# ILF vs HDS??



## jmvargas

now that hoyt has put its foot down and has changed what we all know as ILF to HDS will we now see all manufacturers use this nomenclature?

since i also presume that hoyt has licensed or patented the HDS name will the others be willing to comply with hoyt's requirements for them to be able to use the HDS trademark?...

just wondering what are the implications of these changes....


----------



## Steve N

Where did you see the HDS designation? What are the differences between ILF and HDS?


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

I've been waiting for this for some time! A consumer notice on Alternative Services' Website stated that Hoyt had changed the geometry of their limb pockets and limb butts, so that other manufacturers' ILF limbs might suffer failure due to extreme stress on parts of the limb butt that weren't designed to take it. This led me to fear that Hoyt was, in effect, abandoning the ILF "standard" they themselves had set in order to discourage archers from shooting Hoyt risers with other brand name limbs.

Up to a few years ago, archers were locked in to a manufacturer's limbs, if they shot that manufacturer's riser. They were, for the most part, great products, but non-interchangeable. The advent of the ILF system really offered us a lot of options to mix and match at our leisure. It was really quite a surprise to see competitors de facto agree on a common limb fitting, a pleasant surprise in a day and age where in most other branches the manufacturers try to bind consumers to a whole product line. 

But, I guess that this is one fairy tale that is not going to end "Happily ever after."


----------



## jmvargas

Steve N said:


> Where did you see the HDS designation? What are the differences between ILF and HDS?


...the term HDS is in the 2010 hoyt catalogue...i am not sure if there is actually a difference vs the present ILF but hoyt has decided not to use the ILF term anymore...it seems they have also patented the new term...

since "ILF" limbs actually originated from hoyt this makes a lot of sense...am just wondering whether all the others will now use the new term...BTW.... 
HDS=Hoyt Dovetail System..vs..ILF=International Limb Fitting..


----------



## Jim C

a related issue as to Hoyt (and some other makers is this)

Does Hoyt help its market position or hurt it by constantly releasing new models every year it seems? Lately, the design team seems to be churning out new limbs and new risers at a much faster rate than say the early to mid 1990's (when the machined risers had become completely established)

will this cause people to run out and buy this new riser after blowing some major bucks on a GMX etc? Or will they resent the fact that they only had the "top of the line" for less than a year?

Some of us want the newest stuff now-some of us want to wait a bit and see if the newest limb is not going to have massive numbers of failures or that there is a flaw in the riser (remember the radians and early axis risers?)

are these innovations really "better" and if so why weren't they "discovered" until the current model year?

I can understand why it happened in compounds-the stuff I had in 1995 is no where near as fast and/or smooth. However, I have shot just about every limb or riser around and I sometimes think the "innovations" are basically making something that works as well a bit cheaper to produce. 

another thing-back in the cast riser days, those things could break or fail-sometimes right away-sometimes after alot of shots. with the good machined risers-some of which I have used have had at least 150,000 shots on them and really don't shoot any different than the same model made on the same week that has only 15000 or 1500 shots on it.


----------



## Shinigami3

jmvargas said:


> ..i am not sure if there is actually a difference vs the present ILF but hoyt has decided not to use the ILF term anymore.


As you were told by Andy in another thread, it seems Hoyt never used that term in the first place. I have seen references in the past to "Hoyt dovetail" in Hoyt literature but never "ILF".



> are these innovations really "better" and if so why weren't they "discovered" until the current model year?


Luddite at heart there Jim C. ?


----------



## ROB TAYLOR

Being a Hoyt fan for a lot of years, this realization has come slowly and painfully....but the truth is that Hoyt is sucking hind titty on limbs to the Koreans and has been for some time. And if not for Earl's ages old discovery of the near ideal riser geometry (and limb design for that matter....a true archery design genius), they'd have been beaten to the punch there as well. 

Look....this is marketing, plain and simple. Anyone EVER see a limb fail within 2-3 inches of the butt?...Seriously? From a quick glance, it looks like by lengthening the pivot point, one shortens the working length of the limb, essentially making a medium act like a short and so on...so I am sure they will miraculously "feel" snappier and faster...and may even be a bit faster due to less travelling mass weight.

But really? How bout something of a REAL innovation one of these years from the biggest bow marketing firm in the world....little less TV, little more research, boys. Show me a hollow carbon fiber limb with a dished cross section that weighs 1/6 of a traditional limb and I'll scream "innovation" from the hilltops for ya, Hoyt.


----------



## ROB TAYLOR

I just had to laugh at my last post a little given my signature line...yeah, oh well...


----------



## chrstphr

Jim C said:


> a related issue as to Hoyt (and some other makers is this)
> 
> Does Hoyt help its market position or hurt it by constantly releasing new models every year it seems? Lately, the design team seems to be churning out new limbs and new risers at a much faster rate than say the early to mid 1990's (when the machined risers had become completely established)
> 
> will this cause people to run out and buy this new riser after blowing some major bucks on a GMX etc? Or will they resent the fact that they only had the "top of the line" for less than a year?
> 
> Some of us want the newest stuff now-some of us want to wait a bit and see if the newest limb is not going to have massive numbers of failures or that there is a flaw in the riser (remember the radians and early axis risers?)
> 
> are these innovations really "better" and if so why weren't they "discovered" until the current model year?
> 
> 
> another thing-back in the cast riser days, those things could break or fail-sometimes right away-sometimes after alot of shots. with the good machined risers-some of which I have used have had at least 150,000 shots on them and really don't shoot any different than the same model made on the same week that has only 15000 or 1500 shots on it.


I bought an aerotec in 2004. I see no need to replace it while it functions perfectly. I will never be able to shoot better than the riser. 

I never understood why people went and bought the newest equipment every year. 

I did change limbs to go up in poundage and have delaminated a few limbs. Thats about the only thing i replace aside from arrow components. 

chrstphr


----------



## jmvargas

i consider myself some sort of an equipment junkie and look forward to trying some of the latest new stuff if i can afford it and if they look like they will be better than my current stuff.. 

i started with a pre-owned elan riser--then tried a gold medalist,matrix,aurora--until i finally settled on my x-factors...i liked it's light weight, soft feel, and it has all the right bushings in place--for me.

whenever a new riser comes up with similar characteristics i am sometimes tempted to try them...after analyzing their plusses and minuses i ,however, i have so far found no riser that i can consider better than what i have..

same with limbs...i started with a pre-owned hoyt vector and have owned and used their M1s and carbon+ plus samick extremes, pse xpressions and pro-elites,winacts and winexes...i now have the borders HEX5-H MK2 and CXG limbs which IMO are the best limbs currently available..

i started with x7 arrows,navigators,cartel triples and upgraded to ace's and x10s...my main arrows are now the mckinney 2s which i consider ideal for me..

i already started with beiter buttons and sureloc sights and never needed to change those--just bought more as i added to my set-ups...(i have 5 beiter buttons and 5 surelocs and a shibuya)






















for stabilization,i started with a full beiter v-bar setup at the advice of my coach...i soon junked that set-up as i found it too heavy and went with a single rod and backweight and fomax damper...started with easton rods then HMC and now use the soma cex2s..







































i look at these new hoyts the same way--unless in believe it is better suited for me than what i currently have--i will stick with what i currently have..

this HDS riser will probably never get my business as i love my ILF borders too much!!


----------



## ScarletArrows

But... ITS 4 FPS FASTER!


----------



## limbwalker

Hoyt surely is #1 at one thing...

Marketing 

John.


----------



## jmvargas

sori for the large spaces but i did not know how to adjust it back when i did some editing...my bad..


----------



## jmvargas

ScarletArrows said:


> But... ITS 4 FPS FASTER!


.....so they say!!


----------



## Jim C

Shinigami3 said:


> As you were told by Andy in another thread, it seems Hoyt never used that term in the first place. I have seen references in the past to "Hoyt dovetail" in Hoyt literature but never "ILF".
> 
> 
> 
> Luddite at heart there Jim C. ?


You new here?


----------



## massman

*Business plan?*

so am I to assume tha tHoyt's business plan for Olympic recurves is...this is better so everyone in the world, abandon your designs and convert. NOW.
If it is SO much better then they prefer to sell this with their limbs only and not be compatible with the rest of the world.

Will this however lead to fewer sales and the beginning if Hoyts exit from Olympic Recurve?

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## ScarletArrows

Here is the question..if Hoyt exits from Olympic recurve how long before we see Compound in the Olympics? Honestly don't think that a company that got its start from olympic recurve will jump ship all the sudden....then again? Not anytime soon. I agree with Limbwalker...this is the Axis all over again. What Hoyt may unintentionally do is send people really looking for innovations...


----------



## gig'em 99

ROB TAYLOR said:


> Look....this is marketing, plain and simple. Anyone EVER see a limb fail within 2-3 inches of the butt?...Seriously? From a quick glance, it looks like by lengthening the pivot point, one shortens the working length of the limb, essentially making a medium act like a short and so on...so I am sure they will miraculously "feel" snappier and faster...and may even be a bit faster due to less travelling mass weight.


I think that at a quick glance, this assessment of a medium limb acting more like a short limb is a natural conclusion, but one that doesn't make sense. If the riser is 25", and you're shooting a 68" bow, then the working length of the limb is the same as a standard ilf set up. It's the bolt that has been moved, not the bushing. So my question is are these new bows actually different lengths as well? I doubt it. To me, any speed and stability gains are going to have to be driven by the materials/limb make up, not this new pocket design. But, maybe you won't have to stick on limbsavers now because you can just add a doinker to the actual limb. I think that's a neat idea. I also like the way this bow looks.

Not trying hijack your thread JM. Didn't Hoyt design the "ILF" system? I thought that they pretty much always called it their dove tail system. So I doubt that Hoyt saying HDS is going to have any major industry implications, unless this new system is proven a better design and widely adopted.

Gig'em


----------



## ROB TAYLOR

Yeah Gig...you might be right there. But in the end, they took a perfectly good (and universally available....there's the part THEY don't like) ILF limb and pulled it like taffy to make it a bit longer...and a whole 100% more proprietary...that's it. Maybe there's a side effect or two, but I doubt any real "wow"-worthy change.
-Rob


----------



## limbwalker

> Honestly don't think that a company that got its start from olympic recurve will jump ship all the sudden..


Actually, the CURRENT Hoyt got it's start when it bought out the real Hoyt - Earl Hoyt Jr... And Earl Hoyt Jr. got his start long before archery was returned to the Oly. games, making arrows and bows with his father prior to fiberglass laminations...



> (and universally available....there's the part THEY don't like)


Uh, yea. I think they're tired of seeing other company's limbs mounted in their risers. ha, ha.

Hoyt makes great risers. Just need to get their limbs up to the same standards as several of their competitors, that's all. But they don't need to do something as silly as THIS. 

John.


----------



## jmvargas

no problem on the hijack gig...looking back hoyt never really referred to the ilf as "ILF"......just everybody else!!...

and John..maybe a bit too early to know how this will go for hoyt...way of the axis??--maybe?--TF apecs?--they hope not...let's give them the benefit of the doubt for now...PS..but let's go ahead and continue to discuss!!

my own take: if the elite koreans and other non-hoyt sponsored elite archers use it and like it--it has a chance of succeeding..

as you said hoyt makes great risers and i agree--IIRC the new world record holder used a GMX riser and Vera limbs in Ulsan in his 1386 fita.....


----------



## chrstphr

limbwalker said:


> Uh, yea. I think they're tired of seeing other company's limbs mounted in their risers. ha, ha.
> 
> John.


If they dont like seeing Samick limbs on my hoyt areotec, then they should have got off their sorry behind and made my G-3's when i ordered them back in 2006. They were on order in Feb of 06 and my store was told by hoyt they were making them every month while we waited and waited. I wanted them for Nationals that year in august. Of course 2 weeks before nationals i bought 2 sets of samicks as i was tired of waiting 6 months for them. My store canceled the order for the G3's in Sept, a month after Nationals. 7 months, no G3's, only vague promises about making them shortly. But i did see plenty of new G3s with all the RA's that year.

and not to mention, Bill ( the easton rep) told me to broach the subject with George at Nationals ( that i couldnt get the G3 limbs). When i tried to talk with George, he was rude and blew me off. Only person in archery i ever met that wasnt friendly or nice. You couldnt pay me to shoot a hoyt limb now.

but no hard feelings, i love my samick limbs.

chrstphr


----------



## sundevilarchery

Wow, this is funny. 

The Formula RX up is not part of some master plan to rule the world... it's a HOYT engineer's idea to make a better product (and the company supported it). 

It's pride in product and workmanship. 

Based on what I've heard, I can't wait to get my hands on one of the new systems to try.

KJ


----------



## limbwalker

Sundevil, I admire your "sunny side up" attitude. And I hope for their sake it is better. But if you follow all their marketing claims, many are stretches at best, and some are downright misleading. Add to that their almost utter failure to keep up in the limb department, and I'd say they are a little desperate right now. Interesting direction to go. Seems like a heluva gamble to me. But they can afford to gamble because they do just about "rule" the sporting world anyway. Their recurve line is probably less than a tiny fraction of Hoyt/Easton's total market anyway.



> but no hard feelings, i love my samick limbs.


Ditto christphr. Love my Axis risers, and with my Masters limbs, they are one sweet combo.

John.


----------



## Shinigami3

> But if you follow all their marketing claims, many are stretches at best, and some are downright misleading


I have followed all the marketing claims and engineering claims for this new bow- what are they lying about, exactly? Have you shot one yet?

I myself want to at least try one.


----------



## jmvargas

Shinigami3 said:


> I have followed all the marketing claims and engineering claims for this new bow- what are they lying about, exactly? Have you shot one yet?
> 
> I myself want to at least try one.


.....i guess YOU and those with a similar attitude is the market hoyt seems to be targetting here....

the ultimate test--for me--is whether the elite non-hoyt sponsored archers accept it...


----------



## Shinigami3

Fair enough. But until we try it, ignorance is looking us in the mirror.

Which is why I REALLY want to know whether Limbwalker has tried it!


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

sundevilarchery said:


> Wow, this is funny.
> 
> The Formula RX up is not part of some master plan to rule the world... it's a HOYT engineer's idea to make a better product (and the company supported it).
> 
> It's pride in product and workmanship.
> 
> Based on what I've heard, I can't wait to get my hands on one of the new systems to try.
> 
> KJ


Well, no doubt that Hoyt makes good products, though not everything to leave their house has kept what they promised. They have treated Olympic style recurve sort of as an unloved step-child.

But look at similar stories in other branches, for example the computer world. Apple & Microsoft: Apple has the better product, but which leads the world in sales? Apple should have converted to an IBM compatible operating system while Microsoft was still in diapers. Sure, Apple is still around and making plenty of money with i-pods and i-phones, but then Hoyt is making plenty of money on compounds.

There are countless bow manufacturers whose products are of excellent quality, but they are not ILF compatible and, thus, occupy a small niche of the market. For example, OK Archery, a small German manufacturer who makes excellent, high end recurves and compouns, used to supply the German national and Olympic recurve teams with their bows. With the advent of ILF, the archers demanded compatibility. The company refused, and their bows are no longer seen on the international scene. As an afterthought, they now make an ILF limb, but still no riser with ILF capability.

Maybe, if Hoyt's new paralever mounting system really is better, they may set a new industry standard. But then again, they may find themselves marginalized. 

I, for one, would hate to see us return to the days when archers were locked in to one manufacturer's limbs!


----------



## sundevilarchery

limbwalker said:


> Sundevil, I admire your "sunny side up" attitude. And I hope for their sake it is better.


The way I look at it... it's whatever works and feels right in the archer's hands! Stiff riser feels good to some... more flaxable is preferable to others. This concept of this bow though intrigues me.


----------



## Shinigami3

limbwalker said:


> Actually, the CURRENT Hoyt got it's start when it bought out the real Hoyt - Earl Hoyt Jr... And Earl Hoyt Jr. got his start long before archery was returned to the Oly. games, making arrows and bows with his father prior to fiberglass laminations...
> 
> 
> 
> John.


So John is saying that Earl Hoyt invented the dovetail and that Hoyt bought the right to it. Strongly implying that "the current Hoyt" didn't invent it.

Cool story but there's a fly in that ointment.

Here's the header of the US Patent for the Hoyt dovetail right off the US Government Patent Office website.

United States Patent 4,494,521 
Quartino January 22, 1985 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archery bow having bow limb assembly and adjustment 


Abstract
The butt sections of the limbs of a take-down bow are loosely received in inwardly extending sockets in the ends of a bow handle section and are arranged to rock in a fore and aft direction on outer end portions of the rear socket walls. Inwardly extending T slots in the rear socket walls slidably receive headed members fixed in the bow limbs and prevent forward movement of the bow limbs. Members supported near the socket bottoms for fore and aft screw threaded adjustment receive the inner ends of the limbs, and spring pressed detents projecting centrally from the headed members snap into apertures in the rear socket walls when the inner ends of the limbs are properly inserted into the screw threadedly adjustable members. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Quartino; Miguel A. (St. Louis, MO) 
Assignee: Hoyt/Easton Archery Co. (Bridgeton, MO) 

Appl. No.: 06/481,929 
Filed: April 4, 1983 


That says HOYT EASTON on it and it is NOT Earl Hoyt's name on there.

Care to explain?


----------



## gig'em 99

Shinigami3 said:


> So John is saying that Earl Hoyt invented the dovetail and that Hoyt bought the right to it. Strongly implying that "the current Hoyt" didn't invent it.
> 
> Cool story but there's a fly in that ointment.
> 
> .....
> 
> Care to explain?


Uhm, I think all John said was that Hoyt got its start when they bought out Earl Hoyt Jr. I didn't see anywhere that John said Earl himself invented the dovetail system???

No fly in the ointment that I can see...


----------



## Shinigami3

I can't find the specific statement where he said that anymore, but he did say it. That's why I looked it up.

Here it is, I posted in the wrong thread.



> Hoyt has named the limb fitting system that it BOUGHT THE RIGHTS TO. This company certainly didn't invent the ILF.


And then another poster said:



> I think john just wanted to be more accurate in stating the facts...
> 
> EARL HOYT JR. invented all this..NOT the current company..
> 
> they BOUGHT earl's company and are riding on all his previous developments




So, I looked up the patent and it seems to me these are false statements. The patent makes it pretty clear that the dovetail was invented a few years after Easton bought Hoyt.

Just sayin'...


----------



## jmvargas

good work on getting the name on the patent...i guess we now have mr. miguel a. to thank for all these...


----------



## Seattlepop

Shinigami3 said:


> I can't find the specific statement where he said that anymore, but he did say it. That's why I looked it up.
> 
> Here it is, I posted in the wrong thread.
> 
> 
> 
> And then another poster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I looked up the patent and it seems to me these are false statements. The patent makes it pretty clear that the dovetail was invented a few years after Easton bought Hoyt.
> 
> Just sayin'...


I think there are many possibilities you overlook, making your accusations somewhat presumptive if not frivolous. Earl may very well have developed the basic dove-tail design of the limb mounting system, but the final product was likely refined and documented by a co. that had the resources to do so and could have been part of the negotiations to form a co. using the Hoyt name. 

Signor Frangilli has also indicated that the adjustable feature of the limb bolt was already in use by Spigarelli. Perhaps the new Hoyt co. also incorporated that feature. Can you find the Spigarelli name on the patent? 

Maybe a little more homework is due.


----------



## Borderbows

Shinigami3 said:


> I have followed all the marketing claims and engineering claims for this new bow- what are they lying about, exactly? Have you shot one yet?
> 
> I myself want to at least try one.


We started Using Cross weave carbon in our limbs to torsionally stiffen them in 1998... There is a independent test that shows the FX to be a twitchy limb as it had no torsional enhancement. The 900CX is no more torsionally stable than any other simple UD carbon/glass construction just like KAP limbs. We Challenged W&W to their patent of the "surprising stiffening effects of double angled carbon" (the patent adverts are now dropped), and if you look at the masters limbs and newer you will see the same cross weave carbon idea.

CAN you please help me understand how hoyt can claim that they were the first to make torsionally stiffened limbs.
Thats the Claim on there Formula bow Website.
Also The Cross weave carbon wording on thier newest limbs... 
Can i suggest that when the bow is strung at Brace hight, You can test the torsional stability by hand. Secure the riser between your thights, and just gently flex the limb tip left and right. If it feels like a samick or an Inno then its different, but i found Nothing of note in the 990TX, so why is this industry wide understanding not present in the 990TX if Hoyt tested it first...

George Has had several arguements with me on an Open forum here in the UK, of which he has disrespected the idea of torsional stability openly. His words are on record for all to see. This was just some 8-9 months ago!
If you want proof, i'll look it up?
If they pioneered storsional stability, the FX wouldnt have wobbled about so much on a dicky loose! SIMPLE.... Our Talisman golds were Faster and 40% stiffer laterally (independent french test) than the FX which was touted as the fastest limb in the world??? And we were just as stable as the winact and focus. which were slower by 7fps.
The G3 was then launched which was not to the same speed as the FX but a more reliable limb loose wise. 

Sid


----------



## ROB TAYLOR

Oh Sid....only a moron would argue that Hoyt has something over you guys in the limb department...LOL.

But really, this is just a stretched ILF fitting. There is really only two things that the FITTING change can offer (not including whatever layup or construction or design changes they may have made to the working limb).

1. Propriety
2. Shortening of the working limb to create less moving mass thus a bit (probably TINY bit) more speed and, just guessing here, MAYBE a tad more torsional stability due to a shorter "real" overall length

Any thoughts?


----------



## Seattlepop

ROB TAYLOR said:


> Oh Sid....only a moron would argue that Hoyt has something over you guys in the limb department...LOL.
> 
> But really, this is just a stretched ILF fitting. There is really only two things that the FITTING change can offer (not including whatever layup or construction or design changes they may have made to the working limb).
> 
> 1. Propriety
> 2. Shortening of the working limb to create less moving mass thus a bit (probably TINY bit) more speed and, just guessing here, MAYBE a tad more torsional stability due to a shorter "real" overall length
> 
> Any thoughts?



Other than the dampener bushing, I don't see where the issue of patents or propriety is applicable to the new design. When you say “FITTING”, are you referring to the dove-tail bushing or the general, more extended length “fit” of the new riser? The Hoyt literature only mentions patent pending regarding the limb-mounted dampener bushing. This would make some sense since the function of vibration reduction is accomplished via a different component then previously, ie., the limb instead of the riser.

However, the limb mounting system is unchanged except for making the limb mount section 1" longer and the riser pocket longer to accommodate it. A limb already flexes in this area and it does so in a "paralever" way, so Hoyt has taken an existing design and made it more active as opposed to making an inactive part active. I see no reason why W&W can't come out with a riser/limb combo next year that is the same or different, claiming that they have designed even greater efficiencies by making it 1/8" longer/shorter or whatever. 

What I do think Hoyt has done is blow the doors off the comfortable family sedan by creating a new "pimp my riser" environment. ILF or HDS are now just a “standard” fitting, and everything else will be whatever it is when the paint dries. 

And I’m betting it will not be very long before someone takes old limbs and drills new holes for the bushings to try on the new riser… “Hey, check out my new hot rod!” You know you want to.


----------



## jmvargas

ok..i admit to being one of those skeptics whenever hoyt claims anything new in recurve limbs technology given their poor record lately in that area compared to the real leaders such as borders and win&win...or samick..or vera(kaya) et al....

to me this "new" limb looks like nothing more than an existing limb with an extended limb butt plus a bushing for a dampener..

the limb butt with a bushing for a dampener is nothing new either...i have seen that from borders and some other european manufacturer's before..(just go to archery-interchange and you will see at least 3 examples there)..

i must admit i have never seen it on an extended limb butt though..

the paralever system, however,seems to be a new development although i cannot see how that alone will significantly or even slightly improve performance so until i see a majority of non-hoyt sponsored elite shooters consistently use this "new" bow i will remain skeptical...and continue to stick to my current set-ups.


----------



## Borderbows

Rob
I think your right.
We already make our Hex5 limbs with long limb butts to aid with drilling. then cut off the ends. We are in the process of pinching an order to leave them long, so that we can test this Paralever idea... If this works we will be surprised, and we will be glad to own up to our ignorance.

The Limb bushing is a odd topic as its been done before. Adding mass to an area that is dynamic doesnt make sence. Also, This must mean that hoyt make specific limb butts to maximise the movement in bow lengths and bow weights! WOW... 
just like their harmonised Monoblock CNC risers to the vairable energy input. Apparently there is one flexural trait that a riser MUST have.... and somehow one solid block of alu, does 66"22lbs up to 70"50lbs from 23" to 34" of draw. And responds with this correct trait in all accounts, Gtek mocked us by adding this theory that the optimal trait had been established on the GMX, and Helix risers, even though we all know they feel different. These two risers were both weight, stress and vibration optimised and yet soo different.

So the limb butts must have been independently stress tested and optimised for all bow lengths and weights... if you were to beleave that this parralever idea is to work on a top level bow. You would hope that your spec limb is just as optimised to get the best for your buck.

We are searching hard and fast on finding copy rights to the E-ILF (extended) as the only idea that could be patentable would have been that flex idea. but we would want to make a E-ILF sans Flex as we would not wish that parasitic loss to take place (unless we are about to be shocked). The GMX was advertised as Torque resistant or something along those lines... i would have assumed that would be the bulky pockets helping to reduce torque as the mass is distibuted.... NOW we have the opposite. 
Which of these ideas worked, or have we a new fashion of the year in the marketting of Hoyt. Somehow centralising the mass of the riser by cutting away the limb pocket is better than last years GMX?

My opinion is that the Lighter carbon recurve risers are eating at the wallets of Hoyt. So to get a lighter CNC effort, they have had to sacrifice something, be it the rotational resistance of a heavy pocket, or some other means of weighing up the riser at the edges... im not sure.... 
However Gteks laws on bows has changed for this year, so we will see what happens. Peoples feet are wiser than a single product.

The torsional resistance of a limb is quoted by Gtek to be over hyped nonsence over here on Archery-interchange... today its flavour of the day, with hoyt Claiming to be first on this band wagon.

I could be all wrong, but when i question Gtek i get nothing but stupid comments, like im due a bag of sugar for my sour apples... Maybe he could enlighten me or "US" so that this speculation dies NOW... but the 180 degree flips in R&D ethics that we see from a spectators stand point dont add up.
No doubt he knows more than we do... but time will tell...and we can only hope Gtek Bails us out of our ignorance.


----------



## Jason22

*EILF *(Extended ILF) or even *MILF *(Modified ILF) sound better than *PMS *(Paralever Mount System)

Sorry, I've been trying to resist saying that for a few days.


----------



## sundevilarchery

Jason22 said:


> *EILF *(Extended ILF) or even *MILF *(Modified ILF) sound better than *PMS *(Paralever Mount System)
> 
> Sorry, I've been trying to resist saying that for a few days.


THAT's funny.

And folks... I don't think this new design was GT's baby... so lighten up.


----------



## Borderbows

Jason22 said:


> *EILF *(Extended ILF) or even *MILF *(Modified ILF) sound better than *PMS *(Paralever Mount System)
> 
> Sorry, I've been trying to resist saying that for a few days.


Thats a Classic.... Love it.
Hex5 Milf
Inno Milf
Extreme BF Milf.....


----------



## Warbow

Borderbows said:


> Thats a Classic.... Love it.
> Hex5 Milf
> Inno Milf
> Extreme BF Milf.....


