Riser Materials



From: bugeyed@ix.netcom.com (Joe Alaniz )
Subject: Riser Materials
Date: 14 Oct 1995 15:04:29 GMT


    In his responce to a question concerning target archery Stephan
Melin tells us that wooden risers are a waste of money,humm....
I'd like to know why metal risers are thought to be better.I am under
the impression that multi-laminated hard rock maple is dimensionally
stable,and impervious to climatic variations,at least that is the claim
made by some manufacturing gun stocks.After all the finished product is
a high percentadge of epoxy.You may notice that metal rifle stocks are
not the vogue at the bench and in order to place 5 bullets in one hole
the stock must be stable.
    And whats wrong with one piece bows? They are after all pound for
pound more efficient than take downs.
    Any way let me know what ya'all think and why wood-laminate or
metal is better....or if niether is better.........
    Steve I shoot thousands poss. tens of thousands of arrows every
year granted I shoot barebow but none of my wooden recurves have ever
failed even in the most adverse conditions where you wouldn't even
think of taking your target bow. So support your statement.


                     See Ya out'a roving
                        Joe Alaniz 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: angus@harlqn.co.uk (Angus Duggan)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:05:31 GMT


>From: bugeyed@ix.netcom.com (Joe Alaniz )
>Newsgroups: alt.archery

>    In his responce to a question concerning target archery Stephan
>Melin tells us that wooden risers are a waste of money,humm....
>I'd like to know why metal risers are thought to be better.I am under
...
>    And whats wrong with one piece bows? They are after all pound for
>pound more efficient than take downs.

For target shooting at the top levels, you need enough arrow speed to give
good sight marks, and little or no string creep, since many arrows are shot
each day. This usually means using lightweight carbon arrows and
Fastflite/Vectran/S4 strings, which impose large loads on the limbs and
riser. Most wooden riser bows and most one-piece bows cannot take the loads
from this equipment, and tend to break after a while. There is also the issue
of climactic variation; the target bow should shoot the same in all weather
conditions, if possible. I'll agree that metal riser bows will expand in hot
weather, but the flip side is that wooden handle bows have similar problems
with variations in humidity, which can also affect the glues used to laminate
them.

>    Steve I shoot thousands poss. tens of thousands of arrows every
>year granted I shoot barebow but none of my wooden recurves have ever
>failed even in the most adverse conditions where you wouldn't even
>think of taking your target bow. So support your statement.

I wonder what "the most adverse conditions where your wouldn't even think
about taking your target bow" are? Underwater? I can't think of many adverse
conditions that I wouldn't take my bow out in, and the ones which I wouldn't
are because I wouldn't survive.

I wouldn't have a qualm about shooting thousands of arrows off a nice wooden
bow at field shoots (especially barebow, as most wooden bows are designed so
taht they can be shot well without stabilisation), but for the accuracy and
stability required for target shooting I would choose a metal bow anytime.


Angus Duggan

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

From: melin@cm5cofis.gmd.de (Stephan Melin)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials
Date: 20 Oct 1995 22:32:10 GMT
Reply-To: melin@hlrz24.hlrz.kfa-juelich.de


In article <45ojht$76k@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, bugeyed@ix.netcom.com (Joe Alaniz
) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>     In his responce to a question concerning target archery Stephan
|> Melin tells us that wooden risers are a waste of money,humm....
<for the sake of brevity I snipped the rest of the article>

I think Angus answered almost all questions already - so no need to repeat them.

Now about the speed issue:
I think we are comparing apples and oranges:
A 38# @ 28" draw Hoyt GM with Carbon Plus limbs (68" lenght), 
actual draw length 31" (to the outer side), 18 strand fast flight string
shoots an ACE at about 70 m/s. Some people did that measurement in our club.
Now what speed would you get from a comparable setup (same draw weight, etc.!)
from the bows you mentioned?

Note: The GM with Carbon Foam limbs is an excellent bow, but no longer 
      top of the line...

About cracking of cast risers:
They really do break after some time (at least they develop cracks, but then 
it is about time to get a totally new bow either). 
Especially with the new string materials and the very light weight arrows,
the load on the bow is almost equivalent with dry firing. Older models
were not designed for this. 
The new ones and esp. the machied ones are supposed to take care of this.
If you ever have watched an ultra slow motion video of a bow firing an arrow,
that even the stiffest risers bend and wobble quite a lot ...

And finally there is just plain old experience:
If laminated risers were better (maybe even single piece bows) for olympic style
target archery, the top archers (those at the Olympics) would shoot them - 
regardless of cost.
However they don't - and even the top barebow archers (FITA world
championship level) don't do either...

As far as aesthetics go - well that is something personal.

I have nothing against laminated risers, but they are definitely no longer 
suitable for FITA. For other sorts of shooting they are very well suited...

Best regards and good shooting

   Stephan

P.S.: In the 70s Black Widow made a target bow with a metal riser (it had lots
      of holes in it - similar to the current fashion for machined risers).
      Unfortunately they didn't get their casting process right, so lots
      of these bows broke - their limbs (as I have been told, most of this
      happened before I started with archery) were excellent for that time. 
      They dropped out of that business beacuse their reputation had been
      damaged beyond repair (although I think most of todays target archers
      don't know that story).

