponsored pros choosing to use something other than their sponsor's latest and greatest, it tells me something. Some pros have returned to using the RX geometry, much to Hoyt's chagrin, which is probably what spurred the 'mid-season' release of the Prodigy RX.

I'm not sure what the reasoning is (actual or perceived) but I've heard that the aggressive geo of the HPX/ION-X geometry is less stable and less forgiving.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

kshet26 said:


> Are you saying the Stealth Shot works on the ION-X because it offsets the weight of the Tecbar?


No. Of course not. I don't know where you got that idea from, but that's not what I said.



kshet26 said:


> If you're saying the fact that they stop the string is what makes them work, from the pictures I've seen of them being worn, the markings don't appear to be outside the string's position at brace.


Arrows do not typically leave the string at brace. Having said this, I have left out a certain detail that I wished I hadn't need to repeat over and over again, but I'll do it anyway. While it is a complicated matter to point out about instabilities as a result of mass distribution, it is quite easy to find the optimal position and magnitude of the mass center of the system to achieve stability. It is presumably so, that when a system of stabilisation works on a bow, the entire system is migrated to a new HPX/ION-X riser, with a very different mass distribution. I do not discount that as a possibility in the widely perceived less-than-stable performance of the more aggressive geometry.



kshet26 said:


> I like limbwalker's approach on issues like this. When I see sponsored pros choosing to use something other than their sponsor's latest and greatest, it tells me something. Some pros have returned to using the RX geometry, much to Hoyt's chagrin, which is probably what spurred the 'mid-season' release of the Prodigy RX.
> 
> I'm not sure what the reasoning is (actual or perceived) but I've heard that the aggressive geo of the HPX/ION-X geometry is less stable and less forgiving.


There-in lies the problem with our sport. We like to ape the more famous and successful. Aping, is copying without understanding. Sometimes you get lucky, most other times you do not.

There's nothing I enjoy more than closing the gap between the top performers and the general lot, by decrypting the codes that the successful are enjoying, whether or not they even know what the codes are, or if they are even using it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some bows just shoot better than others for no apparent reason. I can attest to this. I have a few risers (my Axis and original prototype TR-7's) that have produced higher scores in every situation than anything else I've used. When you get to a certain level (and I've not been there for a couple years now) you can just tell when you get what you deserve, and when you don't. It's hard to explain. I know archers like Brady, Jake, Zach, Khatuna, Jenny, Miranda and others who have and do shoot at that level know within one tournament whether a bow is giving them what they deserve. Best case scenario is when you find a bow that gives you a little more than you feel you deserve from the quality of your shots. Call it what you want... forgiveness, stability, whatever. It's the "x-factor" that some bows have, and others don't. 

I continue to believe there is a reason Earl Hoyt Jr. settled on the geometry he found in the GM and the PM before it. He was no dummy. He could have milked a LOT more "performance" (meaning speed) out of a bow with a more aggressive geometry. Lots of folks tried both before and since. I can't tell you how many claims of "more performance" I have seen in the traditional (target included) archery world. They all end up being the same thing. Less deflex in the riser, a shorter working limb, less weight on the outboard portions of the limbs, etc., etc. All after one thing - speed - as if that's the sole measure of performance. How many times are we going to have to re-learn the lesson? Thank God we have the target to measure performance, otherwise we would be wandering in a cloud of confusion, much the way the golfing community is, not knowing who or what to believe next.

John


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I have offered my best explanation of the dismal performance that a lot of you have gotten out of the more aggressive geometry. I have yet been satisfactorily provided with a clear reason why it is less stable than the original Earl Hoyt Jr geometry other than "it's less stable". I'm still waiting.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Here is a nice example (from Border) of how changing the riser deflex changes the DFC. While the more aggressive riser stores more energy for the the same draw weight you move towards the stacking scenario. Seems most archers prefer a smoother DFC through the clicker.









It's a nice thought that the purpose of the stealth shot was to stop the string hitting the archers arm guard (presumably more string-guard contact with a lower brace height). Not sure that you get less string wear by hitting the stops head on than you do with a glancing blow on the guard after the arrow has gone.

As regards "stability" the following illustrates the usual argument.









The riser rotation stabilizing moment is simply 2LT where T is the string tension and L the degree of riser deflex. The more aggressive geometry has a lower stabilizing moment. If you consider the riser angular acceleration about a vertical axis i.e. bring in the riser moment of inertia you can see why a lighter riser like the Fiberbow might need a larger stabilizing moment i.e. a larger value of L.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Thanks for the illustration Joe. I would like to delve a little further into the last point about the riser stabilizing moment :2LT.

I noticed that you have defined the riser reflex by the value L. I assume L could be loosely derived from the end of the limb pocket where the limbs are pivoted. What bothers me is this: Why can't L be measured all the way to the tip of the limb? Is it just because it is not a part of the riser, and thus profoundly more susceptible to lateral displacement? Is that really the case? Or is it that the limbs move, and the riser does not? Is that an accurate description of reality, or an engineering approximation to give an answer to why some of us find it difficult stabilize a bow with lower L value?

But I do agree with the final point about lighter risers needing additional stabilizing moment. However, a wrongly implemented stabilizing configuration could bring about even more instability.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Joe T said:


> ... If you consider the riser angular acceleration about a vertical axis i.e. bring in the riser moment of inertia you can see why a lighter riser like the Fiberbow might need a larger stabilizing moment i.e. a larger value of L.


An this is the main reason why Fiberbow riser is 1/2" Deflex from standard geometry....


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> Thanks for the illustration Joe. I would like to delve a little further into the last point about the riser stabilizing moment :2LT.
> 
> I noticed that you have defined the riser reflex by the value L. I assume L could be loosely derived from the end of the limb pocket where the limbs are pivoted. What bothers me is this: Why can't L be measured all the way to the tip of the limb? Is it just because it is not a part of the riser, and thus profoundly more susceptible to lateral displacement? Is that really the case? Or is it that the limbs move, and the riser does not? Is that an accurate description of reality, or an engineering approximation to give an answer to why some of us find it difficult stabilize a bow with lower L value?
> 
> But I do agree with the final point about lighter risers needing additional stabilizing moment. However, a wrongly implemented stabilizing configuration could bring about even more instability.


You can define L a) as the horizontal distance from the pivot point to the point where the string connects to the limb or b) as the horizontal distance from the pivot point to where the limb connects to the riser. As a) is a variable (both with equipment, e.g limb length, and with time over the shot) b) is the measure used as for a specific riser this is a fixed quantity.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Thank God we have the target to measure performance, otherwise we would be wandering in a cloud of confusion, much the way the golfing community is, not knowing who or what to believe next.


Much like a golf swing, performance and feel are subjective to the individuals abilities. Sure you can throw a recurve on a shooting machine, but no amount of engineering will account for the varying degrees of bow hand torque and string pluck. All archers have it, at what level and how consistent can they shoot their adjusted equipment to produce a feeling of approval in relation to the desired score of the arrow is the never ending quest.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Feel is subjective. Performance is easily measured on the score card. 

When archery becomes a test of speed, we will measure performance another way.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> When archery becomes a test of speed, we will measure performance another way.


In a manner of speaking, Archery IS a test of speed. Scores are determined by aim and what are the physical conditions(release, environment, etc) that effect flight in the time it takes an arrow to get from point A to B. A faster arrow is effected less. It's why an archer would shoot higher poundage to begin with?


----------