Hmm...might get more people into archery...or at least more hits on limb maker websites from key word searches


----------



## limbwalker

Sid proves my point exactly. Misleading marketing is a tradition at the "new" Hoyt. Works very well on the uninitiated...



> The patent makes it pretty clear that the dovetail was invented a few years after Easton bought Hoyt.


But who was the first to design the system? You're telling me that Earl Jr. had nothing to do with it?

John.


----------



## limbwalker

Found this on "another" forum...



> Yes, the new mounting system- the Paralever mount- has many advantages. That was an absolute requirement to us for changing what *we* invented 25 years ago, the Hoyt dovetail system that everyone copies today





> apparently what we know as ILF has been renamed as HDS for marketing purposes.





> Depends on your point of view. You could also look at it as Hoyt reclaiming stolen intellectual property.


So, this is indeed interesting. 

A true marketing battle. ha, ha. 

I wish for "Hoyt's" sake, this design is better and is successful. It would stand to reason that after so many years, someone has developed a better limb attachment system. It would make sense that the longer distance between the dovetail and the limb bolt will have the potential to result in a more precise and consistent alignment.

I'd sure love to know the entire story behind the development of the ILF dovetail. Since I began shooting Oly. recurve, I have heard this attachment system attributed to Earl Hoyt Jr. Anyone know definitively otherwise? Or should we just follow the rhetoric like the sheep we are...

Another interesting thing to me about all this discussion is that it only proves once again that most archers love to obsess over equipment (especially new "shiny" stuff) even when they all know full well that they themselves are the weakest link - not their equipment...

John.


----------



## ScarletArrows

so you mean I will still have to shoot it for the arrow to hit the middle...


----------



## jmvargas

sundevilarchery said:


> THAT's funny.
> 
> And folks... I don't think this new design was GT's baby... so lighten up.



.....maybe--but he gives that impression when he talks about it in the other forums...


----------



## Shinigami3

I sent him a PM on AIUK to congratulate him on this. In a reply i got from him yesterday he gave credit to the other engineers, and said he was just an advisor on this. I know he did a lot for FITA the past couple years and hasn't spent much time at Hoyt. I haven't seen anywhere in posts on AF or AIUK where he took any credit for this, but he is explaining it to a lot of people.

The personal attacks are pretty distasteful. What's up with that?


----------



## limbwalker

I haven't seen any personal attacks. Were they removed?

I also never got the impression that gt had anything to do with this design. But I've not browsed any other forum except for that one thread that came up on google for "ILF." 

As I said, I hope it's successful and an honest improvement. I'm just a little "numb" from all of Hoyt's agressive advertising and some if their overzealous cheerleaders. If a product is good, then it will speak for itself. Like my Axis risers. Dang good risers. No explanation or fancy marketing necessary... Results speak loud enough.

John.


----------



## RaptorX

jmvargas said:


> .....maybe--but he gives that impression when he talks about it in the other forums...


I agree with jmvargas, yet, I also enjoy thinking outside the box.
IIRCC, hoyt invented the ILF system, no? Maybe not, but I thought they did.
Maybe they improved it with their risers some time ago, but the limbs fell behind. The new limbs, seem better. It could be the jack of all trades.
We all know that most all bows of any make will shoot better than all of us.
Yet, I'm not prepared to change everything (could be a flaw, but history of late shows me my best be is not a flaw).

As for "GT", bless his heart. He's only trying to make the best possible.
I wish his personality was also so important.

Let's give it a chance, see what happens. could be the best ever, or, not so different either way. Hoyt once ruled the times. This shows they've spent some time with recurve. Good to see.

Time will tell.
History of "late" has left us to not trust hoyt limbs. But we like the risers.
Not to forget, the World Record, was set with a GMX and VERA limbs.
Can't be all bad (other than GT's posts).

:wink:


----------



## limbwalker

> I wish his personality was also so important.
> 
> Let's give it a chance, see what happens. could be the best ever, or, not so different either way. Hoyt once ruled the times. This shows they've spent some time with recurve. Good to see.


Can't disagree with either of these statements. 

John.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

Borderbows said:


> Which of these ideas worked, or have we a new fashion of the year in the marketting of Hoyt. Somehow centralising the mass of the riser by cutting away the limb pocket is better than last years GMX?


Well, the Spigarelli Revolution, an Italian 25" ILF riser, has no limb pockets. And a number of the shorter "hunting" ILF risers are also sans pockets, so that idea ain't new either.


----------



## jmvargas

i couln't agree more on john and raptorX's statements....


----------



## jmvargas

Shinigami3 said:


> The personal attacks are pretty distasteful. What's up with that?




.....ever wonder why he doesn't post here anymore?...


----------



## midwayarcherywi

At last, the posts are in line with the big breaking news. Hoyt has chosen to invest in recurve archery beyond more of the same. They are taking a risk. I applaud them and if the ideas they've come up with have merit, they will profit. That my friends is what it is all about. My hat is off to Hoyt.


----------



## Joe T

Borderbows said:


> Thats a Classic.... Love it.
> Hex5 Milf
> Inno Milf
> Extreme BF Milf.....


Or alternatively FILF - as in flexible international limb fiting


----------



## st8arrow

I have to agree. History will determine if it is innovation, or marketing, but never the less, they are the one's taking the risk, and I applaud them for it.

The fact that they are spending this much time & money on the recurve side is very encouraging to me. 

From a business stand point it seems silly to upstage the very successful GMX & a good limb (990tx) the year after it is introduced. They should be riding that horse a few more years to absorb R&D, tooling, and marketing expense. If Hoyt was as cunning and calculating as many believe them to be, doing this is purely stupid. Most posts on here believe Hoyt to be a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. 

I try not to form an opinion on equipment, until I have actually experienced it, but my first thoughts are that they migtht really have something, if they are willing to loose all the momentum that last year created, in order to go with a different design. In this economy that is a huge risk.

Timing of the introduction of HDS at this time is a poor choice from a busness/marketing standpoint. Is it innovation? Time will tell. We won't really know if it's a good idea until the 2011 catalogue comes out.


----------



## limbwalker

> If Hoyt was as cunning and calculating as many believe them to be, doing this is purely stupid.


That was my first thought. Why now after a seemingly very successful release of the GMX and new limbs? Don't make much sense to me, but it's not my money either...



> Timing of the introduction of HDS at this time is a poor choice from a busness/marketing standpoint. Is it innovation?


The only "innovation" in the HDS is a creative name changing "attempt" to "re-claim" an invention that was arguably not even theirs to "re-claim". But if the new Hoyt co. has the patent, then I guess all is fair in love and business... From what I can see, the term HDS is the new Hoyt's attempt to change the way we refer to the long standing ILF attachment system, so they get the credit for the design. Meanwhile, they are basically saying that the design is inefficient enough that they need to replace it with something better... Kinda weird mixed messages if you ask me. 

I mean, if you're really going to make the argument that the new attachement system is better, then why would you stick your neck out and try to demand credit for the old system? 

Some of this makes zero sense to me.

John.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

midwayarcherywi said:


> At last, the posts are in line with the big breaking news. Hoyt has chosen to invest in recurve archery beyond more of the same. They are taking a risk. I applaud them and if the ideas they've come up with have merit, they will profit. That my friends is what it is all about. My hat is off to Hoyt.


I personally think that Hoyt has been sleeping the past few years, resting on the laurels of past achievements, and is only now beginning to catch up with the Korean competition.

Look at the Excel, for example. Hoyt finally realized that they were missing out on a whole market segment: entry-level ILF setups.

Look at the GMX: they finally realized that most top recurve archers do not like the TEC style riser (yes, I know that they always had other, more "traditional" models in their catalog).

But I think that they are still the victim of one great misconception: that ILF is a fad, and compatibility between brands is not important. Long ago, they could have easily converted their hunting recurves to ILF (countless hunters have done so themselves), but they refused to, forcing those of us who are not as mechanically inclined as others to buy their limbs for their risers, whether GameMaster or Dorado.

I can't quite believe that the new system (PLM) will deliver what it promises. I think it is a ploy to lock Hoyt fans into their line of products.


----------



## Borderbows

Flint Hills Tex said:


> I personally think that Hoyt has been sleeping the past few years, resting on the laurels of past achievements, and is only now beginning to catch up with the Korean competition.
> .


Might i add that there are some HUGE similarities in some of the Modern Korean Products and our old Talisman TX40 limbs, including the torsional stiffening techneques, and recurve profile which in our books is some 11 years old now.
The use of cross weave carbon (XP10), and S2 glass (not bog standard bow glass). took our XP10 stabilised ML2 limb into a high performance Talisman series limbs. Probably the same as the Samick laminate of today.

These recurve radii have nothing to do with the Hoyt recurve profile, and was originally on our Black douglas Hunting recurve in the early 90's.

The Koreans took notice of this performance in a french bow test when our Talisman was pitched against the winact and focus... A copy of this reveiw has already been posted on this forum in the past.

Not many companies were looking at S2 glass and torsional stability some 8-9 years ago with our TX40 laminates. We might be small but we are certainly bow and material geeks.


----------



## Steve Ruis

*Boy, This is interesting ...*

I am astonished at this discussion. The two main factors determining an archer's performance are:
1. the archer's form and execution, and 
2. how well the bow-arrow system fits the archer.
Technological innovations account for a tiny bit of performance, but seemingly a huge amount of the yada, yada.

On the compound side, supported archers have to change bows every year, and yet the same archers tend to win time and again. Interesting, it must be the bows! 

I am gratified the all of the manufacturers are trying to make their products better (what would the world be like if they didn't) but are any of these innovations worth trading in a good setup that doesn't limit your performance? Not hardly. Supported archers change because they have to. Those companies generally don't keep selling last year's bows (the Hoyt Gold Medallist excepted, that bow seemed to have legs.) so they need to make money off of their new bows.

Are any of you shocked that these companies advertisers are touting "new" and "improved" stuff on their products? Do any of you believe that such claims have a significant impact on performance? (If you do, shame on you!)

The primary reason people are high on any new bow IMHO is #2 above. They have a "different" bow but one that fits them better than before. For example, my new 72" Hoyt GMX is the smoothest shooting recurve I have. I am 6'3" and I have been shooting 68" and 70" bows. Think maybe the 72" bow is smoother because it is 72" and that fits me better and I am now working the limbs better? That's what I think.


----------



## limbwalker

Great points as usual Steve. 

To your question, 1) no and 2) no 

The archer is and will always be the weakest link in the system. Even if this bow is measurably better in some way (which I doubt, but at the same time hope it is...), we're talking a fraction of a fraction of a percent potential improvement. But that won't stop the masses from rushing out to get one - mostly for the opportunity to be seen shooting one. For many archers who aren't willing to put in the time and effort to reach the top levels, or who realize they lack the talent, that is all that's left in the sport - shooting "neat" equipment that they can talk about. Since their scores certainly aren't worthy of discussion...

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but like Steve, it astounds me that so many are willing to spend so much on so little.

John.


----------



## midwayarcherywi

Of course it is the archer. But I wouldn't want to shoot a Bear Tamerlane with aluminum shafts and feathers either.

And I'm just a little miffed that because I like equipment means that I must be a slacker, whose not putting in the training hours, working on the mental game and getting effective coaching. It aint true.


----------



## Borderbows

I totally respect and agree with the posts from limbwalker and Steve Ruis.
I think your right.

I can add this. No wonder no one sees a difference in one bow to the next. They are all the dang same.the biggest revolution in bow building of late has been carbon limbs. BUT that only effects the mass of the limb and NOWT else.

For example a subtle shift in core taper is going to effect the sweet sum of very little. And thats as much as you will find in most limb designs.
I think i could Carve the tips of a recurve into the face of a dozen monkeys and not effect the bow's performance. So again alot of chest banging over naff all.
The limb pad angles and riser lengths have remaind constant from everyone.
So whats new there, and every one is claiming Innovation, & radical design ideas...
I can state that there are in essence 2 recurve profiles from the big boys. 
The limb widths are near identical. the limb pads angles are identical, preload within a touch of each other, and i will grant you a different colour each year.

Whats so revolutionary about all this.
Not one of these guys play with recurve profile, limb width, limb/riser length ratios (apart from a new step to a 27" riser started by a Small 3rd party company???), Recurve Cord ratios...
All Howard Hill long bow styles all shoot similar, same as all R&D longbows are similar, add carbon and you get a suble change in the same beast. BUT i dare you to compair a Howard Hill to a OL Adcock longbow. Can i ask you to make the same level of comparison within target...
Well. I could!
Numbers like 50% more recurve action, 100% increase in torsional stability, 10% reduction in unsupported string length at brace height. All sizable changes, and all still on one simple same old platform of a 25" ILF riser.

The down side of this interoperability between makers is that the platform that we all play on is fixed... 
Im not saying the platform is wrong... but it keeps us alll in a similar line.
Well, Keeps those with expansive tooling in line.


----------



## ScarletArrows

Ain't nothing wrong with trying to figure out if this is a vast improvement or a marketing ploy...and for anyone to treat it as more or less than that is just plain ole' dumb.

We all know the archer takes the shot and the equipment makes only a small (very small ) differance.To keep repeating this point is to beat a dead horse...
Science, reason, study, review and the Koreans...thats what I'm waiting for.


----------



## ROB TAYLOR

Scarlet, the first part of your first sentence is correct...nothing wrong with trying to figure out IF there is an improvement here. That's what most of us are doing, in a purely academic way, based on our limited (in some cases) archery physics knowledge...some of us flat know the archery physics involved dead to rights (Sid, for example).

As for the rest of your sentence....why don't you go shell out the cash, figure out if it's REALLY worth it...and us DUMMIES will wait for the verdict, with our money in our pockets!! LOL.

-Rob


----------



## ScarletArrows

ROB TAYLOR said:


> Scarlet, the first part of your first sentence is correct...nothing wrong with trying to figure out IF there is an improvement here. That's what most of us are doing, in a purely academic way, based on our limited (in some cases) archery physics knowledge...some of us flat know the archery physics involved dead to rights (Sid, for example).
> 
> As for the rest of your sentence....why don't you go shell out the cash, figure out if it's REALLY worth it...and us DUMMIES will wait for the verdict, with our money in our pockets!! LOL.
> 
> -Rob


Don't get me wrong there Rob, I'm one of those dummies too. --see second paragraph of my post above ;-)


----------



## limbwalker

> And I'm just a little miffed that because I like equipment means that I must be a slacker


Midway, that's a bit of a leap from what I wrote... No need for you to feel singled out if you don't fit the whole description.  There are plenty of good archers who work hard, are talented, and are gadget geeks too. But not great archers. If you'll look at the top 3 men here in the U.S., they have changed equipment VERY LITTLE, if at all. Certainly not every few years. Heck, you could throw Jenny into that group as well. And one of the three only shows up with new gear every so often because his sponsor tells him to (and he doesn't always listen to them anyway...). I don't blame him since the last 8 or so years worth of limbs have let him down...



> I think i could Carve the tips of a recurve into the face of a dozen monkeys and not effect the bow's performance. So again alot of chest banging over naff all.


This may very well be the line of the year. LOL!

John.


----------



## ROB TAYLOR

Scarlet....LOL


----------



## Borderbows

When we introduced the XP10 idea, archers all over the place, scoring in the 1200's all started putting in PB's. So we knew that there were some merrits to the idea. Archers below that tend not to give quanititative answers, and archers above it tend not to blow the trumpet and also more sponsored, as it is a archers form that dictates the outcome, as said.

We are not looking at making a bow for the elite flawless form, we are looking to make a bow that forgives the odd error. That way the top guys get this technology for free. But we also are not making bows for the elite few, as pointed out here, they dont pay our bills.

The reasoning we have behind some of this is that torsional stability will improve the grouping of those outfliers. lets say that torsional stbility improves a twitchy loose by 10%, then 10% of a erratic group would mean points, 10% of a 9/X end wouldnt really add alot to scores. 10% of 2mm is nothing 10% of 20cm is a score increase.

here is a quote from a mid 1200 archer:
His portsmouth score went from 570+ to 580 with a change in limbs. here are his thoughts:

Lateral Stability seems to be improve over the G3's - if i do have a "bad release" its nearly always the same thing (hand moving outward from the chin) and with the G3's this would put the arrows out into the 8 or 7 at about 9-10 o'clock, on a portsmouth face. The Hex5's dont of course render you immune to bad releases but the consiquenses are less dire (its now a linecutter -9 or 8 rather than a 8/7)

Thou if you are fortunate enough to drop them all in the 9 ring, then we cant really help you much!


----------



## Vittorio

There are two ways to reach innovation. By evolution and by revolution. 
Evolution takes ages. The differencies between Border Carbon 1995 limbs and today Samick Master limbs are really minimal, in terms of performancies. And a Bernardini Ghibli riser could shot >1360 in '96 with them, while just two or three Koreans could do the same at that time. Improved shapes in limbs were already present in the Nishizawa bows in the late 80's
Technological innovation after that age has been mainly the elimination of the fiberglass layers from limbs, first by W&W and last by Hoyt with the 900CX limbs, and the reduction of the mass of the inner part, with different solutions, including mixed foam/wood and honeycomb structures (But Yamaha carbon ceramic were already on the same path many years before).. with good result in terms of speed, much less in terms of stability and reliability. 
Limbs are still in evolution as far as materials and shapes are concerned, and surely average limbs today are much better than average limbs in the early 80's. Evolution.
Revolution in limbs seems more difficult to achieve, as practically, top levels archers are scoring today what they were scoring 10, 20 or even sometime 30 years ago. Oh, it was only one scoring 1341 in 1979, but how many today out of Korea? 
Revolution in risers is harder, as they are just the fixed part of the bow.
The real innovations in Technology have been the aluminum milled risers, from 1991, and the Crabon risers, more or less end of 80's 
But geometries and weights were more or less tall the same, with slight variations. Only mass distribution was different.
Then, real differencies in riser geometries/mass have been intruduced by Spigarelli, with the Dal Monte geometry, Fiberbow, with its extremely deflex geometry an extra light weight, and by the Bernardini Luxor 27", that I have designed trying to push to the direction of longer risers and shorter limbs. 
If these solutions are revolutions or evolutions, is difficult to define, but one thing is sure: none of them has shown to generate an average dramatic improvement of top level (or even medium level) scores, so...
Anyhow, in the last 20 years limbs manufacturers have tried to develop limbs and riser manufacturers have tried to develop risers with both perfectly understending they had to protect their interchngeability given by the so called ILF system in order to protect the market itself. No one has tried to develop a fully new combination of limbs and riser, i.e. fully new bow, because it was apparently an insanity in terms of potential sales, but also because no one found any revolutionary new solution that could grant its success by showing real astonishing performancies. 
If new Hoyt design will be such a revolution, it will explode in the market, and then others will follow with their propertary solutions, figthing with full bows against full bows, until again only one new system will survive, and then the world of archery will change for another 20 years....probably.
But practically, I hope it will happen before December 2012 :wink:


----------



## Borderbows

Vittorio
Our Border Carbon limb was just plain old glass fiber. With some XP10 Carbon in it.
We have dropped laminate mass by some silly amount like 30-40% over the Carbon limb since. With this we also doubled the torsional resistance. We have also managed to thin down the outer reaches of the limb by nearly 2mm, which is a considerable amount of mass/wind resistance when its over 1/2 the limb length and yet still maintain the torsional rigidity. This 2mm is about 4fps on a 68" limb.

Alot of this mass reduction happened on the Talisman TX40 limbs but the CXC laminates are lighter than that. The Talisman limb was a Space age limb in its day. Look up S2 glass and you will see how far ahead we were on the materials race then, It was a 40% S2 glass limb and 60% carbon powered.With Carbon as another stabilising layer. This was before 2002.... FX and focus limbs were out then when we were at this race.

S2 glass is no ordinary Cheap material. 
Infact look up when it was declassified as a Military secret. and then work our how quick were were on picking it up.

The limbs you experienced were good... but that was 1995 era. We have learnt lots and learnt even more since our flight limb clean up with Janice and Mike who took huge numbers of titles and world records flight records in 2004, Our Hex5 limbs are a tiny amount slower than those flight limbs, but they are MEGA stable in comparison. You should get your son to try them.

Though not sure if he would see the torsional stability thing, as his form is almost flawless, but the speed and smooth draw should help him. afterall the limb has 50% more recurve action than any other limb out there.

For example here is a graph of the lbs gained per inch of draw not the accumulative that being a DFC, but the difference between this inch and the last. This shows the True smooth feeling you get.
Its a G3 VS Winex VS Hex5 all the same length.
Graph here

We are just too small to be heard...


----------



## Borderbows

I should explain this graph.
Between 16-21" of draw the Hex5 holds 2lbs per inch and more (good energy build) compaired to the Winex and G3 which drop below the 2lbs per inch. down as far as 1.8lbs per inch, and once you get towards the clicker and start to settle down, the draw force on the hex5s then drop down in to an nice comfortable 1.8lbs per inch of draw, between the 27-29 inches of draw for a 68" limb. this then makes the clicker area feel buttery smooth, as the lbs drawn will be about 1/2 lb - 2/3rds of a pound easer per inch you need to pull back, subjectively, would this make you smile when your competitors are struggling at the end of a long comp?


----------



## pbzmag

Borderbows said:


> Vittorio
> For example here is a graph of the lbs gained per inch of draw not the accumulative that being a DFC, but the difference between this inch and the last. This shows the True smooth feeling you get.
> Its a G3 VS Winex VS Hex5 all the same length.
> Graph here
> 
> We are just too small to be heard...


Which color represent which limbs?


----------



## gig'em 99

Jason22 said:


> *EILF *(Extended ILF) or even *MILF *(Modified ILF) sound better than *PMS *(Paralever Mount System)
> 
> Sorry, I've been trying to resist saying that for a few days.


:set1_rolf2:


----------



## Blacky

Interesting graph.

The HEX5 should be the blue or black line according to Sid's explanation.


----------



## Jason22

Black = HexV
Yellow = WinEx
Pink = G3


----------



## gig'em 99

Sorry, still catching up on this thread...but that was funny.


----------



## Borderbows

Jason22 Your dead right.

As you can see the Hex5 has a falling rate of lbs increase, right up to the draw length.... This is SMOOTHNESS.

You can also spot that this, as this is where the string comes off the limb... You will not the lesser recurve of the G3, means the Yoke of the string comes off first at about 21" while the Winex comes off at 22" and the hex5 at 27".
Our CX series limbs come off at smidge over about 22"

Stack is not really a limb stress issue, it can be tottally overcome by leaverage on big recurves... Hence the wonderings on the extra long moving limb butt making a smoother draw. 

Blacky:
You saw the hex 5 limb working at the LAS bow test, did you not? What was your impression of the way the hex5 uncurls?

Recurve technology is in the recurve in our opinion, Its that simple... or was it too obvious! (nothing to do with a limb butt IMHO)


----------



## limbwalker

Looks like I need to try some WinEx limbs based on that graph. Not too many limbs are designed for a 32.5" draw...

John.


----------



## Borderbows

Limbwalker.

Our old Tx (now CX with the new laminate) limbs have very similary draw force curves to the Inno.

Here is a DFC for a 70" limb.

That previous graph was a 68". No wonder you didnt like it.
TXG VS Hex5

If you look at the pink Squares you will see that the hex5 measured for a 28" draw is a flat track out to 31.5 and therefore will continue out to 32" on that vaine too.
If you look at the TX limb, The Black diamonds you will see approx what the Inno and that recurve style would to at that draw length. it starts to stack. as do all of those style recurves do, esp the shallower profiles but im sure you have noticed the shallow recurves with your long draw.

If you cross the draw weights at 30" you will see all the extra stored energy you get from a hex5. (yellow triangles)

On the 70" limb, if we will have a graph like the other one, it would be more in the relms of 1.5" further out.
You will note that a 68" limb is still packing less pounds per inch gain all the way out to 31" before it starts picking up more pounds per inch than the rest. This takes the 68" limb past its required designed remt.
Tomorrow I'll do some graphs to try and show you what i mean.


----------



## jmvargas

limbwalker said:


> Looks like I need to try some WinEx limbs based on that graph. Not too many limbs are designed for a 32.5" draw...
> 
> John.


....john--i think i can almost guarrantee you that the 70" border HEX5-H mk2 limbs will be able to handle your draw length easily!!...PS...sid--please correct me if i'm wrong!!!


----------



## Borderbows

jmvargas said:


> ....john--i think i can almost guarrantee you that the 70" border HEX5-H mk2 limbs will be able to handle your draw length easily!!...PS...sid--please correct me if i'm wrong!!!


Your right there.

We could also make them 71" or 72" if there was more smoothness required, or if someone wanted to optimise this trough of the first graph to there draw length. but the normal even sizes cover most bases TBH. 
we do both odd and even limb lengths from 66" out to 72"


----------



## limbwalker

> No wonder you didnt like it


Yea, I don't even look at graphs inside of 31". Only thing that matters to me is what happens between 32 and 33"... So far, nothing has even approached my 70" (long) Masters limbs for smoothness and speed.

Sounds like your limbs are real good too. Never heard a bad thing about them. 

Now, how did we get from ILF/HDS to draw force curves...? ha, ha.

John.


----------



## John K

I know an archer with a 33.5in draw. He shot a Matrix with 72in TXGs for a while, but has found switching to a 27in GMX for a 74in bow works a little better.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

Borderbows said:


> Stack is not really a limb stress issue, it can be tottally overcome by leaverage on big recurves... Hence the wonderings on the extra long moving limb butt making a smoother draw.
> 
> Recurve technology is in the recurve in our opinion, Its that simple... or was it too obvious! (nothing to do with a limb butt IMHO)


What do you mean by overcoming stacking by "leverage"? Can I reduce stacking by adjusting my limb bolts out? Are Hoyt's longer limb butts taking any length away from the acting part of the limb? If not, then I have to agree that Hoyt is just trying to get archers to stop using other limbs on their risers.

I never really thought about the recurve part of the limb, but yeah, conventional wisdom says that a recurve will have more speed and less stacking than a longbow of the same poundage. Are you saying that the later in the draw that the string comes off the limb, the better the efficiency? 

Sorry if my questions sound dumb, but I don't have much of a mechanical inclination.


----------



## Borderbows

Ermm... Lets start with some simple bow design ideas.
Long bow and recurve, the difference is the recurve.
recurve to super recurve.... sounds like a natural prgression to get more recurve, that way you get more of a difference???

The bow thinks its as long as the usupported string, and as you draw a recurve, you end up with a longer and longer string. So shallow short recurves can only achieve limited gains. As they become longbows at 22" as the sring comes off the limb.
If the riser is only 25" long and the bow is 68" in AMO length then there is most probably NO difference in limb length.... so if the recurve is the same as before then mmm, how can you achive the desired smoothness??? 
If you went for a 27" riser to achive a 68" bow then you end up pulling the limbs into a tighter radii. Adding to stress and killing the string angles on a shallow recurve.

Take for example a longbow, it needs to be long as the string angle is lost the moment you draw it. So the longer bow makes for a lesser string angle so feels smoother.

All this does not lead to efficency. all it can do is add to stored energy. as so far you have been able to flatten out the lbs per inch draw on longer draws. Efficency comes from the dynamic return which comes down to a light mass limb. Recurves achive a lighter mass limb by way of a shorter limb for the same draw lenght as its able to pretend to be longer due to the recurve which keeps a better string angle for longer
So a recurve with a bigger recurve can pretend more and give a smoother draw for the limb length! 