P.P.S.: As far as I know the "history" of FITA target bows is as follows:
      1 longbows (the classical type, no fibre glass etc.)
      2 bows completely made out of steel (I think still the longbow shape)
      3 laminated recurves (wood and fibre glass) first single piece
        later take down 
      4 recurves with cast risers (the limb technology didn't change)
      5 carbon/foam limbs (the wood has been replaced by the foam)
      6 machined risers (now) 
      The scores went up all the time. In the late 60s you were a top archer
      if you shot about 1000 in a FITA - nowadays I think it starts well
      beyond 1250 ... Only a 1000 isn't very much anymore...


Stephan Melin 

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

From: ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials
Date: 23 Oct 1995 09:16:10 GMT



|> About cracking of cast risers:
|> They really do break after some time (at least they develop cracks, but then 
|> it is about time to get a totally new bow either). 

Sorry S - only the poorly cast ones break.  Buy a Yamaha.

|> Especially with the new string materials and the very light weight arrows,
|> the load on the bow is almost equivalent with dry firing. Older models
|> were not designed for this. 

Actually the only thing that really had to be redesigned when FF strings and
Carbon arrows came in were the limb-tips (nocks) which started to break off.
If you'll recall, back when everybody shot X7's and Kevlar strings, they also
used to shoot considerably heavier bows; the draw weight among top archers
has been dropping steadily for some time now.

|> If laminated risers were better (maybe even single piece bows) for olympic
style
|> target archery, the top archers (those at the Olympics) would shoot them - 
|> regardless of cost.

Thats not entirely true;  many archers on many national teams are sponsored
by equipment manufacturers, who almost universally only make metal-riser bows
nowadays.
There is a certain amount of politics involved in the equipment shot by
many people.

|> However they don't - and even the top barebow archers (FITA world
|> championship level) don't do either...
|> 
|> I have nothing against laminated risers, but they are definitely no longer 
|> suitable for FITA. For other sorts of shooting they are very well suited...
|>

I doubt it, really - I expect that a 1300+ FITA archer could probably still
shoot a 1300+ score with, say, one of the nice laminated Border bows with Carbon
Limbs.
Riser flex isn't necessarily a bad thing; the object of target archery is NOT
to get the arrow downrange the fastest;  slower, more forgiving bows can be
at least as accurate.
 
||> P.S.: In the 70s Black Widow made a target bow with a metal riser (it had
lots
|>       of holes in it - similar to the current fashion for machined risers).
|>       Unfortunately they didn't get their casting process right, so lots
|>       of these bows broke - their limbs (as I have been told, most of this
|>       happened before I started with archery) were excellent for that time. 
|>       They dropped out of that business beacuse their reputation had been
|>       damaged beyond repair (although I think most of todays target archers
|>       don't know that story).

In fact, BW have been making (resonably unbreakable) CNC riser bows for several
years now, and they are supposed to be excellent.  Again, you won't see
super-archers
shooting them for political reasons, and because its a risk they'd rather not
take.


Good shooting,

Yours,

Lev Gelb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:          23 Oct 1995 12:23:06 GMT
From:          jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Organization:  Edinburgh University

ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb) writes:

>|> About cracking of cast risers:
>|> They really do break after some time (at least they develop cracks, but then 
>|> it is about time to get a totally new bow either). 

>Sorry S - only the poorly cast ones break.  Buy a Yamaha.

Come off it Lev, Yammys break too, I've seen YTSLII, EX, alpha-EX and 1
Eolla that have *take-down handles*. Actually I've never seen a TD4+
crack but I'd rather shoot an Eolla 8)

Bows like Marksmans however seem to have a particularly bad track
record. (or should that be short track record??)

>Actually the only thing that really had to be redesigned when FF strings and
>Carbon arrows came in were the limb-tips (nocks) which started to break off.
>If you'll recall, back when everybody shot X7's and Kevlar strings, they also
>used to shoot considerably heavier bows; the draw weight among top archers
>has been dropping steadily for some time now.

This is kind of true because it was pretty obvious, it just took a
little time to show up. The Hoyt TD4+ isn't nearly as nice as the TD4
but they beefed it up because of reliability and flexing problems. All I
know is that my KG1 (my first *reall bow*) only survived about a year of
Kevlar and Fastflight.

>|> If laminated risers were better (maybe even single piece bows) for olympic style
>|> target archery, the top archers (those at the Olympics) would shoot them - 
>|> regardless of cost.

>Thats not entirely true;  many archers on many national teams are sponsored
>by equipment manufacturers, who almost universally only make metal-riser bows nowadays.
>There is a certain amount of politics involved in the equipment shot by
>many people.

OK how about re-phrasing it. If laminated wood bows were better the top
manufacturers would still do Custom laminated wood bows and charge the
earth for them. They'd still give them to their sponsored shooters and
then that would be what all the little people (like me!) would want to
shoot.

How about it Hoyt, a laminated one piece Syntactic custom?? 8) Why use
wood when you can use artificial stuffs??? 

>|> I have nothing against laminated risers, but they are definitely no longer 
>|> suitable for FITA. For other sorts of shooting they are very well suited...

>I doubt it, really - I expect that a 1300+ FITA archer could probably still
>shoot a 1300+ score with, say, one of the nice laminated Border bows with Carbon Limbs.
>Riser flex isn't necessarily a bad thing; the object of target archery is NOT
>to get the arrow downrange the fastest;  slower, more forgiving bows can be
>at least as accurate.

