# Formula HPX/R7 Thread???



## DBrewer

So what happened to this thread? Was it deleted…moved or am I just missing it somewhere? Some things got a little out of hand, but there was a lot of good information in there…


----------



## limbwalker

Yea, that's unfortunate. I had posed a few serious questions recently that I would like to have answered.

Namely:

1) How does a lower brace height make a bow more accurate. Sounds counter to what we've heard for decades now about target bows.

2) How does less deflex make a bow more stable and forgiving? Again, runs counter to what we've been told in the past.

3) Why would a company go out of their way to advertise that they were "returning" to the original geometry that Earl Jr. decided on (after certainly MUCH deliberation, trial and error), then just a couple years later promote a bow with different geometry?

I think these are fair questions. Would love to know the answers. Esp. if there is a scientific, measurable, objective answer out there somewhere.

John


----------



## Warbow

Yes, it would be nice if Hoyt could explain these new improvements and provide technical analysis and evidence to back up their claims, as W&W did with their awkward but informative video on WinEx limbs. As a world class engineering company Hoyt presumably has all the data, analysis and high speed video footage needed to explain and prove these new advancements to the public.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> Why would a company go out of their way to advertise that they were "returning" to the original geometry that Earl Jr. decided on (after certainly MUCH deliberation, trial and error), then just a couple years later promote a bow with different geometry?


I can certainly understand if manufacturing technology improved to the point where it makes a previously unworkable idea workable. But I don't see that here.

TAO

TAO


----------



## AvalonPlusGuy

hmmm.... I think there were things revealed in that thread by many well known archery figures (often in a heated argumentative moments) that certain parties would not like to be part of a permanent record. I agree it was one of the more interesting threads that happened to spin off many branches unrelated to the original post, but not less interesting (or entertaining) for that.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

I explained it. Several times actually. Guess you guys missed it in the cluster that developed and will develop again haha.


----------



## Borderbows

I have a question.
The concept of a lower brace height reduces the prelaod.
The introduction of a Wedge at the fade of the cores, will improve preload.
BUT, you havent reduced the brace height by way of the limbs, so the limb angles havent changed. If so, You have pulled the grip towards the archer, pushing the same bow towards the target. This only increases the draw length of the archer by the reduction in Deflex. Does this not make the bow stack quicker? opposed to reducing brace height by limbs which reduces bow stress.


----------



## ArcheryBlog

Here is a quick "first impression" review of the HPX/F7 setup from Sweden.

LINK TO THE REVIEW of HPX/F7


----------



## Borderbows

Also, take the same bow with the same limbs.
Limbs with low poundages have less vertical nock stability. High poundages have more.
This is because the Depth of the core is different as thats the only change within the same bow and same model, same length.

Bows with less vertical stability tend to have variable nocking points, and also suffer from a little limb flap. since there is little to stabilise this out.

Have you been suffering with limb flap, and do you think it will be a problem for the lighter poundages if the limb has been made thinner. to save on mass?


----------



## Borderbows

how does more limb contact and this quote from the Link provided:
"In addition, the bolt is dressed with a very durable Delrin material that provides a *reduced friction* and less wear on the limbs."

add up.

And where is the patent pend. number on the floating top cap?


----------



## Borderbows

and i object to this:
The design in a simpler version has been on the compound bow for many years, but Hoyt is the *first* to implement it on a recurve bow..

Its been on our bows for over 2 years.
Recurve ILF risers from 15" to 25"


----------



## MartinOttosson

I am the writer of that swedish article. For the first, I must inform you that it´s only a quick and not especially correct translation of the original swedish wording. Since english isn´t my native language, some things might end up sounding a bit odd, especially when a person with english as his/her first language read it. So don´t be to critical when reading it. Also, that article was not meant to be a test, but a first report with more advertising values in it. In advertising, the language used is always a bit different. The article is mainly based on information straight from Hoyt, from there press release. It was just first translated into swedish, converted into a article format with a bit of own observations, and then translated back to english again, since the shop noticed that there was an interest. 

About the teflon insert, I think actually that statement comes from Hoyt. If I look again, the word they use is "stiction", and not "friction". I dont really understand the difference, but maybe you can help me with that, Borderbows. 

I never saw a Border riser ever, but if you have used it for the last years, you was first. Then we can consider it a good construction, I would say. The things from Border always seem to be good products, atleast the things that I have seen. 

The text above might need an update now when it reaches the bigger audience. Before it was just a translation for a few people, but if the link ends up in Archerytalk, for sure a lot of people will check it.


----------



## Borderbows

I dont have a single problem with you or your translation. You have a HUGE ability for languages well beyone mine. I can speak spanish, but i wouldnt dare write it! So 100% credit to you.
I fully understand your position and respect it. Archery if full of fantastic people and full of great ideas.

Thank you for your futher info.

I dont think we were the first to the floating cup bolt head either. it is afterall simple.


----------



## Borderbows

Jake, this equilibrium in vibration between top and bottom halfs of the riser (if i read it right)... with this new centre. How does that vibration handle the lower half having a bottom weight as seen in Bradys pictures and not yours?
Does that weight kill the FEA and its vibration findings?

There is a well educated archer/designer on this forum that knows more about it than me.
Ive read his book on Engeneering design. Very informative.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Hey Sid, I think you maybe Asking questions of the Wrong guy.

Jake said he had some design input, But I don't think he was the Lead designer.

And as far as I'm aware The Formula RX will still be available for sale for those that Don't need or want the new Geometry.

And the Testing phase of the New Riser and Limbs seems to have produced Very good results. As did the the Formula RX F3/F4 before it. World Records are hard to argue with. 

And yes I know that It is the Archer not the Bow, But the Archers had to have chosen the Paralever System Bows for a reason. Because the Koreans bought theirs.


----------



## Borderbows

SHADOW-MKII said:


> Hey Sid, I think you maybe Asking questions of the Wrong guy.
> 
> Jake said he had some design input, But I don't think he was the Lead designer.
> 
> And as far as I'm aware The Formula RX will still be available for sale for those that Don't need or want the new Geometry.
> 
> And the Testing phase of the New Riser and Limbs seems to have produced Very good results. As did the the Formula RX F3/F4 before it. World Records are hard to argue with.
> 
> And yes I know that It is the Archer not the Bow, But the Archers had to have chosen the Paralever System Bows for a reason. Because the Koreans bought theirs.


It still leave my questions open... Where is the patent pending application number for the innovative floating bolt?
Still leaves the limb vibration noted on Bradys bow open, as questioned on AIUK.
Still leaves the Offcentre mass of the stabiliser and bottom weight vs the claims of harmonic vibrations on the top and bottom halfs of the riser open to question.
It was a Poster on this forum that said, low pocket mass on risers reduce riser vibrations. So How does having one pocket heavy with a bottom weight and one pocket light effect the R&D of the symetical vibrations claimed by Hoyt on this new riser...
I think These guys are shooting amaizingly well. and the world poduim places are a feat of thier achivements, training and comitment!

1000 dollar for a bow to get HOW MUCH contingency cash? is that ROI?

I think my questions are valid. As do your points hold credit. hence the debate?

For all the benefits has enyone published a GMX vs RX DFC?
Has anyone published a DFC for RX vs HPX?


----------



## limbwalker

> World Records are hard to argue with.
> 
> And yes I know that It is the Archer not the Bow, But the Archers had to have chosen the Paralever System Bows for a reason. Because the Koreans bought theirs.


And I'm convinced these WR's would have been shot by these archers with any of three or four bows available. Because they are just that good. They were that good before they switched, and they will shoot WR's with whatever quality product they choose. IIRC, Im shot a WR with the Inno not long before switching to Hoyt? Look, at their level of performance and exposure, and after setting WR's with a specific bow, there is only one reason to switch... Let's not kid ourselves.



> 1000 dollar for a bow to get HOW MUCH contingency cash? is that ROI?


Many top compound shooters are very up front about shooting a particular bow or arrow for the contingency money and sponsorship contracts. Maybe it's time for recurvers to be just as blunt, because it is what it is.

These decisions are the individual's choice, and they are entitled to them. It's just business, and it's tough to be a full time archer. It just doesn't pay well enough if you're not earning contingency $ for wins or podium placements or ad contracts. So I completely understand the moves we see some archers making. It's very "Jerry Maguire - esque" and unfortunately is the new American way...

John


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with the design of the Bows. Either FRX or HPX.

I'm just a 1200 shooter, But I am fortunate enough to be sponsored By the Archery store that I work in. I get No contingency Payments 

I chose The Hoyt over W&W and Samick for One reason only. "Feel" 



















limbwalker said:


> These decisions are the individual's choice, and they are entitled to them. It's just business, and it's tough to be a full time archer. It just doesn't pay well enough if you're not earning contingency $ for wins or podium placements or ad contracts. So I completely understand the moves we see some archers making. It's very "Jerry Maguire - esque" and unfortunately is the new American way...
> 
> John


----------



## zal

limbwalker said:


> IIRC, Im shot a WR with the Inno not long before switching to Hoyt? Look, at their level of performance and exposure, and after setting WR's with a specific bow, there is only one reason to switch... Let's not kid ourselves.


Iirc the previois 691 that Im shot, was shot in Shanghai in a pouring rain. Some could argue that it could have been a higher score.


----------



## Borderbows

SHADOW-MKII said:


> The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with the design of the Bows. Either FRX or HPX.
> 
> I'm just a 1200 shooter, But I am fortunate enough to be sponsored By the Archery store that I work in. I get No contingency Payments
> 
> I chose The Hoyt over W&W and Samick for One reason only. "Feel"


Do you want me to improve on "feel" or on performance? I suppose chocolate, Fries, and cakes taste good... but is it good for you? do you want to ignore nutrition for sake of appeasing a feel?

Do you stick to your old shoes becasue they feel good. or do you put up with the discomfort for a few days of something new so that you can reap the rewards later?

Slippery topic i must say!


----------



## zal

Confidence in equipment gives scores. Feel gives confidence.

Superior equipment _might_ give scores. No-one has actually proven that it does.

Easy choice.


----------



## Borderbows

zal said:


> Confidence in equipment gives scores. Feel gives confidence.
> 
> Superior equipment _might_ give scores. No-one has actually proven that it does.
> 
> Easy choice.


LW: could you post your comments about the achievements of the archers shooting the FX limbs again.
Jake: Could you post Bradies achievemnts on setting records with TS limbs.
and could i ask, what would these FANTASTIC Archers in LW's quotes, in previous competitions with the likes of the FX acheive if they had TS limbs?
If two archers are equal... who is going to win. id say the one that punches harder, faster and with more stability... Is that the bow or the archer.

Why do the top archers shoot top bow weights if harder and faster isnt a comon element...
Is harder and faster not the goal? isnt that measurable? cant you hold manufacturers acountable for performance?


----------



## x-hunta

limbwalker said:


> And I'm convinced these WR's would have been shot by these archers with any of three or four bows available. Because they are just that good. They were that good before they switched, and they will shoot WR's with whatever quality product they choose. IIRC, Im shot a WR with the Inno not long before switching to Hoyt? Look, at their level of performance and exposure, and after setting WR's with a specific bow, there is only one reason to switch... Let's not kid ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Many top compound shooters are very up front about shooting a particular bow or arrow for the contingency money and sponsorship contracts. Maybe it's time for recurvers to be just as blunt, because it is what it is.
> 
> These decisions are the individual's choice, and they are entitled to them. It's just business, and it's tough to be a full time archer. It just doesn't pay well enough if you're not earning contingency $ for wins or podium placements or ad contracts. So I completely understand the moves we see some archers making. It's very "Jerry Maguire - esque" and unfortunately is the new American way...
> 
> John


But remember Im bought the bow with his own money...


----------



## zal

Borderbows said:


> LW: could you post your comments about the achievements of the archers shooting the FX limbs again.
> Jake: Could you post Bradies achievemnts on setting records with TS limbs.
> and could i ask, what would these FANTASTIC Archers in LW's quotes, in previous competitions with the likes of the FX acheive if they had TS limbs?
> If two archers are equal... who is going to win. id say the one that punches harder, faster and with more stability... Is that the bow or the archer.
> 
> Why do the top archers shoot top bow weights if harder and faster isnt a comon element...
> Is harder and faster not the goal? isnt that measurable? cant you hold manufacturers acountable for performance?


Just have a look what Dimitri Hratchov has been shooting this season, as well as 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 seasons. He seems to manage quite well, as he's currently ranked 4th in the world. With limbs that, according to most writers, have no stability whatsoever, torsional or otherwise.


----------



## zal

x-hunta said:


> But remember Im bought the bow with his own money...


I find that hard to believe, since their teams buy them equipment they want in any case. Own money or "own" money.


----------



## Seattlepop

When the paralever system was first discussed here, I raised the question of how a patent could be awarded on a system that already existed, i.e., the popular ILF limb pocket, by simply increasing the distance between the limb bolt and the dove tail. I didn’t see how it was “innovative”, because I measured the limbs on my Matrix and they flexed between the limb bolt and dove tail also. I’m not an engineer, but I’m not seeing how increasing the flex between those two points would add stability which is what Hoyt is claiming, among other things. 

However, what I find interesting is how stability could be improved by the simple act of widening the control points. For example, if you hold a fishing pole at the end with both hands close together, you have “x” amount of control, but if you move your hands far apart, you have increased your control over the pole significantly without changing the nature of the pole whatsoever. Likewise, I think this alone would help control the direction of the limb tips considerably. 

So the question for me is whether it’s the increase in flex or the wider control points that make the difference, if any. If it is the wider control points, why wouldn’t you achieve that by simply making the limb pocket longer? Was the “Paralever” design even necessary? Or just lipstick on aluminum?

Regarding the bolt, is the difference that the Hoyt bolt is rounded more like a ball-joint, whereas the compound bolt is more of a "V" shape? Is that difference patentable?


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Borderbows said:


> Do you want me to improve on "feel" or on performance? I suppose chocolate, Fries, and cakes taste good... but is it good for you? do you want to ignore nutrition for sake of appeasing a feel?
> 
> Do you stick to your old shoes becasue they feel good. or do you put up with the discomfort for a few days of something new so that you can reap the rewards later?
> 
> Slippery topic i must say!


Not Slippery at All. My PB's went up across the board. Indoor and outdoor. 

The Formula RX with F4's shoots better than Winnex's. Faster as well. But that is only my experience.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Seattlepop said:


> . If it is the wider control points, why wouldn’t you achieve that by simply making the limb pocket longer? Was the “Paralever” design even necessary? Or just lipstick on aluminum?


Is that not what the Paralever system is?


----------



## Warbow

Seattlepop said:


> When the paralever system was first discussed here, I raised the question of how a patent could be awarded on a system that already existed, i.e., the popular ILF limb pocket, by simply increasing the distance between the limb bolt and the dove tail. I didn’t see how it was “innovative”, because I measured the limbs on my Matrix and they flexed between the limb bolt and dove tail also....
> 
> Regarding the bolt, is the difference that the Hoyt bolt is rounded more like a ball-joint, whereas the compound bolt is more of a "V" shape? Is that difference patentable?


I think it is a mistake to equate patent or lack thereof as being indicators of innovation or the lack thereof.

The patent system is really messed up. The USPTO equates more patents being approved as a sign of success for the department. So patent examiners aren't really rewarded for denying patents. Lots of things that aren't supposed to be patentable--things that should be obvious to a designer knowledgeable in the field or that have prior art--get patents.


----------



## Borderbows

SHADOW-MKII said:


> Is that not what the Paralever system is?


Seattle pop, I think the patent went to a ball and socket idea, which is the concept we have on our risers.

Shadow-MKII: I thought the paralever was about making the limb butt flex to give a "longer"limb effect by allowing it to flex. The flex was measured by Whiz-OZ at 0.07mm on a 40lbs bow at the mid point of the bridge. (if i remember his comment on AF) If you wound your limb bolts in by 0.07mm on an ILF with say a M8 thread with a 1.25mm thread pitch, that would equate to how much of a revolution of the bolt.
the 1.25 thread pitch means that for one revolution the bolt head will drop by 1.25mm. so to get the head of the bolt to drop by 0.07mm to account for a change in limb position at full draw
would be how much of a change in weight at full draw? WHat is it, 4-6full turns on a riser? for 10% weight adjustement. Did Whiz-Oz not buy a accurate Mitutoyo Vernier to measure it?
is that not the main reason behind the Paralever pocket?

Back to my question of smoothness... has anyone posted a DFC of the GMX TX990
vs the F4 Formula?


----------



## Borderbows

zal said:


> Just have a look what Dimitri Hratchov has been shooting this season, as well as 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 seasons. He seems to manage quite well, as he's currently ranked 4th in the world. With limbs that, according to most writers, have no stability whatsoever, torsional or otherwise.


Do you think the human body adapts to what it knows?
It knows it needs to improve on X aspect to gain position.
Do you think it could be said that We as humans will do enough to achieve our ambitions.
Do you think that archers shooting stable kit would flounder and drown if they were given unstable kit. 
And do you think rapid improvemnts would happen the other way round, but then relax to the new levels, knowing that evolution is a least effort expended route?
(open question, not an aimed one, just one a a side thought)


----------



## ArcheryBlog

ArcheryBlog said:


> Here is a quick "first impression" review of the HPX/F7 setup from Sweden.
> 
> LINK TO THE REVIEW of HPX/F7


Martin has made an update of this article and it´s now available!


----------



## Dan McLaughlin

Borderbows said:


> Do you want me to improve on "feel" or on performance?


Why not both? Where is it said that a bow that shoots good cannot feel good. As a consumer, I would like to see manufacturers challenging themselves to produce the best product possible.


----------



## Borderbows

Dan McLaughlin said:


> Why not both? Where is it said that a bow that shoots good cannot feel good. As a consumer, I would like to see manufacturers challenging themselves to produce the best product possible.


Yeah, Suppose my post does read that way.
not really what was intended.

I was thinking more of the "i like that hard to pull through feeling the clicker" that some people quote, and that runs converse to good energy storage.
"That heavy punch feeling of heavy mass limbs" is also contrary to dynamic limbs.


----------



## zal

Not everyone wants a british sportscar. Some prefer to use a german saloon or even american pickup.

All of which are successfully used in racing, too, one might add.


----------



## Borderbows

zal said:


> Not everyone wants a british sportscar. Some prefer to use a german saloon or even american pickup.
> 
> All of which are successfully used in racing, too, one might add.


Thats the BEST description we have had yet...

so, can we have a little description from the manufacturers as to what camp they are in. because everyone quotes smoother faster, and more stable, and now everyone is lower mass, and tri axial carbon...
So how do you establish who is the pickup, who is the saloon, etc. if everyone is quoting the same, yet no one is prooving it, to the point of allowing people to choose whats right for them!

information is key, and information is laking?


----------



## Huntmaster

Borderbows said:


> Yeah, Suppose my post does read that way.
> not really what was intended.
> 
> I was thinking more of the "i like that hard to pull through feeling the clicker" that some people quote, and that runs converse to good energy storage.
> "That heavy punch feeling of heavy mass limbs" is also contrary to dynamic limbs.


You talk like pulling any limbs other than yours through a clicker is like trying to pull a hippo through a trailer window. Face it, it's not that much of a difference! Sure, if they were shooting cheap KAP limbs, it'd be notibly different, but they're not! Most of the top archers could pull 10 more pounds thought the clicker than they already are. Give it up already! I'm tired of reading all this garbage on here. Presumptuous questions that only top engineers can answer, which you should already know the fact of; yet the continual pragmatic line of questioning of a company's efforts that have led the industry since long before you even thoguht about oppeing shop continues on. You've managed to goad top archers and manufacturers to death, while managing to add absolutely nothing of notable signifigance to the discussion for two entire threads!

Dang! I'm a devout PSE shooter, but at least I can respect the depth of knowledge and years of experience coming from one of the worlds oldest and deepest rooted archery companies. Rest assured, you'll never get a head to head comparison from the top level archers arround here. In fact, I hope I never see the name again. 

Rant off
ignore list expanded


----------



## Jake Kaminski

And the hail storm continues. I won't post in this thread anymore. It isn't worth it. 

Just FYI Bradys back weight is just to add weight to the riser. Nothing more. 


The bow flexes not vibrates equally top and bottom. And is zero out of plane. 

Yeah u use the limbs more. That's cause of less reflex. They stack less cause of the foam wedge that makes the limb smoother. 

I was the inspiration for the geometry because of my grip it is EXACtLY the way I built my grip. I did it for other reasons that I wont say why. 

I've gained an honest few points with it just FYI. 


I really could care less of what Sid says as should everyone who isn't interested in his product, this is the facts about the bow and I could care less when or where it was done first. It works. 


Oh FYI when they went back to gm geometry that was because the bows that were recent past at Hoyt strayed far away from that resulting In poor performance. In order to improve they went back to what was good. 


Times have changed but all you people use a 30+ year old system of shooting, setting up of bows, tuning etc. But technology constantly changes as does materials. So old school methods may work but always can be improved upon to accelerate te development of scores and performance. This is what has happened.


----------



## Borderbows

To put the record straight. Border was founded in 1940.
We made limbs with PSE logos that were infact Border XP10 Evolution limbs. Still have the paper work from PSE. this was round about 2000 These were infact torsionally stabilsed limbs. using biased carbon that W&W introduced in the Inno range of limbs.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

The gmx and ex flexed te same. The paraliever limb system only reduced the forces on the limbs via the contact points on the riser and limb bolt by 40%


----------



## Jake Kaminski

AlsO the f4 limbs are better then the 990s


----------



## Greysides

Jake Kaminski said:


> Oh FYI when they went back to gm geometry that was because the bows that were recent past at Hoyt strayed far away from that resulting In poor performance. In order to improve they went back to what was good.


I will treasure my venerable GM even more now...................

It also shows that those who still value and shoot the Elan and Avalon era bows up to ....what?..... the Matrix? Tec Risers?........ have 'no flies on them'.


----------



## limbwalker

Agreed that patents are often a sign of a good attorney or deep pockets or both. Lots of good innovation out there that never was patented. I don't think Earl Hoyt Jr. holds the patent on the Dovetail system he designed, even though it's pretty commonly accepted that he was the one who designed it. I'd love to know the real answer to that one...



> Is that not what the Paralever system is?


If there is one obvious benefit to this elongated ILF connection system, it's easy to see that's it. Stretching the distance from the limb butt to the dovetail can do nothing if not increase the lateral stability. Of course, W&W did this with their "tower effect" and now that I have a pair of thier Inno limbs to play with, I can see that it does indeed work. Least amount of arm slap I've ever had in a set of limbs, and I don't even have them on their Inno riser... I suspect if I did, it would be even better.



> But remember Im bought the bow with his own money...


Oh, and of course we know this for a fact... 

Maybe he did, but as Sid points out, it's a rather tiny investment for someone who has so much ability that they are assured a series of contingency checks, if not eventually (or already) a contract to boot.

John


----------



## Borderbows

Hi my contribution goes like this:
40lbs is 40lbs as a static holding weight is just that.
but how you get there is dicribed by the weight gain per inch of pull. the bow that pulls the least gain in that inch through the clicker is the smoother.

So this is a comparison graph from someone else.







[/QUOTE]


you will see that all limbs follow a similar convention of having the smoothest (lowest point on the graph) around about 20" give or take 1", from the likes of the Kap limbs to the Innos.

You can test this easily with a VERY simple test. Pull the bow back till the string lifts off the limb surface On ILF recurve limbs, thats the basic rule.
When the string lifts off thats the lowest point. and their aint much difference between them.
SO short limbs lift earlier, long limbs lift later, and when you wind your bolts in for the same brace it will lift earlier same with higher brace heights.
So smoothness isnt as subjective as you might think.
So if the smoothness graph shown above indicates that most limbs are similar in feel, from Kap to Kaya, then what does a bow that lifts at 26" feel like.
MANY MANY people have pointed out a let off feeling with the hex5 (not really possible on a recurve) but its a feeling based on there experience of pervious limbs. This is not present on our CX range of limb as they too have a conventional draw cycle.
Conventional as you can see, has a dip in the 20" range of draw.


----------



## Borderbows

Jake Kaminski said:


> The gmx and ex flexed te same. The paraliever limb system only reduced the forces on the limbs via the contact points on the riser and limb bolt by 40%


Whats the longer Working limb butt style limbs vs smoothness quotes about then? 