Does that make sence...

Our thinking is this is just a MILF or EILF and nothing more, but we will see as time goes on and we get to see one. 

Once i get a graph put to gether, I'll show you the difference between the smoothness of draw between a 68" super recurve bow and a 70" normal recurve. Id place bets on the super being the smoother at the mo.

Now, for the next idea.

If you wind your limbs out, then you end up with a limb at a more friendly angle to defend the string. Measure the amount of recurve wrap you get (string contact at brace height) then wind your bolts in and measure again, this is the problem, Wound in you will get less wrap.
To reclaim this angle and amount of wrap you need to reduce your Brace height. 
Now, bows with Whippy tips tend to fold over at the tip at full draw and these feel stacky. Thats either due to the width being too little or the taper too thin. This is one way of holding it all together for longer, and thats how the static recurve idea starts.
But a static recurve tends to have more mass in its tips, so it stores more energy, but its efficency is less... See what im getting at.

Note so far ive not mentioned limb butts... Though allowing the limb butt to flex to give a wound out feel at full draw, yet still wound in, at brace height, is a little bit more efficent than allowing the limb pad angle to change due to riser flex. but its still more mass to shift and for what reason.
Id sooner try and save tooling costs with an E-ilf idea, than change all my CNC formers for string grooves, limb profile, and cnc tillering aids by changing all my recurve profiles. being small and hand made has some advantanges 

BUT the limb butt or riser flex is still not he most efficent in our books is your shifting more mass than you need to.
Id think that the W&W Apex riser has all that cross sectional strength to help stop the riser flex.

Riser or limb butt flex is a parasitic loss in our books.


----------



## Blacky

Sid,

with that explanation a lot more people will understand the principle of working recurve limbs. :thumbs_up

Btw I did see the curves unwind at Rob's place.

When I do my reports and have a recurve bow on a draw board, I watch closely how the curves unwind. Sometimes they are not flattening out and the only action I see is a hinging action with little unwinding of the curve section. And that also shows in the fd-curve, the speed and efficiency.

Blacky


----------



## Borderbows

Blacky, If you get the chance again, you will be able to see the way the hex5 works its little tricks.

It draws just like any other recurve. then as the recurve tips stand up, they then add a second coupling effect, which then tries to pull the limb tip downards, and that in effect increases the radii at the fade out. This increased radii is not stack, as stack is more like the straightening out of the limb opposed to more radii.

The limb has two basic effects which can be seen as that little flat spot on the first graph.
first stage is to get the leaver to stand up, second is to get it to pull downwards.
Its subtle, but its the first limb we tried to get that to work on purpose.

We think the hex 5 is a fun limb to watch. but we know what to watch for.


----------



## Borderbows

right as promised:

68" normal recurve vs 70"hex recurve

Now the poor 70" was given a head start, as the brace height was reduced to 8.25" to make it smoother, but so that we could compair like for like.

The 70" CXB reaches its smoothest at 24" of draw, while the 68" Hex5MKII reaches the smoothest at 26.5 give or take. These bows were two bows of 29lbs at 28" Same riser used for both examples.

The fun starts when you know that longer limbs store more energy, while the shorter limbs have less mass. Its all a compromise, but super recurves when well executed are not.


----------



## clint999

a related issue as to Hoyt (and some other makers is this)

Does Hoyt help its market position or hurt it by constantly releasing new models every year it seems? Lately, the design team seems to be churning out new limbs and new risers at a much faster rate than say the early to mid 1990's (when the machined risers had become completely established)

will this cause people to run out and buy this new riser after blowing some major bucks on a GMX etc? Or will they resent the fact that they only had the "top of the line" for less than a year?

Some of us want the newest stuff now-some of us want to wait a bit and see if the newest limb is not going to have massive numbers of failures or that there is a flaw in the riser (remember the radians and early axis risers?)

are these innovations really "better" and if so why weren't they "discovered" until the current model year?

I can understand why it happened in compounds-the stuff I had in 1995 is no where near as fast and/or smooth. However, I have shot just about every limb or riser around and I sometimes think the "innovations" are basically making something that works as well a bit cheaper to produce. 

another thing-back in the cast riser days, those things could break or fail-sometimes right away-sometimes after alot of shots. with the good machined risers-some of which I have used have had at least 150,000 shots on them and really don't shoot any different than the same model made on the same week that has only 15000 or 1500 shots on it.


----------



## jmvargas

i don't know if i am a typical archer when it comes to buying new equipment but--i know what i like and if it's new and i think i may like it because it's better than what i currently have--i will try it....IF i can afford it..

..if i think i will REALLY like it but i can't afford it right away i will wait for feedback from archers i respect....OR hope one of my fellow archers buys it first so i can try it...

..if the feedback is positive i will find a way to get it--normally by selling some older stuff...

SO--i do a lot of research before i pour in big bucks for new stuff...if it's small bucks i just go ahead and get it and hope!!

.....hope all of that makes sense...


----------



## limbwalker

JM, I think that's pretty much what most of us do.

Thankfully for those of us that don't tow around truckloads of money, there are enough folks who are willing to burn money on new gear almost every year. Some think it's going to help them, and others just like to shoot the newest stuff because they can afford it. That's fine, but it works out great for those of us who need to shoot good used equipment for financial reasons...

John.


----------



## limbwalker

Interesting factiod I found on another forum... And I'm certain it's accurate considering the source.



> Gold Medalist TD4 1983 (designed in 1982 by Mike Quartino and Earl Hoyt)


So, what kind of limb fitting did the TD-4 have? I thought it was the ILF dovetail, right?

John.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

*Stick with the tried and true!*



limbwalker said:


> JM, I think that's pretty much what most of us do.
> 
> Thankfully for those of us that don't tow around truckloads of money, there are enough folks who are willing to burn money on new gear almost every year. Some think it's going to help them, and others just like to shoot the newest stuff because they can afford it. That's fine, but it works out great for those of us who need to shoot good used equipment for financial reasons...
> 
> John.


My hospital's department of orthopedic surgery has a great reputation. I try to attend professional conferences every year, which are usually hosted by university medical centers around Germany. While we are not on the cutting edge of technology, we aren't behind the times either. Our head surgeon is perfectly willing to try new things, but not experimental techniques which could turn out to be very expensive mistakes! We stick with the tried and true methods.

I agree with you, John! I'll let the guys with the big bucks try out the new stuff. It won't take long to figure out what is really good and what is just a bunch of hot air. 

The ILF system is tried and true, a high quality, highly versatile system that has helped excellent archers achieve amazing results. 

My other passion is model railroading. One company, Maerlklin, has always manufactured AC models, and they have a cult-like status among German model railroaders. Their products are generally good, but they have marketed the occasional lemon. The problem is, every other manufacturer in the world produces 12V DC models, so Maerklin models and track cannot be combined with any other manufacturer's products. Some manufacturers do produce AC versions of their models to cater to the Maerklin crowd. Nonetheless, the faithful customers have dwindled in numbers. This past year, Maerklin declared bankruptcy and was sold to an _Asian_ investor. 

Could happen to Hoyt, too! Just claiming your product is better won't necessarily mean that the majority of customers will believe it. Heck, even _having_ the better product doesn't insure success (take Apple's Mac vs. Microsoft, for example). Sometimes it's just better to stick with tried and true technology.

I'm not trying to pooh-pooh innovation, if that is indeed what Hoyt has accomplished. I just don't believe their claims that the Formula system is so much superior to ILF/HDS to justify spending close to $1000 for a new riser + limbs, when there's absolutely nothing wrong with the ILF bow I already own. I'd be happy to put it to the test, if Hoyt is willing to lend me one of their new bows at no charge, though.


----------



## whiz-Oz

clint999 said:


> will this cause people to run out and buy this new riser after blowing some major bucks on a GMX etc? Or will they resent the fact that they only had the "top of the line" for less than a year?


What so many people have failed to realise is that you CAN'T just go out and buy the new riser. The GMX is still the top of the line HDS limb riser. The Formula RX is the top of the line Paralever riser. 
You have every option with the old system that you had previously, except the 900 CX's. 

It isn't a new limb. It's a new system and you buy into it just like everyone who buys a compound. 

As for if it's worth it, I have been given one to find out. When I've done some testing and measuring and other stuff, I'll let you know what I think.


----------



## Shinigami3

It's funny that this thread started with a mistaken assumption.

My info-source at Hoyt tells me Butch Johnson is shooting his really well... with v-bars no less!

Apparently sales are going very well- there's already hundreds if not thousands sold in Europe.

I asked if this is how all the future Hoyts will go. I pointed out that they will need cheaper limbs to bring in more beginners. I didn't get a clear answer on that question though 

I think as long as they're supplying both technology paths then there's nothing to complain about. The top guys will probably like the Formula and the rest of the market still has all the other options.

I do still wonder, will this replace HDS. In the HDS realm, the GMX has been a huge success- I was told the TF Apecs which came out around the same time has not been used to win any major competition in the past year, but the GMX/990 was used to win the World Cup finals and I think everyone knows, the GMX riser was used for the new FITA round record set in Korea. Looking at event photos on FITA and Dutchtarget, it looks like every one of the W&W contract shooters have either gone back to Inno's or Winex's or switched to Hoyt around mid-season (if you look almost all of them had the TF Apecs at the start of the season but by the middle and end there weren't many to be seen).

If this takes off and the top Hoyt and other shooters adopt it (as they seem to be doing in droves) then the writing's on the wall for the old system.



> This past year, Maerklin declared bankruptcy and was sold to an Asian investor.
> 
> Could happen to Hoyt, too! Just claiming your product is better won't necessarily mean that the majority of customers will believe it.


That's a joke right? I bet recurves aren't 5% of Hoyt sales. I'm just glad there's still a mainstream American company making recurves!



> I'd be happy to put it to the test, if Hoyt is willing to lend me one of their new bows at no charge, though.


Yeah, sign me up too!


----------



## Shinigami3

On another note I wonder why we haven't heard from Borderbows since the FDC's were published for the Formula?

It's a downloadable PDF here.

http://www.hoytrecurve.com/customer_service/hoyt_frequently_asked_questions.php?c=Recurves


----------



## limbwalker

> I do still wonder, will this replace HDS. In the HDS realm, the GMX has been a huge success-


What is this "HDS" you speak of... ? LOL! 

Is it anything like the ILF we all know? I'd bet HDS is just a cheap copy of the ILF...  ha, ha.



> My info-source at Hoyt tells me





> On another note I wonder why we haven't heard from Borderbows since the FDC's were published for the Formula?


The apples sure don't fall far from the tree, now do they. 

Hey Shin, how do you get your very own personal Hoyt "info-source?" Are they available on Ebay?


----------



## John K

Shinigami3 said:


> On another note I wonder why we haven't heard from Borderbows since the FDC's were published for the Formula?
> 
> It's a downloadable PDF here.
> 
> http://www.hoytrecurve.com/customer_service/hoyt_frequently_asked_questions.php?c=Recurves


Probably because they're busy making bows in the run up to the Christmas break. Not every company makes marketing their number one priority.

Rest assured, they've seen the DF curves already. They've already published some of their own, and I'm rather hoping they'll run some more tests making a direct comparison with limbs from other manufacturers.

Of course, an ideal scenario would be a third party running the DF curves, efficiency, speed and other tests, like a French magazine did in 2002.

Just to clarify - Sid and Sid, and Anne and the others are friends of mine. I don't work for or receive any free or discounted kit from Border.


----------



## Borderbows

Shinigami3 said:


> On another note I wonder why we haven't heard from Borderbows since the FDC's were published for the Formula?
> 
> It's a downloadable PDF here.
> 
> http://www.hoytrecurve.com/customer_service/hoyt_frequently_asked_questions.php?c=Recurves



Judging by Your/Gteks comments on Archery forum the lower peak weight was due to adjusting the bow weight for tune.
He stated that both bows were 42lbs in the fingers but adjusted out to be 1lbs less for arrow tune. This would show the graph that is shown there.

The lower peak weight is because both bows are NOT the same weight at 28" on this DFC. This is nothing but waffle in our opinion.

if you measure the distance (vertically) at the smoothest part of the draw (20") you will see that the gap is bigger than that at 30". This means that the shorter limbed bow is stacking earlier than the 25" riser model. and is NOT smoother.

Anyone that is used to DFC graphs would have seen this. BUT i can add that to get the same arrow to tune, and need 1lb less on the fingers would suggest that the bow is 2fps faster, but he is achiveing 4fps, so was this before or after the weight adjustment???SO woopie, the shorter limb is faster.... NOW TELL ME THE VERTICAL NP stability.

There is a trade off....

The graph shows exactly what is expected, Early preload and less overall stored energy.

CAN i also add that the stored energy gained at the front end of this graph does not equal more stored energy at 26"+ as you loose out from the cross over point onwards overall there is less energy in that bow than the 25" model.. NOW there would be a difference in the limb mass. which equates to about 170grains over the pair of limbs. i will explain.

light carbon limbs are about 2200 grains for the working limb mass.
Glass limbs are 3600 grains a pair
so lets assume that hoyt are still half glass half carbon at a mean mass of 2900 grains.

This is for a pair of limbs. SO lets assume that working limb is 17" long, 34" total over the pair, which makes the grains per inch to be 85 grains. This is because its not just a liimb tip extention, its a full limb length extention. thats how we can come up with the limb mass to be about 170 grains, spread over the whole limb.

1/2MV^2 means that the more movement the more the mass becomes critical

So if 10grains at the nocking point = about 2fps. and 40 grains at the limb tip = 2fps. then there you go. The limb pocket design does very very little. as 170 grains over the working limb will be about 2-3fps. we are now in Hoyts ball park. which is the arrow tune effect noticed o fthe 1lbs or 2fps.

Im still not convinced that a bolt placement on the riser will add speed to a bow. For example, have Hoyt made a limb thats as fast as the Inno??? and its on the ILF design?

TBH Shinigami3, based on the orders we have taken, we were happy with the Hoyt product launch!
Id still like to see the smoothest part of the DCF at 27" and not 20" and the Inno is about 21" which best even this claim of 20" of the smoother 27" FX.
Incidently the G3 was about 20" too.


----------



## jmvargas

many thanks for explaining it fully as you normally do sid!!....it seems the so-called hoyt data does not do as good a job....

oh well...so what else is new...

PS..i agree with JohnK though--an independent 3rd party comparision is the best way to determine which is what...


----------



## Borderbows

jmvargas said:


> many thanks for explaining it fully as you normally do sid!!....it seems the so-called hoyt data does not do as good a job....
> 
> oh well...so what else is new...
> 
> PS..i agree with JohnK though--an independent 3rd party comparision is the best way to determine which is what...


I have heard that the sight window is small on the 25" FRX riser, so maybe the 27" is the way to go if your going Hoyt.
This is second hand info though so take it with a pinch of salt, unless Shinigami3's insider source will help us out...
Which Window is bigger??? a 23" nexus or a 25" FRX? can can you quantify this???


----------



## whiz-Oz

How about a 25" Formula compared to a 25" Axis?


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> How about a 25" Formula compared to a 25" Axis?


Cheers Whiz-Oz.

Thats no good for a string walker or barebow, and why there is a need to push the 27" version. 

Id probably go for the 25" GMX if that were me. As you said, there are other bows in the Hoyt Stable... Afterall, Hoyt make very good risers, as do other companies.

The 27" GMX is still an option for those that want the extra speed, but can sacrifice the vertical Nock stability, because sometimes you might need the speed. (if you cant reach the target???)


----------



## bis

whiz-Oz said:


> How about a 25" Formula compared to a 25" Axis?


Interesting ... it implies that Formula limbs are longer than traditional limbs.
Here http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=30574&highlight=formula you can see pics of a 25" samick master riser compared to a 27" formula rx.

---


----------



## Borderbows

WhizOz, ive got a question for you!

Basic bow design means that the riser is as long as the the fadeout to fade out.
Now.... if i keep that constant, and preload constant, then i could in effect make a metal riser any length i want.... and move the bolts about as and how i wish...

So is a 27" Bow with specific limbs, equal to a 27" bow with standard/conventional limbs...

For example... If i traced the outline of this new RX bow 25" vs 23" ILF would i find the Fadeout in the same location, and the window the same height... and the limbs conforming to a similar profile...

It looks like this 27" is a 25" and the 25" is the 23" just with same bolt locations but different dove tail location, and the fadeouts are placed in the same working location as their older roots.

This would not be the case with a 27" luxor or Inno???
I mean, whats it like compaired to the 27" GMX?

Havent see this bow yet, so still speculating... any feedback on this would be grand!


----------



## Vittorio

Just looking to pictures, it seems that the choice of the Formula riser lenght for archers will be more related to the window height than to the real riser lenght. 
25" Formula window celarly compares to a standard 23" riser window, that means for instance I can't use it, as I will not be able to shoot at less than 15 mts and still see the sight (tried in hthe past 23" risers, but all had same probelm for me because of my face and anchoring point). In situations like mine, 27" will be the only possible solution...
Luxor 27 is a totally different beast. Window is not 1" longer than a 25" riser, but 1/2 inch longer, only, as bottom part under the pivot point is 1.5 inch more than a 25 riser. This was made to give more vertical stability to the riser and less torsional criticity after several tests that have shown that the pivot point just in the middle of the bow is a tradition more than a real technical need, and that bringing the pressure point closer to the center of the bow was much better in all terms and bow reaction in that riser lenght.


----------



## Joe T

Vittorio said:


> Luxor 27 is a totally different beast. Window is not 1" longer than a 25" riser, but 1/2 inch longer, only, as bottom part under the pivot point is 1.5 inch more than a 25 riser. This was made to give more vertical stability to the riser and less torsional criticity after several tests that have shown that the pivot point just in the middle of the bow is a tradition more than a real technical need, and that bringing the pressure point closer to the center of the bow was much better in all terms and bow reaction in that riser lenght.


Would not having the pivot point to limb pocket longer at the bottom than the top always improve riser stability irrespective of the nominal riser length - at least for bare bow? Granted with stabilisers controlling dynamic tiller the pivot point position within reason becomes fairly irrelevant.


----------



## Borderbows

Vittorio.

The take down method is irrelevant in this debate... This Parraleaver system is very confusing.
For example...

Lets ignore the technical methods for measuring riser length and lets get down to basic bow design.

the real length of the riser is the length from fadeout to fadeout. 
Now, if we take brand X ILF limbs and keep them constant though out the 23"-27" riser range.
thats easy to understand, as the longer limb'ed version will stored more energy, and the shorter limb will have less mass. That concept is well understood.
Now lets take an odd ball bow that does not have the same limb pocket design. Then you have to ignore the Limb X constant and get back to basics.
Where are the fadeouts...
If they are within 1/2" of the original 25" then thats what it is... Its a 25" bow geometry and not a 27" bow geometry. as these apples might not be what they appear.

The way to get a 27" riser bow to pull like a 25" bow is to make the fadeouts sharper and shorter than the 25" brother. This then is not a 27" riser bow for in the ILF comparison idea.
The 27" riser in ILF guise is a genuine effect on the limb, but a totally new bow is not the same deal.
So we need to compair it to a known 25" datum for an understanding if real innovation has taken place.
My guess at the mo is that this 27" is a 25" and the 25" is a 23" and thats why there is no 23"... but thats just speculation as this is just a forum.

Has anyone seen any Hoyt comparisons for the 25" GMX vs 27" Formula...

If the geom is kept constant, ie limb pad angles the same, working limb length the same, and the bow length the same, then call it what you like... its in essence the same bow. (bow length - Working limb length = riser length)

I'll post a photo of what im thinking tonight when i get to my laptop.


----------



## Vittorio

Joe, the concept in Luxor 27 is that archer is in reality holding the bow at the pressure point, not at its geometrical center. So, independently were the nocking point is, the bow reacts in any case in relationship to the pressure point, not to the pivot point. This concept has a lot of unexplored possibilities, but because of bow window minimum height, it is difficult to implemnt in shorter risers. 
Of course stabilizers alter any normal reaction of a plain bow, and this is the reason why natural tiller in a limbs pair in a bow in Olympic configuration is more a problem than a solution. And, also for sure, asymmetrical bow configurations have a lot more of possibilities when combined with stabilizers, but of course lover mass heavier than upper one will ever be better for bare bow shooting first.

I have also reached the conclusion that the Formula 27 design needs now a nominal 64" limbs pair (presently unexisting) to give a 66" bow to those that need a tall window. Otherwise many ladies and joung boys will have difficulties in using the 27" Formula with short limbs, as total bow will remain a 68" one. 

From another end, I'm sure that now there is a good market for standard ILF 64" limbs, that can give a 62" bow on a 23" riser for children and a 66" one on a 27" riser for bare bow and probably faster recurve set up. 
Question to Sid is why they are not commercially available, yet.


----------



## Borderbows

Vittorio.

We do a CXG/CXB in a 64" limb and have the ability to make a 64" Hex4. Though no one has requested it...

The CX limbs have been available since 2004, but they are not in the pricelist as we have enough hassle with what we have... You try explaining an ODD limb size like a 71" or a 67" bow.... We can offer a 65" hex5 though.
We did have a 64" Prototype Hex5 ready, but it needed a wee bit of work which we never got round to.

If someone asked, we would have to get our bums in gear! lol.

We work with a modular inhouse laminate system, and work with our own tapers so anything is possible... from a 90lbs 72" (not totally recomended down to a 15lb 64". and everything in between... Heck if you wanted red limb butts we could even do that for a fee...


----------



## Vittorio

Many times I have faced situations were a target 62" bow was needed. Standard solution is to make it with 21" risers, but surely better solution is to have 64" limbs.
The reason why they are not requested, yet, is because they do not exist in catalogs. It was the same with 27" risers before the Luxor 27. Chicken and egg, you know ...:smile:


----------



## Borderbows

Vittorio said:


> Many times I have faced situations were a target 62" bow was needed. Standard solution is to make it with 21" risers, but surely better solution is to have 64" limbs.
> The reason why they are not requested, yet, is because they do not exist in catalogs. It was the same with 27" risers before the Luxor 27. Chicken and egg, you know ...:smile:


The research for the CX limbs at that stress level was done years ago, and the process of making limbs means the more models you have the more surplus you make... the reason for not completeing the 64" hex5 was that we are at the most staff we have ever had, and making the most bows we ever had, so adding another model to our production wasnt needed. No need for the R&D.

For example, Limbs quite often dont make the weights you wanted, so say 10% of limb blanks are not going to make the order. with 64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,and 72" limbs in Wood core or hyperflex core x 3 limb models in 20-90lbs is a huge number of stock to hold... dont offer half of what we are capable of!!!! becuase it just causes confusion. Thats just the ILF limbs... We also have our Black Douglas trad bows to work on as thes limb options are also open to 17,19,21,23, and 25" bows. No matter Who you are, and what your thoughts on, on where you want to be on the draw force curve, we can most probably get you there!

That does not include the one peice recurves we make all with full ILF FITA level laminate technology... All these bows come with 14 timber options of which you get 2 options in each bow!

I didnt even start on the stencil and colour options.

A catalogue or pricelist doesnt do the skill levels in the work shop justice! 

we make flatbows in 3 models too that are 100% carbon limbed, and crossbows. (not the stocks yet)
how big is the catalogue needing to get :-D

We are more into designing bows, and bow design that we are in producing them .
Other than regestering the Hex5 limb profile on a Bow international (reason was to date stamp the concept) we have not advertised anywhere... You find another product advert that comes from us!!! our 28 day return policy if we dont meet your expectations, means we cannot hide! We dont market our bows. the bows market themselves if we do our job right! That way we can sink our heads into limb design for our bows... hell, look up youtube and you will see Border Archery breaking bows on purpose for all to see.


----------



## Borderbows

There is a picture posted on Archery Forum by a User called Py. He posted some great pictures which show the differences in bows. The one thing i have done and i hope its not in contravention of any forum rules on either side was to take his photo and overlay the two strung bows.... If this is breaking some forum rules on either side of this fence all be glad to remove this post OR have a Mod delete this post.... Im not a member of Archery forum so i cant contact him to ask his permission...
a 25" Samick and a 27" Formula.









As you can see the limbs come out the bow at different angles, (preload) but the fadeouts at this scale of image look to be in the same location. Meaning the overall riser length is equal, and the working limb length is equal.


----------



## bis

There should be something wrong - master is 25", RX is 27".
If you look at some other pics ... like this one, for instance http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=PqDQ430
There, I notice two things:
1) RX is longer than the master
2) The distance between the weight adjustment bolts is bigger on the master.


----------



## dkard

*pic*

Looking at the pic you can see the riser is longer by an inch on each side, but the limb fades are in about the same spot. 

dave


----------



## limbwalker

Well, Hoyt got at least part of what they wanted so far. It seems we're all talking about it...

Once again, if the best archers in the world are paid to shoot it, then guess which bow will likely win? 

Only thing that will convince me is if several already elite level archers somehow suddenly improve their world ranking or fita averages because of the bow. But I'm not going to hold my breath...

Equipment, no matter how good, only counts for so much...

John.


----------



## lorteti

Borderbows said:


> As you can see the limbs come out the bow at different angles, (preload) but the fadeouts at this scale of image look to be in the same location. Meaning the overall riser length is equal, and the working limb length is equal.


Wow, that is very confusing.
Does that mean you need 68" string for the RX 27" riser with medium limbs.
So you just end-up with a 68" bow.
Hoyt should mention this in there advertising.

jx


----------



## whiz-Oz

Nope. 
A 27" FRX riser with Long limbs gives a 72" bow. 
With Medium limbs gives a 70" bow. 
And with short limbs gives a 68" bow. 

Er, just like every other 27" riser combination with applicable size limbs..

No explanation required. 

Remember that you're not going to stick anything other than the limbs designed for this system onto an FRX riser..


----------



## John K

lorteti said:


> Wow, that is very confusing.
> Does that mean you need 68" string for the RX 27" riser with medium limbs.
> So you just end-up with a 68" bow.
> Hoyt should mention this in there advertising.
> 
> jx


I *think* what people are driving at is that if the fade-out to fade-out length is the same as in (for example) a normal 68" bow, then the effective length of the riser is the same as a normal 68" bow. In other words there probably won't be a huge amount of difference between the DF curves.

So a 68" RX is still a 68" bow. It's just that the 27" riser + short limb combination will be about equivalent to a "normal" 25" riser + medium limb bow.

What we really need are some pictures of an RX with a 27" riser next to another bow with a 27" riser of another brand.


----------



## whiz-Oz

John K said:


> What we really need are some pictures of an RX with a 27" riser next to another bow with a 27" riser of another brand.


If only someone could help!

This is the 25" FRX riser on top of a 27" GMX











This is the 27" FRX riser on top of a 27" GMX











Here is the 25" FRX riser on top of a trusty 25" Axis..










Here is the 27" FRX riser on top of a 25" Axis. (Kinda pointless to say that is there isn't any other size Axis.)










These were VERY difficult photos to take. Any idea how hard it is to balance a riser on another riser?


----------



## Borderbows

neat pictures whiz.
We get asked for odd photos, when people have specific questions, and im not sure bows are easy items to photograph...

Cheers for the input too... 
Ive no doubt the riser is the correct length...

By the time you extend the limb length by 2-3mm each side with a change in nock shoulders, and play with the fade out locations, and limit users to one design of limb, then yeah its easy to work out.... You can do what you like with the bow... It still comes down to working to non working bow ratio and overall bow length.

