Thoughts on bows after the ATA

Chris · 01-09-2011, 11:50 AM

Why is it the industry has taken this long to address the riser torque from cable rods, cams, flexing risers, etc?

It seems a lot of companies are now jumping in to address this situation.
Bowtech: FLX Guard
G5: Ti Flex rod/Centroid cams
Darton: Curved cable rod
Mathews: Reverse assist roller

You can't tell me other bow engineers didn't know about this. At first I thought it was gimmick but after setting up and testing thousands of bows, I can tell you it's real and it makes a difference. Bows that address these problems are much easier to tune.

Why did it take this long to address this problem and why is it only a handful of companies are looking into correcting this problem?

I don't understand the concept of making a product "good enough" it will sell. I would want to build the best product I possible could.

Companies that continue to try to improve archery and educating the consumer are really helping the industry. Eventually, those that coast or continue the same-old, same-old will eventually find smaller sales figures.

I say thank you to the bow companies that continue to push the boundaries of bow development. It helps keep people interested in our favorite past time.

JTClark · 01-09-2011, 11:55 AM

i have been take some of look at ATA live, and website of archery, and i do like the look diamond deadeye make, and i would love to see quest bow to make single cam as z7 or deadeye as limb style
after wait long to curious about invaison and it doesnt surpiser me i would say i'm stick with different as i'm fan single cam bow

Daniel Boone · 01-09-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Why is it the industry has taken this long to address the riser torque from cable rods, cams, flexing risers, etc?

It seems a lot of companies are now jumping in to address this situation.
Bowtech: FLX Guard
G5: Ti Flex rod/Centroid cams
Darton: Curved cable rod
Mathews: Reverse assist roller

You can't tell me other bow engineers didn't know about this. At first I thought it was gimmick but after setting up and testing thousands of bows, I can tell you it's real and it makes a difference. Bows that address these problems are much easier to tune.

Why did it take this long to address this problem and why is it only a handful of companies are looking into correcting this problem?

I don't understand the concept of making a product "good enough" it will sell. I would want to build the best product I possible could.

Companies that continue to try to improve archery and educating the consumer are really helping the industry. Eventually, those that coast or continue the same-old, same-old will eventually find smaller sales figures.

I say thank you to the bow companies that continue to push the boundaries of bow development. It helps keep people interested in our favorite past time.

Many will will argue it hard to best a cable rod system. Some also think simple is best in bows. They got to try something different to make bows more attracting to sale from last year. Most change as been around and done over and over agian. Old timers get a kick out of new things that were done years ago and brought back. Heck want to get it right elimanate the cable rod and shoot through the cables and risors and elimanate lean all together.
DB
DB

acesup · 01-09-2011, 12:39 PM

even with flex gaurds and all these no torque systems, your never gonna eliminate all the side to side riser torque. So is it that big of an advancement in engineering...I say no. I mean I don't think it's a bad area of technology to explore, but to say that those bow companies who aren't focused these "no torque" systems are lacking anything as far as advancing bow design and technology is kinda silly

Chris · 01-09-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acesup

even with flex gaurds and all these no torque systems, your never gonna eliminate all the side to side riser torque. So is it that big of an advancement in engineering...I say no. I mean I don't think it's a bad area of technology to explore, but to say that those bow companies who aren't focused these "no torque" systems are lacking anything as far as advancing bow design and technology is kinda silly

I think any bow company not trying to advance the technology is very lacking whether it is tune-ability, speed, noise, whatever. Too me it means the bow company is extremely arrogant. They think the consumer is gullible enough that they make minor tweaks to bows and the consumer will still buy a new bow year or so.

As someone who sells bows, many bow shoppers are a lot smarter these days. Like all things, the internet is providing a lot more education for the consumer and this will force the bow companies to adapt or die.

CutTheLoop · 01-09-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I think any bow company not trying to advance the technology is very lacking whether it is tune-ability, speed, noise, whatever. Too me it means the bow company is extremely arrogant. They think the consumer is gullible enough that they make minor tweaks to bows and the consumer will still buy a new bow year or so.

As someone who sells bows, many bow shoppers are a lot smarter these days. Like all things, the internet is providing a lot more education for the consumer and this will force the bow companies to adapt or die.

It's called planned obsolescence, it exists in about every industry and made the computer & microprocessor industry bazillions of dollars.

Bow companies are just as guilty, several of them have YEARS worth of improvements already R&D'd, patents, and designs ready for the CNC machine they hold back for the very purpose of slowly reeling in us, and our wallets in the process.

Only problem is, it works.

Definition:
Business practice of deliberately outdating an item (much before the end of its useful life) by stopping its supply or service support and introducing a newer (often incompatible) model or version. Its objective is to prod the consumer or user to abandon the currently owned item in favor of the 'upgrade.' Most prevalent in computer hardware and software industry

Archerdad · 01-09-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I think any bow company not trying to advance the technology is very lacking whether it is tune-ability, speed, noise, whatever. Too me it means the bow company is extremely arrogant. They think the consumer is gullible enough that they make minor tweaks to bows and the consumer will still buy a new bow year or so.