Jake Kaminski said:


> AlsO the f4 limbs are better then the 990s


my whole point on this thread is is this quantifiable??
I dont want to know how you achieved this, but is their data to back this up?


----------



## Flehrad

As a scientist, I'd rather see the dots connected by a smooth line and not a polynomial equation line fitted, since the R^2 values aren't exactly listed. But, its not a graph you produced so not much can be done about that.


----------



## Borderbows

i agree Flehrad
The problem is the resolution of the data means that the numbers tend to spike a little they produce a little smooth enough DFC to see what is going on but when looking at one draw weight to the next these spikes magnify the resolution, but irrespective of who does this, they all getthe same trend.

What im trying to say is its quantifiable, yet no one prooves the levels of innovation in their bow. you just get pro's telling you its superior!

Flehrad, as a scientiest, are you not smart enough to be trusted with data to dirive whats best for you?

I will publish my data, i alwys have. im not shy of my data.

Moving the centre of trust pressure in a riser closer to the pivot will surely make it more torque sensitive, Thats what inline risers and deflex risers have to differenciate them unles your after speed. Flight bows are even reflexed. in some cases.
Earl hoyt himself prooved that with the original geom that greysides illiudes too?


----------



## Borderbows

sorry, that should read torque pressure not trust pressure.


----------



## Flehrad

I'm afraid that the only data I trust is data that I have produced myself, or from others that I know in person who have done the work. I have been in science and engineering long enough to know of and have seen a lot of poor, modified and even outright falsified data that simply can not be reproduced by people attempting to do so. Yes, that is rather cynical but it means whenever I see 'things' I take a grain of salt with it.

I also don't take the word of pro's as truth either, but rather, opinion. I don't have unlimited money so I can't buy all the gear I would like to try myself, but rather, I attempt to get around that by trying what others have.

My shooting history over time has allowed me to shoot a range of gear before buying. I've tried a good variety and owned a lot too. The only gear I bought 'blind' was the FormulaRX/F4 combo I have now simply because there wasn't enough of them around with people I could try, but even then, I got information from trusted people and reviews before I bought. So, similarly, with anything else out there, I would gather as much technical and trustworthy information I can before I buy if I can not try.


----------



## Archer 4 Life

Borderbows said:


> my whole point on this thread is is this quantifiable??


My whole point on this thread is to read about the Hoyt HPX and F7 limbs. Since veering off topic so badly killed the last one.

Not Border's "superior" limbs and a debate on their superiority.

If you want to basically debate an advertisement, a new thread could be made.


----------



## TheAncientOne

Borderbows, from what I can see your Hex5 limbs stack significantly above 29" or so (bad for guys like Butch and John). I would prefer the Winstorm curve, it's consistant from 22" up. It's a flatter curve through the clicker. All youve done here is sold me on the Winstorms.

TAO


----------



## Dan McLaughlin

and again, where are the hoyts? you have posted another chart with all hoyt products absent.


----------



## limbwalker

TAO, I guess I can confirm that there is no other limb as smooth through the clicker zone as the Border. Not even close. It is a feeling like no other and it takes some getting used to for sure. I can compare that to about 10-12 other sets of limbs I've shot from Hoyt, W&W, Samick and SKY. Also, no other limb has the pre-load that the Border has. It is truly a unique drawing experience. Now, whether that translates to points is the archer's job...

John



TheAncientOne said:


> Borderbows, from what I can see your Hex5 limbs stack significantly above 29" or so (bad for guys like Butch and John). I would prefer the Winstorm curve, it's consistant from 22" up. It's a flatter curve through the clicker. All youve done here is sold me on the Winstorms.
> 
> TAO


----------



## Borderbows

TheAncientOne said:


> Borderbows, from what I can see your Hex5 limbs stack significantly above 29" or so (bad for guys like Butch and John). I would prefer the Winstorm curve, it's consistant from 22" up. It's a flatter curve through the clicker. All youve done here is sold me on the Winstorms.
> 
> TAO


your readin the graph back to front.
This is not a DFC.
it was a lbs difference between each inch. of draw.
a DFC runs something like 4,7,10,12lbs of draw this graph shows the difference between the inches. so on this short example it would show,3,3,2lbs
this means that at 20" of draw the normal profile limbs pull 1.8lbs per inch while ours pulls the 1.8lbs at 26" as that is where the low point sits.
The low point for an ILF libm is where the string finally lifts off the limb surface. so if you did a draw length check, but measureing where the string comes off the limb face, you will find that low point. With this simple check, you can see which limb is smoother.
Next time your down the club, pull 2 bows of equal length and check this out.
if you have the facilities, take some DFC numbers, and you will see that spot of least pounds pulled matches where the string finally lifts off the limb.
Im not asking you to spend a penny on a single thing here. im proving a simple method of testing ILF limbs.
What i can say, any limb with a tight tuck at the end will dodge this testas there is no leaverage gain of any note to outwit stack.
A member of this forum went though all the logic in this with another member here over on another forum of this techneque. I think they are convinced. one is an Amercian, and one is an Austrailian.

Lets go though some logic here.
If your torque wrench got longer as the bolts got tighter, you wouldnt knowhot tight your bolts were. So if your limb gets limb inwinds its recurve and delivers a longer limb as the geometry gets worse, you out wit stack. So once you have pulled the limb far enough back that the string lifts off the recurve, thats the point where you run out of leaver extension. thats when you run out of smoothness.
thats when the DFC changes its tune from a decreasing rate of gain, to a climbing rate of gain.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> TAO, I guess I can confirm that there is no other limb as smooth through the clicker zone as the Border.


Thanks John.



> this means that at 20" of draw the normal profile limbs pull 1.8lbs per inch while ours pulls the 1.8lbs at 26


Thanks for the clarification, in the absence of vertical axis markings I reasoned incorrectly.



> and again, where are the hoyts?


I too am interested how my G3's and modern Hoyt limbs compare.

TAO


----------



## Borderbows

TheAncientOne said:


> Thanks John.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, in the absence of vertical axis markings I reasoned incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> I too am interested how my G3's and modern Hoyt limbs compare.
> 
> TAO


Take an arrow, put it on your bow, pull it back till the string lifts off the limb. get a friend to mark the arrow at a set point. Take the button for example. (we use the front of the bow as its the "draw length" but you can use clicker, button ect. as long as its the same on each bow your testing one against the other.
Set up the bow again, with a different set of limb and use the same arrow. the one with the longer draw to lift off will give you your answer. it will be the smoother one.
Now, short risers make the limbs work more so lift quicker.
Short limbs also lift quicker.
High brace heights lift quicker.
Limbs wound in lift quicker.
This doesnt work with short tight recurves as they done extend the leaver much, but thats not how ILF limbs work.


----------



## ryan b.

Borderbows,

I'm assuming you guys HAVE tested various limbs and compared them directly to yours and are not simply using other peoples findings for actual speeds, f/d's , etc. Why not post all of your findings of the other limbs in the same way you do your own. ..and for that matter why not post exact numbers from your limbs instead of using other peoples numbers? 

I like the info from other people/sources but it is just about impossible to do direct comparisons (even if the person is being very carefull collecting data) when the testing is scattered about. I think you have said in the past that you guys dont like to post numbers and prefer to let others tell the tale but isnt that your gripe about how all of the big companies are doing it? Can i count the seats and curb weight and BHP/PS readings through the rev range on border limbs or do i have to take someone elses word/testing for it? ..and im not just talking about the force draw.. fps with gpp too..directly compared to another limb that has been scaled on YOUR equipment and shot in the same manner.

You are in a unique position to do all of this testing so why not let the numbers out? You guys are always talking about all of it anyway. why not get a pair of f4s (or any other limb) or whatever and put them on YOUR machine and compare them directly to YOUR limbs and others in a controlled environment? Why wait for a french magazine or independent testers, thousands of miles apart, to come up with a f/d or speed numbers and then try to compare them?

What i would REALLY like to see is how various cheaper limbs compare to high-end (high price) limbs in different areas of performance. Also, some of the older limbs that you can now get second hand or for a very cheap price are awesome limbs and people should know that (ie. agulla ultra). 

Personally i dont think its bad form to share data you have on other manufacturers limbs. Every company says there limbs are the best and make claims to back it up. You guys are always butting heads with voices from HOYT anyway, its not like its going to ruin the relationship

I fully understand that there is not one ULTIMATE limb for every archer. Like some people have said " i like higher brace heights" or "i like the feel just as the limbs stack" or "i like the FEEL of the limbs even though they are slower", everyone has a different tastes and qualitites that they are after but a lot of these qualities can be measured..why not share the numbers?

Too bad the entire "other" thread got deleted, there was a LOT of good information in there!


----------



## jhinaz

ryan b. said:


> Why not post all of your findings of the other limbs in the same way you do your own. ....You are in a unique position to do all of this testing so why not let the numbers out? You guys are always talking about all of it anyway. why not get a pair of f4s (or any other limb) or whatever and put them on YOUR machine and compare them directly to YOUR limbs and others in a controlled environment? Why wait for a french magazine or independent testers, thousands of miles apart, to come up with a f/d or speed numbers and then try to compare them?


Then it wouldn't be *independent* testing and the other manufacturers would accuse Border of altering the tests/data to suit their own purpose. It would be a 'no win' situation for any manufacturer that attempted that.- John


----------



## Borderbows

I would have to use different strings to acheive the right brace height for each bow, and this means a difference in quality question. I also have to test for arrow tune, as there can be huge differences in performance based on spine choice, so do i tune it for my bow and compromise others.

I will post and have posted replicable data. These smoothness tests, DFC's and methods of measureing static torsional stability, one was used in the french magazine test, but it is only one aspect of the holistic problem of torsional stability.
We could and have cut limbs off at the fadeout, i have looked at the centre of gravity of limbs and limb contsruction.
The problem is Im a manufacturer. Im going to bias the tests towards my bows. Thats not fair either.
If the numbers CANT be played with I'll post them
If the numbers CAN be fudged, then i post 3rd party data. our customers have no finacial gain, nor do other manufactures customers.

Big problem and i understand your views.

I have some simple hand tests that i feel i can do that test out a limbs qualities.

holding the limb butt, whip the limb back and forth. heavy limbs will have some "follow through" on this test. light ones will feel light. (limb draw weight effects this a little)
Holding the limb butt, in one hand, and the tip in the other, Give the limb a gentle twist, you will feel the difference in TS limbs and those that are not. (limb weight can effect this one aswell)
With the limb on the bow and strung, Pull the string till the string lifts and you will see if it has a smooth draw.
With the bow braced, push/pull the limbs up and down, inline with the string, and see what vertical string stability has on a bow. (remember limb weight plays an effect onthis one)

I know these are subjective tests, but there is a imprical root behind them. Its kinda up to you to ask this of your dealer. ask your club members if you can try thier limbs. You will build a understanding of bows. this way


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Well I guess I have to say thanks to Sid for muddying another Hoyt thread with information that I care little about.

And confirming that I wont ever buy Limbs from Border. Not because they aren't great Limbs but because I don't like his marketing approach.

I guess I'll just have to stick to the proven performance of W&W, Samick, Kaya, MK Korea, And yes even Hoyt. 

I will take Feel and confidence in my Shot over every Graph that anyone puts in front of me. 

P.S. I see there is a Thread about the Inno CXT and EX limbs. I believe they are a fantastic Bow but Sid hasn't found it necessary to pollute that thread yet.


----------



## Warbow

SHADOW-MKII said:


> Well I guess I have to say thanks to Sid for muddying another Hoyt thread with information that I care little about.
> 
> And confirming that I wont ever buy Limbs from Border. Not because they aren't great Limbs but because I don't like his marketing approach.
> 
> I guess I'll just have to stick to the proven performance of W&W, Samick, Kaya, MK Korea, And yes even Hoyt.


I don't see where Borderbows has prevented anyone from posting anything in this thread.


----------



## Mithril

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/announcement.php?f=3&a=172

That rule #7 seems pretty straightforward... So is #12.


----------



## Warbow

Mithril said:


> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/announcement.php?f=3&a=172
> 
> That rule #7 seems pretty straightforward... So is #12.


Archery equipment doesn't exist in isolation, it exists relative to other gear. And in competitive archery that is key. Is the gear better than what else is available? You really can't say how good the HPX/R7 combo is without saying, "compared to what?"

And are their any other world class limb designers and manufacturers in the thread other than Borderbows? Anyone? I enjoy hearing from real experts, be they shooters or makers. And clearly Borderbows is qualified like no other poster in the thread to comment on the performance of limbs. Is his opinion the only valid one? No. Is he objective? I don't know. But that is true of any maker. No different than if Hoyt or W&W commented in the thread, but they don't. Is it Borderbows fault they don't comment here? No, it is not.


----------



## Mithril

Warbow said:


> You really can't say how good the HPX/R7 combo is without saying, "compared to what?"
> 
> I enjoy hearing from real experts, be they shooters or makers.


In order to compare, you need a basis for comparison, right? It's pretty apparent Border bows has never laid eyes on an HPX much less measured or tested one, and yet we have pages and pages of spam trying to convince us that either it doesn't work, isn't as accurate, or border invented it. At least I've seen variations of all three of these here and in the former thread from this guy. His act is getting old.


----------



## Borderbows

this thread was about where the Hoyt thread went?

Maybe ive digressed with testing methods... that applies to any bow?
you can take it or leave it.


----------



## fire7121

*Hoyt and its choice to re-invent the wheel*

Obviously there are those that dont know Hoytusa with its frutal attempt to re-invent the wheel of marketing to compete. Engineering and archery have always been pushed to what works best. The introduction of the formula arrangement was another change from the i.l.f. limb that hoyt did not need. Every honest archer knows that you cant make a wheel more round, The top archers shooting prototype equipment doesnt mean much ....they shoot great with anything. i'll buy the new hpx riser just because im fascinated with bows but i'll be going to vegas this year with a win & win...because they wont isolate and make me buy a different limb just to shoot a new riser..


----------



## limbwalker

> because they wont isolate and make me buy a different limb just to shoot a new riser..


And they don't shout at the top of their lungs about how great they are, even though they... well... pretty much are. The other thing they (W&W) don't do is make you believe that this year's kit is somehow leaps and bounds better than last year's, as if you are obligated to buy a new bow every single year...

Good, simple, professional advertising claims backed up by video evidence of what they're claiming. I can live with that. Seems like truth in advertising. We could all use more of that.

John


----------



## crooked25

Mithril said:


> In order to compare, you need a basis for comparison, right? It's pretty apparent Border bows has never laid eyes on an HPX much less measured or tested one, and yet we have pages and pages of spam trying to convince us that either it doesn't work, isn't as accurate, or border invented it. At least I've seen variations of all three of these here and in the former thread from this guy. His act is getting old.


+1. Some actuallly want to hear about hoyt hpx f7 setup.


----------



## caspian

Borderbows said:


> Maybe ive digressed with testing methods... that applies to any bow?


not at all, I think it's important to differentiate between testing versus blind belief.

that's not to say that belief isn't a function of trust, but marketing does tend to muddle the waters a little, as fanboyism.

one of these days I will snag a pair of your limbs, Sid - just to enjoy having them even though I don't shoot recurve much these days. I think the concept of craftmanship and artisanship has a lot going for it, even in the face of modernised mass production perfection. there's a certain satisfaction in an artisan product.


----------



## jmvargas

i really wanted to contribute positively to these discussions but realize it's very difficult to discuss intelligently with anyone who has not tried the equipment being referred to..

and of course there is always the credibilty factor...

from 2004 to 2008 i was like an archery ho wherein i wanted to try as many of the higher end archery equipment that i could luckily afford that fit my style(and budget) on the premise that if screw up it's the ***** and not the arrow.....i also did a lot of research prior to any acquisition..

for risers i started with hoyt elans, matrix,even had a martin aurora(too heavy) and finally the pse X-factor..

of course my plungers/clickers/armguards were all beiter and my initial stabs too until i settled on soma stabs..

my strings were angel dyneema/majesty and my quivers were angels...and only sureloc questX and supreme(with recurve aperture holder) sights..

for arrows i started with x7 eclipse, cartel triples,navigators, ace's, acc's, gt ultralights, x10s, nano xrs and finally settled on the mckinney IIs.. 

for limbs i started with hoyts--carbon plus, vectors,M1s...decided that although these were smoothdrawing and excellent limbs these were a bit slow when i started to shoot more outdoor and had samick extremes, winex,winacts, pse Xpressions and pro-elites and finally settled on borders CXG and HEX5-H..

....i sure kept LAS and altservices happy during those years..

i now consider myself a recreational shooter at 66 but like to compete in a lot of fun shoots and even some serious events in the masters class..

my last full fita score in 2008 was just below 1100 but it included a 90M score of 181...

i enjoy shooting the shorter distances and can still shoot 260-270 indoor fitas and usually go 300+ at 30M and occasionally at 50M and 60M..

my favorite tournament round is the fita 900 and still hope to go over 800 one of these days.

.....and oh..i also play a lot of golf!! 9 hdcp and playing golf since 1958..

well that's my story and equipment history...would love to hear others' too..


----------



## Borderbows

Vargas, Your agenda is clear. My agenda is being muddied.
I think people want to see R&D. i think people want to see real numbers.
I think we are all in agreement that poduim numbers can be bought with cash, these Hootershooing superstars are just that, but i feel their financies can be exploded or helped, depending on your feelings on the politics.

This thread was started as a "where did the thread go?" not a tell me more guys. Im sure if you wanted to know more, you could start another thread. My points have been raised, the simple clean test methods, can be used by anyone. You can feel the difference in limbs with bare hands.

I never quoted ANY limbs, or any benchmarks untill i got flamed. one i was asked to put my money where my mouth was, i then mentioned a few brands, BUT i DIDN'T mention Hoyt. 
Ive been accused of picking up hoyts product every time, and this time i didnt, and i get questioned on it too.
Here guys... the hand tests are simple, deduce what you want from it, but this wasnt a thread about the marketting blurb of the new HPX, it was where did the thread go!

The statements so far over the evolutionary stages have been:

the F4 is smoother than the 990's and the HPX is smoother than the F4. so wheres the DFC to shut everyone up?
If the riser flex's on draw "zero out of plane", then it must rebound rapidly during the shot? does this not create vibration?


----------



## Paula

I would love to see more data on Hoyt's new stuff.I would like to see a picture and more details on Border's new riser.I would love to see more slow motion pics of differant risers and how they flex.Can it be a good thing or bad?I watched a slow motion picture of a spig revolution and saw a great deal of flex there.I would consider an X-appeal if I could get it in white or green.Are carbon risers really that good,,,some world class archers think so.Do some limbs just work better on certain risers???I want to know peoples opinions and facts on these things.I love RESPECTFUL conversation.Let's hear more...


----------



## DWAA Archer

I would love to see the new Border riser to. I hear there is a prototype being tested and proper R&D is being done on it with the Assistance of a respected University so proper science and maths will be done rather then vague claims.

Border are ahead of the curve in the speed stakes for sure the only company that gets close to there entry level limbs is W&W and the top end limbs no one is going to get at them until they make limbs with the extreme recurve but there is more to it then that if you see a set of Hex-V limbs you would understand.

I've shot the Hoyt F4/RX combo,G3 limbs,W&W INNOS, Border Carbon, CXG and currently Border HEX-IV so I've got a bit of comparison experience I like Borders because they are smooth and fast if I could not shoot Borders my second choice would be W&W.

I think Guys like Jake and Brady like Hoyts because it's an American company and those boy just love to shoot Hoyt helps them do that so can you blame them for supporting Hoyt I would if I was in their shoes because I love archery and the feel of loosing and arrow is something special. 

But when I have to spend my own money Hoyt limbs are not for me But their risers thats something else now they are good.


----------



## limbwalker

> Hoyt limbs are not for me But their risers thats something else now they are good


A view that is pretty commonly held, which I believe is a big part of what led to the new limb attachment system - to prevent people from fitting other limbs to Hoyt risers. It was pretty commonplace prior to the formula series. 

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> A view that is pretty commonly held, which I believe is a big part of what led to the new limb attachment system - to prevent people from fitting other limbs to Hoyt risers. It was pretty commonplace prior to the formula series.
> 
> John


Yeah, I've wondered how much of the new paralever system is innovation and how much is protectionism to limit compatibility. If Hoyt has patents on the new system, does it license the patents at reasonable terms? If not, then it would seem that the new system is largely about protectionism through a monopoly (patents are literally a government enforced monopoly on ideas). I'm glad that Ford doesn't try to make a car with a new wheel system that only lets you put Ford brand tires on it.


----------



## midwayarcherywi

Warbow said:


> Y (patents are literally a government enforced monopoly on ideas). I'm glad that Ford doesn't try to make a car with a new wheel system that only lets you put Ford brand tires on it.


Protecting innovative products and processes is important. What incentive is there to create a life saving drug if the millions of dollars spent on R&D are not able to be recouped? ( think immediate generic competition) Redistributing the fruits of bright, hard working individuals and companies, without remuneration, is wrong. 

If Hoyt has built a better mouse trap, why should they not be rewarded? (I do not shoot the new Hoyt system)

There are time constraints on patents.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

Wow guys. The limb system is because it relives lots of pressure on the limbs an riser. *I* unlike you gus have talked to the designer himself an making you use only Hoyt limbs are just not the case. If I'm not mistaken border makes formula limbs does it not? And rumors of kaya as well.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

Wow guys. The limb system is because it relives lots of pressure on the limbs an riser. *I* unlike you gus have talked to the designer himself an making you use only Hoyt limbs are just not the case. If I'm not mistaken border makes formula limbs does it not? And rumors of kaya as well.


----------



## DK Lieu

I tend to agree that Hoyt’s primary reason for development of the para-lever system is probably not to lock out the competition. I can’t find any patents related to the new system, and I think that para-lever is so similar to the Hoyt Dovetail System (HDS, aka ILF) that it’s not patentable. This means that that para-lever should be open to anyone who wants to copy it, as was HDS. Para-lever does indeed reduce the peak stresses on the limbs and riser. But if this is Hoyt’s only claim to fame with para-lever, then either Hoyt doesn’t fully realize the added benefits of this system, or it isn’t telling anyone, yet. The extended length of the limb between the dovetail joint and the limb bolt in para-lever bends more than in HDS. This essentially creates an extra volume in the limb where more energy can be stored than before. This energy is then available to the arrow. To take full advantage of this system, the limbs must be slightly redesigned, because para-lever allows the limb to bend more at the base, where the dovetail is located, which should advance the onset of stacking. To prevent this stacking (which happens as the limbs start to deform and become more parallel upon draw), the recurve portion of the limb can be made more aggressive, or the amount of deflex can be reduced. It seems Hoyt has recently made the latter change, but I’m not sure about the former. Seems like a rediscovery of an old design. If you look at many of the classic Mongolian and Turkish recurve bows, you’ll note that their deflex is so extreme that the limbs curve away from the archer at the grip. This extreme deflex allows energy to be stored in the limbs all the way to the grip while minimizing the stacking effect.


----------



## Warbow

Jake Kaminski said:


> Wow guys. The limb system is because it relives lots of pressure on the limbs an riser. *I* unlike you gus have talked to the designer himself an making you use only Hoyt limbs are just not the case. If I'm not mistaken border makes formula limbs does it not? And rumors of kaya as well.


I don't know everything, nor do I claim to know everything which is why my post is a conditional one, in which I asked if the limbs were patented and, if so, if the patents are licensed. Since, unlike most of us, "*you*" have talked to the designer and might know the answers to those questions perhaps you could answer them? Even if others have geared up to make compatible limbs that doesn't mean that Hoyt won't sue them for doing so. What is the status of the IP for the paralever limb system? For one, Hoyt has stated that the "Limb Dampening Bushing" is patent pending.



midwayarcherywi said:


> What incentive is there to create a life saving drug if the millions of dollars spent on R&D are not able to be recouped?


A drug company spends around $100 million dollars to develop and bring a new drug to market. It takes tens of thousands of man hours and over a decade of work for each new drug. Should merely lengthening the ILF limb base get the exact same length of protection as a new drug? The issue of how much patents help innovation vs. how much they hurt innovation is a gigantic topic that can't be settled in this thread.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

You miss the point warbow. Did Hoyt ever say it was patented? No.


