Oh my goodness, Mike (Wingnut) and Jason at Dryad Bows have got a winner.
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww66/rustycraine/staticilf4.jpg)
This is their static recurve limbs from their Orion mold with ILF limb butts on a prototype 15" riser. these limbs are shorts 40#@28". limbs are smoking. with a 9 gpp arrow shot 194fps off the fingers :) .
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww66/rustycraine/staticilf2.jpg)
Wingnut at full draw with the rig.
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww66/rustycraine/staticilf3.jpg)
Jason at full draw. Static limbs on the 19" alloy ILF riser the limbs were 35#@28".
the static recurve limbs have a very nice feel at the back of the draw. stay tuned. the 15" riser is gonna make a fine popup blind bow. the static limbs make the release feel like you are shooting a longer bow. comes of the fingers so nicley.
rusty
Rusty is was fun having you out today as always. The curve limbs look good on that riser at full draw. Nice pics.
Mike
Nice looking bow and limbs,looks sweet!
How much??
oh btw the short ILF limbs make a 58" bow.
rusty
Can't wait to see them in person, next month!
We actually offer a shorter limb too that makes a 56". The limbs are not quite ready for sale but will be $300.
Mike
$300.00. Is that per limb? :clapper: :biglaugh:
NOt for most people. But if you want a set, I'll work it out.
Mike :smileystooges:
Thanks! They look great!
40 lbs at 28" draw and 9 gpp and your REALLY getting 194????? THATS smokin........
Yohn - unless the scale was wrong or the chronograph was, the speed was 194fps. there were 4 different shooters, arrow was marked at 28". all the shots went thru the chrono with a low of 192fps. the actual draw weight was 39# 12oz at 28".
the arrow was a 600. it had the fletch on, it not a bare shaft. I guess glass and bamboo can be pretty quick.
while the speed was great and I guess that is what everyone guages limb by these days, the fact is we shoot by the feel and draw of the limbs. to me that is the selling point of the dryad recurve limbs. the area of the draw that would go thru the clicker has a such a nice feel. these limbs have such a nice release. feels like you are shooting a longer bow than 58".
rusty
Actually the impressive number was when we ran a heavier hunting arrow through it. The arrow weighed 489 and shot 171. When you normallize it comes out to 200 fps. So it picks up a bunch with the heavy arrow.
Mike
Great looking bow; love the profile.
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohon:
40 lbs at 28" draw and 9 gpp and your REALLY getting 194????? THATS smokin........
That's what I'm thinking. Shuuuweeee! How's it's manners?
194 fps and 9 gpp at 28" draw?! Gee Whiz! Can't wait to hear a lot more about that.
I can address the manners of the limbs. this may be a little outside the context of the forum but maybe the moderates will let me answer the question.
(http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww66/rustycraine/dryadrcilf2.jpg)
I have put the limbs thru their paces on the 20yd indoor range. I used a 19" Bernardini Cobra and an AGF Safari sight. Barebow weight on the riser but no stabilizer. the Cobra riser is like a naval gun platform. it will shoot the limbs as good as you can shoot them.
The limbs have a great draw. the "clicker" area is best. i have not done a f/d curve on them i mostly go by feel. the curve feels very flat at the back of the draw. makes hitting you draw a bit easier. the static recurve give a feel of a much longer bow. the limbs are stable, extremely quiet, and quick.
groups are nock busting.
ok back to bow hunting....
listen we don't want to tout these limbs too much. right now they have the best price point vs performance, material, workmanship on the market. don't let Wingnut know
rusty
The 15" prototype riser looks sweet, the limbs look super smooth also.
just when I thought I was done buying ILF limbs.
so when is this bow going to be available? or the limbs?
We need to work a couple more sets into the schedule this week so we can get data points for the formulas. If we can get it done, we'll take orders starting next week.
Mike
QuoteOriginally posted by Jim Casto Jr:
194 fps and 9 gpp at 28" draw?! Gee Whiz! Can't wait to hear a lot more about that.
That is pretty darn good performance for sure but I'm a little confused as to why it seems so unreasonable. At 9 gpp there are a number of limbs on the market that that will reach those speeds with a finger release, or at least be within the margin of error with different chronos.
I looked on Blacky's site just for a comparison and found for example...