If you measure from the shoulders of the nock, round the curve (belly side unstrung limb) to the start of the fadeout, you will get the working limb....

If you take the working limb of a conventional LONG ILF to the working limb on a long RX limb whats the answer.
I wouldnt be surprised if the working limb lengths are the same....
Med RX = Long ILF.

Note the tip length, as the tip is not the working bow... its just a tip, its the shoulders that count.

Ive heard rumours that the String length is a wee bit different on the RX too, can you confirm this rumour?


----------



## John K

Excellent pictures as always  Now we need pictures of complete bows so we can compare fade-out to fade-out lengths. 

And you can add riser balancing to your CV


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Ive heard rumours that the String length is a wee bit different on the RX too, can you confirm this rumour?


Unfortunately I can't. 

I can confirm that if you look on page 10 of the Formula System Owners Manual, you MAY find something that looks suspiciously like this..

I may however just be taunting you with this incredibly awesome photoshop job..

But probably not. I just thought I'd like to introduce an element of doubt there..


----------



## Borderbows

0.25" is what 6mm...
that will be 3mm for each new tip length +/- a bit for the different BH...


----------



## Acehero

Whiz in those pictures youve labelled the GMX as 27" - is that correct? Because it looks the same size as the 25" Axis when lined up next to all the FRX's.


----------



## bis

Borderbows said:


> Ive heard rumours that the String length is a wee bit different on the RX too, can you confirm this rumour?


Have a look here ... http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=30775
.. tips look quite different


----------



## whiz-Oz

Hmm. Good point. I just took the person who I stole it from's advice that it was the 27" one in the bag. 

I'll check..

You're right. 

It's the same size as my Axis!

Damn. 

Belay all that above then. 

That might create some other problems when I try and sneak this back now without being seen.


----------



## Borderbows

bis said:


> Have a look here ... http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=30775
> .. tips look quite different


Is that a 900cx and a new F4... That will probably make them 452x proof...

Was there not some limb nock failures that were down to insufficent twists in the string or using 452x "which isnt a recurve friendly" string with the 900cx's.
I would probably state that 452x was not 900CX friendly as we never suffered any breakages due to this string material.

The next point is the shoulders are further up the tips. which will give a slightly longer recurve contact by 2ishmm.


----------



## limbwalker

> Here is the 25" FRX riser on top of *a trusty 25" Axis..*




John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Is that a 900cx and a new F4... That will probably make them 452x proof...


You can safely post the picture. It's on the Internet and not an embedded image...

And that's a 990TX tip. Not that it's much different. All my recurve strings have always been 452x. Nothing else comes in pink.


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> And that's a 990TX tip. Not that it's much different.


only looks to be about 30% thicker....

working approx off these pictures...


----------



## whiz-Oz

It might be a little hard to tell in terms of relative size. The F4 tip is sitting closer. I'll have to take another photo..


----------



## jmvargas

sid..maybe you can show some pics of the limb tips of YOUR hex5-h mk2 vs a late model hoyt so others can see how you do it...

...i would if i could but i no longer have any hoyt limbs...just 3 pairs of borders, a pse pro-elite made by win&win and sky conquest carbons...


----------



## Acehero

The 990 is the one on the left?


----------



## straat

whiz-Oz said:


> All my recurve strings have always been 452x. Nothing else comes in pink.


I use pink 8125 to make my strings, there are options


----------



## whiz-Oz

Damn! I've been lied to again!

I've got tons of it and if it's twisted it's no problem.

and yes, the 990TX is on the left.


----------



## Radian

*Hex5- H Tip*

I happen to have mine in my office ..........


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> if it's twisted it's no problem.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Why?
> 
> We dont stipulate what the number of twists are and yet no problem?


----------



## limbwalker

Not sure how we got from ILF/HDS to here, but...

Those 990 tips look like they were designed to fail! I mean, the meat of the tip is north of the string, where it don't really matter much... Both the F4 and Border tips have the beefy portion where it counts. No doubt a hard-learned lesson by Hoyt... Probably got tired of being asked to replace limbs that had the string shred them!

John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Why?
> 
> We dont stipulate what the number of twists are and yet no problem?


Well, neither do Hoyt stipulate the number of twists and there's no problem there either. They recommend "Generally, no less than 10 twists in a string". 

Since one of the guys in England actually managed to catch a string ballooning, I'm convinced that it happens. Wax and a few twists prevents it. 

So who cares?


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, neither do Hoyt stipulate the number of twists and there's no problem there either. They recommend "Generally, no less than 10 twists in a string".
> 
> Since one of the guys in England actually managed to catch a string ballooning, I'm convinced that it happens. Wax and a few twists prevents it.
> 
> So who cares?


Was there not a flurry of emails of people quoting Gtek in saying that 452x was bad for recurves as it was a compound cable replacement due to the low creep levels???

Or was that the infamous "Error Net" striking again?


----------



## straat

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, neither do Hoyt stipulate the number of twists and there's no problem there either. They recommend "Generally, no less than 10 twists in a string".
> 
> Since one of the guys in England actually managed to catch a string ballooning, I'm convinced that it happens. Wax and a few twists prevents it.
> 
> So who cares?


On their website Hoyt mentions the following in an article about the new Formula:


> 0.8-1.25 twists/inch recommended


so for a 66" bow that would mean at least 50 twists


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Was there not a flurry of emails of people quoting Gtek in saying that 452x was bad for recurves as it was a compound cable replacement due to the low creep levels???
> 
> Or was that the infamous "Error Net" striking again?


Emails, no.

I recall one forum post where it wasn't recommended, but that was clarified with having some twists to prevent absurd deceleration rates. 

Why are you giving a rats arse about my decision to use 452x on my own bow?

Are you assuming that I'm using it on the review FRX? That is being reviewed in accordance to what is in the instruction book, as it should be.


----------



## massman

*Confirmed yesterday*

Butch is testing the new riser (orange) with F4 limbs. He said it shoots well. He is shooting the 27" riser with med limbs and (YES) V-bars. He indicates he could take or leave the V-bars but the bow was set-up with them. The rear of the riser seems a little thin for a backweight bushing...

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## midwayarcherywi

massman said:


> Butch is testing the new riser (orange) with F4 limbs. He said it shoots well. He is shooting the 27" riser with med limbs and (YES) V-bars. He indicates he could take or leave the V-bars but the bow was set-up with them. The rear of the riser seems a little thin for a backweight bushing...
> 
> BEST Regards,
> 
> Tom


It strikes me as curious that Butch was not an integral part of the development of the new system. Why is he just now beginning to test?

I'm reminded of a marketing class way back when. The unenlightened company produced a product and expected consumers to buy it. The successful company worked in tandem with the end user to create a product that the consumer wanted.


----------



## limbwalker

> Why is he just now beginning to test?


My guess is because of his age... Unfortunately for Butch (or maybe fortunately, depending on how he sees it!) he's not as marketable as say, Vic or Brady or one of young foreign top shooters...

Hoyt would absolutely love to be able to take credit for Brady's success. I'm proud to see him resist being assimilated by the borg... 

Also, don't underestimate how much "in a vacuum" these things are produced. I've met a few engineers that were convinced their math skills far outweighed the opinion of any mere archer...

John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

midwayarcherywi said:


> It strikes me as curious that Butch was not an integral part of the development of the new system. Why is he just now beginning to test?
> 
> I'm reminded of a marketing class way back when. The unenlightened company produced a product and expected consumers to buy it. The successful company worked in tandem with the end user to create a product that the consumer wanted.


Well, there being only three recurve archers in all of the USA, maybe they asked one of the two others?

Hang on! 

Maybe.. they asked someone from ANOTHER COUNTRY!

So, a pool of at least six then. 

All right, fess up. It wasn't Butch and it wasn't me. One of you four other guys must have been involved with Hoyt's development process.


----------



## LoneBear

or not :dontknow: :secret:


----------



## midwayarcherywi

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, there being only three recurve archers in all of the USA, maybe they asked one of the two others?
> 
> Hang on!
> 
> Maybe.. they asked someone from ANOTHER COUNTRY!
> 
> So, a pool of at least six then.
> 
> All right, fess up. It wasn't Butch and it wasn't me. One of you four other guys must have been involved with Hoyt's development process.


I doubt they asked Brady and Vic. Those guys are aligned with a different company. So Hoyt, an American company, doesn't put their best sponsored American recurve archer in the development mix? As I said, curious. One can only hope that the development was done in conjunction with highly skilled archers.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Highly skilled in what way?

Maths? 
Engineering?
Physics?
Industrial Design?
Colour and Interior decorating?
Testing?


----------



## midwayarcherywi

whiz-Oz said:


> Highly skilled in what way?
> 
> Maths?
> Engineering?
> Physics?
> Industrial Design?
> Colour and Interior decorating?
> Testing?


Skilled in the art of putting arrows in the 10 ring. Skilled in the art of providing sound feedback in pre production testing.


----------



## limbwalker

> One can only hope that the development was done in conjunction with highly skilled archers.


Sometimes this happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the company and the engineers involved. Some welcome input, others don't feel they need it...

I'm always surprised when a company doesn't seek input from qualified archers though... But it happens more than you may think.

John.


----------



## Vittorio

Each archery products manufacturer starts its new developments based on internal knowledge and ideas and keeping the new designs as secret as possible during the development process. This goes opposite to the need to have a product widely tested by top level users before going to mass production. But, this is understandable, as you will never like to spend time in testing a new idea and then finding a competitor already in the market using your concepts before you are able to enter in production. 
So, the practical testing of a new product under development is usually limited to the people working for the the manufacturer and under its close control. Very very few people.
Talking about archery products, I have seen in the years incredible mistakes of any kind coming out from different manufaturers on their new designs because of limited testing before production.Then, mistakes are fixed after first production lot when complains or failures are appearing from market. 
From another end, you have also to consider that not all famous archers understand properly the real working parameters of new archery gear, and majority of them just shoot with the new equipment and give a judgement about how they "feel" with it, even more complicating the analisys of the pre- production tests. 
Anyhow, the time when ACE arrows were masked by ACC graphics and G3 limbs were painted to look like Vector limbs in order to have them around on the fields without too much rumor is (almost ... Pro tour and Nano Pro cases are quite recent...) over, and we have to accept the fact that amateur archers are now the beta testers of all new archery products, instead of being the final users of already perfectly tested products.


----------



## midwayarcherywi

Vittorio said:


> Each archery products manufacturer starts its new developments based on internal knowledge and ideas and keeping the new designs as secret as possible during the development process. This goes opposite to the need to have a product widely tested by top level users before going to mass production. But, this is understandable, as you will never like to spend time in testing a new idea and then finding a competitor already in the market using your concepts before you are able to enter in production.
> So, the practical testing of a new product under development is usually limited to the people working for the the manufacturer and under its close control. Very very few people.
> Talking about archery products, I have seen in the years incredible mistakes of any kind coming out from different manufaturers on their new designs because of limited testing before production.Then, mistakes are fixed after first production lot when complains or failures are appearing from market.
> From another end, you have also to consider that not all famous archers understand properly the real working parameters of new archery gear, and majority of them just shoot with the new equipment and give a judgement about how they "feel" with it, even more complicating the analisys of the pre- production tests.
> Anyhow, the time when ACE arrows were masked by ACC graphics and G3 limbs were painted to look like Vector limbs in order to have them around on the fields without too much rumor is (almost ... Pro tour and Nano Pro cases are quite recent...) over, and we have to accept the fact that amateur archers are now the beta testers of all new archery products, instead of being the final users of already perfectly tested products.


Very interesting insight Vittorio. Thanks for a bit of an insiders perspective. What was the experience your son had when he helped to develop the Zenit riser?


----------



## Rick McKinney

Very enjoyable reading….It took awhile to read it all but it was worth it. A couple of things I would like to comment on.

Earl was still part of Hoyt when Easton bought him out in 1983. He had a 5 year contract with them and he was heavily involved in the development of the “floating pocket and dovetail design”. Why his name is not on the patent could be a contractual issue. 

Sante Spigareli designed the limb bolt that has become common place in the ILF. Hoyt told him they were going to “use” (copy) it and they did. After all, Sante was selling a lot of Hoyt and Easton product at the time and really had no choice….That came directly from him by the way. 

Sid and Vittorio have given a lot of great input here that should help you all to understand recurve development over the years. Good stuff!


----------



## limbwalker

Rick,

What is this "ILF" you speak of??? 



John.


----------



## Vittorio

Rick McKinney said:


> Sante Spigareli designed the limb bolt that has become common place in the ILF. Hoyt told him they were going to “use” (copy) it and they did.


Spigarelli 1300 riser was the first riser milled from an aluminum bar instead of casted, and the limb bolt with the counter bolt expanding the main thead from the inside inside to block it was one of the major innovation in riser design introduced with it. Hoyt copied it for the Radian, then Best copied it for the Zenit. Originally I think the 3 bolts were pefectly interchangeable.... Spigarelli and Best bolts are today still almost the same they were on first productions. 
It looks like a very easy part, but all those that have copied it changing sizes and lenghts have faced problems ... Don't change what you do not understand, just copy it exactly .... (Chinese way).


----------



## Rick McKinney

John...Vittorio said it perfectly. Thanks Vittorio! 

Someone commented that the people were buying this new hds system in droves. Talking to Mr. Park, President of W&W he has told me his sales are good and he hopes to continue capturing a larger market in 2010. It is also interesting to note that Win&Win had 43% of the recurve archers at the World Championships using their bows (complete) while Hoyt had 35% (complete). There were 9 more archers using either a Win&Win riser only or limb only and not the complete setup which was not included in these numbers. Win&Win won the men’s individual gold and women’s individual silver and bronze as well. I am mentioning this since this is the first time W&W beat the numbers against Hoyt. Will it continue? Hard to say but I think it will take a couple of more years for a major shift in the current direction archers are leaning. As for the Apecs system. Again I think it is all about how the bow reacts to top archers. Most of the Korean team used the Samick riser that has a 20 year old design even at this last Olympics. As someone said, it is really hard to get some archers to change. As for me, I still love my APECs and plan on using it for some time. 

What I find most striking between the two companies is that the new Hoyt riser is really equal in quality and development as the W&W WinEx riser (ranked #4 on the W&W list for top of the line). W&W is the only company that can tout such advanced development in recurve archery. Take for instance Hoyt's new carbon compound. Look at that price compared to all other compounds and you can see that the carbon riser is very costly and yet the W&W carbon recurve risers are just a little bit more in in price than 1980's developed machined risers sold today.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Rick McKinney said:


> What I find most striking between the two companies is that the new Hoyt riser is really equal in quality and development as the W&W WinEx riser (ranked #4 on the W&W list for top of the line).


Interesting. 
How are you defining quality and development? 
I have just downsized my collection of Formula risers from three to one and the difference between them was minimal. They were all dead straight through all sighting planes that I could check. The machining and hand polishing was pretty damn good. 
The machining was of an excellent standard. I found a tiny dent and a scratch in mine. 

The one WinEx I have seen was somewhere between the WinAct and the Exfeel in terms of fit and finish. And I think that the Formula outdoes the Exfeel, of which I have seen at least six. 

I used to inspect aircraft, so I do tend to notice stuff that other people ignore. 

Development is a hard category to assess. I'm up for any suggestions though.


----------



## limbwalker

> Hoyt copied it for the Radian, then Best copied it for the Zenit.


Oh no! Quick, Spigarelli should give it a fancy new name and reclaim their "intellectual property!" 



> W&W is the only company that can tout such advanced development in recurve archery


Rick, I agree with you on your assessment of recent advancements. If anyone doesn't think W&W has been leading the field, they either aren't paying attention or they are on someone's payroll or shooting staff (or wannabe  )

And I don't see W&W unashamedly making claims they cannot support.

John.


----------



## Rick McKinney

whizoz..are you a hoyt staff shooter? Not sure who you are since there is no name attached to your information. I will be happy to respond to you once I know who you are. 

John. Yes, W&W has really put some time and effort in their development. If you look at those photos of limb tips, the main reason Hoyt was able to start getting them consistent was because Mr. Easton and the president of Hoyt were in the W&W plant at one time and saw how it should be done and they copied the proceedure. Even Earl Hoyt did not know how to make limb tips consistent. 

I want to point out I think what this hds(?), does give us more food for thought and it does look cool but as most of you have come to the conclusion the proof will be how it performs and it’s acceptance. The Axis concept did not go over very well but this could have been due to the promotion of the limb they were encouraging at the same time. The fx limb appeared to be a bit flawed. And since it was sold as one unit with a non-conforming ilf format, it could have hurt the riser concept.


----------



## Rick McKinney

sorry whizoz. I don't mean to be gruff. It's just that if you are a staff shooter of Hoyt you should defend your turf. Also, if you are sponsored in any way, whoever it is that sponsors you will make sure you have a flawless product. Sometimes people who pay for product get what is available and do not have the luxury of having a promotions person go over your product before it gets out the factory door. After all, if a staff shooter does not get good product, then who can? A lot more people will look at a staff shooter's equipment than a paying customer. Thus marketing wise it's a good idea to make sure top/staff shooters get personally hand inspected equipment.


----------



## John K

Not sure about in the US, but over here W&W put some adverts in magazines claiming firsts in cross-sectional carbon and torsional rigidity. Border wrote to them challenging this, and the adverts disappeared.

On the other hand, having had to good fortune to meet Mr Park, I found him to be a very helpful and friendly individual, who didn't find it necessary to be snide about the products of other manufacturers. Quite the opposite in fact. He made no judgements about any of the archer's equipment at the seminar, and in fact complimented equipment made by other manufacturers.

Rick - Very interesting insight into how the "ILF" system was developed. Thank you


----------



## Rick McKinney

John, Yes Mr. Park is a very nice guy and always is looking for better ways to make product. I would suspect that he did not realize that Border had beat him to the punch on cross sectional and torsional stability. He probably focused on the big guys (no offense Sid) but sometimes you miss the trees because of the woods sort of thing. 

Sid, my experience with your limbs are limited. I did enjoy shooting the pair I had but they became too heavy as I got older…. I have enjoyed reading your educational comments. This type of information helps all archers get a better understanding behind the development of ideas and the many different things to consider when offering a new product. My experience with WinEx, INNO and Apecs limbs are: Loved the smooth draw of the WinEx and Apecs. The INNO stacked at my draw of 31”. Did not enjoy shooting them. 

And finally, one thing to take into account since most bows/limbs have similar results (score). It’s all about the feel to a top archer. If it feels good it gives them confidence. Will it give them more points? Just one or two and that just might be enough to make a difference! Most contracted archers have to switch to the latest and greatest model their sponsor wants promoted. That’s what they get paid for. If it requires a big company (the only ones who can afford to pay the top shooters) to make a limb of an older model painted or decaled to look like the new model they are not resistant to this type of marketing gimmick. If they have to machine a riser a little differently and make it look like the new ones, why not?


----------



## whiz-Oz

Rick McKinney said:


> whizoz..are you a hoyt staff shooter?


Nope. Just someone with a camera, a wide exposure to many industries, technologies, a good memory, the ability to integrate many concepts and a reasonable typing speed. 

When I took up archery for the second time after a 20 year hiatus and this time with a recurve, the ability to interchange limbs and risers between manufacturers astounded me. I can't think of any other similar example where competing manufacturers do this. (Unless they're actually badge engineered)
Probably six months before the Formula Risers appeared, it occurred to me that because of the extremely limited ability to extract energy from a bent stick, (regardless of what anyone thinks at this point, there are physical issues with what is practical and most things that can be done to make a big difference, HAVE been done) any improvements are going to be extremely limited. 

If you are going to have your ability to innovate limited, you won't come up with much. 

The HDS limb attachment system is a limiting format. While any manufacturer sticks with the technology of the past, they won't be significantly any better. 

Would you buy a car, pushbike, stereo, camera, phone or computer that is constrained by 25 year old technology? 

I don't see anyone lining up to go to a dentist that hasn't adopted any new technology in the last 25 years. 
How about medical technology, or medicines? Still after that old style treatment? Didn't think so.

Apparently you're clamoring for it when it comes to one of the oldest machines on the face of the earth. 

Because I recognised how the theft of IP has limited bow development across ALL adoptees of the "ILF" and said so, I was particularly rapt when the Formula arrived. Here was a major manufacturer who agrees with me!

So I asked for one to review. The results of which can already be found around the Internet. Much as I love my Axis, having a review Formula is a bittersweet experience. Some things you shouldn't borrow. Today I'm going to shoot the Formula and I am a little concerned that I will never be totally satisfied with my Axis any more. 
Try having a new bow and not shooting it for three weeks because you're scared that you might like it.

So if you want to be limited in scratching what you can from a self restricting technology, stay with multi manufacturer interchangable limbs. I mean, you don't do that with any other part of your life and the world in general will pass you by regardless. There is nothing wrong with it, but it won't get any better. 

Can you believe that there are some people actually decrying mankind's innate ability to innovate? Only because it might cost them money. 

Lemme tell you boys, the customer is NOT always right. The customer is often quite resistant. Once the customer gets a taste of innovation, they buy in. Every single one of you has adopted new technology into your life which you depend on. 
As archers we have a link to the past which stretches back to some of man's earliest tools. The last 50 years has seen more technological innovation in archery than any time in history. There isn't much you can do with hand axes, spears or what came prior to the bow. 

Any innovation is good news when it comes to bent sticks. Argue about what you like. In 100 years it will be as irrelevant as arguing if we should move to these newfangled horseless carriages. If we hadn't, we'd still be trying to figure out how to handle the millions of tonnes of horse manure produced each year. 

Who wants to be a recurve archery Luddite?


----------



## limbwalker

> a very helpful and friendly individual, who didn't find it necessary to be snide about the products of other manufacturers


We need more of this, and less "us vs. them" mentality. But I'm afraid the "chevy vs. ford" nascar mentality has crept into our sport as well...



> the theft of IP


LOL! That's funny. Which time, and from whom?

Better if you just buy it I guess...

John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> LOL! That's funny. Which time, and from whom?


Regardless of what is said and by whom, we still eventually rely on who got an approved patent. Even that can be undermined by what information surfaces. 

Regardless of the origins of the IP, the rest of the reasons stand independently.


In regard of snide comments though, there are comments made in jest, there are comments made in earnest and there are comments made in angst. 

They're all made for some reason or another which is emotive. People are people and often don't understand their own internal motivations. I don't always recognise them or like to admit that they even exist to myself, so I'm hardly likely to point at someone else. Feeling threatened in some way affects people in subtle behavioural ways.

I've always believed that superiority *eventually* is self evident. The more superior, the more quickly it is obvious. It's when there are limited differences that the most hype is required. 

I recognised this long before I ever became an archer.


----------



## John K

"Theft of IP" - Legally tricky to prove, especially across international borders with differing IP laws. Whether it is stealing IP to make a product compatible with another manufacturer's is a point we could argue about until the cows come home. There are examples from so many different industries.

Limitations of design - Any design choice has to be taken in the context of the practicalities of the market and needs of the customer. Design is not just about superior technology, because cost is always a limiting factor. As for significant performance gains, the small speed increases claimed in Hoyt advertising (4 fps as I recall, and that's over the not-known-for-speed 990TX) don't seem that great to me.

As for appropriateness of remarks, I'm just a private individual in the context of archery, and it doesn't really matter a damn what I think or say. However, it's still important for me to remember that I should bear in mind the limitations of this medium if I choose to post here. In my opinion - for what little it's worth - is that professional representatives of companies (i.e. sponsored archers or employees of archery companies) should try to behave with utmost professionalism and courtesy in public forums.


----------



## Vittorio

This thread has now shifted to discuss about evolution in bow design, and who is the one that has made more for it.
Just made a quick look to the 1980 and 1984 Olympics videos on Youtube to refresh my mind about old shooting stiles and old archery stuff. There, you have a clear picture of top level archery around 25 to 30 years ago, a significant amount of time to make comparisons to today situation. 
The styles and archery equipments we can see in 1980 are of course limited by the absence of the US team, but differences from 1980 to 1984 (apart from the A/C arrows) are not so many.
These are my summary comments:

1) the world of archery has been really changed in early 1979 (or 78?)by the abolishment by FITA of the limit of 3 stabilizers maximum previously existing. This made space to the appearance of the V-bar and of the 4th up stabilizer. Darrel Pace and Rick McKinney both broke the world FITA record at the end of 1979 with that set up. All 1980 top archers were using mainly the 4 stabilizers set up, and no more the 3 frontal ones, or 2 front and one back as before, but they were using it without knowing exactly how it was supposed to work. If they had the knowledge that came after, their stabilizers set up was going to be more efficient and scores were going to be easily much better, independently from the other equipments used.

2) in 1980, the dominance of the Hoyt TD 2 was only very partial. On the line you can easily see several Yamaha YTSL 1 and 2 and some Wing bows, but no more Bear TD bows, used at top level until 1977, only. Nishizawa was already there also, even if you can not see it in the video clearly. No standard existing yet for take down bows, and all fighting to make their own.

3) as far as the shooting techniques are concerned, many archers were already using the thumb behind the neck, and Giancarlo Ferrari was going to the anchor in a similar way Michele adopted 11 years later. Boris Isachenco (silver) was the one using high grip already and a shooting style similar to the so called BEST method of today.

4) The winners in heavy wind were those able to shoot aluminium heavy arrows with enough poundage to get them to the target. Poikolainen (gold) and Ferrari (bronze) were surely among them, with over 54# on their arms, and Keto Losaberithze body structure easily explains her gold medal over the much better Butuzova (silver) 

So, 1980 was dominated by stronger archers and heavier bows than before. 
What is really changed since then? What has really been a revolution in archery?
My answers for top level results:

Before 1980:
1) The cushion plunger & cliker
2) Kevlar replacing Dacron for strings
2) The invention of the V-Bar and the 4 stabilizers

After 1980
1) the advent of lighter arrows
2) the invention of the Spin Wing vanes 

And the ILF system and the carbon limbs? 
ILF system has simply allowed to make cheaper top level bows available to a wider range of people by increasing competition between manufacturers; it has not changed performances at top level, but increased them in statistical terms only, as 1980 bows were able to shoot as good as today ones in the proper hands.
Carbon in limbs has had much less effect than lighter arrows and spin wings, just a little bit more of speed in comparison to the big jump between 2114 X7 and Diva 21 performances 

So, if a revolution in archery has happened in the last 30 years, we have to answer "arrows" if we talk about performance for everybody, top to low level.
But ILF system has been a revolution in terms of average expense for the beginner and intermediate archer. Top level archers don't pay their equipment so they don care about cost now nor in the past. 

All other improvements have been parts of evolutions, not of revolutions, or sometime even simply marketing tricks. 
IMHO, of course


----------



## jmvargas

whiz...you certainly seem to have a gift of gab--err--words...
some of what you say are even logical....plus you do take nice pictures..

if you believe--however--that your words will carry more weight than former olympians, world champions or world class coaches, you might be in for a let-down..

you argue that old technology should be replaced by "new" technology if it's really new..

i contend that the formula bow is not really new---IIRC Borders and another european manufacturer already did something similar 20 or so years ago.. 

IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with the ILF system---just try to imagine how many ILF limbs are currently in use..It may not be perfect but then show me something that is..

i believe hoyt just got tired of everybody "copying" their system and even improving on their limbs that they decided to offer a "new" system that would force people to buy the whole bow from them..

that plan,however, would only work if the new offering is head and shoulders above in performance vs the current offerings of win&win, samick, borders...et al...

so---until it is proven by either having a significant number of non hoyt-sponsored elite archers(specifically the koreans) switching to it OR by significantly high sales figures for the "new" product---all of these claims seem to be just marketing hypes....to me...JMHO..


----------



## limbwalker

> i believe hoyt just got tired of everybody "copying" their system and even improving on their limbs that they decided to offer a "new" system that would force people to buy the whole bow from them..


I believe this could easily have had a lot to do with it, but maybe not. I can see engineers getting frustrated with a "set" system. Most engineers I know don't like being told how to design something, or be put in a box to begin with. I think that's as much a part of the "new" design as anything. Whether "new" = "better" will be determined in time. 

I agree with Vittorio in that the basic competitive recurve design was pretty well discovered by 1980. Not much improvement has been made since then. How else do you explain a 1340+ being shot with aluminum arrows and a dacron string in those days? 

So, the limiting factor is still the archer and their technique. The potential for a noticeable, statistically significant improvement in scores still lies in proper knowledge and training.

This too frustrates engineers 

And it especially frustrates marketing departments. 

John.


----------



## Rick McKinney

Whizoz, my apologies for presuming you were a staff shooter. You just read like one. However, I am really glad you are not opinionated such as myself. 

There were many people who were so happy to see that the ILF system became a standard which allowed them to try one riser with different limbs or one pair of limbs with many different risers. The options were limitless, thus allowing for most people who purchased their bows an opportunity to experiment and enjoy the experience. Of course top shooters did not have the luxury. Also, many people cannot afford to just go out and buy riser and limbs at one time. The ILF allowed them to purchase a riser one year and then limbs the following year. I think there was a drop in divorces due to the ILF but not sure….(just kidding).

As I have mentioned, it will be fun to watch and see what happens over the next several months with this new attempt of changing the “status quo”. I look at it differently because I have seen such incredible innovation over the years with Earl Hoyt and Kyung-Rae Park as well as several others. These two men alone were not a “jack of all trades” but masters of one. 

Excuse me if I am reading you wrong but I think you are saying that there is not much innovation in recurve archery and thinking it has not advanced much. Shooting a Bear Bearcat in 1964 is nothing like shooting a W&W APECs today. Shooting aluminums to all carbon arrows is a bit different. Shooting Dacron to spectra material mixes of today is a bit different. Shooting a metal riser to a carbon riser is an improvement and as Sid has talked about in the limb world, using the latest and greatest materials in limb development and design is amazing as well. Shooting some of the first foam limbs years ago, I smiled when I saw the lack of stack at the longer draws with today’s limbs. My first foam limbs stacked after 28” near 3.5 pounds per inch and yes I felt it! 

There are two ways a change will happen in this part of the sport. First a noticeable improvement of score that cannot be ignored such as the first French made Beman arrow over all other arrows made at that time. However, the easiest way to change the course of direction is what happened after that which is the second way of change. Kill it, bury it and provide the only product the archer can use and live with it.


----------



## jmvargas

limbwalker said:


> And it especially frustrates marketing departments.
> 
> John.



.......so true....

marketing departments have to justify their existence by having a continuous stream of products to sell...OR if they feel it is demanded due to the competition..

some companies feel they HAVE to come up with new products even though the product life of an existing successful product has not yet reached its end..

some companies stick with a successful product for a long time and just add to their product line...others discontinue some products and come up with what they feel are suitable replacements..

sometimes these replacements are nothing more than improved aesthetics without any real functional improvements----other times the improvements are genuine..

so....sometimes these strategies work--sometimes they don't..

it's all a gamble and the successful ones normally succeed because their products are really good and offer real improvements and value(plus good marketing support)..as well it should be in a capitalistic environment..

there is a saying in the industry that "you can only sell a bad product once"..

i can only wish everyone in the archery industry success in their endeavors---it will ultimately benefit all of us..


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

whiz-Oz said:


> If you are going to have your ability to innovate limited, you won't come up with much.
> 
> The HDS limb attachment system is a limiting format. While any manufacturer sticks with the technology of the past, they won't be significantly any better.
> 
> Would you buy a car, pushbike, stereo, camera, phone or computer that is constrained by 25 year old technology?
> 
> I don't see anyone lining up to go to a dentist that hasn't adopted any new technology in the last 25 years.
> How about medical technology, or medicines? Still after that old style treatment? Didn't think so.
> 
> Apparently you're clamoring for it when it comes to one of the oldest machines on the face of the earth.
> 
> Who wants to be a recurve archery Luddite?


I do think that you are on to something, Whiz-Oz. While I personally am convinced that the ILF/HDS technology is just fine (and if it ain't broke, don't fix it), and I really think that Hoyt is just trying to lock customers into using their products exclusively, I will admit that there is a tendency I have observed among the recurve archers on _this_ board to treat something new with disdain. You won't find that kind of attitude among compound or traditional archers, who are more than willing to give something new a spin. 

I recall the pooh-poohing on a recent thread on the Austrian innovation of a long rear stabilizer (morescore):

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1005503&highlight=rear+stabilizer

I've been seeing more and more of these at tournaments, and people have already started making (less expensive) copies.

I guess, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding." If the new Hoyt recurve is significantly better than the current ILF bows, we shall be seeing more of them in the future.


----------



## limbwalker

> Kill it, bury it and provide the only product the archer can use and live with it.


Sad, but it does happen more than many neophytes realize. And then they are happy when the graphics have changed... ha, ha.

I had an interesting bit of curiosity this weekend. 

I was testing a pair of non-Hoyt limbs on my Axis riser, and getting noticeable side-to-side movement. Obviously the fit wasn't proper. This was the case with another non-Hoyt set of limbs I have as well. But when put on other risers (Bernardini and PSE) they fit fine. So I tried them on another Hoyt riser (also with the hard lock dowels) and the fit was sloppy again.

That, along with this thread, got me to thinking... Maybe there USED to be a "standard" ILF and Hoyt just changed their riser dimensions...

I happened to have access to several old Gold Medlist risers too. One of them quite old. Early 80's vintage for sure. 

Guess what?

The limbs (all of them) fit the old GM risers just fine.

So, what do we know from that? That somewhere between the GM and the new Hoyt hard lock dowel system, something changed...

If only I had an Avalon Plus to try the various limbs on...

Why the change? Why do all the limbs fit the old GM risers, but not the newer hard lock dowel risers? 

Anyone care to take a guess? I suspect I may know why.

John.


----------



## John K

John - A while ago on AIUK someone suggested that the Hoyt pocket shape had changed, and this was flatly denied by GT. However, I've had similar experiences to yours. If/when I have time, I'd like to take some measurements of different brands of limbs and riser pockets. I think they may reveal some interesting results.


----------



## limbwalker

You know, it would only work to Hoyt's advantage to, let's just say, "adjust" their dimensions so that only their limbs would fit properly... :zip::zip::zip:

Not saying that's what happened, but when the same limbs fit the pre-hard lock dowel risers as well as newer risers from other companies, but won't fit the newer Hoyt risers? I can only draw one conclusion...

I mean, when a company knows how to make great risers but not-so-great limbs, what else are they to do? 

So maybe the real answer to the "ILF vs. HDS" question is that both do exist, and Hoyt is finally coming out and admitting that! 

Good for them. 

John.


----------



## jmvargas

John M...may i know what you mean when you refer to the Hoyt hard lock dowel system?....i had a brand new GM(2004 model), 2 pre-owned elans and 3 matrixes(2 brand new and 1 pre-owned)....

IIRC my non-hoyt limbs (samick extremes and winex) fit them ok...are they the hard lock dowel system??


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> whiz...you certainly seem to have a gift of gab--err--words...
> some of what you say are even logical....plus you do take nice pictures..
> 
> if you believe--however--that your words will carry more weight than former olympians, world champions or world class coaches, you might be in for a let-down..


Strangely, I don't care. 

Assuming that anyone is correct is just as good a way to be wrong as any other. 

Therefore, I assume that you are correct.



jmvargas said:


> you argue that old technology should be replaced by "new" technology if it's really new..


Really? Can you quote where I said that exactly?



jmvargas said:


> i contend that the formula bow is not really new---IIRC Borders and another european manufacturer already did something similar 20 or so years ago..
> 
> IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with the ILF system---just try to imagine how many ILF limbs are currently in use..It may not be perfect but then show me something that is..


That's not very convincing unless you can actually define how similar and in what way. 
They're all similar in that they keep limbs attached to risers. 

I never said that there was anything WRONG with "ILF". Just if you slavishly kept to it, you'll be limited to it. 

If you admit that it isn't perfect, then why are apparently defending the need to cling to it?

When all the different manufacturers had their own systems, why wasn't the customer crying out that they were different IF they thought that it was the best way to go if they were the same?
You mean that it never occurred to them?



jmvargas said:


> i believe hoyt just got tired of everybody "copying" their system and even improving on their limbs that they decided to offer a "new" system that would force people to buy the whole bow from them..


I'm glad that you pointed this out. 
I had totally missed this dastardly plan for world recurve domination!
How exactly does one company "force" people to buy something from them, when there are competing products?

HEY!
Don't Hoyt themselves make competing products in their own lineup?
That means that they're competing against themselves!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Public notice to Hoyt Archery Company: 

Dear Sirs. 
I have found a slight flaw in your dastardly plans for world recurve domination.
In order to force people to buy your new Formula RX system of riser AND limbs, you must eliminate the competition. Making and selling products which are alternatives to your Formula RX system isn't helping things. 

I would suggest that you get the guys from World Domination Planning and Product Marketing all on the same page during a beer and pizza night with a power point presentation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I believe that Hoyt decided that there was room to improve and made something better to offer. I know that it's a fairly radical concept and no other manufacturer of anything actually DOES this, so I'll understand if you disregard it. It's a bit off the wall.



jmvargas said:


> that plan,however, would only work if the new offering is head and shoulders above in performance vs the current offerings of win&win, samick, borders...et al...
> 
> so---until it is proven by either having a significant number of non hoyt-sponsored elite archers(specifically the koreans) switching to it OR by significantly high sales figures for the "new" product---all of these claims seem to be just marketing hypes....to me...JMHO..


Why does it need to be "head and shoulders" above the rest?
The absolute minimum you need to beat someone into second place is one point.



jmvargas said:


> John M...may i know what you mean when you refer to the Hoyt hard lock dowel system?....i had a brand new GM(2004 model), 2 pre-owned elans and 3 matrixes(2 brand new and 1 pre-owned)....
> 
> IIRC my non-hoyt limbs (samick extremes and winex) fit them ok...are they the hard lock dowel system??


The hardlock dowel system is the limb adjustment system which surprisingly, uses a "dowel" and shim washers for lateral adjustment.


----------



## limbwalker

> John M...may i know what you mean when you refer to the Hoyt hard lock dowel system?....


Whiz beat me to it...

Interestingly, I've noticed a lot of folks who are getting these terms confused. Like the new HDS moniker and the new paralever system. They aren't the same thing...

Hoyt's been using the hard-lock dowel system since the Axis, as far as I know, but the name hasn't caught on. I still call it that (because that's what it is), but usually when I do, people think I'm talking about the ILF or HDS system, or something else...

If we're going to debate the merits of these systems, it generally helps to know what the parts and pieces are called 



> I never said that there was anything WRONG with "ILF". Just if you slavishly kept to it, you'll be limited to it.


Whiz, that statement alone makes it sound as if there is something wrong with the ILF system. I think what folks tend to forget over time is that a great deal of time,energy, research, development and testing went into the original ILF design. It was arrived at through many years of trial and error, by a group of folks that kinda "knew what they were doing"  Just because something is old doesn't mean it's still not the best design.

I'm all for innovation, but don't automatically throw the baby out with the bathwather just because it's old...

I've stated before that I hope the new paralever system is the cat's meow. It would be good to see another advancement in our equipment. Time will tell whether that's the case. If it does prove to be better, then I just hope that when it gets copied by the other manufacturers, they make sure to get the dimensions correct so I can use their limbs on the new Hoyt risers.... LOL! 



> i had a brand new GM(2004 model), 2 pre-owned elans and 3 matrixes(2 brand new and 1 pre-owned)....
> 
> IIRC my non-hoyt limbs (samick extremes and winex) fit them ok...are they the hard lock dowel system??


The Matrixes do use the hard lock dowel system. The others do not. Some manufacturer's limbs, including all the Samicks and W&W's I've tried, will fit the new Hoyt hard-lock ILF geometry. The "ears" on either side of the "U-groove" are long enough to fully engage the limb bolt even with the stretched dimension. Other limbs I've tried (SKY, Border) are still being built to the older spec's which are ever so slightly shorter from the dovetail bushing to the ends of the limb butt ears... Just a 1/8" makes a big difference.

John.


----------



## Acehero

Interestingly my wife had a 23" Matrix and she tried to use my old G3 limbs that I'd moved on from. Try as i might I could not get the limbs to remain aligned from one day to the next. I blamed myself mostly and thought that I must be doing it wrong - even though I'd never had trouble aligning them on my Nexus. I played around with the dowels a bit to see if I could get the limbs to sit better, but there was no real improvement. Eventually I tried the one remaining thing there was to play with - the limb bolts - and wound them in to almost max. The limbs stayed aligned properly no matter what we did with the bow after that. We got a coach to check it all over but nothing seemed untoward. 

I wonder if this was something to do with the U cut-out? I no longer have the limbs but still have the riser.


----------



## limbwalker

> Eventually I tried the one remaining thing there was to play with - the limb bolts - and wound them in to almost max.


Because of the geometry involved, winding bolts down (tightening them) has the effect of reducing the distance from the bolt to the dovetail slot. So it stands to reason that the limbs would fit better. I did this same thing with my SKY limbs on a Hoyt riser. I couldn't shoot them at that draw weight, but just wanted to see if it had the effect I was expecting, and it did.

John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Why is it that in the same thread, we have people mostly wanting to agree that the "ILF" fittings are a good thing and let people mix and match limbs from different manufacturers and then follow up with the problems being caused by the limbs not fitting properly?

It's a bit like people being glad winter is over and then complaining about their power bill to run the airconditioner.....

It's all about compromising. Between manufacturers for compound bows, there is no universal limb mounting system. Nobody cares. 
Everyone likes no compromise. Compromise lets people be cheap if they want to be and mix and match. 

Hoyt offers their newest top of the line bow with their individual limb mounting system so that there is an option available to buy a no compromise bow again. 
People ***** because they can't be cheap any more. 

Ooooh. Did I say that?




limbwalker said:


> Whiz, that statement alone makes it sound as if there is something wrong with the ILF system. I think what folks tend to forget over time is that a great deal of time,energy, research, development and testing went into the original ILF design. It was arrived at through many years of trial and error, by a group of folks that kinda "knew what they were doing"  Just because something is old doesn't mean it's still not the best design.


I still seem to be being read as thinking that "ILF" is bad. There are currently four bows in the house that are of the old system. And to make you laugh, there are three strung at the moment. You may notice something about them. A Gold Medallist with KAP limbs. A Winact with Samick Universal limbs. Your old Axis with 900CX limbs (and Platinum Axis from Scotland that has never had limbs on it since it came to Australia. )

Now that my 900CX's are out of warranty, they're going to have FX style fittings put into them so that I can have a pimpin' platinum Axis and swap back and forth at will with my genuine fittings should I feel the need. 

The ONLY bow in the house that is as the manufacturer intended is the Orange Formula RX. 

Guess which one is not mine?
Guess which one I have to give back?
Guess which one I like the most?

Would I have been better off if I hadn't known about it?


----------



## Acehero

Well my example was Hoyt riser + Hoyt limbs which you would have thought would be the least likely combination to have any issues. Since then I've mixed and matched quite happily with the only other single fitting issue being a very cheap pair of Samick limbs in a top end Samick riser.


----------



## limbwalker

Yes, you would have been better off. 

Serves you right! 

Whiz, you make some good points.

However...



> Compromise lets people be cheap if they want to be and mix and match.


Creating affordable bows is indeed a side benefit. However, I don't see the main advantage of an ILF system as affordability. I see it as being able to match the very best riser and the very best set of limbs FOR YOU on a single bow. 

I've been around this block so many times now I feel like I can see my own rear end. What I've learned is that the very first machined aluminum riser I bought (my red Axis) is still the best *for me *to date. But the very best limbs (again, *for me*) that I've tried to date are my Samick Masters. And I've put a bunch on that Axis riser over the last 5 1/2 years. 

It's just nice to have the option. The competition created by the ILF system does two things. 1) it forces them to make better stuff, and 2) it keeps the price down.

John.


----------



## jmvargas

John..thanks for your reply to my query....


----------



## Vittorio

Acehero said:


> Interestingly my wife had a 23" Matrix and she tried to use my old G3 limbs that I'd moved on from. Try as i might I could not get the limbs to remain aligned from one day to the next. I blamed myself mostly and thought that I must be doing it wrong - even though I'd never had trouble aligning them on my Nexus. I played around with the dowels a bit to see if I could get the limbs to sit better, but there was no real improvement. Eventually I tried the one remaining thing there was to play with - the limb bolts - and wound them in to almost max. The limbs stayed aligned properly no matter what we did with the bow after that. We got a coach to check it all over but nothing seemed untoward.
> 
> *I wonder if this was something to do with the U cut-out? I no longer have the limbs but still have the riser*.


No, the reason is that the limb bolts in the models without an expansion counter bolt can move inside proportionally to how much they are "out". Basically, the tolerance of the thread of the hole in the riser and the tolerance of the thread of the bolt interfere, and if they are loose each other, being the bolt only thighten by a counter bolt pressing on the bottom on it and not expanding it, can slightly move inside by an angle that is related to how much the limb bolt is in or out (how many threads are really keeping the limb bolt in its position). 
The problem can also show up in bows with the limb bolt made as of the original Spigarelli concept with the back expansion bolt but with much smaller diameter than the original one, but for sure the absence of the expansion system to block the bolt is making alignement stabilty much more critical. As said before, if you don't understand it, don't change it, just copy..


----------



## Acehero

Hmm all very interesting stuff and plenty to think on. I started the thread out of an interest to see if there were many problems when mixing and matching risers and limbs. Although I personally havent had trouble I wanted a wider opinion as I was about to order some new limbs. I've gone for the W&W Apecs Primes. I dont expect i'll have any fitting problems with them but I'll be sure to let you know if i do.


----------



## jmvargas

Ah...Errr......i believe i was the one that started this thread....

.....but no problem...agree that it's all very interesting and educational...


----------



## Acehero

Oops my apologies, my thread was titled "HDS or ILF and their fit" which had a very similar theme to how this one has turned out


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

whiz-Oz said:


> I had totally missed this dastardly plan for world recurve domination!
> How exactly does one company "force" people to buy something from them, when there are competing products?
> 
> HEY!
> Don't Hoyt themselves make competing products in their own lineup?
> That means that they're competing against themselves!


Well, I'm pretty sure that, sooner or later, Hoyt will phase out their HDS bows in favor of the new system, if sales are what they expect. I figure it will be a few years before the new system is established enough to discontinue the HDS lines; plus they don't want to mess with customer psyche, having just pushed the GMX last year. 

Let's be honest, though. We all know archers who will buy equipment unproven & unseen if it has the Hoyt brand name on it. I personally know plenty of FITA style archers who are convinced that Hoyt is the best quality money can buy, and all these "rumors" of limb failure are just a few incidents, probably caused by something like dry-firing. They will cling to this belief even if they witness the opposite. I was standing next to a guy from our club last Winter, when, suddenly, at full draw, the tip of his top limb (a Hoyt, don't remember the model) broke, splitting the limb lengthwise into 3 splintered segments. Luckily, nobody was injured. He now shoots W&W. :zip:



> Creating affordable bows is indeed a side benefit. However, I don't see the main advantage of an ILF system as affordability. I see it as being able to match the very best riser and the very best set of limbs FOR YOU on a single bow.


I definitely have to agree with that, John! That is where I see the biggest advantage. As an intermediate archer, I love my Winstar II riser, but am not to impressed by the KAP Winstorm limbs. I much prefer the shooting performance of the Samick Universal limbs. That is my winning combo! For my son, a growing 13 year old archer, I bought a used GM riser, but opted for the "entry level" KAP T-Rex limbs, since we'll be moving up in draw weight as he grows. 

It is nice to have an excellent riser and acceptable limbs for a young archer, and, yes, it definitely has something to do with price. I don't see a $300 + price tag for a set of limbs as justified for a youngster serious about the sport. By the same token, I don't think that serious youngsters should be damned to using the polaris style entry level bows, either. So the versatility of the ILF system is IMHO a great boon to our sport, in particular for archers on a budget.


----------



## limbwalker

And we are only beginning to see the full benefits of the ILF system for all traditional archers. The hunting archers have really adopted the system in full now, and manufacturers have responded in kind. Samick has been working closely with a division of Lancasters (Trad Tech archery) to produce some excellent ILF compatible hunting risers. I have two of them (the 19" pinnacle II and the 15" phenolic riser) and they are superb hunting tools based on the ILF platform. And Samick/TradTech are producing some excellent, affordable hunting-based ILF limbs with wood grain, black and camo finishes, in real hunting weights, designed for these shorter risers.

Since 2005, there has been a small explosion of shorter, ILF hunting risers. I can think of at least 5 manufacturers offering a total of 9 different risers off the top of my head. So, life is indeed very good for the ILF user...



> We all know archers who will buy equipment unproven & unseen if it has the Hoyt brand name on it. I personally know plenty of FITA style archers who are convinced that Hoyt is the best quality money can buy, and all these "rumors" of limb failure are just a few incidents, probably caused by something like dry-firing. They will cling to this belief even if they witness the opposite.


Yes, indeed we do all know folks like that. They usually wear red, white and black shirts to tournaments as well... Guess they think it's going to help them shoot better? Not sure about that, but they sure want folks to know which bow they use. I've never figured that one out... Can't see the advantage to any of that on the scorecard... 

Like a golfing buddy of mine often says, there ain't enough room in the little box on the scorecard to write down all that stuff. Only a number... 

John


----------



## Acehero

Lets not also forget that the Mens FITA WR was shot with a mix 'n match bow


----------



## G4RB4G3M4N

limbwalker said:


> but they sure want folks to know which bow they use.


Odd, I usually tell what bow a person shoots by the bow in their hand, not the shirt the wear.... 

Also, my bow is a W&W/ Hoyt mix.... should I cut a a W&W shirt and a Hoyt shirt and stitch them together to shoot better?...


----------



## limbwalker

No, you can't mix and match. That's bad Karma (at least that's what some would have you believe...) 

The "bowling shirt" phenomena is something that has always amused me. 

Like I said, there ain't no room in the arrow value box to write all that down... 

John.


----------



## John K

Clearly, the PMS (I'll never tire of that) pocket is driven by both marketing and engineering. They'll get the bow in the hands of top archers, because of their sponsorship contracts, and many people will be influenced by that. Also, it makes sense to put the squeeze on the mix-and-match crowd.

Engineering wise, it seems that have made some small gains in speed and stability, if the advertising and early reports are anything to go by... gains other manufacturers were quite able to make *without* changing the limb pocket design.


----------



## whiz-Oz

John K said:


> .. gains other manufacturers were quite able to make *without* changing the limb pocket design.


Of course, this is all established information.....?


----------



## John K

whiz-Oz said:


> Of course, this is all established information.....?


Define "established" 

Seriously though, in the absence of an independent test series, we have to go by our own experiences and those of better archers of our acquaintance. Mine inform me that this is the case, and I am happy with my choice of bow equipment. You are presumably equally happy with yours. So we're all happy 

The only independent tests I've seen were in a French magazine in 2002. Happy to send you a PDF if you PM your email address to me.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Thanks. I'm pretty sure that I already have that report. 
Unfortunately, I don't trust implicitly the better archers of my acquaintance when it comes about making observations in which they are directly using their senses. 

We have judges to score arrows that are dicey, but we seem to be happy to accept opinions on things that are outside the human ability to judge accurately. 

We will even deliberately ignore information which is contrary to that which we want to believe. 

I take some things on good faith with an opinion. I believe in repeatable accurate testing, done with an established procedure when circumstances are not immediately obvious.


----------



## Borderbows

Rick McKinney,

I have two bits of paper that would shock you a little bit....It time stamps several moments in Korean Bow development and levels of technology. If your ever passing we will let you see what we are on about. I can show you monumental moments of enlightenment in bow design and advancement from that side of the world. One is in direct reaction to a limb test, and the other is a enquiry about limb materials.
Since 2002 there has been some major R&D spent. It was that funding that made us introduce our CXC laminate and the hex5, we have been watching this catch up and wondering when we would need to make a change, as our TXG lost alot of its advanatge when the Inno hit the shops.

but on another note...


Ive heard alot of comments about vibration analysis and Harmonisation of what is a Mono block of milled alloy.... Somehow quotes have been made that the optimal feel has been established and i question how? 26" draw to a 33" draw from a 20lbs bow to a 55lbs bow and with heavy arrows to light ones, soo many vairiable of energy input, yet the optimal has been found....
SO with all the Mystery and techological theory, how much gets back to the archer... have we as an industry spent the last 30 years done our R&D on what is 20% of our results?
Are there more basic, less mystical methods of achiveing bigger results?
How much difference does enhanced vibration dampening do when a lighter mass limb does similar, yet also improves efficency. 

For example the G3 limb had large chunks of black glass either side of the limb just like trad bows.... this high mass laminate is a part source of the vibration, in that the mass travelling forward needs to be stopped and when it does it will need an equivelant force to stop it and hold in the vibrations at bay. Yet the bigger the energy input the more energy there is in the vibrations. Id say that a carbon limb is going to have an advantage in this dept. Id like to add that having 10% of the bow weight generated by carbon is not really a carbon limb. Having 50%+ could be deemed a carbon powered limb. our TX40 laminage was 60% carbon and 40% S2 Glass and not bog standard bow glass.
That laminate was in the Talisman TX40 limbs, which came out just after the ML2's.
but the biggest bug bear i have is i have yet to see any effect in a limbs DFC that is brought about with core material.

the things that effect the DFC are down right simple. and the art of getting it right is down the manipulation of these. and this assumes the laminate is a parrallel one.
For example the Hex3 limb had tappered glass fiber for mass reduction at the tips.

Limb core profile (ie taper)
limb width along its length.
and limb shape. unstrung.

These effect when and where the limb tip is at any one point in the draw.

Stack is a geometry issue just like preload and all other aspects of the draw feel.
and foam cores, non foam cores wood cores or bamboo cores Dont effect the DFC as long as the the above 3 items dont change.
Where the core material does make a difference is the mass of the limb which equals efficency. but you do have to get a bunch of other variables right on sythetic cores to make sure the core can hold up to being a bow limb.
.

I can see big vibrations effcting stamina in a negative way, but smooth limbs and light mass limbs would too in a positive way???

bow performance comes down to the age old design questions that faced longbow makers... nothing has changed.

We have just got better at it.
Hand shock
Stack
Effeciency
Stability
are all archery terms that have got lost in favour of acronims and solutions to problems that dont exist if your bow is well set up.

As my granddad said, Fishing gear is not there to catch fish, its there to catch the fisherman.

I can explain how to test all these attributes on your bows at home... all you need is a bow scale, chronograph, tape measure, grain scale and two bows. The chrono is for speed tests so that efficency can be measured.
But smoothness doesnt even need a DFC or that data, an arrow and masking tape is all you need.