----------



## Warbow

Jake Kaminski said:


> You miss the point warbow. Did Hoyt ever say it was patented? No.


Actually, as I noted, hoyt has said the limb dampening bushing is patent pending. To make a 100% compatible limb would require infringement on that pending patent. But, I do grant that the limb dampening bushing is a new feature, one that is more than merely extending the length of the ILF limb base. So, regarding the lengthening of the base, I think you can make a good case that there is more to the change than just making the limbs incompatible with other makers. However, since there is also the limb dampening bushing to contend with you haven't actually answered what the status of the IP is vis-a-vis making fully compatible limbs.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

I was referring to the paralever system. As you already answered the limb dampening bushing so there was no need to discuss that.


----------



## jmvargas

i believe all of of these discussions can be put to rest if the manufacturers involved would be willing show comparative(apples to apples) data regarding their products--ie--smoothness=DFC..

if not,these discussions will be endless..


----------



## Jake Kaminski

That just doesn't happen with any company. Ever hear of AT&T saying that had the fewest dropped calls of any other carrier? That's cause at the time they had the fewest customers. ONLY a third party tester could suffice.


----------



## jmvargas

Jake Kaminski said:


> That just doesn't happen with any company. Ever hear of AT&T saying that had the fewest dropped calls of any other carrier? That's cause at the time they had the fewest customers. ONLY a third party tester could suffice.


.....i agree with that too...

the $64000--or $1000000 now due to inflation!!-- question is WHO will be the third party...

until that happens....carry on guys!!!!


----------



## whiz-Oz

DK Lieu said:


> I tend to agree that Hoyt’s primary reason for development of the para-lever system is probably not to lock out the competition. I can’t find any patents related to the new system, and I think that para-lever is so similar to the Hoyt Dovetail System (HDS, aka ILF) that it’s not patentable. This means that that para-lever should be open to anyone who wants to copy it, as was HDS. Para-lever does indeed reduce the peak stresses on the limbs and riser. But if this is Hoyt’s only claim to fame with para-lever, then either Hoyt doesn’t fully realize the added benefits of this system, or it isn’t telling anyone, yet. The extended length of the limb between the dovetail joint and the limb bolt in para-lever bends more than in HDS. This essentially creates an extra volume in the limb where more energy can be stored than before. This energy is then available to the arrow. To take full advantage of this system, the limbs must be slightly redesigned, because para-lever allows the limb to bend more at the base, where the dovetail is located, which should advance the onset of stacking.


Cool. A professor of Mechanical Engineering agrees with my thoughts upon first seeing the paralever design, yet people still want to cling to the belief that it's to lock people into Hoyt limbs. 
And let me state that if Ford could bring out something that was totally different and incompatible with any other product produced by competitors, they'd do it in a heartbeat if their infrastructure could support it and the product was desireable enough. Note that apple have their own connector on their products? I don't see anyone here crying about being forced to buy apple approved or licensed accessories for use with their iphones.... 

It's human nature to hang to your convictions harder when evidence to the contrary is provided. Some of you guys really should let things go. 

What's the countdown until this thread gets deleted too? People are just getting jack of the crap flying here and I'm not surprised.


----------



## whiz-Oz

jmvargas said:


> i believe all of of these discussions can be put to rest if the manufacturers involved would be willing show comparative(apples to apples) data regarding their products--ie--smoothness=DFC..
> 
> if not,these discussions will be endless..


Actually, all it would do is show that one graph is different. 
The top archers will never shoot Border limbs while they can get a contingency check for shooting other limbs. 
This won't change and Syd knows this deep in his heart. 
People are motivated by success and fame. 
But they're more motivated by success, fame and money. 

All the posting on internet forums in the world won't change a thing.


----------



## crooked25

DK Lieu said:


> I tend to agree that Hoyt’s primary reason for development of the para-lever system is probably not to lock out the competition. I can’t find any patents related to the new system, and I think that para-lever is so similar to the Hoyt Dovetail System (HDS, aka ILF) that it’s not patentable. This means that that para-lever should be open to anyone who wants to copy it, as was HDS. Para-lever does indeed reduce the peak stresses on the limbs and riser. But if this is Hoyt’s only claim to fame with para-lever, then either Hoyt doesn’t fully realize the added benefits of this system, or it isn’t telling anyone, yet. The extended length of the limb between the dovetail joint and the limb bolt in para-lever bends more than in HDS. This essentially creates an extra volume in the limb where more energy can be stored than before. This energy is then available to the arrow. To take full advantage of this system, the limbs must be slightly redesigned, because para-lever allows the limb to bend more at the base, where the dovetail is located, which should advance the onset of stacking. To prevent this stacking (which happens as the limbs start to deform and become more parallel upon draw), the recurve portion of the limb can be made more aggressive, or the amount of deflex can be reduced. It seems Hoyt has recently made the latter change, but I’m not sure about the former. Seems like a rediscovery of an old design. If you look at many of the classic Mongolian and Turkish recurve bows, you’ll note that their deflex is so extreme that the limbs curve away from the archer at the grip. This extreme deflex allows energy to be stored in the limbs all the way to the grip while minimizing the stacking effect.


most informative post in a thread full of fuzzz. Thanks DK


----------



## Robert43

So do you think other limb companies are going to make the new Hoyt system ? or have they put a stop on that?


----------



## caspian

I suspect there is little point. the target market is tiny, and thus would be the profitability in relation to the R&D and tooling.

Hoyt risers are good, but not good enough to lock yourself into a proprietary system. if you want to shoot other-branded limbs then there are large numbers of options available in ILF risers, so why would you bother?


----------



## jmvargas

companies who can economically manufacture "one of" limbs may probably accept an order of the para-lever limbs when their manufacturing schedule permits but as far as producing them on a commercial quantity basis---i don't think so..

...too many ILF risers(and limbs) around that are just as good if not better.....JMHO..


----------



## Borderbows

DK Lieu said:


> I tend to agree that Hoyt’s primary reason for development of the para-lever system is probably not to lock out the competition. I can’t find any patents related to the new system, and I think that para-lever is so similar to the Hoyt Dovetail System (HDS, aka ILF) that it’s not patentable. This means that that para-lever should be open to anyone who wants to copy it, as was HDS. Para-lever does indeed reduce the peak stresses on the limbs and riser. But if this is Hoyt’s only claim to fame with para-lever, then either Hoyt doesn’t fully realize the added benefits of this system, or it isn’t telling anyone, yet. The extended length of the limb between the dovetail joint and the limb bolt in para-lever bends more than in HDS. This essentially creates an extra volume in the limb where more energy can be stored than before. This energy is then available to the arrow. To take full advantage of this system, the limbs must be slightly redesigned, because para-lever allows the limb to bend more at the base, where the dovetail is located, which should advance the onset of stacking. To prevent this stacking (which happens as the limbs start to deform and become more parallel upon draw), the recurve portion of the limb can be made more aggressive, or the amount of deflex can be reduced. It seems Hoyt has recently made the latter change, but I’m not sure about the former. Seems like a rediscovery of an old design. If you look at many of the classic Mongolian and Turkish recurve bows, you’ll note that their deflex is so extreme that the limbs curve away from the archer at the grip. This extreme deflex allows energy to be stored in the limbs all the way to the grip while minimizing the stacking effect.


As a qualified person, (nice book BTW) Would you consider that acceleration, is a energy VS mass issue, and if you have a moving limb butt, you having to move more mass?

Also, as someone that teaches CAD design and i beleave FEA, would you also think that having flex, means ossilations on rapid unloadings, and this might be symetrical due to the push points, being central, but do you think adding a bottom weight would effect the vibrations?

My personal take on the Hoyt PMS move is to remove thier limbs from the new short ILF riser market trend.
but thats a personal theory of mine.
These short risers change the angles on limbs, and add considerable weight to a pair of limbs. this stresses them up more.
Afterall, we have just been asked if we are happy making limbs to fit a 12" ILF riser for a guy with a 30.5" draw? Dont think a PMS limb could make a 12" riser work window wise...


----------



## Borderbows

the three limb in this test were a Winact or focus, a FX and a Border Talisman TX40.

You can see by the image on this test, test 3, a measurement we call the Recurve cord ratio, the depth of volume in the recurve is a tangable measureable.

You can see the lateral deflection of the FX. 7.6mm. vs limb type 1, of 5.4 this has been corrected with the biased carbon now on the F7. The 5,4mm deflection was done with Biased (tri-axial) fiber geometry.

If you see form the tests, the limb number 1 was the fastest in the test, had the least deflection, and didnt costs the most. it also was the smoothest

note the test was in 2002 not 2012.
http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...en&rlz=1R2GGLL_en&biw=1390&bih=896&prmd=imvns


----------



## whiz-Oz

Other companies already have. 

Anyone who copies it though, is admitting that it's superior. They could, of course make their OWN limb mounting systems that didn't work with anyone elses. But then they'd be accused of trying to lock people into their limbs. Oh... Wait. Border already have a system that only takes border limbs. And so is the bow that Whitehart make. 

And people seem to have forgotten that..

I wonder why?


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> Anyone who copies it though, is admitting that it's superior.


is that concept adaptable to other technologies that other companies have had for years? in fact one is known to have had for over a decade! others for half a decade.
I have looked into the diffusion of ideas theories, and this seems slow considereing the advent of the internet, and the marketting details widely published by 2 of these companies. and even mocked by the laggard of this technology publically on a forum?


----------



## whiz-Oz

When companies slavishly follow something and then someone makes something different, anyone who copies it automatically admits superiority. So if an idea isn't adopted right away, maybe it wasn't necessarily that good or that required. 
How long did it take for you to knock up a set of paralever limbs?
Ten years? 
I think twenty years ago, my compound had a self aligning cup under the limb adjustment bolt. No. make that 26. Guess you were adapting an obvious thing, eh Sid?


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> When companies slavishly follow something and then someone makes something different, anyone who copies it automatically admits superiority. So if an idea isn't adopted right away, maybe it wasn't necessarily that good or that required.
> How long did it take for you to knock up a set of paralever limbs?
> Ten years?
> I think twenty years ago, my compound had a self aligning cup under the limb adjustment bolt. No. make that 26. Guess you were adapting an obvious thing, eh Sid?


I was refering to Torsional stability, tri axial carbon, Biased 45 deg double angled carbon, what every you want to call it.

I only mentioned the limb bolt so that the pat.pending didnt proceed, so that we didnt have to fight for something that we already had. The ball and socket idea isnt rocket science. How else would you tow with a car, or swing your leg.
We put together a Paralever adaptable limb, but re-enforced the limb butt to reduce flex as much as possible. Torsional or other wise. It was a no brainer, since it was already available in the limb butts we make and the limbs we make, We just needed to drill the holes 40% further appart, and upon gluing them, glue in a double re-enforcement in the bridge section of the butt.

Admiting superiority is not nesiceraly the case. it just means we pick up a few sales. The bulk will still be in the ILF market. but since our formers, and everything else fitted the adaption, it seemed simple.

The recent move of hoyt to the tria axial carbon line of limb design, has been seen on the market, with our Xp10 limbs but not mentioned. It didnt become public knowledge until the test in 2002. and after some quick RD, W&W start in 2004. so yeah, quick adoption. 2 years of R&D, and yeah... they went for it. Some very very good archers have claimed gold and poduim places with limbs with this technology. Now, look at Uukha, Samick, Kayas limb construction, and you will see a biased carbon laminate. once the podium place is achieved, it seesm they switch kit. so the route to a fat check seems to be shoot forgiving kit, gets a poduim place, and then watch the money roll in as the contracts come your way. Viktor Ruban is a prime example.

This debate goes round in circles. dont you think?


----------



## Mithril

You keep going on as if you invented the use of bias carbon. Then why is bias carbon shown and the term "torsional stability" used in the 1986 & 87 Hoyt catalog. Happy to scan it if someone wants to debate the truth about it.

When you collect old catalogs you see lots of things that people claim as new aren't new at all. Also, a triaxial weave is not the same as a bias ply laminate, but I suspect you know that and are ignoring the difference to serve your agenda, which appears to be to discredit this new bow at any cost.


----------



## Sanford

Borderbows said:


> My personal take on the Hoyt PMS move is to remove thier limbs from the new short ILF riser market trend.
> but thats a personal theory of mine.


Yes, but didn't they just recently make a move to implement the new system in the short and medium limbs on a 19" riser with the Buffalo? Since they still make all the same ILF limbs as previously, it would seem they more or less just made an addition "to" the hunting recurve market over shying their equipment away from it.


----------



## Borderbows

Mithril said:


> You keep going on as if you invented the use of bias carbon. Then why is bias carbon shown and the term "torsional stability" used in the 1986 & 87 Hoyt catalog. Happy to scan it if someone wants to debate the truth about it.
> 
> When you collect old catalogs you see lots of things that people claim as new aren't new at all. Also, a triaxial weave is not the same as a bias ply laminate, but I suspect you know that and are ignoring the difference to serve your agenda, which appears to be to discredit this new bow at any cost.


putting biased carbon in at 90deg to the limb does not do much other than add 2-3% stability.
putting it at 45 deg adds some 70% more stability. so if you have 2 directions at 45 deg, to stabilise it, and 1 layer running inline with the limb, that makes for 3 axis. putting it in at 90 deg makes it bi-axial.

lets look at the layup in simple ascii text formation.
by the looks of things, W&W limbs have this layup
XXXXX Crossweave running symetrically but at 45 deg to the UD. 
|||||| UD giving bow weight.
CORE
|||||| UD giving bow weight
XXXXX Cross weave giving stability but at 45 deg to the UD.

This concept gives tri axial.

so lets argue the symantics of this one...
++++++ Cross weave running at 90 deg to the limb
||||||| UD carbon for bow weight
Core
||||||| UD carbon giving bow weight
++++++ Cross weave running at 90 deg to the limb

this one puts you at biaxial. as you have UD and 50% of the cross weave running inline with the UD.

So you have joined the tri-axial route of thinkings. thats my point.



If what your saying about cross weave carbon, was used in torsional stability at hoyt in the 1980's, how did the FX come out with the least TS in that french test? It was put up against the Winact and Focus limb and two of our limbs, and missed the mark by a considerable %. did the engineers at hoyt come to a conclusions, then choose to ignore them?


----------



## TomG

Mithril,

I think Sid already mentioned that Earl Hoyt researched and advocated torsional stability. He never claimed to be the first to push this. I think he is just ticked off by the marketing speech that look like they reinvented the wheel.

TomG


----------



## Borderbows

Sanford: yeah, not a 12" riser, and not of potentially random home made random limb pad angles that are appearing on the market...
i would suggest that have astutely controlled the environment that thier limbs are used in rather than the randomness of the current ILF marketplace.


----------



## Borderbows

Thank you TomG. sums it up for me.


----------



## TomG

Sid,

What would be the effect of tri-axial pre-preg, meaning you have axial and cross weave in the same layer? Would you use two layer of such a pre-preg?
3333
3333
CORE
3333
3333

TomG


----------



## Sanford

Borderbows said:


> Sanford: yeah, not a 12" riser, and not of potentially random home made random limb pad angles that are appearing on the market...
> i would suggest that have astutely controlled the environment that thier limbs are used in rather than the randomness of the current ILF marketplace.


Sure. But that theory still begs the question. They make the new system available on a fairly short riser by conventional standards to include the short riser crowd in on the new stuff. They still make all the same ILF limbs. Could we not say that they have "expanded" the environment, not controlled or constrained it? If and when only the new system is available, your theory would hold some water. Until then, are you not assuming a nefarious act where none has been shown or proven to exist? Where's the supporting data and graph to this theory  Note smiley!!!!


----------



## Borderbows

TomG said:


> Sid,
> 
> What would be the effect of tri-axial pre-preg, meaning you have axial and cross weave in the same layer? Would you use two layer of such a pre-preg?
> 3333
> 3333
> CORE
> 3333
> 3333
> 
> TomG


What i have noticed of forums, and im guilty of the mud sturring here too, is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how valid or random it is, that if i make a comment about what we do or could think about something, people are quick to judge. Ive tried to explore some simple concepts to illistrate the potential hubris of marketting departments, rather than real world data that we all could benefit from. If i make a comment im sure to attract more coment. sorry for the lame copout on this. There are enough questions out there, so lets see if some of them get answered over time.


----------



## Mithril

Tom G,

Sid very clearly says two things here and on his AIUK blog: 

1. Border invented 45 in the 1990's. The diagram in the 1986-87 Hoyt catalog clearly shows 45 and 0 bias. Border ignores this and says something about 0-90 and how it doesn't work. 

2. Border repeatedly said Hoyt followed them on the use of 45 bias because they had it in the late '90's. Anyone with an old Hoyt catalog (or a set of limbs) has proof Border is again wrong. 

3. Again, Border clearly doesn't understand the triaxial weave concept. I found a photo of the triaxial weave Hoyt's using on a Japanese blog, and it's obviously different than Border describes.

I also found posts from GT on two other sites proving that Earl Hoyt used bias (45 and 0) carbon as far back as the early 1970's with material provided by Jim Easton.

I am personally done with this, just wanted to set the record straight. I think most people "get it" that Sid's blowing smoke.


----------



## Borderbows

Sanford. Valid point, would they (all theory here) be commiting some form of suicide amongst the ILF riser owners if they abandoned them. IF the PMS system didnt fullfill its long term plans, then where does that leave Hoyt.
19" is still quite long, i would say its probably the longest riser you could get away with a window of usefull size on.
We have a 15" riser on normal ILF and the window shrinks quite a bit on that.
BUT the main advanatge is that its on your riser angles, and not the riser angles of some other bow maker who wants to boost performance of there riser. At least Hoyts limbs are only oon a hoyt riser, and on Hoyts limb angles.


----------



## Borderbows

Borderbows said:


> how did the FX come out with the least TS in that french test? It was put up against the Winact and Focus limb and two of our limbs, and missed the mark by a considerable %. did the engineers at hoyt come to a conclusions, then choose to ignore them?



how does this work then.

The Winact, and focus dont have biased carbon in them to my understanding. yet beat the FX hands down?


----------



## Mithril

Well, since I can't edit, I will borrow a page from Borderbows and simply repeat myself in a different way.

Sid very clearly says things here and on his AIUK blog that show he's blowing smoke and waving mirrors: 

1. He says more than once, Border invented 45 and Torsional Stability in the 1990's. The diagram in the 1986-87 Hoyt catalog clearly shows 45 and 0 bias and refers specifically to the term Torsional Stability. Border ignores this and says something about 0-90 and how it doesn't work. Smoke from Border.

2. Border repeatedly said Hoyt followed them on the use of 45 bias because they had it in the late '90's. Anyone with an old '80s Hoyt catalog (or a set of limbs) has proof Border is blowing more smoke. 

3. Again, Border clearly doesn't understand/misrepresents the triaxial weave concept. I found a photo of the triaxial weave Hoyt's using in the F7 on a Japanese blog, and it's obviously different than Border describes. Again more Border smoke.

4. Border says their force draw charts and no podium wins prove their better than Hoyt's products because Hoyt has podium wins but doesn't publish force draw charts. But, there are all sorts of force-draw charts for download on the Hoyt website (customer service section). More smoke from Border, but still, no podium wins.
Meanwhile top Koreans are buying Hoyts on their own, I wonder why?

I also found posts from GT on two other sites proving that Earl Hoyt used bias (45 and 0) carbon as far back as the early 1970's with material provided by Jim Easton.

It's pretty funny to read the comments about Borderbows on other traditional blogs and websites, it seems a lot of people have him figured out. Not so much here though.


----------



## limbwalker

At the end of the day, all that really matters is where the arrows land. The best archers shoot the best scores, regardless of who's bow they are shooting, period. I think there is too much obsession with equipment in this sport, esp. when the overwhelming factor that determines one's score is the individual themselves. 

Take Butch as an example. He shot the latest gear from one company for years. Up until about 5 years ago IIRC. Then he went back to some of his old equipment that he had faith in, and now he's shooting a completely new bow. Have his scores changed all that much? Nope. But there he sits in the 3rd spot at the trials, shooting a bow he's only shot for what, a year or less? And I'd bet my next paycheck that if we put a PSE or Hoyt or Samick bow in his hands he'd do the exact same thing.

Man has been reinventing the bow for 10,000 years. All a bow is is a fancy spring. Plain and simple. And there is nothing new under the sun, no matter what anyone wants to believe. It's all been visited and re-visited before. Limb angles? Riser lengths? Reflex? Deflex? Static tips? etc., etc., etc. 

Just a fancy spring. That's all they are. Pick the one that you like. Heck pick the one that looks the prettiest to you because they all pretty much do the exact same job and it's probably more important that an archer "likes" the bow they are using than which brand name is on it...

Personally, I'm more interested in the advancements that are available in the projectile than in the spring that slings them...

Having said that though, the best archers will always prevail, regardless of whose bow they are using.

John


----------



## Mithril

Looks like the 2012 Hoyt website is up and running now.

www.hoyt.com

Pretty cool picture of Brady's arrow departure and followthrough too.


----------



## gig'em 99

limbwalker said:


> At the end of the day, all that really matters is where the arrows land. The best archers shoot the best scores, regardless of who's bow they are shooting, period. I think there is too much obsession with equipment in this sport, esp. when the overwhelming factor that determines one's score is the individual themselves.
> 
> Take Butch as an example. He shot the latest gear from one company for years. Up until about 5 years ago IIRC. Then he went back to some of his old equipment that he had faith in, and now he's shooting a completely new bow. Have his scores changed all that much? Nope. But there he sits in the 3rd spot at the trials, shooting a bow he's only shot for what, a year or less? And I'd bet my next paycheck that if we put a PSE or Hoyt or Samick bow in his hands he'd do the exact same thing.
> 
> Man has been reinventing the bow for 10,000 years. All a bow is is a fancy spring. Plain and simple. And there is nothing new under the sun, no matter what anyone wants to believe. It's all been visited and re-visited before. Limb angles? Riser lengths? Reflex? Deflex? Static tips? etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Just a fancy spring. That's all they are. Pick the one that you like. Heck pick the one that looks the prettiest to you because they all pretty much do the exact same job and it's probably more important that an archer "likes" the bow they are using than which brand name is on it...
> 
> Personally, I'm more interested in the advancements that are available in the projectile than in the spring that slings them...
> 
> Having said that though, the best archers will always prevail, regardless of whose bow they are using.
> 
> John



:thumbs_up


----------



## limbwalker

> Looks like the 2012 Hoyt website is up and running now.


I can hear the scurry of computer mice already... 

Why does this all remind me of Nascar?... "And here comes the Hoyt/B-Stinger 36 car out of the final turn..." "Closing in is the Mathews/Doinker car followed by the PSE/W&W car..." 

ha, ha. Oh, it's just too rich sometimes... Guess the American marketing model has been set, and is in motion throughout sport.

How fancy can we make a spring...?


----------



## Paula

Mithril said:


> Looks like the 2012 Hoyt website is up and running now.
> 
> www.hoyt.com
> 
> Pretty cool picture of Brady's arrow departure and followthrough too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> The winner here is Brady,,,,not the equipment.We seem to fail to realize this.His approach,his attitude and sportsmanship are to be celebrated.Many people using the same equipment are not near to what he has accomplished.His edge is not the equipment.


----------



## Mithril

It's Brady's performance and hard work that make him a winner. 

His great image and great performance makes it possible for him to have a great sponsor and get rewarded for his hard work. 

Yes, that IS the American Way, last time I checked. Too bad some here seem to object to it.


----------



## limbwalker

> The winner here is Brady,,,,not the equipment.We seem to fail to realize this.His approach,his attitude and sportsmanship are to be celebrated.Many people using the same equipment are not near to what he has accomplished.His edge is not the equipment.


Oh, come now Paula. Surely you're not suggesting that the latest-and-greatest bow with all fancy graphics and bells and whistles isn't what made his success possible, are you? I mean, he was only shooting 1360's with his Mathews bow. Now look at what he's doing! 

Seriously though, bravo to you. Yours is the most important point of all Paula. It's the archer, not the bow.

I particularly like how the ad suggests that *the bow *is the "proven winner." ha, ha. 

Like I said - it's the Nascar approach to archery now... Everyone strap yourself in and put your helmets on. Here we go - round and round. Be sure to turn left and rattle off as many sponsors as you can anytime the mic is live...