I nearly bought a Border Victor as my first real bow, in retrospect not
buying it was a mistake, but it didn't look cool 8) I don't think Border
are making Carbon limbs on those bows..yet, but I dare say they would
(or should that be wood?). I know that Border bows are capable of
shooting 1300+ but I'm not sure the archer who did it wouldn't shoot
1320+ if they were shooting something else.

Flexible risers make for easy tuning. If you can tune, stiffer risers
tend to be more accurate...as long as the limbs are up to the extra
stress you impose on them.

The only Radian I've seen with Hoyt Glass limbs on it shoots  not very well, the kid shot much better with a TD4+. The limbs
he has just aren't up to the stress the Radian is putting on them.

I think that when you are at a lesser level there is actually more to be
gained from having better kit (ie 1100-1200+), you are more susceptable
to equipment changes and it's more important that the bow (riser, limbs,
everything!) are perfect for you. Once you start shooting 1300 every
time you shoot I think it's all about perfect form and you could score
as well with a well tuned bent stick! (exagerrated a bit!)
> 
>In fact, BW have been making (resonably unbreakable) CNC riser bows for several
>years now, and they are supposed to be excellent.  Again, you won't see super-archers
>shooting them for political reasons, and because its a risk they'd rather not take.

Actually, I think Bow Pro in Sweden sell them and one of their sponsors
used to shoot a Black Widow ?(Lisolette Andersson??) I think she is
better know in Field archery.

You have to remember that many top shooters are sponsored by dealers and
not necessarily by the Manufacturers. Yes, I'd only heard good things
about recent models too.

John Dickson,(aka Stretch)      

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

Date:          24 Oct 1995 10:05:44 GMT
From:          ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb)
Organization:  University of Cambridge, England

In article <46g1fa$5eo@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson) writes:
|> ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb) writes:
|> 
|> >|> About cracking of cast risers:
|> >|> They really do break after some time (at least they develop cracks, but then 
|> >|> it is about time to get a totally new bow either). 
|> 
|> >Sorry S - only the poorly cast ones break.  Buy a Yamaha.
|> 
|> Come off it Lev, Yammys break too, I've seen YTSLII, EX, alpha-EX and 1
|> Eolla that have *take-down handles*. Actually I've never seen a TD4+
|> crack but I'd rather shoot an Eolla 8)
|> 

I can't believe that you saw an Eolla break through normal
usage; must have been a defective
cast.  Eolla's have twice the breaking load of the alpha-EX handle,
(according to Yamaha)
and Yamaha used the alpha-EX 
handle on 70 and 80 pound compounds without modification.
(slot-in limbs, too!)

I've never heard (except from you!) of anyone breaking an
alpha-EX handle, either, and a lot of people shoot them where
I came from.

On the other hand, I've seen half a dozen cracked Hoyt TD4, TD4+,
and even the short-lived TD5's....and broken two TD/3's myself.

And that WAS due to poor casting; when you look at the riser cross-section
where it broke, there are big carbon deposits and huge mismatched grains
in the alloy.  

BTW, I'm looking for a new toy to play with, but I've already
got all the stabilisers, sight, bow, arrows, buttons, etc.  Any
suggestions?  NOT doinkers, please!

Lev Gelb

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

From: mvapldrn@dutlsb3.lr.tudelft.nl (Marcel van Apeldoorn)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials
Date: 24 Oct 1995 12:45:25 GMT


Stephan Melin (melin@cm5cofis.gmd.de) wrote:
> P.P.S.: As far as I know the "history" of FITA target bows is as follows:
>       1 longbows (the classical type, no fibre glass etc.)
>       2 bows completely made out of steel (I think still the longbow shape)
>       3 laminated recurves (wood and fibre glass) first single piece
>         later take down 
>       4 recurves with cast risers (the limb technology didn't change)
>       5 carbon/foam limbs (the wood has been replaced by the foam)
>       6 machined risers (now) 

I would like to add:

        7 Carbon risers (now/future) 
          Two top-archers in Holland are (for several months now) shooting
          prototypes of the new Carbofast riser (a full carbon riser, with
          metal limb pockets) Thought you would like to know.

Happy shooting,

 Marcel van Apeldoorn 

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

From: bugeyed@ix.netcom.com (Joe Alaniz )
Subject: Re: Riser materials
Date: 24 Oct 1995 13:07:28 GMT


    This idea,that if a cast riser breaks, it must have been a
defective casting of some sort and not some intrinsic fault of the
material,cuts to the heart of an important part of the question of
riser materials.And that is one of mass production vs. custom one at a
time hand finished products,if the "Yammy" that broke had a defective
casting and got to a customer than quality controll was asleep at the
wheel.But when you stroke that rasp over every inch of the riser that
you are making then critical inspection comes naturally to every piece
and that kind of meticulous involvement simply is not there with mass
produced risers!
    Buy what you want but make mine the result of a master craftsmans
loving efforts!
        

                           See Ya out'a roving
                             Joe Alaniz

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

Date:          25 Oct 1995 14:31:27 GMT
From:          jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Organization:  Edinburgh University


ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb) wrote:
>In article <46g1fa$5eo@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk
(John Dickson) writes:
>|> ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Sorry S - only the poorly cast ones break.  Buy a Yamaha.
>|> 
>|> Come off it Lev, Yammys break too, I've seen YTSLII, EX, alpha-EX
and 1
>|> Eolla that have *take-down handles*. Actually I've never seen a TD4+
>|> crack but I'd rather shoot an Eolla 8)


Sorry, I mean't here that some Yammys are poorly cast too, not that they
break under normal conditions. Only the YTSLII was old enough to have
been old age.
 