The scores at top level havent changed much as the limbs used by these guys have been untill now, been still glass based, and limb profile constant, riser geom constant, and string stand count constant.

Check out the limb profile geom of the Winex and Inno Vs our ML2 limbs. Circa 2000
No wonder there are soo many archers here in the UK still hammering arrows though these "OLD" ML2 limbs. Innovation has been kept out of the top archers hands due to sponsership, but thats just our humble wee opinion.


----------



## Progen

Errr, I think we've drifted from the original topic quite a lot although the amount of somewhat related information is impressive.

And it's all YOUR fault, Mr Vargas. 

And it sure is strange for us to be discussing something as if we're really going to look at it with an unbiased point of view when we're going to buy something which is flashy or which WE think feel good.

I personally have not shot a pair of Hoyt limbs on any of the 3 Hoyt risers I've owned but that's because the local shop doesn't stock them and Korean ones are cheaper in my part of the world. Plus with the limited number of adult recurve archers around who're willing to pay good money for premium limbs, I often get offered top end limbs from previous years for up to 1/2 their original retail prices.


----------



## jmvargas

hey progen...don't blame me....he he he!!...but i really started something eh!....learned a lot too!!

when it comes to target limbs i made a decision after my first year shooting that i would only get brand new limbs for my target set-ups(nobody to blame but me if ever they fail--thank God none have so far!) ...i do get pre-owned limbs for my warfs and hunting set-ups...

am too pleased with my borders nowadays to try anything else---unless i get it for free!!!


----------



## Borderbows

Keeping to the origanal topic, the ILF system is great... it allows people to compair limbs and risers independently to find the better options. Although it does come with its problems...

Though, to test smoothness is simple. 
Take 2 sets of limbs and one riser. and take the manufacturers mid point on the Brace height.
Keeping the limb bolts in the same position you can test smoothness.

if you use the same string then even better.
Put an arrow on the bow and draw it back till the "Y" of the string is about to come off the limb face, the person drawing the bow can keep an eye on this part. At the point where the Join of the loop comes off the limb is point were the limb stops being a recurve limb and starts becomeing a long bow limb and walks right into the stack part of the draw. This is the point were the bow weight is at its lowest for the longest given leaverage! this point is the least lbs gained per inch of draw....
This is the smoothest part of the draw. Now get a buddy to mark the arrow at the back of the bow (clicker point for example) when the loop comes off the string. Now change limbs and repeat. now compair the two measurements. if you do this while also marking the same location at brace height then you will be able to see which bow has the longer working recurve.
The bow with the longest measurement from BH measurement to "Y" lift off has more recurve, and the bow with the "Y" lift off point is the smoother bow.

The fun part is to apply this to high and low brace heights, and also to different limb preload (limb) angles with the same bow.
But if you want to compair smoothness then this is the way to do it without expensive and complicated methods.

I would say that some of the Korean bows would mark up at some 21" for a 68" bow, and a Hoyt (G3) would be about 20" for a 68.


----------



## massman

*R&D has been done already*

As noted by Vittorio, The limitation to the accuracy of the adjustment bolt have been well documented. The R&D for a better, more secure and more accurate way of retaining a limb has already been done and put into place. It's on every compound manufactured. What is needed is a simple way to develop an adaptor so that a common limb butt design (mechanical industry standard) can be installed into an adaptor and this metal adaptor becomes the interface between the adjustment bracket on the riser and the limbs. I'd think something that incorporates a beveled or splined arrangement or a tapered chuck arrangement would be most accurate.

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## Borderbows

massman said:


> As noted by Vittorio, The limitation to the accuracy of the adjustment bolt have been well documented. The R&D for a better, more secure and more accurate way of retaining a limb has already been done and put into place. It's on every compound manufactured. What is needed is a simple way to develop an adaptor so that a common limb butt design (mechanical industry standard) can be installed into an adaptor and this metal adaptor becomes the interface between the adjustment bracket on the riser and the limbs. I'd think something that incorporates a beveled or splined arrangement or a tapered chuck arrangement would be most accurate.
> 
> BEST Regards,
> 
> Tom


Well.. here is a quiz for you... all of the world of traditional bows all manage to make straight risers and limbs that do not need lateral adjustment. SO why do mass produced risers need it!!!

Black Widow
Morrison
Brackenbery
OL Adcock
Black Swan
Tomahawk
DAS
BlackTail
Martin
KG
OK Match
Greenhorn

All manage to make striaght risers and limbs. all takedown to mention a few!
YET...

PSE
Samick
WIN&WIN
Hoyt
Merlin
are not prepaired to CNC a riser straight! What are they not prepaired to make striaght, limbs or riser, and if it is striaght, why have the adjustment

YET
there are some companies can make CNC risers striaght with no adjustment

What have we as an industry been sold on!
Is lateral adjustment a feature of your riser, or a consiquence of easy manufacturing.... my question to you is, is there any scenario where you would set up your bow "off" striaght?


----------



## midwayarcherywi

Excellent muse Sid. I have both a Zenit and a BMG Extreme in my stable of risers. Set up and tuning are much simpler without worrying about limb alignment. With the price of high end equipment, why not have an expectation of exacting craftsmanship, for both risers and limbs??


----------



## limbwalker

Sid, I would think it should be less expensive for a manufacturer to make a straight riser, than to incorporate the various complicated limb alignment systems that we see. I think the consumer just expects it. But it does introduce yet another opportunity for failure into the system.

After experiencing some limb alignment issues with a certain manufacturer's risers, I used BEST Zenit risers and really liked them. Not sure why I ever got rid of them to be honest. Excellent, straight risers. No limb alignment system necessary, so long as the limbs you have are straight. I never had an issue with either of my Zenit risers.

John.


----------



## Borderbows

Limbwalker:

I think its more to do with the limbs... 

For example, if you drill the "U" shape and the dowel hole in a limb slightly out you have a hells on game making them straight, if you automate the limb "tiller" process then the drillings are the item probably used to align the limbs in the machine... but the limb would be "out"... but the adjustment systems would allow the archer to make up for this. so less limbs need to be scrapped at point of manufacture.

Now, if you drill the holes in the limb further appart then you in effect make the 1/2mm bad alignment in holes have less effect at the tip. this then means automation is easier to do.

If there are 3 axis on a riser pocket and the CNC is accurate enough to get one right you can assume that the 2nd and 3rd can be too 

I talk about a aircraft. Yaw pitch and roll. We have adjustanbility in Yaw (lateral adjustemnt), Pitch (tiller bolt) and roll... or do we just assume this is right???

I think it would be cheaper to produce a alignment system inthe "controlled" enviroment of CNC risers than it is in the delicate world of limb manufacture.


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> established procedure



This means that the French test that was the most comprehensive methodology that we have ever seen for testing limbs would not have been so comprehensive!

For example, the concept of testing lateral limb deflection by way of a side load on the limb tip would not have shown the flexy nature of the FX. in which case the FX would have looked like a better limb. The established procedure before that test would have been rubbished if the "established procedure" was implemented.

Established procedure is great if you fully inderstand ALL aspects of the item being tested. BUT we dont! If we did we would not still be shooting the same designs of years gone by...the concept of a conceptual bow model would have optimised designs in all aspects and a industry standard would have been adopted.
Now if you put "Rules" for testing down on paper, then other aspects of the holistic bow would suffer as makers would optimise there design for the tests. the FX is testiment to that! SPEED SPEED and more Speed... 
(it wasnt the fastest bow on that test but thats a different subject!)


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> I think it would be cheaper to produce a alignment system inthe "controlled" enviroment of CNC risers than it is in the delicate world of limb manufacture.


Well, aren't you involved in trying to get some CNC risers made up Sid?
You'll know for sure soon if it all comes together.


----------



## Borderbows

Whiz-Oz,
We currently make straight wooden risers... on nothing more than a 800 dolar mill. Im sure we will work out a method of making a straight CNC riser.
Its just a case of some good old "best practice".
but you might find the companies that make only risers tend not to have lateral adjustment, yet those that mass produce limbs that also have risers have lateral adjustment. Appart from those that make custom trad bows that are straight in the first place!. 
I think the difference is the mass production bit vs and hand tillered limbs.

Im sure if we take our time and mill them nicely then our CNC risers will be just dandy. but we do have a wee while to go yet before we get that far.

Afterall, we still have production to run, as well as the R&D to get this mill and lathe up and Running, but HAAS said they will help us get them running, so im sure we are in good hands. (felt good supporting a US company for some reason)

Afterall Bernadini and Best can manage it... 

Do you have any hints on making CNC risers???


Oh, yeah my name is Sid... Whats yours?


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Whiz-Oz,
> 
> 
> Do you have any hints on making CNC risers???
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah my name is Sid... Whats yours?


Hell yes!
Use materials which are dimensionally stable with known fatigue characteristics. 
Use the best quality CNC machines.
Develop with Finite Element technology to predict stresses. 
Get someone who knows what they are doing to do the programming. 

All basic best practice stuff really. 

And it's Andy, this end.


----------



## Borderbows

Cheers Andy,
Use materials which are dimensionally stable with known fatigue characteristics. (check)
Use the best quality CNC machines. (check)
Develop with Finite Element technology to predict stresses. (check)
Get someone who knows what they are doing to do the programming. (Check)


Sounds easy then eh!!! ;-)

errrmmm.
though our timber riser which have held up to the test of time are errmmm....
well

Use materials which are dimensionally stable with known fatigue characteristics. (uncheck) aka timber
Use the best quality CNC machines. (uncheck) Rasp and files
Develop with Finite Element technology to predict stresses. (uncheck) 40 years of doing this! and up to 90lbs of draw weight
Get someone who knows what they are doing to do the programming. (unCheck) errrmmm... can you use a rasp???

hehehehe
the rocket is the arrow.... so i suppose the bow is not rocket science


----------



## Progen

Sid, whilst I have heard nothing but praises from the few archers I know who use your limbs, isn't the route you're taking nothing but blatant Hoyt bashing? Or is that what you wanted, Mr Vargas?!!! Heheheheh.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

Progen said:


> Sid, whilst I have heard nothing but praises from the few archers I know who use your limbs, isn't the route you're taking nothing but blatant Hoyt bashing? Or is that what you wanted, Mr Vargas?!!! Heheheheh.


Now I don't own either a Hoyt or a Border (and I'm not sponsored by anybody), though I've had the privilege of shooting products from both manufacturers owned by fellow archers. 

What I do know is that Sid actually designs and builds bows, which I doubt many of the rest of us can say for ourselves. I've learned a lot from what Sid has had to say so far on this thread. It's part of his job to know what the competition is up to and to try to stay ahead of the pack.

All we can add to this discussion is our subjective opinions based on our experience with archery equipment. Very few of us are capable of conducting accurate comparative testing of limb DFC or fps arrow speeds.

It is a fact that many of us have either witnessed or experienced limb failure with Hoyt limbs. But it seems to me that Border Archery has extensively tested both Hoyt and W&W limbs. I think Sid has remained pretty objective so far. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## jmvargas

Progen said:


> Sid, whilst I have heard nothing but praises from the few archers I know who use your limbs, isn't the route you're taking nothing but blatant Hoyt bashing? Or is that what you wanted, Mr Vargas?!!! Heheheheh.


....progen...i started this thread to try and get a consensus on how the archery community would take to hoyt's new terminology for "ILF".....i had my own take on this and was curious what others thought...the discussions that ensued were all very informative and educational...THAT's what i wanted...


----------



## John K

In the light of Rick and Vittorio's revelations, perhaps we should also refer to the SLB - Spigarelli Limb Bolt - when talking about the HDS/ILF


----------



## whiz-Oz

Flint Hills Tex said:


> Very few of us are capable of conducting accurate comparative testing of limb DFC or fps arrow speeds.


Well, I'd debate that. How much training do you need to have to use an accurate scale, ruler and graph paper or excel?

How much experience does it take to use a Draw Force mapper?

Does 10 years experience or 10 seconds experience shooting an arrow over a chronograph make it somehow more accurate in speed?

Do you seriously think that you belong to a group of people who you deem to be so incapable? I think that you've insulted a rather large amount of people..


----------



## Seattlepop

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, I'd debate that. How much training do you need to have to use an accurate scale, ruler and graph paper or excel?
> 
> How much experience does it take to use a Draw Force mapper?
> 
> Does 10 years experience or 10 seconds experience shooting an arrow over a chronograph make it somehow more accurate in speed?
> 
> Do you seriously think that you belong to a group of people who you deem to be so incapable? I think that you've insulted a rather large amount of people..


Ah, someone said "incapable" and someone else read "incompetent". I am, for example, very competent, but I don't have a chrono. So, for testing fps I am not only "incapable", it would be literally "impossible". Oh! The insult! 

This has been a great thread, think positive!


----------



## bis

Borderbows said:


> I would say that some of the Korean bows would mark up at some 21" for a 68" bow, and a Hoyt (G3) would be about 20" for a 68.


Interesting post, Sid.
Did you get this huge 1" difference, using the same BH?
I'm just thinking that since the G3 (hoyt in general) suggested BH is lower than what used by korean limbs (samick for instance), the Y should leave the limb face later (due to the longer string).
I'm expecting G3 "more recurve". Not sure about smoothness.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, I'd debate that. How much training do you need to have to use an accurate scale, ruler and graph paper or excel?
> 
> How much experience does it take to use a Draw Force mapper?
> 
> Does 10 years experience or 10 seconds experience shooting an arrow over a chronograph make it somehow more accurate in speed?
> 
> Do you seriously think that you belong to a group of people who you deem to be so incapable? I think that you've insulted a rather large amount of people..


Sorry if you felt insulted, Andy, but what I meant by "accurate comparative testing" is using a shooting machine, a draw force mapper and a chronograph, and then shooting, literally, hundreds of arrows through them to get accurate mean results and eliminate as many variables as possible. Most of us do not have access to such devices, which makes us "incapable" of doing such testing. 

If I felt that we were incompetent, then I think we wouldn't be capable of even understanding those kinds of results.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Flint Hills Tex said:


> Sorry if you felt insulted, Andy,


Oh, I don't feel insulted. I will have access to this equipment shortly. 

Doing accurate testing isn't difficult. Just time consuming and requiring attention to detail. Both of these capabilities aren't beyond most people. Just beyond most people's interest level. 

The problem that you have with testing is that most archers are happy to accept their own perceptions as most people are.

If you're honest with yourself, you'll know that your perceptions have limits. 

Archers will tell you with absolute conviction that different colour spinwings have different drag values, but they still check their speedometer when approaching a speed camera.


----------



## limbwalker

Chronographs and digital bow scales are so inexpensive (along with digital grain scales) that I'm not sure why anyone willing to spend hundreds of dollars on limbs isn't also willing to spend even less on these important tools.

Well, important in the sense that it could satisfy a person's curiosity. If one never asks the questions in the first place, then no "tools" needed 

John.


----------



## Borderbows

bis said:


> Interesting post, Sid.
> Did you get this huge 1" difference, using the same BH?
> I'm just thinking that since the G3 (hoyt in general) suggested BH is lower than what used by korean limbs (samick for instance), the Y should leave the limb face later (due to the longer string).
> I'm expecting G3 "more recurve". Not sure about smoothness.


Lower Brace height should give a smoother feel. As you say there wuold be more string wrap... but its not all about string wrap round the recurve, for example it was quoted somewhere on here by someone that big recurves dont provide any benefit and the example to disprove it was Klopstegs work. This was the wrong analogy to use as those were heavy mass "static" recurves and not the light mass working recurve profiles of today.
Now if you Over egg the "working" part of the recurve yuo end up with a whippy dipped bow. This allows the outer reaches of the limb to work more and give all its advantage away so all the string wrap is given away. This does not store good energy, thats bow design...
If you look at the amount of string contact at BH, you wil probably find different amounts on the two limb profiles both W&W and Hoyt, but not only that, you will see that the shallow recurve shape on the hoyt bows comes off the recurve faster than the deeper cord ratio on the W&W, just like 1/2" tide hight races up a tidal flat, same as 10" draw and a shallow recurve.
The BH does change the amount of recurve contact, but it also (and its main feature), is the length of power stroke. The Amount of recurve contact is can also be done with recurve shape, but that would involve heavy investment in new tooling!


----------



## Nick Forster

Borderbows said:


> Thats a Classic.... Love it.
> Hex5 Milf
> Inno Milf
> Extreme BF Milf.....


Watch out for the extream BF MILF Sid !!!!!:darkbeer:
Nick


----------



## massman

*Touchy--Feely*

After an opportunity I had this weekend to look closer at the new Hoyt I was left with a question.

Why shorten the sight window on the 25" riser and keep the limbs the same length? Why keep the limbs that cannot be used in any other ILF riser the same length as all current ILF limbs? Why not keep the sight window the same length and shorten the limbs? Or does Hoyt consider that this will influence others designs to go to this "new" length of sight window? Why else leave the limbs the same current lengths?

With this new sight window I would be concerned trying to shoot Field archery.

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## whiz-Oz

massman said:


> After an opportunity I had this weekend to look closer at the new Hoyt I was left with a question.
> 
> Why shorten the sight window on the 25" riser and keep the limbs the same length?
> Why keep the limbs that cannot be used in any other ILF riser the same length as all current ILF limbs?


They're not the same length. They're longer by a considerable margin, which is why the sight window is smaller. 
The limbs aren't designed to be on any other riser, so stating that is kinda redundant really.




massman said:


> Why not keep the sight window the same length and shorten the limbs?


There is no advantage in doing that. But if you want the sight window the same size as a 25" regular, you can go the 27" formula riser with short limbs for a 68" inch bow.



massman said:


> Or does Hoyt consider that this will influence others designs to go to this "new" length of sight window? Why else leave the limbs the same current lengths?


I'd be thinking that Hoyt probably wouldn't care about sight window issues if they offer a riser which absolves the problem.



massman said:


> With this new sight window I would be concerned trying to shoot Field archery.


I wouldn't. I'd just buy a 27" riser. Here it is over a 25" GMX. Note the sight window. Are you still concerned?


----------



## jmvargas

whiz...although we may have different tastes in equipment i must say you take excellent pictures!!


----------



## Borderbows

bis said:


> Interesting post, Sid.
> Did you get this huge 1" difference, using the same BH?
> I'm just thinking that since the G3 (hoyt in general) suggested BH is lower than what used by korean limbs (samick for instance), the Y should leave the limb face later (due to the longer string).
> I'm expecting G3 "more recurve". Not sure about smoothness.


not sure you fully see what the "Y" signifies.

For example, if i had 3 inches of recurve limb/string contact but it was only 1mm of what we call "cord ratio", then 2" of draw would lift all that string straight off the limb. thats the subtle difference between a tight corner and a shallow one on a high way. Your approach angle on the shallow corner needs to be WAY less to see the apex early on, yet the tight corner needs a MUCH wider approach angle to be able to see the apex. the approach angle is dependent on the corner, and so is the "Y" lift off point.

and that wouldnt really matter then what the brace height is... Brace height is a small factor in the "Y" lift off. 
this 1" is a huge amount, afterall how many archers have noted the stacky difference of these two limbs... people have spotted 1/2" difference quite well too.

Im sure you now see how you could spot the smoother limb... its quantifiable. and its in your hands to find for your self with no high tech gear.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

whiz-Oz said:


> They're not the same length. They're longer by a considerable margin, which is why the sight window is smaller...
> 
> There is no advantage in doing that. But if you want the sight window the same size as a 25" regular, you can go the 27" formula riser with short limbs for a 68" inch bow.


Yeah, but what Tom means is that the working part of the limb is not any longer than a normal ILF limb, just the limb butt is longer. The reason not to use shorts is to prevent stacking at +30" draw lengths.


----------



## whiz-Oz

And if I can measure that the limb is flexing between the limb butt and dovetail fitting, under load,(Which I have already done) it means that both you and Tom are wrong. 
My new set of digital 1/100th of a millimetre vernier calipers arrived yesterday, so I can take pictures of it this time. 

Here just happens to be a 25" Formula RX with Medium limbs taken out to past 30 inches. The short limbs on a 27" riser appear to be pretty much identical based on Hoyt's FDC.

I would have gone further out, but I ran of room on the original FDC measuring jig. I'll test the 27"/short combination when my Bow Force Mapper shows up in the post.


----------



## rasyad

Hi Whiz, 

Thanks for the data. I am very curious as to what kind of movement there is in the limb butt. It would be fantastic if you could document the movement on your FDC fixture. Mounting a short (say 10") stabilizer rod in the limb would make even small movement of the limb butt easier to see and measure.

I could be off base but I think it would be ideal if there were little or no movement at the end of the stabilizer. Would not movement at the tip of the 10" limb mounted stabilizer mean that any mass out there would have to be accelerated during the shot. If so would that not also result in a parasitic loss of limb energy and possibly amplification of post shot limb oscillation?

Don't get me wrong, I am still interested in buying a FRX even if it turns out that there are unwanted effects cause by using the limb mounts for stabilization. I suspect that these same locations would be perfect for light weight units to control vibration and noise.

Looking forward to your results.

Rasyad


----------



## Vittorio

rasyad said:


> Hi Whiz,
> 
> Thanks for the data. I am very curious as to what kind of movement there is in the limb butt. It would be fantastic if you could document the movement on your FDC fixture. Mounting a short (say 10") stabilizer rod in the limb would make even small movement of the limb butt easier to see and measure.
> 
> I could be off base but I think it would be ideal if there were little or no movement at the end of the stabilizer. Would not movement at the tip of the 10" limb mounted stabilizer mean that any mass out there would have to be accelerated during the shot. If so would that not also result in a parasitic loss of limb energy and possibly amplification of post shot limb oscillation?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am still interested in buying a FRX even if it turns out that there are unwanted effects cause by using the limb mounts for stabilization. I suspect that these same locations would be perfect for light weight units to control vibration and noise.
> 
> Looking forward to your results.
> 
> Rasyad


I think you have got to the critical point of the system. Having a stabilizer bushing inside a part of the limb that is supposed to be bending, and surely bends, from all evidencies we have, is against any logic in terms of mechanical strenght, energy absorption and system stability. There should be an explanation for such a solution, but I can't figure what it is.


----------



## limbwalker

> Having a stabilizer bushing inside a part of the limb that is supposed to be bending, and surely bends, from all evidencies we have, is against any logic in terms of mechanical strenght, energy absorption and system stability.


Agreed, and the notion that a limb would have MORE moving parts instead of fewer seems counter-intuitive when thinking about accuracy and repeatability.

But the best test data will be found on the target face. Who knows... just seems like the wrong direction to go in.

John.


----------



## cragdweller

Excellent points on the limb engineering issues. My question would also include the effect on physical limb weight gain, long term durability and the subsequent loss of arrow speed. I observed velocity decrease and arrow flight differences compared with my present equipment. The new limbs are heaver and have a different narrow shape, this has to affect efficiency. Is the new bow design a re-thinking? Increase riser and decrease limb length like a compound? 

The limited time I had with the Hoyt Formula indicated that the stabilizer bushing in the limb had an observed effect on shock absorption. I did not notice any improvement in shot accuracy, but it felt good. Will my scores go up? The effectiveness and longevity of the new limb bushing design will take lots feedback, but will Hoyt listen. 

Personally I wish the whole take down bow design would be replaced and not upgraded like the Formula. The system is OLD and needs to be re-engineered. Earl Hoyt, as an example had a TD-1, TD-2, TD-3 and TD-4(GM) all tinkered with limb mounting and/or weight adjustment. Metal and composite risers need to evolve. Hoyt has thrown the gauntlet down with a priority patent design. This is a great opportunity for WIN & WIN, Samick, or a smaller devoted recurve company (i.e. Border) to come forward with a new standard that other will have to follow.


----------



## massman

*As I understand it...*

Whiz-Oz,

As I understand the new Hoyt... the new Hoyt 27" riser with their "med" limbs will yield a 68" bow? YES? Your picture is really great THANKS. If this is correct then call the riser whatever length you want but is it really what is come to be known as a "27" riser. 

It would seem that we need to call risers something different these days. Perhaps small for a (66" bow using Med limbs) and Medium for a (68" bow using med limbs) and then long for a (70" bow using med limbs) That would perhaps make more sense.

I hope that all other manufacturers do not go the route as mapped out by Hoyt. I personally like the ability to shoot a riser I like and a limb I like regardless of who is the manufacture. I might just like to try to shoot a Border limb but I might like the feel of my Win & Win riser.

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## whiz-Oz

cragdweller said:


> This is a great opportunity for WIN & WIN, Samick, or a smaller devoted recurve company (i.e. Border) to come forward with a new standard that other will have to follow.


I still can't figure out why people insist that other companies would just automatically HAVE to adopt a new "standard" when:

1. There is no current standard.
2. There are issues reported with the current "interchangeable" limb mounting system between manufacturers and within them.
3. There are no advantages to manufacturers to have interchangeable limbs and the compound bows aptly demonstrate the consumers lack of care about it.
4. The current "standard" has limited recurve innovation for the last 25 years or so because of manufacturers slavish adoption of it.
5. Nobody clamoured for this system of "interchangeable" limbs before it came about through the Korean lack of respect for IP anyway. Yamaha and Nishizawa were doing just fine with their own mounting systems.


----------



## whiz-Oz

massman said:


> If this is correct then call the riser whatever length you want but is it really what is come to be known as a "27" riser.
> 
> It would seem that we need to call risers something different these days.


Why?

If the combination of riser and limb lengths, lead to the selection of relationships which correspond to the well known draw length parameters, which is how people select their riser/limb combinations NOW, why would you change it?

It would just confuse the majority of people who won't be affected by the minor reduction in sight window length, which isn't a published requirement or standard anyway.


----------



## limbwalker

Whiz,

I don't know why some folks still insist that there isn't a "standard" when for all practical reasons (that means, for folks like you and me) there IS a standard. The attachment system didn't get the name "International Limb Fitting" for no reason at all. And the name didn't become almost universally accepted for no reason at all. It's because people (rightfully, in probably 90% of the cases out there) have come to understand and expect that when they buy an ILF riser and ILF limbs, they will work together. 

Now, you and I both know they don't always fit perfectly, but again, for all practical purposes they do. So, it is a de-facto "standard." It's really only Hoyt that is trying to buck this thing for whatever reason...



> Nobody clamoured for this system of "interchangeable" limbs before it came about through the Korean lack of respect for IP anyway.


Wow, you sound like you're on the payroll Whiz. Or at least drinking the kool-aid... What about the "Italian lack of respect" for adopting grips? ha, ha. I mean, last I checked, the "old" spig risers accepted the old TD-4/GM grips right? And then the BEST and Spig risers accepted the "new" Avalon style grips. And if I'm not mistaken, the Bernardini risers accept the W&W grips too...

Get over it, I say. It has become a "standard" for all practical purposes. And not adhering to it only serves to Pi&& off those who have become accustomed to it. 

John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> Get over it, I say. It has become a "standard" for all practical purposes. And not adhering to it only serves to Pi&& off those who have become accustomed to it.


Yes, it's a defacto standard, but when people ONLY consider the inconvenience to themselves as against the advantages to NOT having it, it's a bit short sighted. 

Besides, it's not like the entire world has stopped making "ILF" limbs. 
People are carrying on like it is. 

People have been given an alternative option and they're *****ing about it, largely because they don't understand. 

I don't think that Hoyt would put out a product that would have endemic limb failures when they have draw cycle testing robots. 