John


----------



## Dan McLaughlin

Mithril said:


> It's Brady's performance and hard work that make him a winner.
> 
> His great image and great performance makes it possible for him to have a great sponsor and get rewarded for his hard work.
> 
> Yes, that IS the American Way, last time I checked. Too bad some here seem to object to it.


I agree.


----------



## limbwalker

> Too bad some here seem to object to it.



Now, I don't see anyone above objecting to hard work or great performances, or being rewarded for such. I think Brady's reward was on the podium, right? Or are you suggesting another type of reward...? Because I thought sport was about achievement, performance and competition, not money. Wouldn't you agree?

Once again, I'm afraid your observation skills are obscured by those corporate blinders you're wearing...

What I find laughable is an ad suggesting that the bow, not the archer, is the proven winner. Not an ad that would, say, instead congratulate Brady for his achievements. But rather and ad just giving all the credit to a piece of equipment when we all know better. But hey, that's par for the course. 

Let me get out of here before I get trampled by the herd of sheep...

Gotta run... 

John


----------



## TheAncientOne

> Since, unlike most of us, "you" have talked to the designer and might know the answers to those questions perhaps you could answer them?


Warbow *You* are being rude for no reason. 

TAO


----------



## fire7121

Borderbows said:


> this thread was about where the Hoyt thread went?
> 
> Maybe ive digressed with testing methods... that applies to any bow?
> you can take it or leave it.[/QUOTE
> IF EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO CONSIDER THE NEW HOYT PARALEVER SYSTEM PART OF THE ILF SYSTEM, I WOULD BUY AN HPX RISER AND USE MY BORDER LIMBS AND CALL IT A GOOD BOW..


----------



## limbwalker

I think he was just responding to Jake's assumption that noone else on this thread has actually talked to Doug about bow design. Which would be an incorrect assumption, I'm afraid. 



TheAncientOne said:


> Warbow *You* are being rude for no reason.
> 
> TAO


----------



## DK Lieu

Borderbows said:


> As a qualified person, (nice book BTW) Would you consider that acceleration, is a energy VS mass issue, and if you have a moving limb butt, you having to move more mass?
> 
> Also, as someone that teaches CAD design and i believe FEA, would you also think that having flex, means oscillation on rapid unloadings, and this might be symetrical due to the push points, being central, but do you think adding a bottom weight would effect the vibrations?
> 
> My personal take on the Hoyt PMS move is to remove thier limbs from the new short ILF riser market trend.
> but thats a personal theory of mine.
> These short risers change the angles on limbs, and add considerable weight to a pair of limbs. this stresses them up more.
> Afterall, we have just been asked if we are happy making limbs to fit a 12" ILF riser for a guy with a 30.5" draw? Dont think a PMS limb could make a 12" riser work window wise...


Glad you like my book. It was five years out of my life.

Acceleration is indeed related to mass mass and energy. The potential energy contained in a drawn limb is one-half the local stress, multiplied by the local strain, integrated over the volume of the limb. This energy is then converted to kinetic energy as the limb moves forward. Most of this energy will go into the arrow, but a portion of it will stay in the limb because it has mass. The more energy in the arrow and the less energy in the limb, the more efficient the limb. The less mass the limb has, the faster it will accelerate, and the less residual energy that will be contained in the limb as it moves forward. Since kinetic energy is a V**2 effect, the portion of the limb that moves the fastest, i.e. the tip, will contain the most energy. It it thus important for the tip to be light. The base of the limb is still stressed, and does move, but not nearly as much as the tip. Thus a heavier base does not hurt efficiency nearly as much as a heavy tip.

Rapid unloading does indeed lead to flex, and subsequent vibration. The point at which the bow is held (i.e. the grip) is located at a relatively stationary part of the system. This is called a node. The riser is heavier and much less flexible than the limbs, so essentially the entire riser can almost be considered a huge node. Changing the conditions at a node has only a small effect on the overall vibration of the system. I would expect that changing the way the bow is held, or adding or deleting mass on the riser (with a rigid bottom weight or otherwise) to have a small effect on the vibration frequencies of the bow. However, the added mass will have an effect on the amplitude of the vibration response seen at riser, i.e. more mass will reduce the response. It's like a big mass connected by a spring to a little mass. The big mass is the riser, and all the weight attached to it. The little mass is the tip of the limb.


----------



## Paula

DK Lieu said:


> Glad you like my book. It was five years out of my life.
> 
> Acceleration is indeed related to mass mass and energy. The potential energy contained in a drawn limb is one-half the local stress, multiplied by the local strain, integrated over the volume of the limb. This energy is then converted to kinetic energy as the limb moves forward. Most of this energy will go into the arrow, but a portion of it will stay in the limb because it has mass. The more energy in the arrow and the less energy in the limb, the more efficient the limb. The less mass the limb has, the faster it will accelerate, and the less residual energy that will be contained in the limb as it moves forward. Since kinetic energy is a V**2 effect, the portion of the limb that moves the fastest, i.e. the tip, will contain the most energy. It it thus important for the tip to be light. The base of the limb is still stressed, and does move, but not nearly as much as the tip. Thus a heavier base does not hurt efficiency nearly as much as a heavy tip.
> 
> Rapid unloading does indeed lead to flex, and subsequent vibration. The point at which the bow is held (i.e. the grip) is located at a relatively stationary part of the system. This is called a node. The riser is heavier and much less flexible than the limbs, so essentially the entire riser can almost be considered a huge node. Changing the conditions at a node has only a small effect on the overall vibration of the system. I would expect that changing the way the bow is held, or adding or deleting mass on the riser (with a rigid bottom weight or otherwise) to have a small effect on the vibration frequencies of the bow. However, the added mass will have an effect on the amplitude of the vibration response seen at riser, i.e. more mass will reduce the response. It's like a big mass connected by a spring to a little mass. The big mass is the riser, and all the weight attached to it. The little mass is the tip of the limb.


If a recurve limb could be made into some type of a split limb due to present day fibers and glue technology,,then all things be lighter and less resistant,,couldn't there be an even faster limb out there??I enjoy reading your answers,,,very informative,,thanks Paula


----------



## limbwalker

> This energy is then converted to kinetic energy as the limb moves forward. Most of this energy will go into the arrow, but a portion of it will stay in the limb because it has mass. The more energy in the arrow and the less energy in the limb, the more efficient the limb. The less mass the limb has, the faster it will accelerate, and the less residual energy that will be contained in the limb as it moves forward. Since kinetic energy is a V**2 effect, the portion of the limb that moves the fastest, i.e. the tip, will contain the most energy. It it thus important for the tip to be light. The base of the limb is still stressed, and does move, but not nearly as much as the tip. Thus a heavier base does not hurt efficiency nearly as much as a heavy tip.


http://bowmaker.net/sawdust.htm

Which is exactly why O.L. Adcock's patented ACS (Adcock Cross Section) design produced the most advanced longbow limb in the world. It now holds multiple flight records, and since 2002, has been recognized as a true innovation in limb design. How do I know this? I went over to his house to listen to his "crazy" idea to build it when we lived down the street form one another in Roswell, and watched him build the forms and then shoot the first two bows ever built to that specification. I think I got 217 fps. from the first 60# longbow with a 9 grain/lb. arrow. Not too shabby for a longbow. At the time, it was more efficient than any recurve tested (based on Blacky's tests, I think).

The idea is exactly as you suggest - to remove weight from the outboard limb section while maintaining the working part of the limb. Win&Win attempted an arched cross section in their Synerzy limb for a little while, but that was the wrong part of the limb to use that cross section, and it didn't take off.

I tried to talk O.L. into making me a set of limbs for my target riser, but the geometry wasn't quite right. However, the design my work on a riser like the new Hoyt bow, or the new SKY target riser with it's reduced deflex. It would be worth a try at least.

John


----------



## TheAncientOne

John, do you know what happens to the curve of the ACS during draw, does it flatten out?

TAO


----------



## limbwalker

No, that's just it - it stays rigid. Okay, I'm sure it flexes a little, but the idea was to maintain stiffness in the outer limb while reducing weight. O.L. said he got the idea from looking at a tape measure extended. I forget how much limb weight he was able to remove and maintain the same stiffness, but it was a lot. Made a big difference in efficiency too. Also made for a smoother and quieter bow because all that weight wasn't flopping around.

John


----------



## DK Lieu

Paula said:


> If a recurve limb could be made into some type of a split limb due to present day fibers and glue technology,,then all things be lighter and less resistant,,couldn't there be an even faster limb out there??I enjoy reading your answers,,,very informative,,thanks Paula


Splitting the limb down its length, as seen in some compound bows, would probably not be a good idea for a recurve bow. Since a finger release imparts a sideways force to the string, and subsequently a torsional disturbance to the limb, the torsional stability (torsional resistance) of a recurve limb is rather important for minimizing its reaction to this disturbance. This is why high torsional stiffness is important for creating a forgiving recurve limb. A split limb would have poor torsional stiffness, because all of the glass or carbon fibers at 45 deg (which is the principal stress direction for torsional loads) would be cut. A limb is like a box beam. All of the strength comes from the skin. The center material just holds the skin together. It may be possible, with the right material, to remove some of the core material from the center-line of the limb, thus splitting the core but maintaining the integrity of the skin. This would reduce the weight of the limb and increase its efficiency, while maintaining the torsional stiffness needed for stability.


----------



## whiz-Oz

TheAncientOne said:


> Warbow *You* are being rude for no reason.
> 
> TAO


I'd just like to say that I don't think that Warbow has ever been rude and that I have never seen him act in any way other that I have interpretive as either inquisitive or informative. 
His points are well put together and are usually backed up with a mountain of logical conclusions or references. 

I always read what he writes because it's never proven to be without thought and I would always expect that if I ever wondered why his opinion was alternate to mine that he would be able to explain why to a level that would make me question my own opinions. 

The internet is far too few of personalities like Warbow. While he's on this forum, I can be assured that things won't get totally off the rails.


----------



## Warbow

TheAncientOne said:


> Warbow *You* are being rude for no reason.
> 
> TAO


TAO,

I was responding to this post by Jake:



Jake Kaminski said:


> Wow guys. The limb system is because it relives lots of pressure on the limbs an riser. *I* unlike you gus have talked to the designer himself an making you use only Hoyt limbs are just not the case. If I'm not mistaken border makes formula limbs does it not? And rumors of kaya as well.


[emphasis in original]

Since Jake was specifically touting his inside knowledge and chastising others for not knowing what he knows it seemed pretty reasonable to ask Jake to fill us in rather than just berate us. I shouldn't think that asking him to do that is rude. Also, I bolded the word "you" to correspond to the formatting Jake used.


----------



## Warbow

whiz-Oz said:


> I'd just like to say that I don't think that Warbow has ever been rude and that I have never seen him act in any way other that I have interpretive as either inquisitive or informative.
> His points are well put together and are usually backed up with a mountain of logical conclusions or references.
> 
> I always read what he writes because it's never proven to be without thought and I would always expect that if I ever wondered why his opinion was alternate to mine that he would be able to explain why to a level that would make me question my own opinions.
> 
> The internet is far too few of personalities like Warbow. While he's on this forum, I can be assured that things won't get totally off the rails.


That is extremely generous of you. There are many much more knowledgeable folks than me in the forum, so best I can do is to try to base my posts in facts, evidence and, hopefully, well founded opinion. Doesn't mean I'm not wrong some of the time even when I think I'm not. However, I also think that applies to everyone--that is that anybody, no matter how famous and well regarded and knowledgeable they are, can be wrong at times without realizing it, even if they are right most of the time about other things.

As much as it might not seem like it to some, I'm grateful to hear from experienced shooters like John, Jake, Rick and many others as well as experts like Vittorio and Sid--even if I question them on occasion, er, or a lot.


----------



## Borderbows

Dr Lieu.

Since an increase in TS is possible over the wood glass limb that Earl Hoyt developed, AND Hoyt are still using the wood glass geometry.
The use of 45 deg carbon to stiffen a limb can stiffen it in quantities of more than 100%, so, could it be said that boosting limbs TS beyond a certain point, becomes pointless. it could be argued that the limb width settled on by Earl hoyt was to deliver certain levels of TS within the UD/Wood construction.
Could it be said that its not very innovative to change the paradigm of TS, and still stick to conventional limb designs.
as you rightly pointed out, limbs can be made narrower, reducing limb vibrations through mass reduction at the tips, increasing bow efficency, and reducing wind resistance? Thats our first take on this concept. We have been on this since the light bulb struck us in 1999.
hence the change from the "norm" from us.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> Since Jake was specifically touting his inside knowledge and chastising others for not knowing what he knows it seemed pretty reasonable to ask Jake to fill us in rather than just berate us. I shouldn't think that asking him to do that is rude. Also, I bolded the word "you" to correspond to the formatting Jake used.


Mea Culpa!

TAO


----------



## zal

But

does more torsional stability and speed and all these fancy things actually make archers more accurate?

If we look at fita high scores
2000 1379 (c+/winact era)
2003 1378 (masters/extremes/fx era)
2010 1386 (gmx+vera)
2011 1387 (masters+vera)

(edit: also Park KM shot 1385 in non-star around 2004-2005 or so but can't find the facts about that anywhere)

70m scores have been virtually unchanged since 2004, same goes for women's scores 1405 shot 2004, 70m 682 2004.
Western achers' top scores have been too very similar (1364 for Barnes around 2004?, Brady 1360ish past few years, Frangilli 1358 2002, 1364 in non-star, 1365 Girouille 2010).

If there are points to be made with more developed, better, faster how ever you call it gear, it doesn't show in the field.


----------



## jmvargas

zal said:


> But
> 
> does more torsional stability and speed and all these fancy things actually make archers more accurate?
> 
> If we look at fita high scores
> 2000 1379 (c+/winact era)
> 2003 1378 (masters/extremes/fx era)
> 2010 1386 (gmx+vera)
> 2011 1387 (masters+vera)
> 
> 70m scores have been virtually unchanged since 2004, same goes for women's scores 1405 shot 2004, 70m 682 2004.
> Western achers' top scores have been too very similar (1364 for Barnes around 2004?, Brady 1360ish past few years, Frangilli 1358 2002, 1364 in non-star, 1365 Girouille 2010).
> 
> If there are points to be made with more developed, better, faster how ever you call it gear, it doesn't show in the field.



this is a very good observation and i totally agree with the conclusion....

....am also pretty sure that MY equipment is capable of shooting world record scores in the hands of the proper person......


----------



## Borderbows

zal said:


> But
> 
> does more torsional stability and speed and all these fancy things actually make archers more accurate?
> 
> If we look at fita high scores
> 2000 1379 (c+/winact era)
> 2003 1378 (masters/extremes/fx era)
> 2010 1386 (gmx+vera)
> 2011 1387 (masters+vera)
> 
> (edit: also Park KM shot 1385 in non-star around 2004-2005 or so but can't find the facts about that anywhere)
> 
> 70m scores have been virtually unchanged since 2004, same goes for women's scores 1405 shot 2004, 70m 682 2004.
> Western achers' top scores have been too very similar (1364 for Barnes around 2004?, Brady 1360ish past few years, Frangilli 1358 2002, 1364 in non-star, 1365 Girouille 2010).
> 
> If there are points to be made with more developed, better, faster how ever you call it gear, it doesn't show in the field.


Have you tested the TS of these limbs, is a MK Vera more stable than a Winact?. Worked out the hype from the stats. As said, its the archer that makes a difference, and scores are creeping up.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Warbow said:


> That is extremely generous of you.


I don't need to be generous when there are 18,854 posts which I can present as evidence.


----------



## zal

Borderbows said:


> Have you tested the TS of these limbs, is a MK Vera more stable than a Winact?. Worked out the hype from the stats. As said, its the archer that makes a difference, and scores are creeping up.


I have owned all those limbs mentioned above. And quite many others. Funnily ive shot my best scores with winacts which are definitely the slowest and probably the least ts, by twisting test.

Now I shoot mk korea, just because i like the feel more.


----------



## jmvargas

all those world record scores have been shot by koreans...

so..in the final analysis another conclusion is that they WILL shoot these scores with whatever high end equipment you can put in their hands......

the ultimate example of "it's the ***** guys!!......

BTW i have owned some of the limbs used(C+, winact, extremes) and can confirm by experience that they are ALL excellent limbs!!


----------



## Jake Kaminski

TheAncientOne said:


> Mea Culpa!
> 
> TAO


I was being 'rude' because the majority of the posters are being ridiculous. I don't have insider info anyone can call Hoyt or email doug and ask questions. This thread and place is ridiculous. Rumors and lies spout off from nothing and I just dont get why. Sorry, if I came off rude you should re-read thousands of posts and re-assess if what I post is rude in the while realm of what is AT


----------



## jmvargas

jake...i for one consider myself lucky that an archer of your caliber posts here and hope you will continue to do so..

you are among the very few whose crediblity is beyond question in terms of current shooting ability and knowing YOUR equipment..

i only hope you can keep an open mind in forums such as these and continue to provide us with your invaluable insights and experience..

...more people appreciate it that those who seemingly don't...JMHO..


----------



## zal

I do miss sagi bb, that was kept clean from corporate influences. Sadly, in this corporate world, it was what killed it too.


----------



## limbwalker

Ditto Zal. Sagi is where I learned much of what I needed to help me get started, and there was a tremendous amount of respect shown (and absence of corporate influence and agendas) by everyone on that board. I said before - money is going to ruin what used to be a gentleman's sport.



> This thread and place is ridiculous.


Jake, you might want to consider the same advice that none other than gt offered me a day before the men's team event in Athens. He said "LW, shame on you for reading all this crap before competition..." In his own condescending manner, he was probably right. Participating in any message forum can be frustrating and potentially damaging to anyone not able to maintain distance and perspective. Just something to consider. You've heard this from me before... In the position you currently occupy on the U.S. team, OTC and staff shooter, there is unfortunately more to be lost than gained by participating here.

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> You've heard this from me before... In the position you currently occupy on the U.S. team, OTC and staff shooter, there is unfortunately more to be lost than gained by participating here.
> 
> John


Could be. The president of the Royal Society declined a debate with someone, saying, "That would look very good on your CV. Not so good on mine." It may be the case that the benefit in having discussions here may be of far less value to high ranked shooters than it is to the rest of us. But one hopes that doesn't have to be the case. And I don't know if we all really benefit by you actively trying to talk Jake out of posting here :mg:


----------



## limbwalker

Not sure I was trying to talk Jake out of posting with that message... He's a big boy and can do whatever he pleases. Rather, whether one participates (reads or posts) on AT is always "Just something to consider..."  Esp. if they become frustrated to the point that "This...place is ridiculous." 

Been there, done that one, as evidenced by my long breaks from AT in the past. It's just something to consider, that's all.

Warbow, with your constant craving for input, I'm not surprised you would object to Jake or any other well known archer stepping away from AT. But sometimes its a healthy thing to do, and the fact remains that for those who've already figured out the things they need to figure out, participating here can become a zero sum game, if not even less. There is a reason you don't see that many - well, really any - top level sponsored archers posting here. Because they have a lot more to lose than they have to gain. Plain and simple. Not that Rick and I are top level archers anymore - and I don't have any contracts that keep me from saying whatever I darn well think - but he and I post because we just enjoy helping folks shoot better if we can, and we think it's important to correct some of the misinformation that's out there from time to time. But for someone like Jake or Brady or Jenny or Miranda, participating on AT is really something I wouldn't advise between now and oh, say, next August... 

John


----------



## Greysides

Does that say anything about AT and it's mangement? 

It's the most adrenaline-soaked forum I know of, and I'm on quite a few. 

It puts me off at times, but I crave knowledge and there are good-knowledgable and good-helpful posters here.

If this were a kick-boxing forum I might understand it but it's .... archery.


----------



## limbwalker

One just has to learn what to take seriously and what to ignore, that's all. If a person has thin skin, and offers their opinion on anything here, there's a pretty good chance they'll get upset sooner or later. That's a bad combination. Likewise, if anyone comes here with an agenda, that will get rooted out pretty fast too. For my money, this is the most honest discussion forum I've participated in, although it can get a little heated and childish at times. But hey, that's called life. People just are that way sometimes. Doesn't mean they're bad people, but rather, just a bad day...

I think all the adverstisements, "Staff" shooters (whatever that is...) and talk about endorsement contracts, etc. can lead the discussion in places it wouldn't have on the old Sagi board. That's unfortunate, but I'm afraid its the way the sport is headed. 

Which is why I enjoy shooting barebow from time to time...  Because then it's ONLY about archery, without the background noise.

John


----------



## fire7121

*Formula hp*

MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT HOYT ACTS AS THOUGH THEY HAVE CURED CANCER WITH THE PARALEVER SYSTEM AND HAS SET THE PRICE MARGIN (OR AT LEAST THE DEALERS HAVE) AS IF THEY HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON RESEARCH, DEVELOPEMENT AND TOOLING. WHEN ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT TO DESIGN AND MACHINE THE SAME PIECE OF ALUMINUM SHOULD BE WELL PAID FOR BY NOW. iF IT WAS MADE OF CARBON WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY I WOULD UNDERSTAND. ALUMINUM RISER PRICES SHOULD COME DOWN BY NOW. aND WHEN THEY MAKE A PARALEVER SYSTEM OUT OF CARBON FIBER LIKE THE PRICE OF SAIL BOAT MASTS. ILL PAY A PRETTY PENNY FOR ONE...


----------



## Warbow

Hmm...I see someone is celebrating International Caps Lock day

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Caps_lock#International_Caps_Lock_Day

(It is cute, but if people haven't heard of it they are likely to perceive it as "shouting" for no reason.)

But, I, too, wonder at where the value of a riser is. I suspect that the Innos cost a lot more to make than the new Hoyt Risers given what I've heard about the challenges of making composite carbon fiber risers. But high quality CNC work can be expensive, too. How much to we pay for design, and how much for the actual cost of the build? I don't posit this on the idea that were are forced to use Hoyt (well, the non-RAs anyway :wink: ) but as a more general question of value. For high end competitors the question may be almost irrelevant because they either get it for free, or, if it really helps them, is a professional tool they can't afford to be without, so how much is design and how much is manufacturing cost is not a bottom line issue. Perhaps it is merely an abstract musing, but I think most of us do care about value since we don't have unlimited funds, or, sponsors.


----------



## Vittorio

zal said:


> ... Frangilli 1358 2002, 1364 in non-star....


1364 in 1996 during Italian Team internal trials for the Olympic team ...

In 70 mt Round, men WR was 685 in 1995 already, and arrows were ACE for everybody at that time
It went to 687 in 2004, 691 last year and 693 this year, but last 3 scores are all from IM Dong Hyun
European record was 684 in 1996 and as been increased to 686 last year (both scores by my son)

Materials have really not so much to do with improvement in top scores in last 15 years, but shooting techniques and a spreaded better knowledge of how to tune the materials is the the main reason.


----------



## whiz-Oz

fire7121 said:


> MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT HOYT ACTS AS THOUGH THEY HAVE CURED CANCER WITH THE PARALEVER SYSTEM AND HAS SET THE PRICE MARGIN (OR AT LEAST THE DEALERS HAVE) AS IF THEY HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON RESEARCH, DEVELOPEMENT AND TOOLING. WHEN ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT TO DESIGN AND MACHINE THE SAME PIECE OF ALUMINUM SHOULD BE WELL PAID FOR BY NOW. iF IT WAS MADE OF CARBON WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY I WOULD UNDERSTAND. ALUMINUM RISER PRICES SHOULD COME DOWN BY NOW. aND WHEN THEY MAKE A PARALEVER SYSTEM OUT OF CARBON FIBER LIKE THE PRICE OF SAIL BOAT MASTS. ILL PAY A PRETTY PENNY FOR ONE...


Oh. 
Really? They're acting like claimed to cure cancer? 
There's a bit of unsubstanciated opinion which might not stand some examination. Please cut and paste examples of this, which must be reasonably obvious because all of their advertising is on the Internet. 
Surely you can come up with some reasonable evidence for this *opinion* or are you just happy to hope that everyone agrees with what you've said because you've like, posted it on the Internet?

And prices should come down because their equipment is paid for? 
So, logically, you should be able to buy petrol cheap because all the refineries were paid off years ago. 
Milk should be almost free, because they only get it from cows that have been alive long enough to produce it. 
Do you know of ONE instance in the world where costs drop on new products because production infrastructure exists? 