>I can't believe that you saw an Eolla break through normal
>usage; must have been a defective
>cast.  Eolla's have twice the breaking load of the alpha-EX handle,
>(according to Yamaha)

I didn't see it break, I just saw the results. The guy was at Timperley
Double FITA Star in 1994, he had an Eolla handle in 2 bits which he was
using to decorate his bow stand. He was back shooting his old alpha EX.

I thought Yamaha where claiming 9% increase in strength? or was that
weight?? Under BS testing most cast risers tested broke at around 3/4 of
a ton. Some made it up to about 0.9 ton. Machined handles do a bit
better and some a lot better. This was prior to the Eolla coming out
tho, 1990 I think, maybe 1991.

>and Yamaha used the alpha-EX 
>handle on 70 and 80 pound compounds without modification.
>(slot-in limbs, too!)

Yeah but not many people shoot'em 8) I heard a story that some guy down
south snapped two of these, but stories are stories!

>I've never heard (except from you!) of anyone breaking an
>alpha-EX handle, either, and a lot of people shoot them where
>I came from.

The fact is that any cast handle is likely to casting flaws. Unless you
x-ray every handle you just can't tell. Pressure casting reduces much of
the likelihood of casting flaws but any bow with a casting flaw is
likely to snap eventually. The bigger/more serious the flaw the sooner
it snaps.

Oddly the alpha was never a very popular bow in Scotland, in those days
it was all Hoyts, nowadays it's all Radians and Eollas.

Machined risers just tend to be twisted in the first place 8) dig dig
BTW the story going round a few clubs in June this year that Martin
Evans had twisted his Stylist Supreme is untrue, apparently the person
who started the rumour couldn't tell the difference between a Supreme
and a well known British archers Radian 8) From the horses mouth.
Radian shooter and Martin.

>On the other hand, I've seen half a dozen cracked Hoyt TD4, TD4+,
>and even the short-lived TD5's....and broken two TD/3's myself.

The TD4's I've seen, I heard about one going at Full draw too and
knocking out the shooter. The TD4+ doesn't surprise me either because
it's just a bulked up TD4 and the TD5 is just a Short TD4+ so ..... Oh,
and don't forget they're all Hoyts 8) Sorry TD3's where before my time
8)

Could have been worse could be one of those Beman "Hoyts" from a few
years ago, imagine buying a bow that Hoyt QC rejected!!!

I remember Quicks trying to sell a cracked Alpha to someone a while ago,
at least they removed the bow from the rack when the crack was pointed
out. I remember seeing an Alpha Ex go sometime too at an indoor event
(could have been an Ex I guess), Brunel?

>And that WAS due to poor casting; when you look at the riser
cross-section
>where it broke, there are big carbon deposits and huge mismatched
grains
>in the alloy.

Not all are so obvious, my KG1 failed at the front edge under
compression, there was just no texture in the alloy at all and when you
hold the two bits together it looked like there was a little wedge
missing, this was probably caused by an air pocket there was tell tale
marking on the alloy according to "someone who knows". The Eolla was
similar except the bit "missing" was at the back and right of the riser
(near the centre bushing), again the break was clean but little grain in
the alloy, there was no evidence of an air pocket tho'.(That I could see
but Materials ain't my business)

Again I think that most cast risers are strong enough, as long as you
don't get a flawed one...even a Marksman! Apparently they snap at 0.6
tons (KG1) and I have seen some pretty excellent scores shot with one of
those (1280 Gents Fita), it broke when it was 12 years old, which is
pretty acceptable. Since most bows are stronger than that...no problem.

>BTW, I'm looking for a new toy to play with, but I've already
>got all the stabilisers, sight, bow, arrows, buttons, etc.  Any
>suggestions?  NOT doinkers, please!

Nah I didn't think much of Doinkers either 8) Wibble.

Mmmm let me think you need the "Magic Box", we designed it a few years
ago and it's destined to be a best seller. It's dead pretty and shiny in
black and titanium. It comes with the logo from your favourite
manufacturer. It mounts above the button hole on the opposite side to
the window. It is very light (only the best materials). It does? Who the
f**k asked it to do anything???? Price to you? 100 pounds please.
Guaranteed to make you shoot scores pretty much the same as you're
shooting now.

Ok, seriously, you don't like TFC's so you won't like a Hydraulic
Extender either (Alternative Sporting Services sell JVD ones which are
nicer than the Carbofast). You've tried a V-Bar lifter, weren't
impressed. Don't seem to want to change your handle (pretty Eolla??)

String materials? S4, Spectra, Angel Dyneema, expensive play...may get
you a few points...won't look any cooler.

Sight Pins? How about that hideously expensive IRIS pin? It looks cool,
it works, it's a nice toy (although a bit small for 50 quid!), may even
be worth a few points. Alterantives Bieter (Cheap and nasty), Spigarelli
(only one function but if it suits you)

Tab? I guess you shoot an elite already? Doesn't look any better.

Fletches? Curly Vanes (Psycho Vanes)....they are cool and work.

Rest? How about a Spigarelli rest or a Cavalier free-flyte, or maybe
even a barner drop away Inertia Thingy...they're cool.