As someone who sells bows, many bow shoppers are a lot smarter these days. Like all things, the internet is providing a lot more education for the consumer and this will force the bow companies to adapt or die.

i would have to agree with you...

My Martin had the nitrous x cams which is the shoot through system and
I truly felt it was the easiest bow to tune and easier to shoot well than other bows I have had.

Daniel Boone · 01-09-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archerdad

i would have to agree with you...

My Martin had the nitrous x cams which is the shoot through system and
I truly felt it was the easiest bow to tune and easier to shoot well than other bows I have had.

Many of the top companies had shoot through risors for good reasons. It is a better mouse trap.
DB

acesup · 01-09-2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I think any bow company not trying to advance the technology is very lacking whether it is tune-ability, speed, noise, whatever. Too me it means the bow company is extremely arrogant. They think the consumer is gullible enough that they make minor tweaks to bows and the consumer will still buy a new bow year or so.

As someone who sells bows, many bow shoppers are a lot smarter these days. Like all things, the internet is providing a lot more education for the consumer and this will force the bow companies to adapt or die.

I think you missunderstood my post. I didn't say that bow companies who don't offer up new technologies are a problem, of course we as consumers want new advancements each year, I just said that the bow companies who are not choosing to focus those technologies on these no torque cable systems are'nt doing any kind of disservice to the bow industry or to us as consumers. In your our initial post you seemed to be highly impressed with all these no torque cable guard systems and bothered by those who were not persuing this technology, and the point I was trying to make is that since they don't fullly eliminate, what they say they eliminate, it's not so huge an advancement anyway and it's ok to explore other technologies. A bow is an assymetrical machine and we hold it on one side to shoot, therefore no technology can ever completely remove torque anyway, that is the human aspect of archery.

Chris · 01-09-2011, 06:34 PM

So are you saying this is a problem that doesn't exist? Or are you saying it's not worth trying to address this problem? I'm not saying any of these attempts to fix the problem are perfect but they do improve the system.

Have you ever tried to tune one of these bows that have a huge amount of rotational torque...it's impossible. I've sent an entire shipment of bows back to a manufacturer once because they would not tune. I proved it.

bfisher · 01-09-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Boone

Many will will argue it hard to best a cable rod system. Some also think simple is best in bows. They got to try something different to make bows more attracting to sale from last year. Most change as been around and done over and over agian. Old timers get a kick out of new things that were done years ago and brought back. Heck want to get it right elimanate the cable rod and shoot through the cables and risors and elimanate lean all together.
DB
DB

Makes me wonder why Martin's X system was never more popular. I guess many took a look and thought that backing a nock through the cables a couple inches to the string was "too busy".

I'm sure more companies will in time explore the idea of reducing torque, but I still feel the only way to get rid of it is to be rid of the cable rod/slide or roller guards all together.

On the same issue, from another era, does anynody remember the days of 4-wheel compounds, before the advent of the cable guard? Duh!!!!!!

Does anybody remember 48" bows where the side load wasn't near as severe as it is today? Duh!!!!!!!!

Daniel Boone · 01-09-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfisher

Makes me wonder why Martin's X system was never more popular. I guess many took a look and thought that backing a nock through the cables a couple inches to the string was "too busy".

I'm sure more companies will in time explore the idea of reducing torque, but I still feel the only way to get rid of it is to be rid of the cable rod/slide or roller guards all together.

On the same issue, from another era, does anynody remember the days of 4-wheel compounds, before the advent of the cable guard? Duh!!!!!!

Does anybody remember 48" bows where the side load wasn't near as severe as it is today? Duh!!!!!!!!

I walked the ATA floor with a engineer who been designing for many years. Was interesting hearing who did what and when. Bows shot great scores though back in 70's. Like he said you got to do something everthing. Torguless bow now that would be interesting.
DB

Daniel Boone · 01-09-2011, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfisher

Makes me wonder why Martin's X system was never more popular. I guess many took a look and thought that backing a nock through the cables a couple inches to the string was "too busy".

I'm sure more companies will in time explore the idea of reducing torque, but I still feel the only way to get rid of it is to be rid of the cable rod/slide or roller guards all together.

On the same issue, from another era, does anynody remember the days of 4-wheel compounds, before the advent of the cable guard? Duh!!!!!!

Does anybody remember 48" bows where the side load wasn't near as severe as it is today? Duh!!!!!!!!

Several of the bows and manufactures are coming out with shoot through risors.
Main reason is its a target thing. Most sales are hunting bows.
DB

Reed · 01-09-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Boone

Several of the bows and manufactures are coming out with shoot through risors.
Main reason is its a target thing. Most sales are hunting bows.
DB

shoot through risers do not solve the problem but a choot thoguth cable system does. Now a shoot though riser adn cable system like the alternative exact was a very good idea that never cought on.

Daniel Boone · 01-09-2011, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reed

shoot through risers do not solve the problem but a choot thoguth cable system does. Now a shoot though riser adn cable system like the alternative exact was a very good idea that never cought on.

Agree. But any can make a shoot through bow split the cable easy. Seen it done many times.
DB