Your assertion would have to be the most mindlessly dumb comment I've seen on this thread so far. 
Mind you, there is still time.


----------



## lksseven

Pricing is determined by what customers are willing to/can pay. It's called a 'free market system'. 

What it costs Hoyt to produce the riser is irrelevant to my decision of whether to buy the riser or not to buy the riser.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> There's a bit of unsubstanciated opinion which might not stand some examination. Please cut and paste examples of this, which must be reasonably obvious because all of their advertising is on the Internet.





> 15,306 miles around the USA in 3.5 months.


whiz-OZ. all that mileage must have made you cranky. LOL 

But I agree, the hyperbole is getting thick around here.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker

> The limb system is because it relives lots of pressure on the limbs an riser.


Getting back to the bow, are we to assume that the tried and true ILF system put too much stress on the limbs and riser? 

680+ scores with a system that puts too much stress on the limbs and the riser? 

Not sure the facts bear this out.

John


----------



## limbwalker

> Pricing is determined by what customers are willing to/can pay. It's called a 'free market system'.


Wurd... 

And there are at least two companies that are "testing" the market at the moment, seeing just how far some will reach to get a "new" product. $1500 for a single riser and limbs? For some, that's not that much. For others (like me) that's absurd when a quick check of the history of scores (like one that Vittorio just posted) would prove that not very much has changed in the past 20 years. 

The irony here is that prices like that only serve to reinforce the notion in some peoples minds that you only get what you pay for, so it's actually productive for the company to raise the price on their products. It lends the impression that the equipment is actually superior because of the price.

They have to remain consistent with their claims to be "the best" and if their price wasn't higher than everyone else's, then it would appear as though their claims are hollow - at least to some...

Same phenomenon is seen in so many other things. Sporting equipment, automobiles, etc. The retail price is often a poor reflection on what something actually costs to produce. Especially at the higher end of the market.

They ask that price 1) because they can convince some people to pay it, and 2) because it reinforces their marketing strategy.

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> The irony here is that prices like that only serve to reinforce the notion in some peoples minds that you only get what you pay for, so it's actually productive for the company to raise the price on their products. It lends the impression that the equipment is actually superior because of the price.


*Cough*Sony*Cough*

Psychological studies on influence have shown that absent other data we tend to assume that more expensive means better. So, some items are actually priced up to make us think they are actually worth more. Wine is a good example of that. It is a complex subject and some expensive wines really do blind taste test better (it is still subjective about what "better" is in terms of flavor, though) but generally if you tell people wine is more expensive they think it tastes better. And the effect can leak over to other things as well. If you tell people they are drinking a more expensive wine with their meal they'll also rate rest of the meal better, too.

I suppose, to the degree that archery is a mental game, the perceived value that one may assume from the high price of overpriced risers and limbs could help archers. But to the degree that it is a game based on objective physics that can't be fooled by psychological marketing tricks, it doesn't.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> The limb system is because it relives lots of pressure on the limbs an riser.


If that were the case a lot of older ILF setups would be self destructing on the range. 

My goto bow if I haven't shot in a while is a Gold Medalist TD4. It's over 25 years old and still going strong.

TAO


----------



## zal

Less stress means lower requirements for materials and tolerance for manufacturing errors, which means lower production costs. It doesn't take an economist (which, sadly I am) to calculate that it would give more options and potentially more revenue.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Getting back to the bow, are we to assume that the tried and true ILF system put too much stress on the limbs and riser?
> 
> 680+ scores with a system that puts too much stress on the limbs and the riser?
> 
> Not sure the facts bear this out.
> 
> John


And how many limbs that blow out break at the dovetail?


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> Getting back to the bow, are we to assume that the tried and true ILF system put too much stress on the limbs and riser?
> 
> 680+ scores with a system that puts too much stress on the limbs and the riser?
> 
> Not sure the facts bear this out.
> 
> John


Ah, but that's not what has been said. The paralever limbs put LESS stress on the mounting points. 

This is not a statement where it can be read in reverse and inferred as too much.
Obviously, the HDS system works just fine. 

However, why not utilise that bit of limb to store energy? Move the pivot points further apart, design the limb to flex and all of a sudden, the limb stores energy across the greater part of the length. 

Not so hard to figure out, but this in no way says that the HDS system puts "too much" stress on the components. Only that paralever design places less. 

Any discussion that hinges around excessive stress now is following a statement which cannot be proven and so will inevitably found incorrect.


----------



## limbwalker

But why, Whiz, do we just assume that there was a need to put less stress on the limbs and riser? Because it was possible, so therefore it was necessary? 

Do we not suppose that Earl Hoyt Jr. thought of this 30+ years ago? He re-designed his limb attachment system more than once, so surely he considered the distance between the points of the fulcrum and whether or not to allow the limb butt to flex, right? Would love to see his notes on this...

I've had a saying for 20+ years about human behavior - "availability creates need..." Just because something is available, doesn't automatically mean we need it. But for whatever reason, we love to lurch toward all things new, automatically as if they were better than what we have now. Human nature I guess. Not sure why that is though.

I had to take a statistics course in college as part of undergrad. degree and if I recall correctly, the difference in the scores being shot with the new limb attachment system vs. the old ILF system is anything but statistically significant. And a good argument could be made that the archers shooting them have received better instruction and train harder and smarter than they themselves did just a few years ago. So it's pretty hard to convince me that anything but a statistically significant increase in scores can be attributed to a single piece of equipment. So I'll wait until I see that until I'm ready to be convinced.

It would be much easier to accept improvements like feel or sound than scores, because the numbers just don't add up. 

John


----------



## Warbow

Hmm...Is making the base of the limb beween attachment points a working part of the limb a fundamental change to a recurve? Is it still a recurve? Or should it be classified outside of the FITA Recurve class? Think of it this way. How far could Hoyt separate the two attachment points before the bow should no longer be considered a Recurve? Or is there no limit so long as the bow doesn't have pulleys?


----------



## TheAncientOne

> How far could Hoyt separate the two attachment points before the bow should no longer be considered a Recurve?


The attachment point is not what makes a recurve, the shape does. 

TAO


----------



## Warbow

TheAncientOne said:


> The attachment point is not what makes a recurve, the shape does.
> 
> TAO


Yes, but at some point if you add a **third** working component (which is what you doing with the working flex of the paralever base) I would seem that you are making something that is beyond a recurve.


----------



## Flehrad

Its interesting that we've moved onwards to the stress points.

Someone shooting at my club broke a pair of limbs on Friday last week, and the failure was actually quite unique. Most limb failures I've seen have been delaminations towards the tip of the limb. This one broke the core at the ILF indent.

They were shooting a Hoyt Helix using Tradtech Black Max limbs, and the core snapped clean through (almost vertical shear) right above the hard edge of the riser where the limb contacts the pocket metal where the indent button was. The external fibreglass laminate on one side was intact, and the other side was cracked, but the core had separated into chunks.

I would imagine that the paralever would reduce the forces being applied to this region due to how it allows that flex.


----------



## Jake Kaminski

Here are the facts. 

48# bow 30" draw there is approx 980 pounds of force pushing on the dovetail mount towards the shooter and about 850 pounds pushing on the limb bolt away from the shooter. With the paralever system it is reduced to 480 and 430 respectively. 


This allows for a different design in how the bow is built with flex control in mid as well as differen vibrational properties. (this is why rx bows are often quieter) also allows for a difference in limb design not possible with ilf fitting




limbwalker said:


> Getting back to the bow, are we to assume that the tried and true ILF system put too much stress on the limbs and riser?
> 
> 680+ scores with a system that puts too much stress on the limbs and the riser?
> 
> Not sure the facts bear this out.
> 
> John


----------



## Flehrad

Wow, that is a massive drop in force. Then would it make even more of a difference should the pivot pocket be moved out say another inch? Is there a limiting distance where it is no longer advantageous as the limbs would no longer be functioning efficiently?


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> But why, Whiz, do we just assume that there was a need to put less stress on the limbs and riser? Because it was possible, so therefore it was necessary?


Well, think of it as a benefit and not a design point. 
Mechanically, the most obvious thing to me upon first seeing the paralever system is to make more use of the limb to store energy. 
If the limbs weren't tapered more than normal at the limb butt, you could assume that the only design imperative was to reduce loading and increase alignment accuracy.

But that would be a pretty pointless thing to do as neither of those have been an issue before. That the design actually uses more limb is the obvious goal of the paralever system. 

And as per the "what is a recurve bow" queries... Seriously, you guys. 
If it's got no mechanical advantages and bent limb tips, even if someone came up with a center pivot limb mount, it is still just maximising recurve technology. 
The definition of a recurve bow for FITA target purposes. 

_A bow of any type provided it subscribes to the accepted principle and meaning of
the word bow as used in target archery, that is, an instrument consisting of a handle
(grip), riser (no shoot-through type) and 2 flexible limbs each ending in a tip with a
string nock. The bow is braced for use by a single string attached directly between
the 2 string nocks, and in operation is held in 1 hand by its handle (grip) while the
fingers of the other hand draw, hold back and release the string_

If the limb pivot points were located at the limb butt and just inboard of the limb tips, it would STILL fall under that description, thus suitable for competition.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Flehrad said:


> Then would it make even more of a difference should the pivot pocket be moved out say another inch?


Yes, but it wouldn't be "more" of a difference. It would be an exactly linear change based on the increased distance. It's the wonder of mechanical advantage.



Flehrad said:


> Is there a limiting distance where it is no longer advantageous as the limbs would no longer be functioning efficiently?


Yes.
Mentally move the pivot point towards the limb tip and think of what happens when things bend. 
The distance between the pivot points decrease on the bending form. 
As well as changing the contact points in the limb, which will need reinforcement which will add weight and other complications. It may not optimise things unless someone goes down that route and investigates what is possible.
Who's up for it?


----------



## Flehrad

I'm not a mech eng, so a lot of these things go over my head lol...

So, if you did that, that would mean a thicker limb section between the bolt and pivot, as well as thinner/softer limb tip end, but then would result in even greater speed/power outputs? Leverage/mechanical advantage isn't something I'm versed in...


----------



## limbwalker

> 48# bow 30" draw there is approx 980 pounds of force pushing on the dovetail mount towards the shooter and about 850 pounds pushing on the limb bolt away from the shooter





> But that would be a pretty pointless thing to do as neither of those have been an issue before


Which is my point. They have not been an issue before. So I am inclined to believe that rather than relieve a force that has not proven to be a problem in the past, the design should be to take advantage of another opportunity for improvement

Jake, I'm curious where an archer like yourself comes up with those numbers. Not questioning whether they are actual numbers, but rather how you measured them.

John


----------



## DK Lieu

Flehrad said:


> I'm not a mech eng, so a lot of these things go over my head lol...


Yeah, a lot of this stuff is over my head too.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> Yes, but at some point if you add a **third** working component (which is what you doing with the working flex of the paralever base) I would seem that you are making something that is beyond a recurve.


Remember, the "original" recurves were stickbows. Adding the dovetail mounts didn't make them more or less of a recurve. When the limb geometry at the tips changes, then you are making something different. It's amazing how much the geometry hasn't changed since the original ProMedalists through the Gold Medalist take-downs through the Tec style risers. I have 2 5PM's, a GM TD4 take down and a Helix so I can see first hand.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne

> Someone shooting at my club broke a pair of limbs on Friday last week, and the failure was actually quite unique. Most limb failures I've seen have been delaminations towards the tip of the limb. This one broke the core at the ILF indent.


Sounds like he dry fired it at some point.

TAO


----------



## whiz-Oz

Those figures seem a little high, but the proportions are correct for the drop in load. All you have to do is keep everything else equal and shift the distances between the limb butt and pivot point to get a directly proportional change in mechanical advantage and thus force.

The basic properties of things that bend, what needs to be stronger and how it all inter relates are reasonably straight forward. Working out how the limb tip geometries work, the amount of flex available, how to mount things to ensure that you have a system that can have changeable limbs that work within a system is the hard part. The paralever limbs are good in that they don't require too much departing from simple technology to realise an advantage. Once you start putting pivots further from the limb butt, you'll start getting more and more movement in and out as the limbs flex, the middle parts of the limbs near the pivot point will now have more load on them, so they'll have to be stronger/thicker/heavier so there will be efficiencies lost there somewhere... Risers would have to be longer and possibly heavier.. It all starts getting very complex with lots of development time..

And can you believe how this forum would go NUTS if they saw something that was too different? (But we've seen that before, haven't we?)


----------



## zal

I think that the peak of limb design was achieved with C+ limbs (and perhaps ceramic carbons). After that, gains have been minimal compared to previous. Unless someone comes with a really radical new concept, we are trying to re-invent the wheel.

I would be personally more inclined to manufacturers who aim for better "feel" than "speed" or "stability". I know that already some manufacturers have stated that their desing aims for improved feel and feedback for the archer (the unnamed world-record shooting korean company, for instance).

No other than Denise Parker showed that you don't need speed to shoot 1360+ scores. Not to forget that highest 70m score 351 was shot by a female archer shooting 42lbs limbs in 2004.


----------



## zal

Also it's quite funny to think that we are still shooting arrows designed 15 years ago. Simply because there hasn't been any competition and therefore no need to push "new" products to the market. Apart from compound ones, where competition has started to emerge.


----------



## limbwalker

Zal, I can't disagree with your logic. I think I said earlier that the real gains are going to be in arrow technology, not bows. Only so many ways you can flex a spring after all... I think we'll see some real competition fairly soon in that area...



> I think that the peak of limb design was achieved with C+ limbs


Probably not far from the truth, if scores are any indication. And they should be the only real statistic that matters IMO. No style points in this game.



> And can you believe how this forum would go NUTS if they saw something that was too different?


I'm all for different if it is significantly better. Different for the sake of being different (or protecting someone's "IP") is a waste of time and energy however. Run the numbers, do the math and prove that something is statistically significant, and I'm all ears. So far, nobody has been able to do that though. Vittorio's post above proves that point pretty clearly. Wins are not statistically significant. They only mean that one archer is the better archer, not that they are shooting a better bow. Scores can be measured, and we still aren't seeing one technology dominate that statistic.

John


----------



## limbwalker

I'll amend that statement and add that I think grip design and placement may lead to some gains as well. For some years now, I've felt that too little research has gone into designing a proper grip for each archer. Where are the pressure-sensitive grips that provide feedback to a computer that can record consistency and proper pressure point locations? I can't believe we don't have those yet. The OTC should have this technology TODAY, not in 5 or 10 years. Actually, they should have had it 10 years ago because it was easily available then. You can go into a Wal-mart now and have this done with your feet to select the proper insoles for your shoes. It's really pretty simple. And a series of training runs fed into the right computer program would tell you which grip shape is producing the most consistent pressures in the proper locations.

Imagine being able to test multiple grip designs and find the one that is the most consistent for each archer. Right now, we're pretty much guessing based on human feedback, and we all know how inconsistent and inaccurate that can be. 

So, advancements in arrow design and grip selection technology is in my mind where we may see a real gain. Creating a solution to assist underperforming limbs isn't. 

John


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER

I agree with limbwalker custom grips could be c&c`d from a machine that you grip and pressure points transmitted to main frame to do.... just like they do for custom car parts.. I have stubby little fingers and find most grips don`t fit so out comes the rasp and files right away.. lol lol


----------



## limbwalker

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> I agree with limbwalker custom grips could be c&c`d from a machine that you grip and pressure points transmitted to main frame to do.... just like they do for custom car parts.. I have stubby little fingers and find most grips don`t fit so out comes the rasp and files right away.. lol lol


And that's the real issue here, I think. A person will gladly go out and spend $700 on a single riser and really a lot of that bow's performance in their hands will come down to their understanding and ability to get the grip right. And how many folks truly understand the affects of grip shape on their form, on the bow's reaction and on consistency? Not that many, I don't think. This is a very underrated, and under-researched aspect of our sport IMO.

I know that for myself, if my grip is designed well for me, I can focus 100% on executing the shot and I can expect the bow to do the same thing time after time. However, anything short of that and my focus drifts to where my hand is in the grip, why the bow is not reacting consistently, or worse yet - why I'm not able to get through the clicker (usually because my grip position is changing or it put my alignment in the wrong position in the first place...).

Sorry to re-direct the thread here. Probably should have started a new one I guess.


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> I'll amend that statement and add that I think grip design and placement may lead to some gains as well. For some years now, I've felt that too little research has gone into designing a proper grip for each archer. Where are the pressure-sensitive grips that provide feedback to a computer that can record consistency and proper pressure point locations? I can't believe we don't have those yet. The OTC should have this technology TODAY, not in 5 or 10 years. Actually, they should have had it 10 years ago because it was easily available then.


I'd think they should also have flexible pressure sensors to measure string pressure on the tab face--so that we can measure consistency of hook pressure. Seems like the kind of diagnostic the OTC should have if it doesn't already.


----------



## limbwalker

Good point. If you look at all the technology in use at various OTC's for some sports, ours is a pretty low-tech operation by comparison. Maybe that will improve over time. We shall see. IIRC, the downhill skiers had about $10K worth of gear just standing by for each practice run at the Torino games, not to mention all the testing that went into selecting skis and wax methodology and preparing them for competition, etc., etc. 

It can't be that hard to come up with actual data to provide real time feedback to an archer about which equipment actually fits them best. And data is pretty hard to argue with, which lends itself to enhancing that archer's mental game.

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Good point. If you look at all the technology in use at various OTC's for some sports, ours is a pretty low-tech operation by comparison. Maybe that will improve over time. We shall see. IIRC, the downhill skiers had about $10K worth of gear just standing by for each practice run at the Torino games, not to mention all the testing that went into selecting skis and wax methodology and preparing them for competition, etc., etc.


Well, the OTC should probably also have one of those laser aim point time and motion capture systems they use to precisely analyze the motion of rifle shooters guns as they go through their shot sequence. But, I don't know if such things are truly useful or of the OTC has one or not. I haven't heard of one being mentioned, but then, I probably wouldn't :embara:


----------



## Vittorio

Yesterday Doug Doug Denton was in Milano at Arco & frecce shop helding a short seminar about the new Hoyt bow and the new version of the Fuse stabilizers, so I have had a good occasion to have a look myself to the new stuff. Several questions have been risen by people there, and answred with infos more or less corresponding to those already in different posts here. Doug is a very kind and prepared person and has been able to clarify several small points that were not very clear from the "advertising type" information already around. He has specifically emphasized that the new geometry of the HPX has been developped using specifically Brady's cooperation in testing several different solutions before reaching the actual one. The change in plunger hole heigh was credited to increase forgiveness (and I fully agree, as myself and Michele have done the same kind of testing already back in 2000 with the Spigarelli 2001 riser with same results), while some increase in forgivenss was also credited to the 18 mm more reflex geometry (and this is surely increasing speed of the system, but as far as forgivenss is conerned the supposed theories behind it surely need some more confirmations).
As far as limbs are concerned, they have not been discussed very deeply, but surely their increase in speed is in the shape and distribution of the carbon fibers on the front face. They are basically lighter than F4/F3 so by definition they are faster, and fiberglass is reduced to a very thin lamination on the back face only, used to be sanded to make tiller inside each pair. Personally, I liked very muck the new floating head bolts, and I have asked if they are compatible with other Hoyt bows. Answer has been yes for the last generation only, so for GMX, RX and HPX. As anyhow GMX is using the ILF system and the stress on th bolt is much more than in the paralever geometry, a question about safety of the new bolts used on GMX hase been rose, and answer has given full assurance that these bolts can survive to standard use at any poundage on a GMX. Personaly I like the geometry of the RX/HPX and its distribution of weight but as I'm a supporter of the low wrist shooting, the bow as made can't allow to shoot very low wrist positions from big hands as grip (and hand) can't fit if made very low. My questionto Doug was why not make the riser in the grip area with a shape able to accept also low shape grips. Answer as been simply "as majority of the market wants high shape grips in these days"....
Hope soon or later Hoyt will also think to the minorities ...


----------



## pilotmill

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> I agree with limbwalker custom grips could be c&c`d from a machine that you grip and pressure points transmitted to main frame to do.... just like they do for custom car parts.. I have stubby little fingers and find most grips don`t fit so out comes the rasp and files right away.. lol lol



hope you been wrapping them around a longbow string, been working at it here and its well a HUGE adjustment. Gar.


----------



## lksseven

zal said:


> No other than Denise Parker showed that you don't need speed to shoot 1360+ scores. Not to forget that highest 70m score 351 was shot by a female archer shooting 42lbs limbs in 2004.


Zal, yes, that is an excellent point/observation. But permit me a general tangent question to which I've been wanting some knowledgeable opinions - on a still day, arrow speed becomes a lesser factor, but when it's windy (which seems to be most of the time?) doesn't the higher arrow speed permit less interference from the wind (heavier arrow, more moving mass, shorter flight time) and thus allow higher scores across the spectrum of weather conditions?


----------



## limbwalker

Vittorio, thanks for the review. Good information there. Agreed that Doug is a very nice guy and always seems well prepared and thoughtful. Hoyt did well to pick him up, I think. 

No glass on the back of the limb is interesting - been done by O.L. Adcock already on his ACS CX Longbows for years - with no glass on either back or belly of the limb. Certainly decreases overall weight.

For the life of me, I can't understand how LESS deflex would make a bow more forgiving. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Agreed of course on the plunger hole location, as I've found on my trusty Axis riser, and unfortunately that lesson was forgotten for some time it seems.

As for the grips, all things come around eventually. We will see everyone moving to lower grips again within 10 years I predict. Generations of archers tend to be "diciples" of certain training methods and equipment selections. We can see this with the "bent arm" shooters in compound, the "BEST" method diciples now, and so on. Eventually a new idea will come out and those that are willing to change or are still learning will adopt that style. Nothing is new under the sun since humans have been shooting bows for 10,000 years...

John


----------



## fire7121

*On to new important issues...*



limbwalker said:


> And that's the real issue here, I think. A person will gladly go out and spend $700 on a single riser and really a lot of that bow's performance in their hands will come down to their understanding and ability to get the grip right. And how many folks truly understand the affects of grip shape on their form, on the bow's reaction and on consistency? Not that many, I don't think. This is a very underrated, and under-researched aspect of our sport IMO.
> 
> I know that for myself, if my grip is designed well for me, I can focus 100% on executing the shot and I can expect the bow to do the same thing time after time. However, anything short of that and my focus drifts to where my hand is in the grip, why the bow is not reacting consistently, or worse yet - why I'm not able to get through the clicker (usually because my grip position is changing or it put my alignment in the wrong position in the first place...).
> 
> Sorry to re-direct the thread here. Probably should have started a new one I guess.


If my f3 limbs 34lbs stack to 37lbs at 29.5 inches. Does that mean when my hpx riser comes in does the lower brace height mean it will stack even more now that my actual limb flex length is arched further..So now does the hpx option only leave one limb availability so my border limb is going to be too stressed to shoot smoothly...i think thats a common question for most...it sounds like were headed down the road of most compound bows where any limb will fit but most of the demensions to shoot best will be a gamble....Any ideas guys???


----------



## limbwalker

Way to answer his question there. So darn helpful... Nothing like someone who has all the answers but isn't generous enough to share... 



> If my f3 limbs 34lbs stack to 37lbs at 29.5 inches. Does that mean when my hpx riser comes in does the lower brace height mean it will stack even more now that my actual limb flex length is arched further


Yes, that's exactly what that means. Less Deflex means the same limbs will stack sooner. Oops, I mean to say "store more energy sooner"... ha, ha. That' sounds much better. 

A good thing if you have a shorter draw length. Not so good if your draw length is longer. Where that line is, I don't know without having the riser and limbs to test and compare to the other riser.

John


----------



## Mithril

Deleted


----------



## TheAncientOne

> What did you say your name was? Sockpuppet?


As I've said before(on the pulled thread I think) I refuse to take anyone seriously if they don't post their name. I don't have an issue for those who don't post their names in general. But some people use it as an excuse to be provocative at best and downright rude at worst. Mithral, why the mask? Why are you hiding?

TAO


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> Which is my point. They have not been an issue before. So I am inclined to believe that rather than relieve a force that has not proven to be a problem in the past, the design should be to take advantage of another opportunity for improvement


I missed this. Your point is actually correct. 