Clicker? Oh you tried a Cavalier already.......

Mercury Damper? The Browning ones work but I guess it's a bit TFC ish.
Besides they look like someone broke the handle off their tripod.

Compound? Just for the indoor season? Naaahhh, not cool, very expensive.

Arrows? How about some 2413's Superslamextracammodeerslayerthunderskuds?
32" long and cellotape that Magnetic clicker to your sight 8)

Spotting Scope? How about a majorly large variable magnification
hideously expensive spotting scope, no extra points tho' 8(

V-Bar? Since you've got the Yammy stabilisers how about the V-bar that
goes with them? The machined one which slides up and down your longrod?
Looks coolish (if you like that kind of thing)

Basically you want something that "twiddles" how about a Mechano set?

Did you buy the Technic 15 then? Seems reliability has improved a bit
over the past few years, they've made a few minor changes. Just make
sure nothing gets inside it!

Have fun at the toy shop,

John Dickson,(aka Stretch

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

Date:          26 Oct 1995 15:36:38 GMT
From:          jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Organization:  Edinburgh University


ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb) writes:


>I looked it up - 
>They claim a 9% increase in weight, and 2x stiffness - I was wrong
>about the breaking strain, they didn't give test results.

"Stiffness" is a curious measure, isn't it, the immediate implication is
2x stronger but that obviously isn't the case. If I win the Lottery (not
very likely as I don't buy tickets 8) ) I'll take one model of every bow
on the market and BS test them, then I'll publish the figures 8)

I just know I've seen a Stylist that they got up to 2 tons and it still
looked shootable (although on close inspection it was slightly bent). It
really impressed me but then again I had just had a riser break and was
a little shaken!!!

>|> Mmmm let me think you need the "Magic Box", we designed it a few years
>|> ago and it's destined to be a best seller. It's dead pretty and shiny in
>|> black and titanium. It comes with the logo from your favourite
>|> manufacturer. It mounts above the button hole on the opposite side to
>|> the window. It is very light (only the best materials). It does? Who the
>|> f**k asked it to do anything???? Price to you? 100 pounds please.
>|> Guaranteed to make you shoot scores pretty much the same as you're
>|> shooting now.
>|>

>Cool, I'll buy one!  Does it come in Carbon?

For 100 quid it comes in just about any non-precious material you want
it made from!!!
> 
>|> impressed. Don't seem to want to change your handle (pretty Eolla??)
>|>
>Too expensive, not fun enough.  Besides, you can't get the
>REALLY loud Yamaha colours in this country (Maybe the guy in the
>Netherlands has them?)

As most of the Dutch team where shooting them at the World Indoor I
reckon Giel Van Roy (spell?), the place where Hari Jacobs works almost
certainly has them.



>I thought about it - the Iris wins, but I like a crosshair
>(angled at 45, too, which restricts you to Beiter and Arten...)

And as I said the bieter is a bit tacky and you couldn't angle the
crosshair!

>|> Fletches? Curly Vanes (Psycho Vanes)....they are cool and work.
>|>
>I've got a set, but I shoot alloys with feathers indoors.
>BTW, I tried that suggestion in the Glade about splicing different
>color feathers together - the results are excellent.

How about just sticking on a whole chicken?? 8)
 

>|> Clicker? Oh you tried a Cavalier already.......
>|>
>Actually, the Cavalier clicker, sucks, more or less.  The one to
>buy (when you see it) is a similar idea made by Golden Key;
>theirs has a steel clicker-wire, not a brass one, and it's based
>on a completely-adjustable-tension spring-loading system, rather
>than crap little magnets.  It does look a bit chunky, tho, and only
>comes in silver.

I didn't like the magnetic clicker either, I like a clicker that clicks
as well as "feels". The Cavalier makes just about no noise...not for me.

Sounds like the Golden Key one is a bit more like the kind of thing I
like a nice positive click with good feel and you can adjust the
tension....cool.

>|> Compound? Just for the indoor season? Naaahhh, not cool, very expensive.

>Yeah! Also,  I could also have my left hand surgically removed
>and replaced with a release aid, drill a hole in my front tooth
>to fit the kisser button perfectly every time, have my right
>elbow steel-reinforced, get special glasses made for 
>extra magnification, 2608 E75 arrows, (camo, of course), and a
>back-mounted exoskeleton-style drawing device, so I can get my
>92% let-off super-wheelie-penetrator-energy-intruder-monster-cam
>carbon-deflex-whiplash-laser compound back comfortably....

I take it you're shooting Comp. Unlimited the 8)

>|> Did you buy the Technic 15 then? Seems reliability has improved a bit
>|> over the past few years, they've made a few minor changes. Just make
>|> sure nothing gets inside it!
>|> 

>No, I didn't get it - the guys at Wales Archery said that the
>Safari was a better-made sight, anyway.  But its not as cool looking,
>so I'll stick with my Olympic until I can get to a machine shop
>to cobble together something better   ;-)

Not only is it not as cool looking but it weighs a ton and doesn't have
the "big wheel" which is the main desirable feature in the Technic. I
tried a Safari way back when I bought my Technic, I disgarded it pretty
quickly as a piece of junk 8) (Expensive piece of junk!). It's not
really that it's better made it's more that it's a lot simpler
mechanically so there's less to go wrong!

BTW When you're in the machine shop I'll have one too!