I'm not on the payroll. Being given a Formula RX to review and examine has now cost me about 600 dollars in terms of travel, fees, equipment and tools. Some very sick part of me seems to enjoy debating the alternate opinions when I truly believe everyone else can't see the forest for the trees. 

If you look back through history, those that cling to the old ways never get any better. We've got one of mans oldest tools. It's getting harder to innovate.



limbwalker said:


> I don't know why some folks still insist that there isn't a "standard" when for all practical reasons (that means, for folks like you and me) there IS a standard.


Well, for folks like you who have found issues with limb fit, then the "standard" isn't working real well and it's rather obvious that the lack of a true standard is causing these problems. So on one hand, you can cheer if interchangeable limbs save you money. On the other hand, you can ***** that being cheap doesn't work perfectly. Would the manufacturers really care if you're a small part of a minority that's denying them income?


----------



## lorteti

It’s so funny that people never get more open-minded.



whiz-Oz said:


> 1. There is no current standard.


If there is no the ‘standard’, it doesn’t mean that ILF doesn’t exist, just look around how many different brand limbs and risers fit just fine, standard or not, the fact is that it works.



whiz-Oz said:


> 2. There are issues reported with the current "interchangeable" limb mounting system between manufacturers and within them.


Of course nothing is perfect, somehow the new world record is shot with a GMX/ VERA combination. So the not standard ILF isn’t that bad at all.



whiz-Oz said:


> 3. There are no advantages to manufacturers to have interchangeable limbs and the compound bows aptly demonstrate the consumers lack of care about it.


But the archer have a big advantage on this one(just ask people that are hunting long time for a not stacking limb to suite there specific draw length), who cares about the manufacture. Certainly some really cares, any idea why?



whiz-Oz said:


> 5. Nobody clamoured for this system of "interchangeable" limbs before it came about through the Korean lack of respect for IP anyway. Yamaha and Nishizawa were doing just fine with their own mounting systems.


Somehow Yamaha is no longer making bows, and Nishizawa is as good as no existence.



whiz-Oz said:


> 4. The current "standard" has limited recurve innovation for the last 25 years or so because of manufacturers slavish adoption of it.


New innovation is good, some fail, some really make evolution. But it doesn’t mean the OLD is bad, only until it is proven.

jx


----------



## limbwalker

Whiz, you're an intelligent guy. Come now...

Folks are only reacting to statements like yours that insist there is "no standard" and that "intellectual property" has been stolen. If nobody felt compelled to make those claims, AND to promote a "new" (although it's not really new) name for a very old attachment system, then we could instead focus our discussion on the merits and risks of creating a new system...

So really there are two discussions going on here at once... And they are only marginally related in my mind...

And I wouldn't use me as the example since I only once had a serious issue with a single set of limbs, and that was after performing a conversion to my Axis riser. Every other set of limbs I own work just fine on every single riser I have. That sounds pretty much like a "standard" to me...

Whiz, let me ask you this. Do all your risers and limbs say "Hoyt" on them, or have you yourself taken advantage of the interchangeability in the ILF system? I know very few who have not...

John.


----------



## John K

whiz-Oz said:


> I don't think that Hoyt would put out a product that would have endemic limb failures when they have draw cycle testing robots.


Of course, they wouldn't *want* to, but it happens to all manufacturers across hundreds of industries, regardless of their testing procedures. It's not as if W&W would deliberately have put the XQ1 out to market had they known they'd only have to recall it. Or as if Intel would have released the Pentium chip which couldn't do its sums had they know about the problem.

Hoyt have had problems with limbs and risers, some quite widely reported, just the same as every bowyer. There is no formal record of this because no body exists to make and keep such a record. Even allowing for hearsay, it's plain that every bowyer without exception has problems with product failure.

Incidentally - of the three people I know of who have RX bows, one has returned their limbs because they were twisted. I'm sure Hoyt will back up their product, which is of course what really counts. 

P.S. If we're talking about IP theft, US and British companies copied the Hoyt limb pocket (with Spigarelli limb bolt) long before W&W and Samick became major players.


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> Whiz, you're an intelligent guy. Come now...
> 
> Folks are only reacting to statements like yours that insist there is "no standard" and that "intellectual property" has been stolen. If nobody felt compelled to make those claims, AND to promote a "new" (although it's not really new) name for a very old attachment system, then we could instead focus our discussion on the merits and risks of creating a new system...
> 
> So really there are two discussions going on here at once... And they are only marginally related in my mind...
> 
> And I wouldn't use me as the example since I only once had a serious issue with a single set of limbs, and that was after performing a conversion to my Axis riser. Every other set of limbs I own work just fine on every single riser I have. That sounds pretty much like a "standard" to me...
> 
> Whiz, let me ask you this. Do all your risers and limbs say "Hoyt" on them, or have you yourself taken advantage of the interchangeability in the ILF system? I know very few who have not...
> 
> John.


First up, John, I'm writing this where I can't post but I have a sneaky bypass system. 

I'm not using your examples specifically in terms of limb fitting problems. 


People on the three major archery forums have spoken of problems with limb fit. 

This thread has several issues that are being mixed together. Some are actually not relevant and we may even get to addressing that in a mega post later. 

But lets look at the difference between what you can expect with a real standard and what you can't. 

For a start, will consider the terms HDS and ILF. 

HDS is what Hoyt now defines as their name for their limb fitting system. 

As far as I can tell, it refers to the little dovetail fitting found on the limb butts that we're all familiar with and the corresponding slot in the riser.

Hoyt claim to have invented it, have apparently patented it and are using the term in their advertisements. 

ILF or International Limb Fitting is a term used to describe the fact that different manufacturers are making items which on the surface are compatible. 
Does anyone actually mention the ILF "standard"? 

Would anyone like to credit a manufacturer as coining the term "ILF"?

Here are some facts:

Patents are NOT worldwide unless worldwide patented. It costs a LOT of money to do that. 

Some countries do not recognise patents in other countries. Korea sure as hell doesn't, so even worldwide patents won't stop their production of IP infringing products. 

Patent infringements may be used to stop imports of products. 

Companies like Cisco Systems spend LOTS of money stopping some Chinese copies of their products making it into the USA with teams of attack lawyers. 

Hoyt has apparently not chosen to enforce their patent to prevent import and sale of infringing items within the United States. 

Australia has a "Free trade agreement" with the USA which means that the US's copyright laws are enforceable here. 

Standards are defined things by design and intent. 

They have agreed measurements and tolerances. 

Things like batteries are made to a physical size standard so that batteries made by Ray-O-vac and Energiser will fit in items that are defined as using AA, AAA, D, C, CR-125 sized batteries. They actually ARE a standard. 

Standards exist for items which are designed and intended to be interchangeable. 

Power plugs, audio plugs, CD's, Cassettes, Memory Cards, Data cable plugs and data format standards ensure that we have the expectation of compatibility through several product in our lives. There are time, distance, volume and weight standards for measurement.

You EXPECT that you can go buy a Movie DVD in the USA and it will play in any DVD player in the USA because it complies to the industry standard for dimensions and data layout and protocol. 

These standards can be found written down and agreed upon. 

They have been defined by whoever invented the product and most importantly, they are freely available and stated to ENSURE compatibility. 

(We will ignore DVD "zoning" as it's a marketing ploy and nothing else. )

We are SO used to compatibility, that we make assumptions. 

The limb fittings that we are familiar with, as far as I can tell were invented by Hoyt.

At least they claim to have a patent and that's a big call without one as it CAN be checked. 

As far as I can tell, Samick produced pretty much exact copies of the Gold Medalist and sold them. 

At some point, various other manufacturers got into the act. 

Win&Win utilised fittings of the same type, with no apparent permission, because Korea doesn't respect copyright. (look at the direct copies that Cartel / Doosung make of a plethora of other archery products as well as their own designs).

Slowly the recurve archery production world has seen the commercial advantages in producing limbs which use a similar attachment system. 

People can make risers only, or limbs only which can be sold with a reasonable expectation of working well enough with different brands.

Maybe Sid as a Border representative can tell me if they have an agreement with Hoyt to manufacture and sell limbs which, as they closely match the Hoyt patented limb fittings and as they are designed to be interchangeable as such would be seen even by the lamest patent attorney as a patent infringement? Scotland is quite likely to have IP laws although I don't know for sure. 

But lets be sure about a couple of things. 

A patent is a description and set of measurements that define something that CANNOT be copied without agreement. 

A standard is a description and set of measurements that define something that CAN be copied WITH agreement. 

There is NO, repeat NO international standard for an International Limb fitting. 

As such, there is NO expectation that you are ENTITLED to, that limbs from manufacturer A will fit perfectly into a riser from Manufacturer B.

The fact that they DO fit, mostly correctly is based on the ability of the manufacturers to come close to what they can copy from the original design. 

Representatives from Hoyt, Samick, Sebastian Flute, Yamaha, Win and Win, Border, KG, PSE, Mathews, Martin have apparently NOT all sat around a coffee table chugging latte's and agreeing to limb fitting specifications yet, they all apparently utilise the Hoyt patented one. 

(I would expect that the PSE, Mathews and Martin MAY have made a phone call to Hoyt at least, being in the same country with the same IP laws, but maybe they didn't.)

Why would manufacturers copy this system?

Originally, from blindly copying. That's what Korea has done in the past. Why have to design when you can copy?

You will note that there are for and against reasons for copying the limb fitting. 

It lets people experiment. 

It lets people mix and match. 

No one thing is all things for all people and archery is a perfect example of that. 

For the consumer, it's all win. 

However, the lack of an agreed standard ensures that you have no ENTITLED expectation that you can whack the your favourite Samiyamahoyder limbs into your psewinflute riser and it will fit with precision and there will be joy for all. 

If it doesn't, who do you complain to? 

Whose responsibility is it that it doesn't work as you think it should?

There is nobody to complain to.

For the manufacturer, it's mostly all lose. 

Nowhere else have I seen major components from competing manufacturers interchange in ANY other field. 

Where you had no option previously (and nobody complained about it) you bought a riser and limbs from the same manufacturer and swapped limbs from within them. Your manufacturer of choice got all your money. 

Because of this, you could expect your limbs to fit perfectly and had some comeback if they didn't. 

What is the difference nowadays?

Because "ILF" fittings LOOK like they will fit and most people have had no problems, you have an ASSUMED expectation that they will work.

Some people find out that they don't always fit well enough or at all. Then they complain to the manufacturers who tell them it's not their fault and rightly so.

So when that happens, it's your assumption which is letting you down. 

Not the manufacturers lack of conforming to a standard which does not exist. 

Blame quality control if it's the same manufacturer. 

Mix and match limbs and risers from different manufacturers at your own risk. There is no industrial mandated guarantee of compatibility or precision fit. 

There is just YOUR expectation of being able to take advantage of someone's attempt at copying the fitting.

Regardless of what you feel you're entitled to, I'm now managing your expectations that have been let run wild.

There are standards within Archery.

AMO standards are some of them, but they relate to measurements and dimensions. 

There is NO AMO standard limb fitting. Don't hold your breath waiting for one either.


----------



## jmvargas

whiz...i am confused when you say you are not on the payroll yet was "given" a formula RX to review....

i don't seem to recall your saying anything negative about your "freebie" bow either..

as far as mix and match is concerned i've been doing just that for the last 5 years and never had a major problem---and am sure many of us here are doing the same thing..


----------



## limbwalker

JM, it's rather routine for manufacturers to send out equipment to archers for testing, initial impressions, or in many cases, free advertisement 

Don't hold that against him...

I myself have received a number of free or reduced-cost gear since 2004. Some I asked for, but more that was offered to me for testing. If I feel like it, I post my impressions about some of it, some I don't, and some I just send back with a polite "thanks but no thanks"... 

Generally speaking, it's bad form to post negative impressions of a product one received for free, so you don't see much of that. And, that individual would probably never get another reduced-cost item from that company ever again unless the company wanted to try to change the person's opinion... But that rarely happens either.

Reporting about reduced-cost equipment on a public forum is a touchy thing. Generally speaking, if folks want to believe you, they do. If they don't want to believe your findings, they bring up the fact that you didn't have to pay for the item. It's happened to me many times now. In fact, I've been called some pretty nasty names just because I was willing to test a bow from a particular manufacturer. Once I reported that I liked the bow, I was compared to hitler, and worse... 

Anyway, there is no such thing as "free" equipment. It all comes with strings attached, whether written or implied. Rarely does a manufacturer supply equipment with zero expectations in return. I can name a few though, and I truly value their unconditional support... But even many of those do so with the knowlege that they will likely benefit from the arrangement. The burden of accepting reduced-cost gear is pretty heavy though. Not sure many folks realize that. It's actually a lot easier to just buy your own gear and shoot whatever you want... In fact, that's what I recommend, and to a large extent, still do.

The fact that they sent Whiz a bow to test tells us they value his opinion, and if Hoyt values his opinion, then he probably knows what he's talking about.

Having said that though, I'm not sure where the loyalty to the HDS comes from... That seems misplaced. I mean, if a person thinks a bow is great and says so, I'm all for that. But arguing on behalf of a company's "intellectual property" seems kind of odd for an individual.

Anyway, Whiz, I think you should ease up on the Korean slams. Not sure if it's intentional, but it's kind of obvious. As has been pointed out, there have been copies made of equipment in both directions, across both oceans. 

In fact, if I am not mistaken, you could ask the question of whether Hoyt "borrowed" Spigarelli's "intellectual property" when they borrowed the limb bolt design. I mean, after all, that's half the limb fitting system, right? And IMO, the more important half...

John.


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> whiz...i am confused when you say you are not on the payroll yet was "given" a formula RX to review....
> 
> i don't seem to recall your saying anything negative about your "freebie" bow either..
> 
> as far as mix and match is concerned i've been doing just that for the last 5 years and never had a major problem---and am sure many of us here are doing the same thing..


Well, mine hasn't been so much given as leant. It goes back when there is no more to find out about it. (or do to it) As far as I'm concerned, I also have to hand it over to anyone who wants to check it out or shoot it and a few people have had a go. 

It's not my property and it never will be. If I kept it, you would rightfully be able to say that I was bought. What sucks is, that if people see me with an orange one, they'll assume that I haven't given the review bow back and I really like the orange.

If I want one, I still have to buy one. Mine is for review for my (and your ) interest. Hence, if I write stuff about it, answer questions about it, take photos of it, check what has been claimed about it (as much as I can ) then we're all winners. 

I opened my big mouth and my offer was taken up. So now I have to deliver. I'm still waiting for things to turn up so that I can test in detail and for some facilities to become available. I have to rely on people being able to do stuff for me on weekends.

If you think that I'll be offered a chance to test anything again... you might want to wait on that one. I did say that I'll do things that nobody else will.

As for arguing about intellectual property, well, that's not done for one particular organisation, but many in general. I have interests that are concerned with Intellectual Property, have friends that work for IP Australia and work in another Government department which deals with IP law and policy, so it does feature in my life more than the average bear. I argue for and against the individuals right to I.P and the Companies. 

Lets not talk about Disney's interpretations of I.P and how they swing things....

And as for who borrowed what, some things are hard to ascertain as being absolutely correct unless the evidence is presented. 

I am also ex-military intelligence. I know what one person says and what another person says is not always correct even if they believe they're telling the truth. 
Each story has the viewpoint of the person involved.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

cragdweller said:


> The limited time I had with the Hoyt Formula indicated that the stabilizer bushing in the limb had an observed effect on shock absorption. I did not notice any improvement in shot accuracy, but it felt good. Will my scores go up? The effectiveness and longevity of the new limb bushing design will take lots feedback, but will Hoyt listen.


That would be my guess, as well, that the limb bushings are intended to reduce hand shock. In fact, an innovative archery accessories manufacturer called Arctec (www.arctec-products.com) is now offering a limb-damper called the LSA for _regular_ ILF limbs. It is apparently attached to the dovetail pin bushing. They offer two versions, one for Hoyt HDS and one for "other" ILF limbs (an interesting coincidence, that they seem to have noticed a difference during their R&D phase).

@Massman: The Formula 25" riser is still only 25" long, and the medium limbs will give you a 68" bow. Only the limb butts, the part between the dovetail pin and the U-shaped end of the limb, are longer. That's why the sight window on the 25" riser is shorter than on other 25" risers.

@WhizOz: I'd love to see your pics of how these limb butts flex. I'm not saying I don't believe it, just that it's hard to believe that the thickest part of the limb has any dynamic properties. I've always thought of the limb butts as more of a static element.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, for folks like you who have found issues with limb fit, then the "standard" isn't working real well and it's rather obvious that the lack of a true standard is causing these problems. So on one hand, you can cheer if interchangeable limbs save you money. On the other hand, you can ***** that being cheap doesn't work perfectly. Would the manufacturers really care if you're a small part of a minority that's denying them income?


But the "issues" with ILF have all been in connection with newer Hoyt risers, so, again, it _is_ Hoyt trying to buck the system. And interchangeability has nothing to do with being "cheap", or didn't you know that Hoyt isn't the only manufacturer that makes high-end ILF limbs?


----------



## whiz-Oz

Flint Hills Tex said:


> But the "issues" with ILF have all been in connection with newer Hoyt risers, so, again, it _is_ Hoyt trying to buck the system. And interchangeability has nothing to do with being "cheap", or didn't you know that Hoyt isn't the only manufacturer that makes high-end ILF limbs?


Incorrect!
People have reported problems with all sorts of brands of limbs and risers. 

Interchangeability between brands has two applications. Experimentation and Cost. It has LESS of these applications when proprietary limb mounting systems are involved.

And as I now have my own digital vernier, I can take pictures of the amount of flex.


----------



## jmvargas

whiz-Oz said:


> Incorrect!
> People have reported problems with all sorts of brands of limbs and risers.....
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ....sori but this seems to be what YOU want others to believe....the reality is these "reported problems" were all minor and easily solvable....
> 
> in the last 5 years i have gone thru the following ILF equipment:
> 
> A) ILF risers
> 
> 1. (4) pse x-factors
> 2. (3) hoyt elans
> 3. (3) hoyt matrixes
> 4. (1) hoyt gold medalist
> 5. (1) martin aurora
> 
> B) ILF limbs
> 
> 1. (3) hoyt vectors
> 2. (2) hoyt M1s
> 3. (2) samick extremes
> 4. (2) winexes
> 5. (3) borders(HEX5-M1/M2 and CXG)
> 6. (1) hoyt carbon plus
> 7. (1) pse xpression
> 8. (1) winact
> 
> 
> i have mixed and matched most of them and currently have borders on my x-factors...
> 
> NEVER had i had a problem that was not solved in 5 minutes....


----------



## whiz-Oz

Well aren't you just SO lucky?

Go through AIUK, AF and AT for the last three years and look at various problems people have reported. They crop up every now and then. People obviously DON'T report when things are going well. 

I never said that everyone will have problems. I have identified that there ARE some, which indicates that everything isn't perfect. 
How hard is it to see that?


----------



## jmvargas

i think you're beating a dead horse here Whiz....the fact is-- the ILF system works..(not perfectly maybe but then what does?)

if hoyt wants to put up another system that's well and good too and gives more options to us archers...

in the long run the ultimate test is how the new product will make out in the market---and no amount of words from us will change that..


----------



## Vittorio

Very few comments, but needed..

Korea is recognizing IP and international patents since early 80's. But if archery companies decide NOT to patent their invenctions or to extend their patents, if existing, to all countries, there is no IP violation in copying them. By law.

Patents have a terms of validity, that is generally 10 years everywere. 
ILF system, even if originally patented, is now no more protected by any kind of patent, and is so since at least more than 10 years. 

AMO is not issuing any real standard. Just read how to measure the poundage of a bow or its lenght to understand what I mean. IMHO, is time that "real" archery equipment manufacturers establish their own "real" standards, as consumers now really needs them. Look for instance to the interchangeability of insert nocks in different shafts made by different manufacturers. Soon or later, some manufacturers will understand that a standard will protect their investments, and will join to make a new "AMSA" (Archery Manufacturers Standards Association).

Propertary systems are MORE expensive to develop and MORE costly to promote, not less. So, by definition, they become MORE expensive to the consumer and MORE risky for the manufacturer, that just starts them hoping to make them MORE profitable. Then, if you are Apple (of the last years only, of course), you may get money from them, but if you are Sony, better to understand quicly that you need to be PART of a standard or even help to MAKE a new standard (Blue Ray consortium) if you wan to make money from your products and patents as well.
Archery business marketing is still ages behind real hi-tech market marketing , or in some cases it seems still to be unexisting (and I'm not referring to any specifica company). May be soon or later these comany will start to listen, but until then, they will loose mountains of money just following their own "engineering" concepts (again, not related to any specific manufacturer or specific archery product).


----------



## TomB

> Propertary systems are MORE expensive to develop and MORE costly to promote, not less.


There is one more cost here also: the defense of your intellectual property. Interesting article a few years ago in the Wall Street Journal on the original inventor of the jogging stroller. She decided it was much more cost effective to take the money she would have spent on patent defense and instead spend that money on innovation and product improvement. That is how she stayed number one in market share and remained profitable.


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, mine hasn't been so much given as leant. It goes back when there is no more to find out about it. (or do to it) As far as I'm concerned, I also have to hand it over to anyone who wants to check it out or shoot it and a few people have had a go.


Can i Try it... :teeth:


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> i think you're beating a dead horse here Whiz....the fact is-- the ILF system works..(not perfectly maybe but then what does?)


Where did I ever say that it doesn't work, other than encouraging innovation? Your connotation on my argument is lame and shows that you don't understand, but wish to cast dispersions on it. It seems to be your common tactic which isn't missed by some people.



jmvargas said:


> if hoyt wants to put up another system that's well and good too and gives more options to us archers...


Well, at least you have understood that part. So many others haven't grasped it.



Borderbows said:


> Can i Try it... :teeth:


Sure. Come over any time.


----------



## limbwalker

I think I've lost track of the point...


----------



## jmvargas

whiz-Oz said:


> Where did I ever say that it doesn't work, other than encouraging innovation? Your connotation on my argument is lame and shows that you don't understand, but wish to cast dispersions on it. It seems to be your common tactic which isn't missed by some people.....


.......my "connotation" is that you are downplaying the success of the ILF system to support your "lame" argument that hoyt should be lauded for coming out with an "innovation" that although welcome is not really necessary at all but IMO was done as hoyt also wanted to get more people to have to use their limbs which have been losing their luster for some time now.....


----------



## Sanford

Vittorio said:


> Very few comments, but needed..
> 
> Korea is recognizing IP and international patents since early 80's. But if archery companies decide NOT to patent their invenctions or to extend their patents, if existing, to all countries, there is no IP violation in copying them. By law.
> 
> Patents have a terms of validity, that is generally 10 years everywere.
> ILF system, even if originally patented, is now no more protected by any kind of patent, and is so since at least more than 10 years.
> 
> AMO is not issuing any real standard. Just read how to measure the poundage of a bow or its lenght to understand what I mean. IMHO, is time that "real" archery equipment manufacturers establish their own "real" standards, as consumers now really needs them. Look for instance to the interchangeability of insert nocks in different shafts made by different manufacturers. Soon or later, some manufacturers will understand that a standard will protect their investments, and will join to make a new "AMSA" (Archery Manufacturers Standards Association).
> 
> Propertary systems are MORE expensive to develop and MORE costly to promote, not less. So, by definition, they become MORE expensive to the consumer and MORE risky for the manufacturer, that just starts them hoping to make them MORE profitable. Then, if you are Apple (of the last years only, of course), you may get money from them, but if you are Sony, better to understand quicly that you need to be PART of a standard or even help to MAKE a new standard (Blue Ray consortium) if you wan to make money from your products and patents as well.
> Archery business marketing is still ages behind real hi-tech market marketing , or in some cases it seems still to be unexisting (and I'm not referring to any specifica company). May be soon or later these comany will start to listen, but until then, they will loose mountains of money just following their own "engineering" concepts (again, not related to any specific manufacturer or specific archery product).


Vittorio,

You have a very good grasp on the marketing/manufacturing side of the equation, but there is "the rest of the story" in these businesses. There is the economic perspective.

In an industry environment of interchangeability and with loosely enforced/enforceable patents, the barrier to entry is extremely low. Eventually, as more enter the same market, economic profits fall to near nill for all involved. That's basic economics. This is not to be confused with accounting profits, which can tell a much different picture on profitability. Economically, the company can support itself, pay shareholders a required rate of return in line with other investments, but cannot support growth in earnings or innovate. It's break-even all the time.

Coming out with new methods/products to capture more price is the only way out of the sandpit. By now, costs have been shaved as low as they go. Yes, the consumer pays more, but as long as the alternatives are in business, only the willing "innovator customer" pays more. The rest of us wait till prices reach an equilibrium based on the success or failure of the new method/product. The new method/product will still always be competing with the old, where price is as low as economic profits will allow. That's the beauty of the capitalist economy _for_ profits, even the search for extra profit. 

They (the company) will only be rewarded (higher profits) by truly providing an innovation worth it's weight in extra profits.


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> .......my "connotation" is that you are downplaying the success of the ILF system to support your "lame" argument that hoyt should be lauded for coming out with an "innovation" that although welcome is not really necessary at all but IMO was done as hoyt also wanted to get more people to have to use their limbs which have been losing their luster for some time now.....


It's a bit hard to downplay the success of something which has been in use for over 20 years.

It's also obvious that you do not understand the mechanism of the improvement and what the FRX paralever mount actually does. 

Your opinion is therefore pointless and unsupportable because you can't actually substantiate anything with a logical reason and don't seem to understand that offering a totally different option as an integrated system, is not just a limb option. 

Unless of course, you can explain how people could opt to use a Formula RX riser with other than the F3 or F4 limbs, or use the F3 or F4 limbs in other than a Formula RX riser. 

Your ability to factually prove that Hoyt limbs have been losing their luster could only be substantiated by comprehensive worldwide limb sales figures over a period of time up until now. 

And of course, you have access to that data and can reproduce it here, or you'll just have to admit that you're talking out your arse and your opinion is exactly that. 
Opinion. 
Opinion that you seem to have trouble backing up.


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> I think I've lost track of the point...


You're not the only one. I think that I've given up caring. It will all come out in the wash anyway.


----------



## limbwalker

> It's also obvious that you do not understand the mechanism of the improvement and what the FRX paralever mount actually does.


Sorry, but nothing about the paralever mount has been proven yet... Maybe in time, but you might want to save your claims for when it's actually DONE something - like shoot a new WR or something... 

John.


----------



## jmvargas

whiz...you seem to base a lot of your arguments on nice pictures and data that only you have access to or can acquire..

i base mine on ACTUAL hands-on experience and first hand information from our elite archers and coaches(plus of course internet research) but have never even thought of documenting this data. 


i know what i want in a recurve target set-up and i go thru a lengthy process when deciding on my equipment by actually buying (no freebies) all my equipment, testing them, and either selling or trading them off if i want to UPGRADE...

after going thru 12 ILF risers and 15 ILF limbs in the past 5 years i am now quite pleased with my current main set-ups(see my signature)..

so far none of your arguments have even made me curious enough to try this new hoyt system...buts that's just me..


----------



## hockeyref

Whizzo,
I just finnished reading all seven pages of this thread and I have come to a couple conclusions....