The opportunity for improvement was enabling more of the limb to bend. Thus giving more places to store energy. 

The reduction in limb attachment forces was a side benefit to a problem that didn't really exist.


----------



## limbwalker

> The reduction in limb attachment forces was a side benefit to a problem that didn't really exist.


Thank you. And I could easily be convinced that the exclusive limb selection for the new risers was also a side benefit and not the primary motivator, but I can't even imagine it wasn't at least part of the discussion. However, the likes of us will never know. Those conversations will be taken to their graves... ha, ha. 

Okay, so if now we have limbs that are storing more energy than before because of a indistinguishable amount of flex in the limb butt, where is all that performance? I mean, if this is really an improvement in performance and the arrows from these new bows are sailing downrange at an unprecedented speed, why not just promote those numbers? I'm not seeing it. I'm not convinced that this additional ability to store energy is doing anything more than allowing historically sub-par limbs an opportunity to catch up to the industry leaders that are already in the market, while at the same time, producing an exclusive attachment system that forces archers to prove their loyalty to a specific brand. 

Are we now supposed to believe that these new bows are the most high performing bows available? Moreso than the W&W Inno? More than the Samick bows? More than the PSE?

Great! If that's the case, then someone please show us the data. Facts sure beat hyperbole, right?

Whiz, did you have an opportunity to run any numbers with your formula bow vs. the other top bows from W&W or Samick or PSE?


----------



## Mithril

Brady and jakes bows were the fastest on the field at the London test event as shown by the speed meters on the field. This is according to posts about the event from observers on AIUK.


----------



## limbwalker

Okay, I'll bite. How much faster were their bows than an equivalent W&W or Samick or PSE in their hands? Because that's apples to apples. Will we ever know that?


----------



## Mithril

Hey, you asked for data. You got some, and - surprise, surprise, had a predictable response to it.

Since no one else's samick and ww bows were faster than their Formulas, and since it seems they're shooting the same arrows they always have (Jake would probably confirm if you weren't trying to drive him off of here) I would say it's fairly conclusive that the new bow is certainly faster in their hands than the other bows in the hands of other shooters.


----------



## midwayarcherywi

Same poundage? That would be apples to apples.


----------



## Borderbows

As i suppected, the G3 and F4 is for sake of arguement the same limb.
Bit of carbon near the central axis of the limb. Glass on the belly side. Nowt new. 
Samick Universal long limb = 200g.
Hoyt G3 Long limb = 215g
Hoyt F4 Meduim = 221g
Border Hex6 Meduim = 150g.
Border Hex6 RX meduim = 156g
Border Hex5 Long = 170g

Carbon limb vs not so carbon limb.

All limbs were between 35-40lbs

Inno EX power Long measured by 3rd party = 190g, and i must say that tower effect limb butt is heavy.

So, Whats the weight change between F4 and F7?. Since the shorter F4 weighs more then the longer G3...


----------



## Borderbows

Mithril... Where is this AIUK post? Im on that site alot and i must have missed it...


----------



## Mithril

Borderbows said:


> Mithril... Where is this AIUK post? Im on that site alot and i must have missed it...


I don't see how you could have missed it, as you spammed the thread with three more of your usual type of posts.


----------



## limbwalker

Oops. I made the mistake yet again of engaging with a corporate sockpuppet... shame on me.



> fastest on the field...according to posts about the event from observers on AIUK


Anyone know what those REAL numbers may have been. If so, then we get exactly HALF of the information that would make this point useful. The other half, we'll never get because Brady and Jake aren't shooting top quality bows by W&W or Samick to compare. The most useful would be a competitive setup that a single archer shot vs. a competitive setup from another brand that the same archer was shooting. 

And I think we all know which group we won't be getting that objective information from... which is why these arguments are pointless and marketing works so well. People buy stuff without demanding actual facts. 

Of all the advertisements I've seen for bows in the past 6 or 7 years, I can only recall one major company (W&W) offering real test data based on fact. Good for them. We need more of that and less "trust us...!!!" 

John


----------



## Mithril

You call "never hits your arm" a fact? You poor fool.


----------



## Borderbows

Mithril said:


> I don't see how you could have missed it, as you spammed the thread with three more of your usual type of posts.


I dont think numbers or real tangable links to posts that hard to achieve.

Just looking for some real numbers.

Do you not want links to posts that claim of archers knowingly admit to hoyt limb bolt failures... now its clear why there is a need for a 40% reduction in limb bolt stress...

Did you not want to link to the limb flap noticed on the F7s.
or comments like this:

"F3 sprayed F7s had decent bow reaction (as you'd expect given the scoring!) What was self evident was the Brady's bow was the fastest Formula on the line at around 218 kmph. Most normal Formula's were in the 205 - 210 kmph area (but OBVIOUSLY arrow weight, draw weight etc is a consideration). Most of the W&W/MK limbed bows were similar to the standard Formulas. But Nespoli's Kaya K7's were outrageously fast at over 230 kmph (but without the good results ;-) )"

You said. Bradies and Jakes were fastest on the field... you must be reading your own marketting more than you read posts "Kaya K7 230KPH vs Bradys 218."

http://www.archery-interchange.net/f10/hoyt-hpx-formula-f7-limbs-new-2011-12-a-90093/


----------



## Warbow

Borderbows said:


> "F3 sprayed F7s had decent bow reaction (as you'd expect given the scoring!) What was self evident was the Brady's bow was the fastest Formula on the line at around 218 kmph. Most normal Formula's were in the 205 - 210 kmph area (but OBVIOUSLY arrow weight, draw weight etc is a consideration). Most of the W&W/MK limbed bows were similar to the standard Formulas. But Nespoli's Kaya K7's were outrageously fast at over 230 kmph (but without the good results ;-) )"
> 
> You said. Bradies and Jakes were fastest on the field... you must be reading your own marketting more than you read posts "Kaya K7 230KPH vs Bradys 218."
> 
> http://www.archery-interchange.net/f10/hoyt-hpx-formula-f7-limbs-new-2011-12-a-90093/


Even if the limbs were fastest, it would be an example of false advertising. People would see Brady's "F3" limbs perform and might say "Wow, the F3s' are fast limbs" and buy them on that basis (seeing as how Hoyt doesn't publish detailed performance data--if any). Except they weren't F3s.


----------



## Mithril

> "you must be reading your own marketting more than you read posts "Kaya K7 230KPH vs Bradys 218.""



"my own marketing". There you go again. Dazed and confused.

How about Brady's gold medal vs. Kaya K7 finishing... where exactly?

But data was asked for and I provided a hint as to where to find it.


----------



## Borderbows

Mithril said:


> "my own marketing". There you go again. Dazed and confused.
> 
> 
> How about Brady's gold medal vs. Kaya K7 finishing... where exactly?
> 
> But data was asked for and I provided a hint as to where to find it.


Can i buy Hoyt Brady. How much are they... Id like my Bradys in a long of about 42lbs. please. oh, and can you tell me what string i should use with Bradys, is 452X ok?

What bow did Kaya K7 Shoot... Strange name.

Lol, your funny!.

Not the fastest though... You said fastest...


----------



## DK Lieu

The claim of superior bow performance using Hoyt's para-lever fitting, when compared to other manufacture's bows using the conventional ILF fittings, is arguable at this time. It is my opinion, however, that the para-lever fitting should be superior to ILF. Para-lever should be able to store and return more energy. The stresses at the mounting point should be lower, resulting in less noise and less potential breakage. What Hoyt has created is a new mounting system where bow design can continue to progress. There are only so many new materials that are available, and only so many ways to put them together. There is only so much that can be done with recurve geometry. The para-lever system allows bow design to expand beyond these limits, or at least provide a new set of variables to play with. Perhaps not all these advantages have been realized yet, but the door is now open. It's a gutsy move, requiring a huge capital investment, and I applaud Hoyt for doing it. If no one was willing to try new things, we'd all still be using 8-track cassette tapes. As I mentioned before, I haven't found any patents related to the para-lever design, so the door should be open to any bow manufacturer who may want to use the concept, and add it to their own technology.


----------



## limbwalker

All good points DK. It "should" be able to do all those things. All I'm asking for is some actual proof. Not sure why it's that hard to come by. Same question that got a certain former engineer all twisted up in knots when I asked years ago specifically what made G3's superior to the old C+ limbs. Severe reaction followed that innocent question, as it seems to have here as well. When just emotion-less emperical data would suffice. No need to call names. If a product is better, then it's pretty easy to prove that with data. I'm not asking for subjective criteria like feel or sound (although sound could easily be proven as well) but things that could potentially make a difference downrange. The mere fact that the best archers in the world are now being paid to shoot a product does not make that product automatically better. If the best archers in the world all got paid to shoot W&W or Samick, then they would be shooting the best scores with those bows. I'm not arguing wins. Just simple physical data, of which none has been provided - back in '03 with the G3 limb, and now in '11 with this one. 

Why is this so difficult?

I can easily see the physics behind this concept. The design "should" be better, right? Then just compare apples to apples and show that before the consumer is asked to drop $1500+ in this economy on a product they "want" and don't really "need." 

Pretty simple really.

John

P.S. to the sockpuppet... You probably haven't been around long enough to know, but just in the past few years, W&W promotional material for their bows included actual data. The string oscillation graph from their new bow is also actual data. They were brave enough to release the graph and the video. Unlike other companies, they don't seem to be saying "trust us because we have the best marketing department money can buy..." Why there is not actual data available for well-informed consumers to digest on this new system is just beyond me.


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> Thank you. And I could easily be convinced that the exclusive limb selection for the new risers was also a side benefit and not the primary motivator, but I can't even imagine it wasn't at least part of the discussion. However, the likes of us will never know.


This discussion keeps coming up, however I'd like to point out a few things. 
But just keep one thing in mind. The entire benefit of the paralever limb is that it IS different. The paralever limb system IS what makes the difference. If you can stress more of the limb for the same load, you can make that limb lighter. That's what we've seen happen with the F7 limbs.
Nobody complains that their new Ferrari doesn't run on grass. 
Why is it that the only person here who is actually a professor of mechanical engineering is making an assessment on the design elements which is almost word for word what I said within seconds of seeing the Paralever system when it came out two years ago? 

PSE and WIN and WIN neglected to supply me their top bows. About the only comparison that I could make was that Owen Van Acker's overdrawn Samick Extreme medium limbs put the same X10 through the chronograph at similar or speeds at a higher poundage. Without specific testing regimes and a heap of other closely comparable bows the difference in speeds couldn't be minutely analysed. All indications were that the F4 limbs were faster with the same poundage as the other available testing bows, which weren't many.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Warbow said:


> Even if the limbs were fastest, it would be an example of false advertising. People would see Brady's "F3" limbs perform and might say "Wow, the F3s' are fast limbs" and buy them on that basis (seeing as how Hoyt doesn't publish detailed performance data--if any). Except they weren't F3s.


No. There is no false advertising involved. There would be false conclusions drawn by onlookers by conditions provided by third party environment. 
However in the same event, the information was available FROM HOYT SOURCES that the limbs were in fact a new product which was not yet available. 
Hoyt showed proper responsibility towards the representation of their products.
No false advertising. 
No advertising involved. 
No intentional misrepresentation of products.
No possible alternative to disguise a product under development without raising suspicions. 
And my final example is that anyone who had half an eye for detail would have looked at those limbs, spotted the HUGE WHITE SHEAR LAYER OF FOAM and thought, gee, those don't look like F3's. 

But of course, anyone who wanted to claim false advertising would have had to been at the event, seen the chronograph, bought the limbs based on a public declaration of their intent based on speed. 
To which any judge would have said " Did you see any information on Brady's draw weight? How do you know that he wasn't drawing 70lb?"

Case closed. 

No false advertising. Lets bury that argument. It isn't sustainable.


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> This discussion keeps coming up, however I'd like to point out a few things.
> But just keep one thing in mind. The entire benefit of the paralever limb is that it IS different. The paralever limb system IS what makes the difference. If you can stress more of the limb for the same load, you can make that limb lighter. That's what we've seen happen with the F7 limbs.
> Nobody complains that their new Ferrari doesn't run on grass.
> Why is it that the only person here who is actually a professor of mechanical engineering is making an assessment on the design elements which is almost word for word what I said within seconds of seeing the Paralever system when it came out two years ago?
> 
> .


A professor that used Hoyt as an example in a book he wrote. small link there?

Now... heres a bit of physics that i find out of sorts with themselves.

If you can stress more of the limb, then your asking more of the limb to work.
Does this mean your moving more mass...limb AND limb butt!

So if there is more energy in this system, then it can provide more or = performance to a lighter and less energy stored limb.
BUT, if you can store more energy in a shorter limb, then you have developed something.

Let me do a stored energy comparison on the morning with the F4 vs another limb.

The F4 is moving the whole limb all 220+grams of limb vs 150grams minus limb butt... I cant see how this is better... but i'll publish the numbers tomorrow.

Stored energy is a simple one.
We can do inch by inch.
Lets see what this Paralever actually is?
remember 0.07mm deflection at the mid point of the bridge on the paralever means the DFC changes by how much?
(wind your limb bolts on a ILF bow by 0.07mm and tell me what DFC changes you see...)

Remember our bows do own target recurve flight records. we understand bow energy/efficency to some degree. Im sure there is more to know though, im willing to learn.


----------



## limbwalker

Fair enough Whiz. 



> PSE and WIN and WIN neglected to supply me their top bows.


With respect, why would they send them to you? I may be mistaken, but I don't recall your name on the short list of well known and respected independant bow testers. For those of us who've tracked traditional bow development for the past 20 years or so, folks like Blacky and Norb Mullaney are who we looked to for independant, objective tests. Admittedly, even those created a stir, but nobody questioned their motives. At least then we could argue about actual data.

After your rave reviews, I asked Hoyt to send me a bow to test against my Axis-Samick/Sky/W&W combinations. They declined. Had they taken me up on that I would have gladly provided objective, real data so that the rest of the "regular folk" like myself would have a basis to make decisions on. But still we really don't have that.

Here's what I do know:

1) the potential may exist, according to experienced engineers, for this system to be an improvement over what we've been using for the past 25 years. 
2) in my observation, some folks are shooting well with the new bow, but not statistically significant improvements over what they were using in the past. 
3) I expected the new bows to be quieter than they are. They are not particularly quiet, which makes me wonder why not if the stresses are indeed less.
4) the best archers in the world are being paid to use the new design, therefore, it stands to reason that they are STILL winning events and setting records, as they did before with other brands... Nothing new there.
5) there is little, if any, objective data available to the average consumer to prove that this new system actually does all the things that some are claiming it can do.

Now, if someone disagrees with these points, then fine. Won't hurt my feelings one bit. But I hope folks don't take it personally and feel the need to call names because of it. After all, we're just talking about an object here, and this is just archery for pete's sake.

John


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> With respect, why would they send them to you?


Because I asked for one?

Anything I did could have been done by anyone. 

Yes. This IS just archery. But humans like to get riled up and upset about things. We don't have Fox news presenting archery "facts" so we come here. 

When people get riled up, the threads have lots of action, so people read them. 

Works the same as any other human activity. Action makes interest. Doesn't have to be authentic information. History shows us that TV and Movies educate the public opinion. 
Ever watched "Pearl Harbour"..


----------



## limbwalker

Yea. Ha, ha. People do like to get excited about something. Anything. Just something new instead of the same-old, same-old. 

Well, too bad they didn't send a bow to you, and too bad Hoyt didn't send me one. I think either of us would have conducted objective tests - within the limits of our equipment. But really it doesn't take very expensive gear to test one set of limbs or a complete bow against another. A good scale. A decent chronograph, and a reasonable understanding of tuning. That's about it. Oh yea, and the ability to shoot consistently - but the chronograph will more or less help you figure out whether that's happening. 

Oh well. It's fun to think about.

Fortunately I'm able to obtain equipment from other sources, and purchase a little on my own with what rare "mad money" I can hide from the wife... So at least I can objectively test the four sets of limbs (old SKY, W&W Inno, Samick Masters and new SKY) that I have on the two risers that I have and draw some reasonable conclusions for my own benefit.

Incidentally, the W&W Inno limbs ARE "all that"  Only limbs so far that have surpassed my Masters for performance. And that's saying something!

John


----------



## TheAncientOne

> Okay, so if now we have limbs that are storing more energy than before because of a indistinguishable amount of flex in the limb butt, where is all that performance? ....... I'm not convinced that this additional ability to store energy is doing anything more than allowing historically sub-par limbs an opportunity to catch up to the industry leaders that are already in the market.....


John, what are the odds that the supposed increase in performance is just a change in the acceleration curve or when the limbs transfer their force to the arrows?

TAO


----------



## DK Lieu

Borderbows said:


> A professor that used Hoyt as an example in a book he wrote. small link there?
> 
> Now... heres a bit of physics that i find out of sorts with themselves.
> 
> If you can stress more of the limb, then your asking more of the limb to work.
> Does this mean your moving more mass...limb AND limb butt!
> 
> So if there is more energy in this system, then it can provide more or = performance to a lighter and less energy stored limb.
> BUT, if you can store more energy in a shorter limb, then you have developed something.
> 
> Let me do a stored energy comparison on the morning with the F4 vs another limb.
> 
> The F4 is moving the whole limb all 220+grams of limb vs 150grams minus limb butt... I cant see how this is better... but i'll publish the numbers tomorrow.
> 
> Stored energy is a simple one.
> We can do inch by inch.
> Lets see what this Paralever actually is?
> remember 0.07mm deflection at the mid point of the bridge on the paralever means the DFC changes by how much?
> (wind your limb bolts on a ILF bow by 0.07mm and tell me what DFC changes you see...)
> 
> Remember our bows do own target recurve flight records. we understand bow energy/efficency to some degree. Im sure there is more to know though, im willing to learn.



Rest assured that I am a great admirer of Border and Win&Win, as well as Hoyt. They each have made wonderful advances in bow technology. If you would like me to include some examples of Border's engineering in the next edition of my book (currently in-progress), I would be more than happy to do so. I'm always looking for good case studies. DFC data, as well limb mass, are persuasive examples of engineering performance criteria. 

I'll be interested in seeing your evaluation of the energy content in the limbs. You may recall that, in an earlier post, my assessment of the Hoyt para-lever design was not unconditional. I mentioned that in order to take full advantage of the para-lever concept, the geometry of the limbs must be redesigned to compensate for the additional pivoting expected at the dove-tail. I'm not sure if Hoyt has actually done this already, or is planning to do it in the future.


----------



## archeryal

If the paralever section produces additional thrust/arrow speed, why do they put a stabilizer in that section? I would think that it would damp out the movement of the limb section. Am I missing something? 

While I'm not convinced that the Formula system is better, (and can't afford to buy this to replace my ILF system) I have to admit that it's at least competitive with the others bows based on their competition results. Putting it in Brady's hands may have something to do with it, of course....


----------



## limbwalker

Both very good points.


----------



## ArtV

Well, I did a test on my bamboo backed Osage orange self-bow.......shot straight.:icon_1_lol::set1_rolf2:


----------



## whiz-Oz

archeryal said:


> If the paralever section produces additional thrust/arrow speed, why do they put a stabilizer in that section? I would think that it would damp out the movement of the limb section. Am I missing something?


Quite possibly. 
They do market it as a place to put a vibration dampener, not a stabiliser. 
As the smallest supported moving part of the limb, it's ideally placed as a spot to dissipate excess energy before it makes it to the riser. The flex isn't much after all and so the additional mass at that point would have bugger all effect on velocity, but a nice place to put bits desired by the tweakers.


----------



## limbwalker

So, there is a designed flex in the butt of the limb, yet we have a hole with a stainless bushing fitted right in the middle of it. How much is this limb butt supposed to flex?


----------



## whiz-Oz

As much as it has to, apparently. Why do you feel it's important?


----------



## Borderbows

ok, I'll set up a G3 vs F4, We can look at stored energy, DFC, Smoothness, and stored energy devide by holding weight...

Give me 10 minutes to go polish off the graphs with titles, scales, and such


----------



## Borderbows

weight Disrtibution:

By placing limbs on 2 grain scales, you can see the way the limb mass is distributed.

All bows in this series of tests = 70" about 35-34lbs at 28" bow

LT = Limb Tip
LB = Limb Butt

G3 Longs:
LT=1991
LB=1315

F4 Meduim:
LT=2062
LB=1355

H6-H Longs.
LT=1236
LB=1009

If light limb pockets = less riser vibration, then 300grains seems usefull.
If Limb limb tips = dynamic limb reaction, and reduced vibration then 800 grains is usefull.

i would conclude that there looks like there is a very small difference in limb mass between a 2003 limb and 2010 limb from the same company.


----------



## Borderbows

This shows no radical change in draw in our view, the G3 has a higher draw weight, but that shows all the way through the DFC as expected.

this smoothness graph (raw data) shows the G3 and F4 have very similar smoothness points.









and also the Stored energy per poind of draw here shows the F4 and G3 are identical.









So my summary of observations sits with the G3 and F4 should have approx the same speed. Limb mass and distribution, and stored energy are equal in many respects.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

But Sid, 

My F4's are faster than my G3's And my Winex's as well, all at approx the same draw weight.

In fact I am now shooting X10's with with F4's using the same Sight settings as I used with my Winex with ACE's


----------



## Borderbows

SHADOW-MKII said:


> But Sid,
> 
> My F4's are faster than my G3's And my Winex's as well, all at approx the same draw weight.
> 
> In fact I am now shooting X10's with with F4's using the same Sight settings as I used with my Winex with ACE's


Here are some facts for you, you might find usefull...
All bows are at fully out bolt positions,ie: right in then 6 turns out.
The Limbs are marked as G3's 36lbs, F4 38lbs, and H6-H 36lbs.

The DFC data put them at 
G3 35.7lbs
F4 33.4lbs
H6-h at 36 dead.

G3 serial number is 312673z123
F4 serial number is c251 924467
The F4's are on a 27" riser.
Havent a clue how ive to get 38lbs as marked. Do i need to wind them all the way in, and gain 10% = 3.4+33.5=36.9...

i love these sight settings. Did you use the same riser with the F4's as you did with your Winex, Oh no... you cant, or is the sight mounts in a different position on the riser?

Chronos are the only test. Sight marks and spines are a dead duck in speed tests. They are as valid as "that feels fast"

Dont go with draw weight marked either.

You have a long draw. IIRC. so it all goes out the window here.
Take these bows for example.
The DFC data put them at in weight order at 28" 
H6-h at 36 dead
G3 35.7lbs
F4 33.4lbs

At 33"
G3 46.8lbs
f4 44.0lbs
h6-h 43.7lbs

marked on the limb
F4 38lbs
G3 and H6-H 36lbs

actual numbers are the only way forward in this.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Yes Sid,

I know how to measure Draw weight. I sell Bows for a living.

My last Three Bows have all been the Same measured weight at My draw length.

My FRX is faster than My Winex Helix Bow. 

But I don't care about the Speed at all. I score more with the FRX and that's all I care about.


----------



## Borderbows

SHADOW-MKII said:


> Yes Sid,
> 
> I know how to measure Draw weight. I sell Bows for a living.
> 
> My last Three Bows have all been the Same measured weight at My draw length.
> 
> My FRX is faster than My Winex Helix Bow.
> 
> But I don't care about the Speed at all. I score more with the FRX and that's all I care about.


So, Brady and Jake are gaining points with a Torsionally enhanced limb, but you cant?
The Winex vs F4...

Let me guess, you have a large stock of RX's?


----------



## TomG

Sid,

I'm not speaking for Shadow, but when most people talk about sight settings, they talk about difference of sight height. The problem here is that you still have to compare apple to apple. If you change the arrow weight, deceleration behavior becomes different...

Thomas


----------



## Borderbows

TomG said:


> Sid,
> 
> I'm not speaking for Shadow, but when most people talk about sight settings, they talk about difference of sight height. The problem here is that you still have to compare apple to apple. If you change the arrow weight, deceleration behavior becomes different...
> 
> Thomas


I fully agree. In flight archery, there is a point where any lighter in arrow weight decreses distance achieved.
But sight marks are different to sight height, Sight marks infer increments on the track. and those are dictated by sight block hieght from arrow rest height, Sight apature from centre of arrow is a more indicative reading of bow speed, but still a poor measurement due to arrow angle at brace and arrow diam etc. and distance from riser


----------



## Borderbows

TomG, Wound in is faster than wound out. If you take the same bow. So for example Wound in 40lbs at28" on the fingers will be faster than 40lbs on the fingers at 28" wound out.
so bolt settings are also an indicator of bow performance.