                                John

Also sticking to the Olympic as my insurance company STILL haven't paid
out! Don't believe Commercial Unions "We won't make a drama out of a
crisis" adverts, they mean "We'll make a crisis out of a relatively
insignificant occurance!".....grrrr

John Dickson,(aka Stretch)

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

Reply-To: jagj@rhyolite.win-uk.net (John  Jones)
From: jagj@rhyolite.win-uk.net (John  Jones)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:38:20 GMT
 
In article <46o9u6$nmb@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, John Dickson
(jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk) writes:

>>|> Clicker? Oh you tried a Cavalier already.......
>>|>

>I didn't like the magnetic clicker either, I like a clicker that clicks
>as well as "feels". The Cavalier makes just about no noise...not for me.
>
>Sounds like the Golden Key one is a bit more like the kind of thing I
>like a nice positive click with good feel and you can adjust the
>tension....cool.
>

The Cavalier "clicker" is becoming more popular - it works
a lot better than the old springy strip variety.  I have a
PSE Centra, which I had terrible trouble trying to tune. 
It turned out that the original clicker was pushing the
pressure button in! (The Centra has about an inch of sight
window cut-out, like a compound). So that when I pulled the
arrow through, the button popped it out to the left. 

You *can* both hear and feel the magnetic clicker go off all
right. 

>Also sticking to the Olympic as my insurance company STILL haven't paid
>out! Don't believe Commercial Unions "We won't make a drama out of a
>crisis" adverts, they mean "We'll make a crisis out of a relatively
>insignificant occurance!".....grrrr
>--

Insurance companies are in business to make money for
themselves, not for you ... but one of my friends has
successfully taken his insurance company (after a while);
new Radian and all the trimmings ... har! har!

John Jones 

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

From: mvapldrn@dutlsb3.lr.tudelft.nl (Marcel van Apeldoorn)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials
Date: 30 Oct 1995 10:54:05 GMT


L.D. Gelb (ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> I looked it up - 
> They claim a 9% increase in weight, and 2x stiffness - I was wrong
> about the breaking strain, they didn't give test results.

> Also, the Eolla is cut 9.5mm over center, as opposed to the
> 8mm of the alpha-EX.  The grips, deflex, limb pockets, and 
> stabiliser bushings are apparently identical.

Actually, the grip isn't identical, but everything else is, as I experienced
two months ago. I've been shooting the alpha-EX riser with Eolla limbs for
two years, and two months ago I decided it was time for an Eolla riser. I
shot a double FITA that weekend in Baarschot (Netherlands) where I had
ordered an Eolla riser at the excellent archery shop of Chr. van Dorst.

The first day I shot with my alpha-EX riser, in the evening I put my sight,
button, stabilizers, rest etc. on the Eolla riser and made sure that tiller
and weight were _identical_ to my tiller and weight with the alpha-EX.
I _only_ shot a few arrows at 18m on a blank target to get a feel for the
grip. The next day I started with a 298 on 90m using exactly the same 
sight marks as on the alpha-EX handle. (My first sighter-arrow went in the
3-ring at 3-o'clock, probably because of a slight horizontal difference
in the sight or in/out position of the button. I didn't have to change 
elevation only a slight horizontal change, the rest of the sighters went
in the gold!) 
On 70, 50 and 30m same thing happened (only the scores were a bit heigher :-) 
Could be a freak coincident, but thats what happened. 

So why buy the Eolla riser? Well it just looks very cool (I've got the 
rainbow handle, blink blink)

> Too expensive, not fun enough.  Besides, you can't get the
> REALLY loud Yamaha colours in this country (Maybe the guy in the
> Netherlands has them?)

Yes, indeed

> |> Sight Pins? How about that hideously expensive IRIS pin? It looks cool,
> |> it works, it's a nice toy (although a bit small for 50 quid!), may even
> |> be worth a few points. Alterantives Bieter (Cheap and nasty), Spigarelli
> |> (only one function but if it suits you)
> |>
> I thought about it - the Iris wins, but I like a crosshair
> (angled at 45, too, which restricts you to Beiter and Arten...)

I've seen a nice gimmick that you can use when you have a Beiter sight pin
(I mean the square one) You can use a small circular piece of plastic,
1mm diameter and approx. 50mm long stick it in the sight pin, and viewed
from behind its looks like a sight-dot. The plastic actually collects  
light and that makes the dot shine as if it were a LED, looks nice, 
doesn't improve score but what the heck, I've ordered one.

>  
> |> Fletches? Curly Vanes (Psycho Vanes)....they are cool and work.
> |>
> I've got a set, but I shoot alloys with feathers indoors.
> BTW, I tried that suggestion in the Glade about splicing different
> color feathers together - the results are excellent.

How about trying those Italian vanes which look like two spinwings (a
left and right handed) together. They look a bit like small tubes when
looked at from behind. Outdoors, they fly really nice, however indoors
they suck, because 

> Yeah! Also,  I could also have my left hand surgically removed
> and replaced with a release aid, drill a hole in my front tooth
> to fit the kisser button perfectly every time, have my right
> elbow steel-reinforced, get special glasses made for 
> extra magnification, 2608 E75 arrows, (camo, of course), and a
> back-mounted exoskeleton-style drawing device, so I can get my
> 92% let-off super-wheelie-penetrator-energy-intruder-monster-cam
> carbon-deflex-whiplash-laser compound back comfortably....