Predator Classic 28" draw, 9gpp shot with fingers was 193 fps.
TradTech Titan with Extreme BF limbs (med) 190 fps.
DAS 21" ILF, stock limbs - 189 fps
For comparison purposes, when you did the testing on the new Dryad limbs, what preload setting were you using? On the prototype riser, it looks like they're bottomed out pretty good.
Congratulations, those are some pretty impressive numbers!!
:clapper:
Lenny,
Unreasonable, may not be the best term to use, but your numbers do speak volumes as to why Dryad's numbers may be very interesting and exciting. The BF Extremes, by all accounts, are fabulous limbs, the Dalaa, was designed expressly to offer maximum performance in a hunting bow for archers with short draws, and the Predator... well... we've all heard great things about them for years. Here, we're talking about a "first shot" prototype riser and wood/glass limbs. In other words a notion of what should work well, and... BOOM... on par with arguably the best of the best.
I think that's darned impressive.
Side note: I like the way those limbs look on that TAC Firefly too.
I agree Jim. That's one of the beautiful things about ILF though. People like Wingnut don't have to reinvent the wheel every time they want to try something new. Much of the R&D has already been done...on someone else's dime. All the new people have to do is plug their own specific ideas into that formula and see what happens.
Materials can be tweaked, limb pad angles can be tweaked, riser materials can be experimented with, limb profiles can be tweaked, etc., etc, etc., but the "basic recipe" was has been the same for decades.
I couldn't agree more, it is VERY impressive. To a large extent though, the "system" allows for a much shorter learning curve.
keep in mind the numbers are kinda my numbers and pretty informal. Mike and Jason will do a f/d curve on the limbs before they release them. that is the numbers I'd hang my hat. :) I do have a prediction......the limbs are going to be pretty quick.
as an archer that bow hunts it still kinda bothers me that speed is evidently the highest criteria a limbs is judged by :) . wait to ya feel the draw on these limbs. then the feel and speed might be equal surpirses
rusty
Lenny,
They were 2 turns off the bottom on the riser, so in the middle of the preload.
Yep Earl Hoyt had a great idea so many years ago. It's amazing it took this long to get to hunting bows.
It seems that our static really likes the ILF format.
Mike
QuoteOriginally posted by wingnut:
Lenny,
They were 2 turns off the bottom on the riser, so in the middle of the preload.
Mike
That right there might account for 4 or 5 fps. I know with my Titan, (and others) there is a brass collar that limtis how far you can bolt the limbs down. The width of the collar itself is approximately 3 turns out from "bottomed out." So, what you consider the "middle" of the preload range is tighter than the absolute highest preload setting on mine.
It would be interesting to see what the numbers would be if all parameters were constant, including limb pad angles. Could what appears to be a screamer of a limb, actually be more a function of limb pad angle? I wonder how say a SKY single carbon limb would perform on your prototype riser with the same amount of preload? Or a Black Max limb or a DAS limb? Unless you test a limb on the same platform, the numbers don't really mean much. Especially in the case of ILF limbs where they are designed to go on any number of different risers.
That's why I really like Blacky's site. I know he takes great pains to make sure everything is consistent.
Are you planning to send him a set?
if the limbs are quiet and really smooth at a different limb pad angle then that might be the angle where those limbs are most efficient. the hoyt angles work great for the geometries of the recurves they were designed with. when you change the limb geometry you may also have to change the limb pad angle to optimize the limb angles.
yes, a pair of black maxes or skys might be just as fast but will they be just as smooth and quiet? my guess is that they will not be as smooth or as quiet as a static limb when you start taking them out of the efficient geometries they were intended to be used with.
ex. look at the limb pad angle on high performance longbows. would you suggest to match the recurve limb pad angles to match the longbows for a more fair comparison? i wouldnt.
so.. evening out all the variables to test only speed may or may not be relevant. in my experience speed is easy. speed, smoothness and good timing (quietness/low vibe) is not.
i think for testing, limbs and brace should be set at their optimums for whatever shooting you plan on doing the most. draw length has to be considered.
a few more twists on the limb bolts may give you a few fps but it might also make your bow loud and less smooth at a given draw length.
every limb/riser combo is going to have a most efficient setting of timing/brace/angles dependant on how far the limbs are being drawn. with an adjustable limb pad angle and ability to change brace ht we can tweak a little bit in different directions but there will still be a "best" setting. limb length will also influence where this best setting is. a really short bow will have different "settings" for better efficiency at a given draw than will too-long limb but there will still be a best set up for a given draw. we choose and modify all this based on what kind of bow we are wanting to set up (short hunting bow or long target bow or something in between).