1 - that this "new system" that Hoyt is rolling out will need to prove to be drastically better than what is currently in use before a lot of folks will adopt it. My impression is that a good number of people have the opinion that Hoyt limbs have been lousy for maybe a half decade or more. Because of that opinion, and the fact that it "IS" a proprietary system that locks you into using whatever limbs Hoyt offers, the limbs will need to prove to be flawless in construction and workmanship, widely available in the full range of sizes and weights (as in getting them takes the time for FedEX to deliver them and not months on back order), as well as a signifigant performance improvement over what is now offered - BY EVERYONE ELSE.

2 - IMHO whether you mean to do it or not, you are coming across as a shill for Hoyt..... You are just too passionate in defending a Hoyt (that you have no contract or affiliation with) and their "new" technology. 

~Just Saying....~:darkbeer:


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

hockeyref said:


> Whizzo,
> I just finnished reading all seven pages of this thread and I have come to a couple conclusions....
> 
> 1 - that this "new system" that Hoyt is rolling out will need to prove to be drastically better than what is currently in use before a lot of folks will adopt it. My impression is that a good number of people have the opinion that Hoyt limbs have been lousy for maybe a half decade or more. Because of that opinion, and the fact that it "IS" a proprietary system that locks you into using whatever limbs Hoyt offers, the limbs will need to prove to be flawless in construction and workmanship, widely available in the full range of sizes and weights (as in getting them takes the time for FedEX to deliver them and not months on back order), as well as a signifigant performance improvement over what is now offered - BY EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> 2 - IMHO whether you mean to do it or not, you are coming across as a shill for Hoyt..... You are just too passionate in defending a Hoyt (that you have no contract or affiliation with) and their "new" technology.
> 
> ~Just Saying....~:darkbeer:


You hit that nail right on the head!


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> whiz...you seem to base a lot of your arguments on nice pictures and data that only you have access to or can acquire..


Data that only I have access to? Anyone can do exactly what I've done. It's really not that hard. 



jmvargas said:


> i base mine on ACTUAL hands-on experience and first hand information from our elite archers and coaches


So, you're assuming that I don't have access to elite archers and coaches?



jmvargas said:


> so far none of your arguments have even made me curious enough to try this new hoyt system...buts that's just me..


I find that this revelation does not disappoint me in the least.


----------



## whiz-Oz

hockeyref said:


> 2 - IMHO whether you mean to do it or not, you are coming across as a shill for Hoyt..... You are just too passionate in defending a Hoyt (that you have no contract or affiliation with) and their "new" technology.
> 
> ~Just Saying....~:darkbeer:


Every time something new appears on the horizon, there are those that see the point and those that don't. I've been on both sides. But if the truth be known, I'm only passionate about dissecting jmvargus's emotively charged posts with logic. 
If he didn't present so big and easy a target, I wouldn't bother.


----------



## Vittorio

Sanford said:


> Vittorio,
> 
> You have a very good grasp on the marketing/manufacturing side of the equation, but there is "the rest of the story" in these businesses. There is the economic perspective.
> ...........................
> They (the company) will only be rewarded (higher profits) by truly providing an innovation worth it's weight in extra profits.


You know, this is exactly the reason why so many companies get bankruptded despite having launched very good and innovative products.... 
They get venture capital to start a new innovative "product" and make projections of sales and profits based on their hopes, rather then making a 
good marketing analisys first, and 99.99% they get to nothing after a while. 
This is a world were the best product almost NEVER wins, or sometime takes around one century to win, and if you do not consider THIS before making a market plan, you wil not be successfull. But if you control your innovations by good marketing analisys, then you will get the best from it for years. 
My basics of Marketing get back to late 70's when I was working for G.E. in Italy. Teacher told us in this regard the simple example of (their) fluoroscent lamps invenction in comparison to tungsten filament lamps. It was a better product, more efficient and lasting longer. Simply, could not go to the market too soon, as G.E. still (around 1920, if I well remember) making money from tungsten lamps. So, fluorescent lamps went first to military applications, then to industrial use, then to home use .... Finally, from 2012 tungsten filament lamps will be prohibited by EC law and will disappear from the market (the European one, at least) for home use. The channel of the innovation has been filtered by marketing and provided as much profit as possible during its entire life cycle, and it was still in the proces to do so 30 years ago, when I got the lesson...


----------



## Joe T

Unfortunately as far as I know Hoyt have not published any design basis info on the Formula limb butt extension.

Up front it looks, to me anyway, a technical and commercial lemon i.e. like everybody else am totally baffled by it.

On the plus side, for anyone who buys one, in a couple of years as resale value will be zero they will have a useful tool for removing car wheel hubcaps :smile:


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER

*guys guys guys*

I have ilf bows but now have purchased rx its shoots beautifully far better than I ... It seems here on this thread as a hoyt bashing... I also shoot regular style recurves like check mate and others like black widow... again each of these companies limbs don`t fit the others style of riser for mounting .. yet in both companies marketing wisdom they both are probably and don`t quote me on this two very successful companies with great followings... ford does not make chev parts to inter change.. I think here we should and could let the bow and its sales speak for itself.... A lot is being said without some of you personally testing and shooting this product.. give it a try you might be sold on the NEW TECHNOLOGY as slight as it may be, and you might even have some of your older equipment for sale...Every one is entitled to and opinion but please give your thoughts and move on this should not turn into a p-ssing match...which it has... good shooting everybody...


----------



## jmvargas

whiz-Oz said:


> Every time something new appears on the horizon, there are those that see the point and those that don't. I've been on both sides. But if the truth be known, I'm only passionate about dissecting jmvargus's emotively charged posts with logic.
> If he didn't present so big and easy a target, I wouldn't bother.


.....another lame response....using ME as an excuse!!!..you come across the same way in almost every post as many have noticed..

just curious whiz...can you please name all the different ILF risers and ILF limbs you have actually owned and tried?


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> just curious whiz...can you please name all the different ILF risers and ILF limbs you have actually owned and tried?


Sure, just as soon as you come up with the worldwide limb sale figures.


----------



## jmvargas

whiz-Oz said:


> Sure, just as soon as you come up with the worldwide limb sale figures.


.....i'll make you a deal whiz..

you come up with hoyt limb sales per model for the last 5 years vs returns..

i will be in korea next week as the guest of samick sports and win archery as arranged by my korean coach and i will try to get the same figures...

how about it??....put your money where your mouth is...


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER

*are you kidding>>>>>*

gentle men the figures you ask for will probably would never be released as you are asking for warranty return figures, from both companies, unless you are a manager in qc department and you would be sworn to a hush order that you probably would have to have signed... so you could not leak these any ways.. common guys this is a p-ssing match now or a mines bigger than yours competition... this kind of banter is not constructive or educational...and this thread should be closed.... imho


----------



## whiz-Oz

Well done Classichunter. 
Like any company is going to release those figures when they can be used to competitive advantage or disadvantage. Plus there is absolutely no way it can be verified as being true. jmvargus can come back and say anything and nobody is going to know if he's actually been given the information or not. 
The Internet is full of information. It's up to you to ascertain if it is in someone's advantage for it to be out there or not. If you're not able to point out something based on observation that anyone can do if given the opportunity, then there is more potential for that information to be incorrect. 

Arguing your opinion is one thing, but when it can't be substantiated with anything other than just opinion, that opinion is at the same level of legitimacy as any other.

Pure, straight opinion is like arguing that blue is a better colour than red, or that chocolate icecream is better than vanilla. 

If information is presented that relies on knowledge that you can't obtain or understand for yourself, hold it as suspect.


----------



## massman

*What turned me away from hoyt*

When I started shooting FITA I purchased a GM riser and a set of G3 limbs, I then bought a Matrix riser. What turned me away from the Hoyt limbs was their exterior finish seem VERY soft. If I inadvertently bumped anything with my G3's they would have a nick in their edge. Having students shoot Win & Win product and how kids abuse their equipment I did not see this same issue with the win & win limbs. So when it came time to look for a new limb I tried some used w & w limbs. I've been shooting them since.

Add to this a VERY VERY VERY good Olympic archer that lives near seemed to always try the new Hoyt products and then We'd see him at a shoot with an old Matrix and FX limbs.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## limbwalker

Tom, I noticed the same thing. And ironically, it was after I noticed the weird experience that same archer had with the G3's...

I had to laugh a bit when I was in Turkey in '06. All three of the U.S. men were shooting "old" technology - wood core limbs - either made by Earl Hoyt Jr. himself or coming off his presses... That was just over 3 years ago. 

That would tell me a LOT if I were an archer trying to figure out which limbs to choose. I already shoot limbs that fit that description, so it was not all that surprising to me however.

John.


----------



## Sanford

Vittorio said:


> Teacher told us in this regard the simple example of (their) fluoroscent lamps invenction in comparison to tungsten filament lamps. It was a better product, more efficient and lasting longer. Simply, could not go to the market too soon, as G.E. still (around 1920, if I well remember) making money from tungsten lamps.


Yes, they were still making money from tungsten lamps. Households could not justify the conversion cost. Lighting is minimal power usage for this market. As long as "that" market would/could not justify higher up front cost v. savings, the old market remained strong. Industry pays dearly for lighting costs. It's always been a big part of their utility budget. They converted out of cost necessity, again, which drives innovation adoption. The GE lighting is an example of "split" elasticity of demand.

I posit from what I have been told by those selling bows that margins are extremely thin. The peripheral innovations that bolt on, or the incessant innovations in compounds, is where extra profits remain. In the U.S., one is hard pressed to find "stocked" recurves of any merit in any archery shop. Compounds and gadgets prevail. Maybe a spark of innovation along these lines is welcome, maybe not. Again, demand will prevail and drive profits. Profits cannot be forced in such an "open" market.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex

Well, as interesting as this discussion has been, it has unfortunately gone the way of all controversial threads and gotten quagmired in a personal battle between two of the posters. Too bad this kind of thing always seems to happen. Why can't we just keep it objective and leave personal attacks/trolling out of the picture?

I'm unsubscribing to this one. Farewell, cruel world!

See you guys on a more civilized thread.


----------



## Brock Samson

*A Newbie's Perspective*

Let me preface this by saying that I don't know jack about bow design or engineering. I don't even yet own a bow. After reading this thread, I just had a few thoughts that I figured I post and see what the experts had to say.

On ILF / HDS
Is it possible that the reason limbs from non-Hoyt manufacturers or older Hoyt limbs aren't fitting properly is that Hoyt tightened up their tolerances, possibly to a ridiculous degree? I remember reading on another forum a few years back about the 1911 pistol. I can't remember all of the details, but I believe that the gist of it was that when the 1911 was originally designed, it purposefully had somewhat "loose" tolerances, and that this was one of the reasons it functioned so well. By comparison, a lot of newer 1911 companies have really tight tolerances, and this seems to actually be causing problems with parts fitting and reliability!

On Hoyt's new bow / limb system only working with itself
When I first saw the new riser, I thought it looked really good. I wanted to check it out. When I found out it'd only work with $600+ limbs, I was a little bummed, to be quite honest. As I said I don't yet have a bow, and, knowing that I will be replacing limbs as I increase in strength and skill, absolutely cannot justify spending that much on limbs. 

That said, I can also understand a potential reason why they would want to design a "whole system" rather than stick to the ILF / HDS or whatever you want to call it. I've seem several places on this forum and, IIRC, this thread, where people have extolled the virtues of Macs vs PCs. I also believe that Macs are the superior system. I also believe that the reason that Macs are superior is because Apple designs the operating system and the hardware. They engineer it as a whole system, whereas Microsoft has no real control over all of the hardware their software will run on. Am I saying that by this virtue the Formula RX system will be better? No. I've never even seen one in person, let alone shot it. Even if I did, I don't really think someone of my experience level is qualified to do anything more than say, "Hey, I like the way that bow shot!" Then again, isn't that what matters most?

On system interchangability
Here's where I kind of fly in the face of what I just said. I think that for people like me who are just starting out, the availability of cheap, quality limbs and risers is great, and that won't be possible when every bow is designed as a whole system. To return to the Mac / PC debate - my parents just spent $1500 on the entry-level iMac. Last year, I spent $1400 rebuilding my 6-year old PC, and replaced everything but the case. My parents' iMac is a very nice computer, certainly able to perform better than they will ever need. My PC smokes every other computer I've ever used. To give you an idea, it will run the game Crysis with everything cranked up and not even hiccup (this game supposedly is a real back-breaker on computers, so it's a great benchmark of your system's performance). My system has easily five times the performance of my parents' iMac, and cost $100 less. I could've built a system equivalent to the iMac for probably around $500. The bottom line? I believe that systems designed as a whole unit will tend to cost a lot more than when you can mix-n-match parts. I believe it's due to competition between manufacturers. You can get more bang for your buck. Who knows? If Hoyt's new system catches on, maybe there will be cheap limbs available in the RX fitting!


----------



## whiz-Oz

Brock Samson said:


> On ILF / HDS
> Is it possible that the reason limbs from non-Hoyt manufacturers or older Hoyt limbs aren't fitting properly is that Hoyt tightened up their tolerances, possibly to a ridiculous degree?


Nope. Tolerances don't change base dimensions. Just variation.



Brock Samson said:


> I remember reading on another forum a few years back about the 1911 pistol. I can't remember all of the details, but I believe that the gist of it was that when the 1911 was originally designed, it purposefully had somewhat "loose" tolerances, and that this was one of the reasons it functioned so well. By comparison, a lot of newer 1911 companies have really tight tolerances, and this seems to actually be causing problems with parts fitting and reliability!


99 years ago when that pistol was designed.. YES. Almost 100 years ago, it was intended to be a combat pistol. Despite the fact that mass producing any weapon back then to fine tolerances made them an expensive proposition, the 1911 was designed as a reliable weapon. Reliability doesn't always mean close tolerances. 

Today, a lot of 1911 design pistols are made by various makers. They have improvements and modifications. They used to feature well in IPSC competition. A well tuned 1911 still works beautifully if maintained and cleaned well. They no longer function ultra reliably after a period of time without maintenance due to the closer tolerances. ( I shot competitive IPSC about 18 years ago.)



Brock Samson said:


> On Hoyt's new bow / limb system only working with itself
> When I first saw the new riser, I thought it looked really good. I wanted to check it out. When I found out it'd only work with $600+ limbs, I was a little bummed, to be quite honest. As I said I don't yet have a bow, and, knowing that I will be replacing limbs as I increase in strength and skill, absolutely cannot justify spending that much on limbs.


The Formula RX is aimed at the top end of the market. Generally people up at that end know what poundage they're looking for. I think that most responsible people would discourage you from buying a top end bow first up.



Brock Samson said:


> If Hoyt's new system catches on, maybe there will be cheap limbs available in the RX fitting!


I'd like other brands to develop their own top of the line system. Then there would be competition.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER

*at last*

now I have read some simple but intelligent posts.... this is a upper end bow you can still buy a Hoyt riser and use any ilf limb you want on any of their OTHER risers Please guys just accept it for what it is.. TRY IT YOU MIGHT LIKE IT...


----------



## Vittorio

Just back from the Italian National training camp.. 
Marco Galiazzo, Natalia Valeeva and Pia Lionetti have just received the new Hoyt bow, but have had no time to test it properly, so no comments, yet. I don't think they (Marco & Pia) will be ready to use it in Nimes, so for performancies from the field (at least from Italy) we will have to wait a little bit more.


----------



## FERMA' Club

*ILF vs Hoyt*

Probably Hoyt just wanted to up the ante and to separate itself. I mean, the ILF might be ruining Hoyt's business model that's why they created a new set of paralevel.

It doesn't make sense, the world records have been set and broken many times using ILF. Time will tell if this is just a marketing gimmick or a new wave of changes that will shock the Archery World and even break world records.

My 2 cents take: Its still Samick or Win-Win...good buy. Hoyt's Formula is the high end and too stiff ...

Ill take the advise of Vargas - Tiger Hood


----------



## Borderbows

lets put this into perspective (as best i can):


if a limb is drilled out of alignment by 0.25mm over the 1.5" of the standard ILF limb butt. then for every 1.5" of limb after that would show this 0.25mm of incorrect alignment. (adjustable by shims, but shouldnt be there in the first place, as its a manufacturing error)
So if you have 0.1mm of a gap between the two "contact" points of limb to riser you end up with a bigger and bigger difference the further down your limb goes. the 5.5cm of gap in the contact points (slot to dovetail in a ILF limb) and dovetail to limb tip on a 68" limb ILF is about 55cm. makes a 10:1 ratio this makes for 0.1mmX10 = 1mm of tip movement.
so the PMS is 9.25mm slot to dovetail which makes a 5.9:1, so your 0.1mmx5.9 = 0.59mm of tip movement. Thats 0.4mm less tip movement.

Its an improvement!

Now... if you extend the limb butt by say 40%, and keep the fit tollerance constant, then you do end up with less left right tip error. (maths is very approx, lol)

yes, it works on paper

How much of an impact does this make to your shooting is down to you to weigh up.... 
The static and dynamic alignment of the limbs would improve.

the question is, would you benefit more from more stable torsional resistance, and a bit more speed and smoother though the clicker, or a tighter limb tip alignment.

Got a neat question for you all though, has anyone found any intelectual property rights on the E-ILF, or the M-ILF, or PMS, what every you want to call it?

because if you cant there might be non Hoyt RX limbs on the market soon enough.


----------



## Seattlepop

Borderbows said:


> lets put this into perspective (as best i can):
> 
> 
> if a limb is drilled out of alignment by 0.25mm over the 1.5" of the standard ILF limb butt. then for every 1.5" of limb after that would show this 0.25mm of incorrect alignment. (adjustable by shims, but shouldnt be there in the first place, as its a manufacturing error)
> So if you have 0.1mm of a gap between the two "contact" points of limb to riser you end up with a bigger and bigger difference the further down your limb goes. the 5.5cm of gap in the contact points (slot to dovetail in a ILF limb) and dovetail to limb tip on a 68" limb ILF is about 55cm. makes a 10:1 ratio this makes for 0.1mmX10 = 1mm of tip movement.
> so the PMS is 9.25mm slot to dovetail which makes a 5.9:1, so your 0.1mmx5.9 = 0.59mm of tip movement. Thats 0.4mm less tip movement.
> 
> Its an improvement!
> 
> Now... if you extend the limb butt by say 40%, and keep the fit tollerance constant, then you do end up with less left right tip error. (maths is very approx, lol)
> 
> yes, it works on paper
> 
> How much of an impact does this make to your shooting is down to you to weigh up....
> The static and dynamic alignment of the limbs would improve.
> 
> the question is, would you benefit more from more stable torsional resistance, and a bit more speed and smoother though the clicker, or a tighter limb tip alignment.
> 
> *Got a neat question for you all though, has anyone found any intelectual property rights on the E-ILF, or the M-ILF, or PMS, what every you want to call it?*
> 
> because if you cant there might be non Hoyt RX limbs on the market soon enough.


I questioned this in a post shortly after the announcement. I see no difference in the basic design and function between what has been in use for decades and the RX. 

I mitered my Matrix with different brand limbs at rest and at draw, and each showed that there is movement, ie bowing/flex, between the bushing and the post, so there can be no suggestion, imho, that the old design is not "active", just less so. 

So...when can we expect a Border's RX limb?


----------



## wildjim

As I am coming into archery again the ILF compatiblity seemed a wonderful idea then I learned of incompatibilities with Hoyt's new risers and HDS.

It seems a bad idea for Hoyt to make themselves incompatible as new archers like me may choose a riser with more limb options, as I did, especially since Samick archers set records it can't too bad of choice for the money which also cost less than Hoyt? ; )


----------



## Borderbows

Seattlepop said:


> I mitered my Matrix with different brand limbs at rest and at draw, and each showed that there is movement, ie bowing/flex, between the bushing and the post, so there can be no suggestion, imho, that the old design is not "active", just less so.
> 
> So...when can we expect a Border's RX limb?


everything flexes... its just a case of can you limit it in our books..

im not on my laptop to upload the DFCs to our server, but i do have a 70" FRX 27" riser and an equal hex5 limb on the RX riser.

i will host them asap and post them tomorrow, a Hex5 vs F4 to show the difference... same riser, same limb bolt setting.
These are prototypes at the moment...


----------



## jmvargas

wow!...good stuff sid...i can hardly wait for the results of FRX vs. your version....BRX(Border RX)??


----------



## whiz-Oz

wildjim said:


> As I am coming into archery again the ILF compatiblity seemed a wonderful idea then I learned of incompatibilities with Hoyt's new risers and HDS.
> 
> It seems a bad idea for Hoyt to make themselves incompatible as new archers like me may choose a riser with more limb options, as I did, especially since Samick archers set records it can't too bad of choice for the money which also cost less than Hoyt? ; )


Well, you have still got exactly the same options if there wasn't a Hoyt Formula riser and limb combination available. 

Hoyt still make their range of "ILF" risers. You'll note that there are more of them than the single Formula RX riser too.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Got a neat question for you all though, has anyone found any intelectual property rights on the E-ILF, or the M-ILF, or PMS, what every you want to call it?
> 
> because if you cant there might be non Hoyt RX limbs on the market soon enough.


That puts you in an interesting position if these Border limbs become available. 

It can be seen as a few things.

1. An admission that Border are trying to enter the Paralever Limb market.
2. An admission that the system may be superior to the standard ILF limb, or the ability to compare two bows of an identical limb structure directly. That would be interesting as you would be able to see which of your own products was better, which would then shoot the other in the foot.
3. An alternative to Hoyt limbs, which will shut a lot of people up.
4. The thin end of the wedge..

So what you really want to do is produce a limb which is more expensive than the F4 so that it will sit in it's own market niche, shut up the "Hoyt lock in" theorists and restore the status quo to the nice area that alternative limbs have enjoyed for quite some time.

I'm quite in favour of the idea.


----------



## wildjim

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, you have still got exactly the same options if there wasn't a Hoyt Formula riser and limb combination available.
> 
> Hoyt still make their range of "ILF" risers. You'll note that there are more of them than the single Formula RX riser too.


Are you sure of current Hoyt model riser ILF limb compatibility?

I read of a few having fit problems with W&W and Samick limbs on current Hoyt risers.

Also Alternative Sporting Services posts a compatibility warning notice about current Hoyt riser compatibility.


----------



## whiz-Oz

For all intents and purposes, the limbs are copies of the same system. They don't always properly exchange with the amount of accuracy you'd like. It was NEVER designed to be an industry standard with proper published measurements and tolerances. 

So you pays your money and takes your chances. How many people have mix and matched and NOT had a problem?

Alternative says one thing. The manufacturers say another.


----------



## jmvargas

whiz-Oz said:


> For all intents and purposes, the limbs are copies of the same system. They don't always properly exchange with the amount of accuracy you'd like. It was NEVER designed to be an industry standard with proper published measurements and tolerances.
> 
> So you pays your money and takes your chances. How many people have mix and matched and NOT had a problem?
> 
> Alternative says one thing. The manufacturers say another.


....very well put whiz...and i couldn't agree more!!

in any case i consider myself lucky cuz inspite of going thru 12 risers and 16 pairs of limbs in the last 5 years(i listed them earlier) and mixing and matching i really never had a problem that i couldn't solve quickly...but that's just me..


----------



## Borderbows

Whiz-oz.
valid points
here is our rational


1) we will do our best to enter any fashion that lands on our door step... we are in the business to make the best we can on what ever the people want.
We have never been fully happy with the distance between the slot and dovetail, but thats what we have been given by the markets demand on ILF.
2) see point 1, BUT i think that the tighter tip alignment statements that hoyt make are fully based on the gap between the slot and dovetail hence the improvement in PMS over ILF., BUT the fantastic point to the PMS, is that the 40% improvemnt will 100% aplicable to the discrepancies in the cross fitting of brands in the ILF market.
The total cross compatability becomes 40% easier with the PMS than with ILF. This is a good thing for WIN&WIN, Samick, ect... All in favour. Our tooling since 2001 has been PMS compatable. We are happy bunnies!
3) hopefully a better option.
4) not sure i understand this point, but we are a niche company, we dont produce enough to worry the big 3, and if the PMS dies on its feet, we havent spent anything on tooling following it. so if we are the thin end, ok.... and if the PMS is the thin end, again OK...

People will vote with there feet.


----------



## ArtV

Jim C said:


> a related issue as to Hoyt (and some other makers is this)
> 
> Does Hoyt help its market position or hurt it by constantly releasing new models every year it seems? Lately, the design team seems to be churning out new limbs and new risers at a much faster rate than say the early to mid 1990's (when the machined risers had become completely established)
> 
> will this cause people to run out and buy this new riser after blowing some major bucks on a GMX etc? Or will they resent the fact that they only had the "top of the line" for less than a year?
> 
> Some of us want the newest stuff now-some of us want to wait a bit and see if the newest limb is not going to have massive numbers of failures or that there is a flaw in the riser (remember the radians and early axis risers?)
> 
> are these innovations really "better" and if so why weren't they "discovered" until the current model year?
> 
> I can understand why it happened in compounds-the stuff I had in 1995 is no where near as fast and/or smooth. However, I have shot just about every limb or riser around and I sometimes think the "innovations" are basically making something that works as well a bit cheaper to produce.
> 
> another thing-back in the cast riser days, those things could break or fail-sometimes right away-sometimes after alot of shots. with the good machined risers-some of which I have used have had at least 150,000 shots on them and really don't shoot any different than the same model made on the same week that has only 15000 or 1500 shots on it.


You're correct in everything you say here Jim. But, personally, I think most of the "new, better, more dynamic" stuff is simply marketing. As you note there are many who have to have the newest, brightest, and most innovative gear or they feel they are loosing something. Some of the past innovations have really made equipment better, as you also noted, but when doing the changes year after year its mostly marketing. It's the same strategy the car manufactures use.

Art


----------



## ArtV

Another solution to all this...Don't buy Hoyt products.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

ArtV said:


> Another solution to all this...Don't buy Hoyt products.


But by your logic you should not buy any other manufactures products either because they all release new limbs, risers and accessories as well. 

I mean come on why should anyone try to make something better? :embara:


----------



## limbwalker

> I mean come on why should anyone try to make something better?


Well, Shadow, Hoyt did try to make a better mouse trap back in 1999 when they released the screw-lock limb attachment on the Axis riser, but we all know what happened to that system...

I've shot an Axis off and on for 6 years now, and always liked the hard lock, screw down limb attachment system. However, the average consumer couldn't be troubled to change out limb hardware or even swap out the simple dovetail to pin bushing without freaking out about it... And the somewhat universal "ILF" dovetail system prevailed and prospered. 

Time will tell if that will happen again, although the early success and aggressive marketing of this new riser/limb system puts it a step ahead. Although the Axis did win an Olympic gold medal and even that didn't help it's cause...

This elongated limb butt and lengthened bolt to dovetail geometry may prove to be an actual improvement over time. I will say that it is the most significant change we've seen in about 30 years now since the Axis still used the same limbs as any other ILF bow.

We shall see. 

John.


----------



## Harrison Ooi

ArtV said:


> Another solution to all this...Don't buy Hoyt products.


Correction. Buy what you like NOW. And don't replace it till it falls apart. :smile:


15 years down the line a GMX will still be a GMX. Its not like the quality of the riser gets worse!


----------



## wildjim

Harrison Ooi said:


> Correction. Buy what you like NOW. And don't replace it till it falls apart. :smile:
> 
> 
> 15 years down the line a GMX will still be a GMX. Its not like the quality of the riser gets worse!


What makes the Hoyt GMX riser great?


----------