Is that allowed in the GNAS or FITA regulations ?    :-)

Happy shooting,

 
 Marcel van Apeldoorn 

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

From: jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials
Date: 30 Oct 1995 12:18:06 GMT


angus@harlqn.co.uk (Angus Duggan) writes:

>>>No, I didn't get it - the guys at Wales Archery said that the
>>>Safari was a better-made sight, anyway.  But its not as cool looking,
>>>so I'll stick with my Olympic until I can get to a machine shop
>>>to cobble together something better   ;-)
>>
>>Not only is it not as cool looking but it weighs a ton and doesn't have
>>the "big wheel" which is the main desirable feature in the Technic. I
>>tried a Safari way back when I bought my Technic, I disgarded it pretty
>>quickly as a piece of junk 8) (Expensive piece of junk!). It's not
>>really that it's better made it's more that it's a lot simpler
>>mechanically so there's less to go wrong!

>The Safari isn't *that* heavy. It's about the same weight as the Olympic, and
>has the advantage that it doesn't have glue and friction joints all over the
>place.

I was shooting an Olympic when I tried the Safari at Quicks in 1992, the
Safari was noticeably heavier in the hand and the Technic was just a
whole lot nicer 8)...for about 8 months 8(

>On a stiff riser like a radian, that can make a lot of difference; I
>reckon I lost 100+ points in various competitions this year as my Olympic was
>shaken apart in various different ways.

Yeah, unfortunately the Olympic has been due for a re-vamp for about 10
years! Why don't Arten ever change anything?

>It has another advantage too; the
>actual sight pins are very short, and use easily-available M4 threads, so you
>can have lots of fun building custom sight pins for them! (I find that the
>shaft insert part of a beiter nock for 2114s is just the right size of ring,
>and I can use a black-painted one for fita targets, and an orange one for
>field or black & white targets, to get decent contrast.)

Gee, the things people waste there time with 8) The Technic has the same
pin fitting ;^) I dunno if you remember Simon (Needham) using the insert
bit of an ACE nock as a sight pin! Shot it pretty well too...although no
better than anything else.

John Dickson,(aka Stretch)      

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

From: force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials(long-winded)
Date: 6 Nov 1995 10:20:02 -0500
Reply-To: force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten)


I thought I'd throw in my two cents on this extended thread.

There have been at least 5 recurve composite risers on the market since
1990.  One quick definition here to head off the traditional people- I
mean advanced composites, not wood.  Having tested some of these, I have
an opinion where appropriate.

Yamaha Centennial,  about $3500.00 for the complete bow.  I saw one break.
KG Paragon- price unknown.   Looks kludgy to me.
Taylor Falcon- low price, but essentially a bow sawed out of a
carbon-glass layup.  Not kewl.
Perrin Unian- about $1000.00 for the riser.  Very kewl, but vibrates like
you would not believe.
Carbo-fast- price unknown.
PSE makes a composite compound riser- about $1250 for the complete bow.
Light but strictly a hunting toy.

Of course there have been many prototypes from many places, especially the
former Soviet Union.

None of these products has been very popular (by popular, I mean 'selling
a bunch') for a couple of reasons.  The BIG ISSUE : The price vs.
performance has never proven to be too favorable.

At 15 dollars a pound and up, carbon fiber is one of the more expensive
choices for a riser medium.   It tends to vibrate objectionably unless you
can load it with stabilizer mass (which, if you think about it, seems to
defeat the purpose in the first place).   From an engineering standpoint,
the material does not make sense.  It's not good in compression.  On the
other hand lots of people think carbon is sexy.   

BIG ISSUE TWO- in a relatively complex structure such a riser, the
consistency of riser to riser is a problem with composites.  This is
significant in the context of the Fita Olympic Round where you must have a
backup bow ready to shoot in case of equipment failure.

The best example of thisconsistency issue is the experience of Vladimir
Echeev, who shot a Soviet-made RTM composite riser (which looked just like
a TD-4 from a distance) very successfully (and at great arrow speed, over
230 FPS) with ACE shafts.   Vladimir told me he could never get any two of
these risers to shoot anywhere near the same.   (I know that's a tough
proposition with any bow but in this case I'm talking about extreme
differences).

A lot has been said in provious posts about cast risers.  IMHO,  the main
reason manufacturers have gone to machined risers is complex but can be
looked at as having two main factors, besides the shortcomings of
castings.-

Widespread availibility and reduced cost of CNC machine centers, esp.
multi-axial palletized (tombstone) machines which make for economies of
scale.   These machines can essentially work on four or eight parts in one
setup with total accuracy.

Acceptance of the market of bows at very high initial price points.   The
price of performance bows seems to be increasing at a greater rate than
before.

I have more opinions on this but I'm going too long.   Let me know if this
might make a good Glade article, Ted's been after me to write something.

claiming all disclaimers, and flame suit on, 

George T.

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

From: ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb)
Newsgroups: alt.archery
Subject: Re: Riser Materials(long-winded)

In article <47l932$t20@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten) writes:
|> I thought I'd throw in my two cents on this extended thread.
|> 
|> Yamaha Centennial,  about $3500.00 for the complete bow.  I saw one break.