..harder to compare apples to apples sure.. but what i really want to do is compare the entire platform vs. platform and see which combo is best for my PERSONAL SHOOTING REQUIREMENTS.
lots of variables.
looking forward to data.
awesome looking limbs and terriffic price!! :archer:
Well, i know nothing except what i see and read. I wonder if a 62" bow will be in the mix of options? I might just sell a widow and order one.
I forgot, i like that wood handled bow with the static limbs. It looks like a hunting bow to me.
great stuff you guys
Billy,
With our riser you can get a 62" curve with XL limbs.
Mike
Mike, are you coming to Denton Hill this year? I would love to shoot one of those. These static curves are really semi-static aren't they?
They appear to have a bit of an opening.
George nope they are static. But there is no such thing as semi static. It's static or working. Semi static is like a little bit pregnant. LOL
Yep we'll be there.
Mike
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan brodrick:
..harder to compare apples to apples sure.. but what i really want to do is compare the entire platform vs. platform and see which combo is best for my PERSONAL SHOOTING REQUIREMENTS.
True enough, BUT... by only looking at one specific platform, you defeat the entire purpose of the ILF system. The whole purpose of the ILF system was, and is, to have a "universal" limb attachement so that it will fit, and perform, on a variety of different risers.
I really don't think this is the case with Wingnuts new limb but I would never even consider an ILF limb if it was designed to perform at it's best with only one riser. If I wanted that, I'd buy a bolt down.
The ILF system is designed to be adjustable in regard to preload, tiller, and a variety of different shooting styles, draw lengths, brace heights, etc., on a variety of different risers.
This is just my opinion but designing a "universal" limb that only works well on one riser will pretty much doom it in the marketplace. I'm guessing (quite certain actually) that Wingnut is smarter than that.
:thumbsup:
Lenny,
You've been chipping about preload and special limb angles. Did you read the weights of the limbs by the pics?
Our 15" riser set two turns off was 40# (39.6) and the TAC 19" riser set two turns off was 35# (35.2)
That would indicate too me that the limb angle is pretty close to the same. Otherwise the weight would differ more the 4.4#s.
Mike
Gotcha Mike.....I'm guessing you will have some there to play with?
Yep George,we should have a bunch with us.
Mike
Lenny - I have shot both the Dryad ILF recurve limbs and ILF long bow limbs on risers from 25" to 15". not only do i have a collection of several ILF riser but I have got the latest hot foam carbon limbs by severl manufactures to compare them to incucluding samick, borders, w&w.
mike did the f/d curve from several different risers with several of the foam/carbon, foam/glass, and glass/wood so he would have the info.
btw there is a difference in speed and draw weight between several of my 25" fita risers on a given set of limbs. when you start going down in riser lenght there is a quite a bit of difference even in the same lenght risers considering speed, draw weight and preload.
the fixture is universal not the riser configuration.
rusty
I'm not "chipping" Wingnut, I just find the discussion interesting, that's all.
Pictures can be deceiving but it looks to me like the limb pad angle on your riser is closer to vertical than that of the other. Maybe not. What is the limb pad angle on your prototype?
In your defense, if the limb performs well on your riser it should perform equally well on risers of the same (or close) geometry. My previous post was more in response to ryan's post than any of yours.
That's why I said it would be interesting to see what the numbers are when ALL things are consistent. That way you know what is "limbs" and what is "riser."
WE are still playing with the limb angle on the riser but we do know that limbs are weighing pretty close to the "standard" with it. I have a couple of Rusty's Morrison risers here that are +8-10# with the same limbs.
Mike
Serious question here.
Wingnut said, "The arrow weighed 489 and shot 171. When you normallize it comes out to 200 fps."
What does "normallize" mean?
Bender,
I have a program that adjusts to the 9gpp standard. I call it normalizing.
Mike
So 489 grains @ 171 FPS = 31.7 ft-lbs KE Is "normalizing" when you then take that KE figure and work the equation backwards, substituting the 9gpp arrow mass of 360 grains? Because that does yield V=199.1 FPS.