----------



## gig'em 99

Shadow - Some information on brace heights amongst your set-ups would add a lot to this discussion as well. Were they all identicle? Also, were the risers the same length? Were the strings the same length, mass and material? Was the distance between your eye and nock point the same?

I'll make an assumption that some of these measurements are different amongst your bows, and that does make for easily identifiable areas for speeds to be different, even at the exact same draw length and draw weight. I witnessed this myself while testing my own various bows over the years. And my tests/comparisons were all ILF kits. 

I think we all can try to keep as much as possible similar, but as a string maker - limb lengths in particular from various manufacturers are different. A standard 68" ILF W&W bow is a hair longer than a 68" standard "Insert brand here" bow. These slight variations in length impact performance too. A precise and accurate apples to apples comparison, IMO is very difficult to achieve. All you can do is provide as much data about these tests as possible, so that we the consumer can arrive at our own conclusions.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Borderbows said:


> Let me guess, you have a large stock of RX's?


No more than we have of W&W, I get paid by the hour not commission. 

I advise Archers to Buy Equipment based on "Feel"


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Tom I was using the same Arrow when I compared the speed of my Bows.



TomG said:


> Sid,
> 
> I'm not speaking for Shadow, but when most people talk about sight settings, they talk about difference of sight height. The problem here is that you still have to compare apple to apple. If you change the arrow weight, deceleration behavior becomes different...
> 
> Thomas


----------



## Warbow

whiz-Oz said:


> No. There is no false advertising involved. There would be false conclusions drawn by onlookers by conditions provided by third party environment.


Uh, no. Thinking a Hoyt limb marked "F3" is an "F3" is not an unreasonable inference. 

If Hoyt wants to test a limb, that's fine and all, but they shouldn't falsely mark it in a way that misrepresents the performance of other Hoyt productgs. 

So, was Hoyt's false marking false advertising? IMO, it certainly was. The limb was marked to misrepresent it as an F3, having the effect of misrepresenting what limbs Brady was using and of what performance F3 limbs have. The point of the big, highly visible graphics on Hoyt limbs, especially when in the hands of one of their sponsored shooters, is **advertising**. The only question is whether that false advertising rose to the level of breaking false advertising laws. In the US, our laws are sufficiently lax, and so sporadically enforced, that I cant be sure either way. But, I can say that the FTC says that what the big print promises ("F3" limb!!!) the small print can't take away (some Hoyt rep telling someone that the F3 limbs are fakes and are actually prototype limbs), so, generally speaking, an advertiser can't get out of false advertising claims by saying they had a small disclaimer that contradicted their more prominent claims.

Hoyt is free to test protype limbs. They can just mark them "Hoyt".


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

String material and construction was the same, Brace height was a little longer on the FRX as I have the 27" Riser. The FRX also needs a slightly longer string.



gig'em 99 said:


> Shadow - Some information on brace heights amongst your set-ups would add a lot to this discussion as well. Were they all identicle? Also, were the risers the same length? Were the strings the same length, mass and material? Was the distance between your eye and nock point the same?
> 
> I'll make an assumption that some of these measurements are different amongst your bows, and that does make for easily identifiable areas for speeds to be different, even at the exact same draw length and draw weight. I witnessed this myself while testing my own various bows over the years. And my tests/comparisons were all ILF kits.
> 
> I think we all can try to keep as much as possible similar, but as a string maker - limb lengths in particular from various manufacturers are different. A standard 68" ILF W&W bow is a hair longer than a 68" standard "Insert brand here" bow. These slight variations in length impact performance too. A precise and accurate apples to apples comparison, IMO is very difficult to achieve. All you can do is provide as much data about these tests as possible, so that we the consumer can arrive at our own conclusions.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Warbow said:


> Uh, no. Thinking a Hoyt limb marked "F3" is an "F3" is not an unreasonable inference.


No it's not unreasonable. 
But thinking that a speed gun provided by someone else consists of advertising on behalf of the manufacturer IS.
Unreasonable assumptions are not legally enforceable. 
It's like saying that car manufacturers are liable for the stupid things that people do in cars, which get them killed. 

This entire conversation on perceived "false advertising" is based on the estimation of the buying intelligence of the general public. 
Not someone actually trying to pursue a charge of false advertising.


----------



## gig'em 99

Shadow, not trying to get too off topic, but want to better understand the implications around the speed:

FRX = Long Riser w/Medium limbs?
ILF = Medium Riser w/Long limbs?

If all of your bows were long risers with long limbs or long risers with medium limbs, then the speed gain is certainly very interesting.



SHADOW-MKII said:


> String material and construction was the same, Brace height was a little longer on the FRX as I have the 27" Riser. The FRX also needs a slightly longer string.


----------



## Borderbows

SHADOW-MKII said:


> String material and construction was the same, Brace height was a little longer on the FRX as I have the 27" Riser. The FRX also needs a slightly longer string.


I would have thought you could have run a slightly lower brace height with a longer riser.

For example taking an extreme case, the angles of the limbs had they been 3" long would mean a very low brace to achive the same limb angles. if that makes sence?


----------



## Borderbows

Gig'em 99, I would suspect a speed difference of about 2-3 fps at best since thats the realm of a limb lenght change on the same model same riser. but in this case its also same string length to drag through the air.

Still struggle with this., we saved 10grams off the laminate mass (distributed along the entire length of the limb and added 4% more stored energy and gained 3-4 fps.
I dont see the F4 to G3 having 4% more stored energy, or a 10 gram weight saving at least from our investigations here. Long G3 vs Meduim F4 both 70".

This is horsepower vs mass.
There is no Magic in this. Its just a game of physics. The Stored energy per lbs drawn is the same as a G3. Bow length for bow length.

Id say tune can play an important part in chrono speeds.


----------



## TheAncientOne

> ...the buying intelligence of the general public.


 is an oxymoron.

For the most part the general public buys whatever is advertised the most, whatever their favorite archer shoots or whoever has the prettiest models. That fine for novices I'm sure, but most people here try before they buy, compare features and then decide what works best or feels best for them. Just because Brady and Jake were using what everyone thought were F3's doesn't mean that I am going to automatically buy them. I don't think that most people that post here would.

That doesn't let Hoyt off of the hook either, a grey limb with the name Hoyt silk screened on it would have been more prudent.


TAO


----------



## Warbow

TheAncientOne said:


> That fine for novices I'm sure, but most people here try before they buy, compare features and then decide what works best or feels best for them.


I think we'd all like to try before we buy and compare features but I think for most of us that is impossible. None of my local dealers stock very many limbs, neither makes, models nor weights. Nor, AFIK, will they let me un pack them and shoot them on my bow. The best I can do is show up to a distributor demo, which isn't very common in this area, or try a fellow shooter's limbs (not likely to be my exact draw weight) and do a short, subjective test shoot. And as to comparing features, Hoyt, for one, doesn't help us with that. They brag about new technology a lot, but they don't publish force draw curves or the other kind of data that could help us make meaningful comparisons. That is why I think misbranding Brady's prototyple limbs really is potentially a big deal.


----------



## fire7121

*Carbon comparison..../*



limbwalker said:


> Thank you. And I could easily be convinced that the exclusive limb selection for the new risers was also a side benefit and not the primary motivator, but I can't even imagine it wasn't at least part of the discussion. However, the likes of us will never know. Those conversations will be taken to their graves... ha, ha.
> 
> Okay, so if now we have limbs that are storing more energy than before because of a indistinguishable amount of flex in the limb butt, where is all that performance? I mean, if this is really an improvement in performance and the arrows from these new bows are sailing downrange at an unprecedented speed, why not just promote those numbers? I'm not seeing it. I'm not convinced that this additional ability to store energy is doing anything more than allowing historically sub-par limbs an opportunity to catch up to the industry leaders that are already in the market, while at the same time, producing an exclusive attachment system that forces archers to prove their loyalty to a specific brand.
> 
> Are we now supposed to believe that these new bows are the most high performing bows available? Moreso than the W&W Inno? More than the Samick bows? More than the PSE?
> 
> Great! If that's the case, then someone please show us the data. Facts sure beat hyperbole, right?
> 
> Whiz, did you have an opportunity to run any numbers with your formula bow vs. the other top bows from W&W or Samick or PSE?


If we lower the stress on the riser near the limb pocket right now and make a limb with increased distance between the contact areas? Does that mean the carbon riser design failures that [email protected] had make a prerequisite for hoyt to start to make a carbon riser with less stress in the pocket area. Anyone still around when the riser to limb pocket failures on the first generation of avalon risers from hoyt ocurred. Hmmm?, lets see if we lighten the limb mass and defer riser stress, can we make a unique carbon riser with fast limbs at low draw weights?...Simple engineering methods.....


----------



## Mithril

> but they don't publish force draw curves or the other kind of data that could help us make meaningful comparisons


Y'know, I seem to have seen that comment from you on several threads now. Have you ever looked at the Hoyt website? The FD curves for quite a few of their recurve limbs were there as PDF downloads last time I looked. Easy enough to do a Google search, it comes right up.


----------



## Warbow

Mithril said:


> Y'know, I seem to have seen that comment from you on several threads now. Have you ever looked at the Hoyt website? The FD curves for quite a few of their recurve limbs were there as PDF downloads last time I looked. Easy enough to do a Google search, it comes right up.


News to me. Last time I talked to a Hoyt factory rep he admitted that Hoyt doesn't publish force draw curves for the recurve line--I rather took him at his word. Are you saying I shouldn't have?

Anyway, since you, as usual, didn't provide a link, I googled "force draw curve site:http://www.hoyt.com/" There were only 3 hits for the words, and not a single graph at any of those links. 

So, _citation needed_, Mithril.


----------



## Sanford

War, it is buried in site. http://www.hoyt.com/assets/faq/FRX25-27.pdf. Seems to be an Exhibit to a Report, but said Report is not available my my search.


----------



## Warbow

Sanford said:


> War, it is buried in site. http://www.hoyt.com/assets/faq/FRX25-27.pdf. Seems to be an Exhibit to a Report, but said Report is not available my my search.


Thank you for the link Sanford. Indeed, Hoyt has, for once, published an FDC. Too bad the X axis is un-labeled. I guess Hoyt hasn't had a complete change of hart, nor does hoyt actually show the comparason to previous Hoyt limbs. Curious... Maybe the'll get to it.

View attachment FRX25-27.pdf


It seems the factory rep was wrong. This is a good start for Hoyt. Now if they can just finish the thought...


----------



## limbwalker

whiz-Oz said:


> As much as it has to, apparently. Why do you feel it's important?


Because drilling a hole and placing a fixed steel bushing in the middle of a flexible portion of a limb doesn't seem like an idea an engineer would come up with, unless of course the limb butt doesn't actually flex. I know how anal engineers can be about these things, and it strikes me as odd.

John


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> Because drilling a hole and placing a fixed steel bushing in the middle of a flexible portion of a limb doesn't seem like an idea an engineer would come up with, unless of course the limb butt doesn't actually flex. I know how anal engineers can be about these things, and it strikes me as odd.
> 
> John


Yes, unless the bushing is floating somehow, adding a rigid component in the middle of a working spring doesn't seem like what one would expect.


----------



## lksseven

Warbow,

you wrote "Hoyt is free to test protype limbs. They can just mark them "Hoyt"."

I do not believe that you or I are the arbiter of what Hoyt can or cannot do. You are, certainly, free to sue them for false advertising if you think you can prove you've been harmed by Brady's F3 labeled limb. Have you?

Was Hoyt's intent to mislabel a prototype limb in order to sell F3 limbs? I don't think so. Instead I think that they were rather obviously just wanting to gain some real-world test results on the prototype limbs and hoping to do it without fanfare. Thus, in my opinion they weren't "advertising" at all (defined: Describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.), falsely or otherwise. They were attempting to do whatever is the opposite of "advertising."


----------



## Flehrad

Mine seems to have a lot of vibration pass through it... I find if I plunk a few bad releases, my top weight will have unscrewed it self slightly and buzz in the thread, which I have to tighten back on... so having it there does seem to do ... something in regards to vibration at least lol


----------



## Warbow

lksseven said:


> Warbow,
> 
> you wrote "Hoyt is free to test protype limbs. They can just mark them "Hoyt"."
> 
> I do not believe that you or I are the arbiter of what Hoyt can or cannot do. You are, certainly, free to sue them for false advertising if you think you can prove you've been harmed by Brady's F3 labeled limb. Have you?
> 
> Was Hoyt's intent to mislabel a prototype limb in order to sell F3 limbs? I don't think so. Instead I think that they were rather obviously just wanting to gain some real-world test results on the prototype limbs and hoping to do it without fanfare. Thus, in my opinion they weren't "advertising" at all (defined: Describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.), falsely or otherwise. They were attempting to do whatever is the opposite of "advertising."


I do not aver that Hoyt broke truth in advertising laws. They may or they may not have. But falsely labeling a protoytpe limb as an F3 is a misrepresentation. You have not successfully disputed the fact that bold graphics proclaiming the make and model of limb are for the purpose of **advertising**--that's why they are so big, not so the archer can remember which limb is which, but so that the public can read the graphics from afar. So clearly, when in the hands of a sponsored archer, the graphics are advertising, to tell the public which limb is popular and, in this case, is being used by the famous and successful archer Brady Ellison. Hoyt sponsors archers for one reason and one reason only, to sell product.

Were Brady's shirt to say "F3" on it it wouldn't be an issue, but to falsely mark the limb with the designation of another current Hoyt product is a misrepresentation of what that limb is. I don't think that really can be meritoriously disputed. Evidence of actual harm is not necessary to break false advertising laws, BTW. It is sufficient merely to make various kinds of false claims.

What is especially odd about your post is that you don't actually disagree, it seems, with the statement you quoted. Is not Free to test prototype limbs? And can they not just mark them "Hoyt"?

I'm surprised by the defense of Hoyt's deception. I should hope most people are not in favor of deception.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

gig'em 99 said:


> Shadow, not trying to get too off topic, but want to better understand the implications around the speed:
> 
> FRX = Long Riser w/Medium limbs?
> ILF = Medium Riser w/Long limbs?
> 
> If all of your bows were long risers with long limbs or long risers with medium limbs, then the speed gain is certainly very interesting.


You are Correct. The speed gain averaged 6fps from Helix/Winex to FRX/F4 both 70" bows with the Same arrow. But my release isn't perfect.

But really the only point I am trying to make is that Sid said the FRX/F4 combo is not faster than older bows. And I am saying that in my experience that that is not True.

And Sid both bows were Tuned.


----------



## Borderbows

Mithril said:


> Y'know, I seem to have seen that comment from you on several threads now. Have you ever looked at the Hoyt website? The FD curves for quite a few of their recurve limbs were there as PDF downloads last time I looked. Easy enough to do a Google search, it comes right up.


We keep getting told each bodel is better than the last, AND shown the DFC of the 25FRX vs 27... Can we see a TX990 vs 27" F4...

If a DFC can show the difference between 2 bows while not commenting on Bolt positions, then surely a 990 to F4 would also show superiority?

I cant see a difference in the G3 to F4, so what gains were made in the G3-900cx-990TX-F4...

it is regarded in the industry that 4 fps is a considereable leap forward in technology, so bit by bit, we creep forward. and i know the winex is no slouch.
Im always weary when people post 6fps or more. I do ask myself, what else has been changed. Point weight, Brass NP removed, Strand count... something. Including a change in Tab.

I cant see where a thick cored semi-glass limb can keep up with full carbon limbs. there is just too much material to accelerate.

Stored energy vs limb mass.

Hold the limb butts in your hand and whip the limb tip back and forth, like a tennis racket, you can feel light limbs. and the F4 aint light. The samick Universal is lighter from what we have seen. 

or take two grain scales. put the limb butt on one, and the limb tip on the other, and you can see where the mass is distributed. Just look at my numbers. G3 and F4 near on indentical.


----------



## Borderbows

Im with you on this one Warbow. They could have been branded anything or nothing and still claimed credit to Hoyts new up and comeing limbs, why call them F3?


----------



## lksseven

Warbow,

Your entire argument seems to posit that Hoyt was attempting to further F3 sales by misrepresenting their prototype limbs. Is this what you really think that's what Hoyt was trying to do? It's not like Brady hasn't been shooting F3 limbs for almost 2 years now. 

I think that's an incorrect 'take' on what they did. My interpretation is that they were trying to avoid attention - at the present time and for whatever reason(s) - of their prototype limbs (Prototype: an early sample or model built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from) while they gained some real world testing. How else to accomplish that than by having the limbs look just like the limbs that Brady's been shooting for 2 years, so that the limbs wouldn't draw attention?


----------



## gig'em 99

Ok, to me this actually makes sense. I'd wager a dollar that a 70" bow with med limbs vs a 70" bow with long limbs, same draw weight and draw length... Bow with med limbs shoots a faster arrow, with any manufacturer. Of course this is just my intuition, I've not tested that personally.



SHADOW-MKII said:


> You are Correct. The speed gain averaged 6fps from Helix/Winex to FRX/F4 both 70" bows with the Same arrow. But my release isn't perfect.
> 
> But really the only point I am trying to make is that Sid said the FRX/F4 combo is not faster than older bows. And I am saying that in my experience that that is not True.
> 
> And Sid both bows were Tuned.


----------



## DK Lieu

Borderbows said:


> weight Disrtibution:
> 
> By placing limbs on 2 grain scales, you can see the way the limb mass is distributed.
> 
> All bows in this series of tests = 70" about 35-34lbs at 28" bow
> 
> LT = Limb Tip
> LB = Limb Butt
> 
> G3 Longs:
> LT=1991
> LB=1315
> 
> F4 Meduim:
> LT=2062
> LB=1355
> 
> H6-H Longs.
> LT=1236
> LB=1009
> 
> If light limb pockets = less riser vibration, then 300grains seems usefull.
> If Limb limb tips = dynamic limb reaction, and reduced vibration then 800 grains is usefull.
> 
> i would conclude that there looks like there is a very small difference in limb mass between a 2003 limb and 2010 limb from the same company.


Borderbows, The mass of the F4 may need to be adjusted slightly, because the para-lever design is a larger overall limb, with a larger portion of it relatively stationary when compared to ILF. Nevertheless, I do find your DFC and mass data to be persuasive. I've sent you a PM requesting information on price, delivery, and preferred method of payment for a set of your latest model limbs.


----------



## Warbow

lksseven said:


> Warbow,
> 
> Your entire argument seems to posit that Hoyt was attempting to further F3 sales by misrepresenting their prototype limbs. Is this what you really think that's what Hoyt was trying to do? It's not like Brady hasn't been shooting F3 limbs for almost 2 years now.
> 
> I think that's an incorrect 'take' on what they did. My interpretation is that they were trying to avoid attention - at the present time and for whatever reason(s) - of their prototype limbs (Prototype: an early sample or model built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from) while they gained some real world testing. How else to accomplish that than by having the limbs look just like the limbs that Brady's been shooting for 2 years, so that the limbs wouldn't draw attention?


Er, is it some sort of secret that Hoyt designs new limbs? What, exactly, would happen if people knew that? And how, exactly, does real world testing justify intentionally misrepresenting prototype limbs as a current product? 

But since you admit that the graphics on the limbs draw attention I think that means you are finally admitting that the graphics are **advertising**.


----------



## Mithril

defamation
noun 
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.

libel 
noun
1. (Law) Law
a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.
b. the act of publishing such matter

The only defense against a libel suit is proof that the libelous statement is true. Please present us with your proof.


----------



## Warbow

Mithril said:


> defamation
> noun
> the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.
> 
> libel
> noun
> 1. (Law) Law
> a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.
> b. the act of publishing such matter
> 
> The only defense against a libel suit is proof that the libelous statement is true. Please present us with your proof.


First, I don't think your Google University law degree really qualifies you to say what constitutes actionable defamation, let alone what the "only" defense against a libel suit is.








Second, you haven't actually cited any allegedly libelous statements. Please quote what _exact_ statement I made that you think is actionable libel and why. Since you are rather clearly accusing me of libel, I believe you should be so good as to state the exact nature of your claim. Otherwise we can dismiss your post as we can your others, for lack any specificity, substance or credibility.

BTW, Mithril, do you have any financial relationship to Hoyt or any archery equipment maker, either directly or indirectly, including sponsorships or any kind of employment, contracting, or other benefit? I have no such relationship currently or in the past with any archery equipment maker other than a bow grip that Jager once sent me without obligation. How about you?


----------



## lksseven

Warbow,

Yes, manufacturers design and test prototype new products all the time. Yes, people know that this goes on. Would you disagree that manufacturers also often prefer to keep details of prototypes "secret", "underwraps", "closely guarded" in all kinds of industries? 

you wrote "But since you admit that the graphics on the limbs draw attention I think that means you are finally admitting that the graphics are **advertising**."

Of course I agree that graphics _can_ be, and in many cases _are_, *advertising*. I don't agree that what Hoyt did was "false" advertising, I don't think what they did was "wrong", it wasn't a "commercial", or a "publicity photo shoot" ... it was a prototype limb in a formal competition ... i.e. It was the Olympic Trials, not the Hoyt F3 Limb show. 

I don't work for Hoyt, I wasn't consulted by Hoyt or made privy to their thinking/rationale/strategy regarding the F3 caper. I have absolutely no knowledge of "why" the limbs were labeled F3. But the most likely explanation (to me) is that they disguised the prototype limbs for camouflage reasons. And I don't see harmful intent, and I don't see anyone harmed. Why the mountain for a mole hill?


----------



## Warbow

lksseven said:


> Warbow,
> 
> Yes, manufacturers design and test prototype new products all the time. Yes, people know that this goes on. Would you disagree that manufacturers also often prefer to keep details of prototypes "secret", "underwraps", "closely guarded" in all kinds of industries?


Have I ever said anything to the contrary? But there is a difference between generically marking your prototype limbs ("Hoyt" or just a pretty design, or nothing) vs. marking them to misrepresent them as a current Hoyt product.



lksseven said:


> Of course I agree that graphics _can_ be, and in many cases _are_, *advertising*. I don't agree that what Hoyt did was "false" advertising, I don't think what they did was "wrong", it wasn't a "commercial", or a "publicity photo shoot" ... it was a prototype limb in a formal competition ... i.e. It was the Olympic Trials, not the Hoyt F3 Limb show.


The limbs were not F3s, so you must agree that they were falsely marked. You also agree that the limb graphics can be advertising. False + Advertising = False Advertising. Doesn't get any more clear than that. I don't claim that what Hoyt did necessarily broke any laws, but I do think it was wrong.

And the graphics are on the limbs so that they advertise the limbs **during competitions**, among other places. That is the perhaps cheapest way to get your brand and product model advertised in photos and on TV. 



lksseven said:


> Why the mountain for a mole hill?


I have a thing against deceptive business practices. I don't like being fooled, and I don't like to see others be fooled. So I think it is reasonable to call a company out for being deceptive. It seems to me that Hoyt was being deceptive in a way that amounted to false advertising. I really can't see any advantage to the consumer in trying to defend Hoyt's misrepresentation. The false markings were anti-consumer IMO.


----------



## Flehrad

So, if I slapped a Win & Win sticker wrap over my F4 limbs, and shot at an international event, what would you consider that? Its a piece of advertising, that just so happens to be placed upon a piece of equipment.

So, another example is if I put say, a logo on my shirt from a sponsor, it doesn't mean they made the shirt or the shirt is even a product of theirs, its simply their company name/logo visible. I think it is kind of a fine line really.

If they wanted to, Hoyt probably could even slap on the Excel decal on F7's if they want, I don't know if there is anything that says that the graphics labelling has to indicate the actual product itself *so long as the information paired with the sale of the information is clear on what you are buying WHEN you buy it*.


----------



## Warbow

Flehrad said:


> So, if I slapped a Win & Win sticker wrap over my F4 limbs, and shot at an international event, what would you consider that? Its a piece of advertising, that just so happens to be placed upon a piece of equipment.


You aren't the manufacturer, but if you were acting as an agent of W&W to deliberately misrepresent your Hoyt F4's to the public as W&Ws then I think you'd be doing something wrong--and I'd think Hoyt might not be too happy about the misrepresentation--well, unless you sucked, in which case I'd expect they'd be fine with it. :wink:



Flehrad said:


> So, another example is if I put say, a logo on my shirt from a sponsor, it doesn't mean they made the shirt or the shirt is even a product of theirs, its simply their company name/logo visible. I think it is kind of a fine line really.


Not really a fine line at all. The graphics on limbs are not used as generic advertising space the way shirts are. Not analogous. 



Flehrad said:


> If they wanted to, Hoyt probably could even slap on the Excel decal on F7's if they want, I don't know if there is anything that says that the graphics labelling has to indicate the actual product itself *so long as the information paired with the sale of the information is clear on what you are buying WHEN you buy it*.


We'll have to disagree on that. You are conflating product labeling laws at point of sale with false advertising. You can't falsely advertise something and say that is ok because the product is properly labeled at the point of sale. The false advertising is still false advertising. It isn't cured at point of sale.

One thing seems pretty clear. I've seen no one dispute that Hoyt did falsely label prototype limbs used by Brady Ellison as F3 limbs. GT coped to that several times at archery forum. His argument seemed to be that yes, Hoyt falsely labeled F7s as F3s but it was "due diligence" to test the limbs, that Brady sometimes used real F3s and sometimes used F7s labeled as F3s, and that Hoyt only referred to Brady's rig generically in their literature--which seems to admit that it would, you know, be wrong to suggest that the prototype limbs were F3s. If it would be wrong to do in their literature I'm not sure why it didn't occur to them that it would be wrong to do in the field by falsely marking the limbs as F3s, effectively resulting in same misrepresentation.


----------



## Flehrad

Fair enough. Perhaps they should just label all of their limbs as Formula Paralever limbs. It'll make it nice and easy.


----------



## Warbow

Flehrad said:


> Fair enough. Perhaps they should just label all of their limbs as Formula Paralever limbs. It'll make it nice and easy.


Pick and match. 

Ultimately, the mis-labeling is not the worst thing in the world. Brady did continue to use F3 limbs--which are still excellent limbs. But, I'd hope that Hoyt would see why the practice of falsely marking publicly tested prototype limbs as current model limbs is, IMO, ethically dubious and possibly in violation of truth in advertising laws of various countries and not do it again.


----------



## Flehrad

They could have had fine print somewhere on the limbs lol.... plenty of ads here have fine print saying "overseas model shown" or something like that.


----------



## Warbow

Flehrad said:


> They could have had fine print somewhere on the limbs lol.... plenty of ads here have fine print saying "overseas model shown" or something like that.


Maybe it said "JK" on the limb butt? :dontknow:


----------



## jmvargas

Flehrad said:


> So, if I slapped a Win & Win sticker wrap over my F4 limbs, and shot at an international event, what would you consider that? Its a piece of advertising, that just so happens to be placed upon a piece of equipment.
> 
> So, another example is if I put say, a logo on my shirt from a sponsor, it doesn't mean they made the shirt or the shirt is even a product of theirs, its simply their company name/logo visible. I think it is kind of a fine line really.
> ........




....with all due respect, you are not brady ellison...


----------



## whiz-Oz

limbwalker said:


> Because drilling a hole and placing a fixed steel bushing in the middle of a flexible portion of a limb doesn't seem like an idea an engineer would come up with, unless of course the limb butt doesn't actually flex. I know how anal engineers can be about these things, and it strikes me as odd.
> 
> John


Yep. I thought about that too, but then it occurred to me there are already two other changes in cross section in the limb and the position of the bushing is at the same point where the similarly dimensioned HDS limb bolt slot would be. 

No problems so far with HDS limbs being overstressed at that end of the limb. No problems I've heard of thus far with breaking paralever limbs there either.


----------



## Flehrad

jmvargas said:


> ....with all due respect, you are not brady ellison...


I never said I was. But how does that really matter though if we're talking about advertising on a particular product, irrespective of who is using it? If I had a pair of F3's that were F7's rebranded, does that mean this fuss wouldn't be raised?


----------



## limbwalker

TAO, you're right. People are sheep. Even smart people are swayed by clever marketing. However, rarely do even good archers have the chance to try Oly. recurve gear before they buy. And this is why the marketing is so important. 

If we were talking about more affordable gear, then the truth would be out there in spades and the marketing wouldn't be so influential. Word of mouth would have more bearing. Rarely do you see an accomplished archer who has actually tested 3 or 4 different bows, then have the freedom to comment on them. In our tiny little sport, if an archer shows promise, they get "tied" to a company pretty quickly and then the "mute" button goes on... And that's what we get. Very little objective information from skilled competitors. Most are tied up in contracts, sponsorships, or they carefully select what they say so as not to jeapordize those opportunities in the future...

Heck, I know a few young archers right now that are weighing in on a particular brand just because they "hope" to be on that shooting staff someday. 

It is unfortunately a strong consideration in this sport because of the expense of the equipment, traveling, registrations, etc. Most archers or young archer's parents are looking for any kind of help they can get financially, even if that means giving up some objectivity.

John



TheAncientOne said:


> is an oxymoron.
> 
> For the most part the general public buys whatever is advertised the most, whatever their favorite archer shoots or whoever has the prettiest models. That fine for novices I'm sure, but most people here try before they buy, compare features and then decide what works best or feels best for them. Just because Brady and Jake were using what everyone thought were F3's doesn't mean that I am going to automatically buy them. I don't think that most people that post here would.
> 
> That doesn't let Hoyt off of the hook either, a grey limb with the name Hoyt silk screened on it would have been more prudent.
> 
> 
> TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne

> However, rarely do even good archers have the chance to try Oly. recurve gear before they buy


John is, of course right, I am spoiled by the fact that I live less than an hour away from 5 or 6 established ranges/pro-shops. Some of the archers that I shoot along side are ranked nationaly. I was able to try out several of the limb/riser combinations that I was looking at before I chose. Even then I stuck with the brand that I have been shooting for years because of the support I got in the past. I have delusions of competeing again which is why I have been following this thread. I need to make a decision whether to stick with my current manufacturer (Hoyt) or to move on. (There is hope for you yet Sid)

TAO
(Old dog trying to learn new tricks)


----------



## limbwalker

> and the position of the bushing is at the same point where the similarly dimensioned HDS limb bolt slot would be.


Whiz, there is no HDS. Only ILF.  ha, ha.

Seriously though, the HDS/ILF limb butt 1) doesn't flex, and 2) certainly doesn't flex at that point (where the limb bolt slot would be). 

Only the paralever limb advertises a "flex" in a position where a non-flexing stainless bushing is inserted. 

Probably no big deal, but like I said, I know how OCD good engineers can be, and it seems strange that if the limb butt flex was designed in, that they would also agree to allow a hole to be drilled in the center of a flexing portion of the limb, and then insert a static bushing.

My guess? Maybe the limb butt doesn't flex - or at least, not enough to create an issue at the bushing. Right?

John


----------



## whiz-Oz

Oh, you're dead right. We couldn't measure any flex between the limb butt and dovetail on a HDS/ILF limb. 
But I measured definite flex on the paralever limb. I think it was under .007" (or maybe .005"?) and had it confirmed by my machinist friend to make sure I wasn't screwing up the measurement. It was difficult because there are no defined points, so it had to be done like a feeler gauge measurement between the largest gaps. We got consistent measurements between tries and people, so I was happy that it was correct for those limbs at those poundages.

In terms of distortion of the limb at that point, I wouldn't think that it would be much of a problem having a bushing there. 
Aircraft are rivetted together so that they don't crack apart, and the most OCD engineers on the planet don't have issues with this and haven't for many years. 
That's a perfect example of a non flexing point in a stressed member.


----------



## Greysides

> Aircraft are rivetted together so that they don't crack apart, and the most OCD engineers on the planet don't have issues with this and haven't for many years.


Might not be a problem now but caused problems earlier with some of the first passenger planes.


----------



## TheAncientOne

Greysides said:


> Might not be a problem now but caused problems earlier with some of the first passenger planes.


I remember a plane going down in Hawaii some time back due to the pressure bulkhead in the tail section failing. Its a dome shaped component that is rivited together and flexes when the cabin is pressurized.

TAO


----------



## whiz-Oz

JAL 123 was the pressure bulkhead failure. Terrifying accident which went on for quite a while...
I believe that Greysides is thinking of the square windows issues with the DeHavilland Comet. 
Regardless, rivets aren't a problem, or they wouldn't use them today. 
Bonded panels are becoming far more common, but lets face it, we already use glued together members in our limbs. 

It's not an issue, regardless of how much people want to believe it. It's had two years of field testing.


----------



## Acehero

SHADOW-MKII said:


> Yes Sid,
> 
> I know how to measure Draw weight. I sell Bows for a living.
> 
> My last Three Bows have all been the Same measured weight at My draw length.
> 
> My FRX is faster than My Winex Helix Bow.
> 
> But I don't care about the Speed at all. I score more with the FRX and that's all I care about.


Just saw this and thought I'd throw another consideration into the equation. On the Helix the grip is positioned differently in relation to the rest/button as it is on the GMX/Formula and later bows, such that the drawlength with a Helix (and Nexus) is a fraction shorter. I forget how much as I have sold my Nexus now, but say .25" for arguments sake. So would the Helix bow with say a 28.25" draw + whatever powerstroke be expected to give the same speed as the Formula with a 28.5" draw + whatever powerstroke if both bows were at the same weight? Numbers here are just examples as I dont know your limb lengths, drawlengths and brace heights etc which would determine the powerstroke. I also dont know the answer to my question, but thought the engineering boffins might enjoy it


----------



## jmvargas

Flehrad said:


> I never said I was. But how does that really matter though if we're talking about advertising on a particular product, irrespective of who is using it? If I had a pair of F3's that were F7's rebranded, does that mean this fuss wouldn't be raised?



short answer....yes..


----------



## Flehrad

Why? The point of mis-leading branding is still present. So then realistically, how does it matter who was using it where if it only matters if a top archer is doing it? A short answer isn't really going to cut it for me, but then again, I'm not easily satisfied in a good debate


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Acehero said:


> Just saw this and thought I'd throw another consideration into the equation. On the Helix the grip is positioned differently in relation to the rest/button as it is on the GMX/Formula and later bows, such that the drawlength with a Helix (and Nexus) is a fraction shorter. I forget how much as I have sold my Nexus now, but say .25" for arguments sake. So would the Helix bow with say a 28.25" draw + whatever powerstroke be expected to give the same speed as the Formula with a 28.5" draw + whatever powerstroke if both bows were at the same weight? Numbers here are just examples as I dont know your limb lengths, drawlengths and brace heights etc which would determine the powerstroke. I also dont know the answer to my question, but thought the engineering boffins might enjoy it


I Don't have my Helix anymore either, The Only point I was making is that Sid said that the F4 was the same speed as the G3 through all of his calculations. 

The Winex Limb is supposed to be faster than the G3. And what I am saying is "That in my experience The FRX/F4 WAS faster with the Same draw weight on my fingers".

I don't know if the grip position has anything to do with it or not. But maybe there is something to the Paralever System. Even if Sid doesn't think so.


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> Oh, you're dead right. We couldn't measure any flex between the limb butt and dovetail on a HDS/ILF limb.
> But I measured definite flex on the paralever limb. I think it was under .007" (or maybe .005"?) and had it confirmed by my machinist friend to make sure I wasn't screwing up the measurement. It was difficult because there are no defined points, so it had to be done like a feeler gauge measurement between the largest gaps. We got consistent measurements between tries and people, so I was happy that it was correct for those limbs at those poundages.
> 
> .


Could someone please quantify what draw weight difference they acheive when winding there limb bolt in by 0.007".

Lets say the weight increase is 0.01lbs. Then thats the extra stored energy. so on 600lnch pounds on a 35-40lbs bow, of stored energy, 0.01X20" = at utter best, 0.2lbs more.


----------



## Acehero

I'm beginning to question whether speed or price are quite so essential in good limbs. No doubt that the top models _are_ good limbs, but I recently put a set of Samick Visions (sub £100 limb) on my CXT to accomodate a drop in draw weight while I work on technique this winter and they line up perfectly and shoot well. I just put in 581 for the 18m round (or double 18m round as some of you may call it) this weekend in competition with them and some xx75's that tune too stiff. So from now on I'm just going to shoot whichever limbs i like the look and feel of and forget about the engineering arguments behind them


----------



## Flehrad

What you pay for is consistency of performance. Cheap limbs, if you're lucky, and get a great set, will perform fantastically and be as consistent as you. Indoor shooting with the right spined arrows however is a completely different ballgame to outdoor 70m or 90m where environmental effects come into play. The speed/power basically means you get to shoot a heavier arrow, while maintaining the same speed as previously, that results in less wind drift, and better down-range momentum carry, so that your groups can stay as tight as your form makes them.


----------



## SHADOW-MKII

Acehero said:


> I'm beginning to question whether speed or price are quite so essential in good limbs. No doubt that the top models _are_ good limbs, but I recently put a set of Samick Visions (sub £100 limb) on my CXT to accomodate a drop in draw weight while I work on technique this winter and they line up perfectly and shoot well. I just put in 581 for the 18m round (or double 18m round as some of you may call it) this weekend in competition with them and some xx75's that tune too stiff. So from now on I'm just going to shoot whichever limbs i like the look and feel of and forget about the engineering arguments behind them


I think that is the Best thing I have read in this thread.

As I said earlier in this thread, I work for a Archery Shop and am a Partially sponsored Archer. 

I was given my choice of bow to shoot, limited to the brands that we stock (of course) I chose the Hoyt over the Inno CXT/Inno EX bow because it felt better as I drew though the clicker.


----------



## Borderbows

Flehrad said:


> What you pay for is consistency of performance. Cheap limbs, if you're lucky, and get a great set, will perform fantastically and be as consistent as you. Indoor shooting with the right spined arrows however is a completely different ballgame to outdoor 70m or 90m where environmental effects come into play. The speed/power basically means you get to shoot a heavier arrow, while maintaining the same speed as previously, that results in less wind drift, and better down-range momentum carry, so that your groups can stay as tight as your form makes them.


Agree.
id love to know the technolocial (objective) differences there are between the Carbon+ and the F4. 


So there must be lots of years of drop down technology now in cheaper limb models. 
The F4 is still a glass carbon limb?


----------



## limbwalker

Acehero said:


> I'm beginning to question whether speed or price are quite so essential in good limbs. No doubt that the top models _are_ good limbs, but I recently put a set of Samick Visions (sub £100 limb) on my CXT to accomodate a drop in draw weight while I work on technique this winter and they line up perfectly and shoot well. I just put in 581 for the 18m round (or double 18m round as some of you may call it) this weekend in competition with them and some xx75's that tune too stiff. So from now on I'm just going to shoot whichever limbs i like the look and feel of and forget about the engineering arguments behind them


Nothing at all wrong with that logic.

On my hunting bow (a TradTech Pinnacle II wood riser that accepts ILF limbs) I could use any of my expensive competition target limbs - the Samick Masters, SKY, or W&W Inno's - but instead I go back and forth between two relatively inexpensive pairs of ILF limbs - the Black Max and the TradTech/Samick carbon/wood limbs. Why? Because that's what tunes the best and shoots the quietest. 

Expensive state-of-the-art setups are rarely "required" to shoot your best scores. Rather, the bow you just plain like the best usually does the job better than any other can. I think sometimes it's easy for all of us to forget the kinds of scores that were being shot by the best archers 30 years ago with plain old wood/glass limbs, dacron strings and aluminum arrows. Just about anything you buy today will be an advantage over that combination.

We're really blessed to have such a great selection of top quality equipment nowdays. Even through the entry-level equipment. I only started all this just 8 years ago now, but even that recently, the equipment choices were probably 1/3 of what we have to choose from today!

John


----------



## whiz-Oz

Borderbows said:


> Could someone please quantify what draw weight difference they acheive when winding there limb bolt in by 0.007".
> 
> Lets say the weight increase is 0.01lbs. Then thats the extra stored energy. so on 600lnch pounds on a 35-40lbs bow, of stored energy, 0.01X20" = at utter best, 0.2lbs more.


It's not going to be quite that simple and in all reality, I've lost interest. If I have, other people will have too and probably well before me. 
Nothing you post here about the superiority of your gear is going to make a schmick of difference. It hasn't yet. 
If you just sat quietly making quality gear, I could respect that. Continually attacking Hoyt just makes you appear to be a crazed Highland Terrier. 
Surely your time could be better spent doing something like getting your web page sorted so that people who want to buy your gear can get all the information that they want by themselves. 

If you're aiming at selling to the "independently minded individuals" you should probably cater to them.


----------



## Mithril

Our yappy little terrier would save a whole lot of time posting all the drivel about Hoyt stealing "his" ideas if he could just get hold of a circa 1983 Hoyt catalog.

Torsionally stabilized 45 carbon bias limbs? Check.

Floating limb bolts on recurves? Check. (the hunting models).

It seems he and two or three other people have generated 90% of the noise to signal on this and any other Hoyt thread they can get their paws on...


----------



## whiz-Oz

Well, as I understand it, having had a little bit to do with composites during my r/c soaring days, there's a bit of difference between three layers of unidirectional carbon and one layer of tri weave fabric. 

The punters might not realise the significant difference in making normal woven carbon fiber cloth and the difficulty of making tri-weave in a mechanised process. 
I've seen Ukrainian world championship models with hand woven D boxed carbon leading edges. They didn't attempt triaxial, even for small pieces. Probably to maintain their sanity.
Maybe we will eventually see 3D woven composities in limbs. That would make them significantly lighter and thinner, with massive torsional resistance in reserve. 
(For the punters who'd like to know a bit about this stuff, just look at the pictures as you scroll through this linked .pdf)


----------



## Mithril

> Maybe we will eventually see 3D woven composities in limbs


Looks like it's already there.

It IS a true triaxial woven carbon in the F7 (four layers of it if I unerstand the "quad core" description). A Japanese blog published details along with a photo they say comes from Hoyt. Looks exactly like the stuff in your linked PDF.

http://jparchery.blog62.fc2.com/blog-entry-847.html


You're absolutely right, this Triaxial weave is completely different than alternating layers of UD carbon.


edit: And looking at Hoyt's website, it seems they have actually trademarked the word Triaxial.


----------



## Borderbows

whiz-Oz said:


> It's not going to be quite that simple and in all reality, I've lost interest. If I have, other people will have too and probably well before me.
> Nothing you post here about the superiority of your gear is going to make a schmick of difference. It hasn't yet.
> If you just sat quietly making quality gear, I could respect that. Continually attacking Hoyt just makes you appear to be a crazed Highland Terrier.
> Surely your time could be better spent doing something like getting your web page sorted so that people who want to buy your gear can get all the information that they want by themselves.
> 
> If you're aiming at selling to the "independently minded individuals" you should probably cater to them.


I think a Border Terrier is a more practical dog... and more fitting to our location.

But this isnt about the superiority of our product, more the superiority of the latest, vs the previous.


----------



## wombus

Mithril said:


> You're absolutely right, this Triaxial weave is completely different than alternating layers of UD carbon.
> 
> 
> edit: And looking at Hoyt's website, it seems they have actually trademarked the word Triaxial.


Just on that, I'm not sure how they can trademark the word 'Triaxial' it's purely a mechanical description of the carbon cloth weave (I'm not arguing with you, I have seen the website). What makes this really weird is they call it 'Exclusive Triaxial carbon developed for the aerospace industry' i.e., they've grabbed it from one application to use it in another, then tried to trademark it! How is that 'exclusive'? if they've developed a new weave.... good for them, but that is a patent, not a trademark.

I'll look on with interest for the legal challenge, there's no reason another company can't build their own limbs, using a triaxial weave and market them using the word 'triaxial'.


----------



## DBrewer

Vittorio said:


> Personally, I liked very muck the new floating head bolts, and I have asked if they are compatible with other Hoyt bows. Answer has been yes for the last generation only, so for GMX, RX and HPX.


That being said, has anyone heard whether or not the new bolts will be available for retail to those who may want to try them out on their “old” RX?


----------



## whiz-Oz

wombus said:


> there's no reason another company can't build their own limbs, using a triaxial weave and market them using the word 'triaxial'.


Here. You might want to read up on what a trademark is.


If Triaxial isn't already trademarked, it can be trademarked. 
Don't get the patent system mistaken for trademarking.


----------



## Flehrad

DBrewer said:


> That being said, has anyone heard whether or not the new bolts will be available for retail to those who may want to try them out on their “old” RX?


Yes, they will be, once the demands from fitting the HPX risers is filled, e.g. excess after meeting HPX orders.


----------



## Warbow

whiz-Oz said:


> Here. You might want to read up on what a trademark is.
> 
> 
> If Triaxial isn't already trademarked, it can be trademarked.
> Don't get the patent system mistaken for trademarking.


No, that isn't quite true. There are limitations to what words can be trademarked. Words that are generically descriptive can't be trademarked--though a few notable exceptions have managed to muscle their way past the gatekeepers (Windows (tm) comes to mind).


----------



## Mithril

So, any more reports from F7 shooters yet?


----------



## whiz-Oz

We might need a bit more time for them to get out there. Serious archers tend not to be serious forum goers. At least while they're training anyway.
Once a few more early adopters and Mavens get to them, then there should be some more detailed opinions. 

I'd like someone with some F4's back to back some F7's with identical poundage and the same string and arrow, whack a few shots through a chronograph. 

I want to see quantifiable energy returns with a speed increase. 
Once that happens, I can tick the "Claim Sustained" box and feel happy that a small advance has been made in the worlds most primitive machine. 
I find it rather amusing that archery is one of the few places that we can mix technology that is multiple thousands of years apart. 

I also quite like the fact that you can get the F7's with a back finish on the back. 

Black recurve limbs look hardarse.


----------



## Flehrad

Once my bowstring material stock comes in, and I manage to sell enough strings, I'll do that. But it might be a few years.


----------



## wombus

whiz-Oz said:


> Here. You might want to read up on what a trademark is.
> 
> 
> If Triaxial isn't already trademarked, it can be trademarked.
> Don't get the patent system mistaken for trademarking.


Trademarking 'Triaxial' is like trademarking 'Delicious' it's pointless, and any other manufacturer of archery goods will be *free* to use the Word in relation to their products so long as it is used to accurately describe their product. They can say this limb is a triaxial carbon limb, if it has a layer of carbon with a triaxial weave and Hoyt can't do a thing about it.


----------



## whiz-Oz

I'm thinking that we just might have disagree on that one until someone does it and tries to sell their limbs in the USA. 
But even the most basic search of trademark disputes in the western world would suggest that your assertions are incorrect. 
Sure, they're free to use it. Hope they find free lawyers as well.

Just try starting a hamburger joint that uses a large M in the logo and let me know how you go on that.


----------



## TheAncientOne

whiz-Oz said:


> Just try starting a hamburger joint that uses a large M in the logo and let me know how you go on that.


I think they did that in the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America".

TAO


----------



## OldSchoolNEO

TheAncientOne said:


> I think they did that in the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America".
> 
> TAO


This thread did need a little "lightening" than TAO


----------



## Seattlepop

whiz-Oz said:


> I'm thinking that we just might have disagree on that one until someone does it and tries to sell their limbs in the USA.
> But even the most basic search of trademark disputes in the western world would suggest that your assertions are incorrect.
> Sure, they're free to use it. Hope they find free lawyers as well.
> 
> *Just try starting a hamburger joint that uses a large M in the logo and let me know how you go on that*.


Uh oh...

http://www.leye.com/restaurants/directory/m-burger


----------



## OldSchoolNEO

Seattlepop said:


> Uh oh...
> 
> http://www.leye.com/restaurants/directory/m-burger


Given the burger in the photo has no seeds, Mr. MacDowell just might have cause for a suit


----------



## caspian

TheAncientOne said:


> I think they did that in the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America".


I'm very glad I was not the only one who thought of that.


----------



## whiz-Oz

It would have been a big pity if nobody remembered it..


----------



## TheAncientOne

> I'm very glad I was not the only one who thought of that.





> It would have been a big pity if nobody remembered it..


Scary, isn't it?

TAO


----------



## a.liebregts

wen come the 27 inch in the shop,s ??
who know it ?


----------