Is this the one that a  bunch of rumours were going on about this
summer, or is it a different (older) one?

|> At 15 dollars a pound and up, carbon fiber is one of the more expensive
|> choices for a riser medium.   It tends to vibrate objectionably unless you

Wow, so the raw material for the riser costs maybe 60 dollars;  considering
that the things sell for upwards of 400-500 dollars lately, this doesn't
strike me as unreasonable.

|> CNC bows, yadda yadda yadda

As regards CNC bows, in my own opinion, the principal reason that
they've taken off is that they look cool.  Don't get me wrong, they're
excellent kit, and you could make an argument based on fairly
skimpy evidence that they're better than cast-riser bows
(at least excluding the breaking issue).  By `skimpy' I mean that
I don't think the introduction of these bows has caused any major
increases in world records or anything; yes, a lot of the most recent
records were shot with Radians, but they're only a very few points
above the old records, and I'd much rather credit that to
improved archers than improved kit.

Most everybody that I've met shooting a Radian has gushed with
enthusiam over it, despite complaining that they take a very
long time to set up to shoot nicely.  On the other hand, everybody
that I've EVER met at a FITA was equally enthusiastic about ANY new
piece of equipment they were shooting with, more so if made of
carbon, and would tell me at length how they were shooting 116 dozens
at 90 meters just the other day, and then when they shot an 1134 FITA
would explain that they're still `settling in'.....

Lev Gelb

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

From: dalzell@titan.tcn.net (Thomas Dalzell)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials(long-winded)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:54:53 +700

In article <489oup$lbe@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb)
writes:
>From: ldg1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.D. Gelb)
>Subject: Re: Riser Materials(long-winded)
>Date: 14 Nov 1995 09:53:29 GMT

>In article <47l932$t20@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten)
writes:
>|> I thought I'd throw in my two cents on this extended thread.
>|> 
>|> Yamaha Centennial,  about $3500.00 for the complete bow.  I saw one break.

>Is this the one that a  bunch of rumours were going on about this
>summer, or is it a different (older) one?

>|> At 15 dollars a pound and up, carbon fiber is one of the more expensive
>|> choices for a riser medium.   It tends to vibrate objectionably unless you

>Wow, so the raw material for the riser costs maybe 60 dollars;  considering
>that the things sell for upwards of 400-500 dollars lately, this doesn't
>strike me as unreasonable.

With carbon you can't just stick it in a mill and flip a switch, and tada.  
There is a lot more hand lay up etc...  and you have to bond in bushings 
etc... the engineering is a little more complex too, though there is software 
for that.

>|> CNC bows, yadda yadda yadda

>As regards CNC bows, in my own opinion, the principal reason that
>they've taken off is that they look cool.  Don't get me wrong, they're
>excellent kit, and you could make an argument based on fairly
>skimpy evidence that they're better than cast-riser bows
>(at least excluding the breaking issue).  By `skimpy' I mean that
>I don't think the introduction of these bows has caused any major
>increases in world records or anything; yes, a lot of the most recent
>records were shot with Radians, but they're only a very few points
>above the old records, and I'd much rather credit that to
>improved archers than improved kit.

>Most everybody that I've met shooting a Radian has gushed with
>enthusiam over it, despite complaining that they take a very
>long time to set up to shoot nicely.  On the other hand, everybody
>that I've EVER met at a FITA was equally enthusiastic about ANY new
>piece of equipment they were shooting with, more so if made of
>carbon, and would tell me at length how they were shooting 116 dozens
>at 90 meters just the other day, and then when they shot an 1134 FITA
>would explain that they're still `settling in'.....


>Lev Gelb

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

From: jdickson@festival.ed.ac.uk (John Dickson)
Subject: Re: Riser Materials(Still long-winded)
Date: 20 Nov 1995 13:15:21 GMT

force10ten@aol.com (Force10Ten) writes:

>Yamaha Centennial,  about $3500.00 for the complete bow.  I saw one
>break.

Never seen it, better the archer got it replaced free?

>KG Paragon- price unknown.   Looks kludgy to me.

Kludge does not even begin to describe it! YUK. I know of one that
cracked in the limb pocket when only a few months old and it was not a
heavy draw weight approx 36# and it's 700UKP or something similar!

>Perrin Unian- about $1000.00 for the riser.  Very kewl, but vibrates like
>you would not believe.

Never seen that either but as usual *kewl looks* does not equal *kewl scores*!

>Carbo-fast- price unknown.

I'm interested that they've actually got some really good archers to
give it a try, it must be a decent product at least??

[SNIP carbon properties]

I'm glad someone who *knows* said it, I never could get round the idea
on all counts. Particularly the lighten the riser so much you need to
shoot 2 V-bars, one top and one bottom!?!

>On the
>other hand lots of people think carbon is sexy.   

Well I think that's perfectly valid!!! But then again nice anodising is
sexier 8)

[Snip Carbon Handle inconsistencies]

>The best example of thisconsistency issue is the experience of Vladimir
>Echeev, who shot a Soviet-made RTM composite riser (which looked just like
>a TD-4 from a distance) very successfully (and at great arrow speed, over
>230 FPS) with ACE shafts.

Is that what he was shooting at Barcelona??? I always assumed it was one
of those Beman *Hoyts* with the duff limb pockets and the splatter paint job.

[Snip reasons to machine risers]

Don't forget that you can anodise a machined handle 8)

>I have more opinions on this but I'm going too long.   Let me know if this
>might make a good Glade article, Ted's been after me to write something.

Go on George make Jim Conroy (Carbofast) really unhappy 8)

John Dickson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HomeUsenetArticles*