But isn't that rather confusing because we already know that the 9gpp arrow does 194 FPS not 200?
We know that efficiency increases as arrow mass goes up, so wouldn't it be more straightforward to just compare the KE and/or momentum figures of the 2 different arrows?
I bet them babies are quiet. Looks good guys.
Bender,
You answered your own question, we know that efficiency goes up with arrow mass. But how much? By shooting a heavy arrow and then running the program, I can predict the amount of increase.
It works best when you see someone post 5 bows of different weights shooting the same arrow and comparing fps. By normalizing you can get a apple to apple comparison of the results.
My only concern with the light arrow used in this test is that the spine was very light and it may have not been flying as good as we would have liked. Good arrow flight is very important to testing.
Mike
Sorry doesn't work that way. The 9gpp arrow did 194, not 200. 194 ain't bad, No nead to purposefully throw out confusing numbers to make things look better than they really are. If there was problem with tuning then that should have been addressed first, prior to generating the test. That computer program isn't going to "fix" tuning. To generate KE with the higher efficiency of the heavier arrow then work the equation backwards to pretend that the bow is just as efficient with lighter arrow is misleading. It would seem "nomalizing" is a pointless exercise.
You are intitled to your opinion.
I find it helpful in seeing the performance across the spectrum of arrow weights. And very helpfull with folks doing their own testing with heavy or light arrows. Being able to predict results is a good thing. If you follow up with actual testing.
Now if I had just done the heavy arrow and touted that as the number for 9 gpp that would not have been right.
Mike
This is not to start an argument at all but I'm honestly a little confused.
Based on your your results, we know what 9gpp will do and we know what the heavier arrow will do...they were actually tested. What good is a computer program that gives you incorrect information? How does "normalizing" turn 194 fps into 200 fps?
I'd like a computer program like that to balance my checkbook. ;)
Lenny, normalizing turns 194 into 200 by using the efficiency generated by using a heavier arrow to calculate backwards and generate a velocity for the lighter arrow as if it were just as efficient as the heavier arrow. Which it never was or ever will be.
You're missing out on something very important here that Wingnut told me. The belief that 194 FPS isn't really 200 FPS is just an opinion.
Thanks Bender but you lost me right about here...
QuoteOriginally posted by Bender:
Lenny, normalizing turns 194 into 200 by using the efficiency generated...
:confused:
Don't feel bad though, I confuse easily.
Gentelmen,
You need to get out and shoot or something. Your spending way too much time playing with the computer.
I have a program that I wrote a few years ago that can take information from shooting bows and normalize it to the standard of 9 gpp so that you can compare apples too apples.
In this case we shot the heavy arrow and ran the program. The number was too high in my opinion. So we went through our arrows and found a .600 carbon and built it up to hit the weight exactly. When we shot it the speed was 194.
So I turned an estimated 200 into an actual 194. I shared the heavy arrow results 171 fps because the bow gained more then expected efficiency jumping in arrow weight.
But please if you want an explaination give me a call or stop by my booth at a show. I'd be glad to get into the finer points of mathmatics and physics with you.
Mike
well I am glade that NASA has good "Opinions". hit a docking ring of a space stations with a shuttle must take REAL good opinons. Much less Mars from earth......well come to think of it maybe math is a little more than an opinion :)
rusty
I think I am going to go string my self-bow up and get my head clear..........
Craig
Nice save, but it isn't what you originally implied.
And do even begin to presume that you are in a position to teach me anything about math or physics.
QuoteOriginally posted by wingnut:
Gentelmen,
You need to get out and shoot or something. Your spending way too much time playing with the computer.
Mike
Yeah, you're probably right.
Hey wait...you posted twice as much as I did on this thread. :confused: ;)
:biglaugh:
Dang Mike! You losin' weight?
Yep Tom lost 65# in the last couple years. Trying to get down to my college wrestling body.
Well that's not going to happen but I would be happy to hit 230# before I turn 60.
LOL
Mike
Those limbs look beautiful - - put that darn seed in my brain and now I can't get it out of there. Boy, at 56" and about 58#!! Maybe I can make space on the wall, eventually. Gotta let it germinate a bit! :bigsmyl: