Has ILF success stifled recurve design?

[WhitehartFB]

Where would recurve takedown bow design be now, if most manufacturers had not adopted the market leaders bow geometry, I know imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

ILF is a good all round sales & marketing story which obviously appeals as it takes out some or all of the financial risk for all parties - buyer, manufacturer and dealer. I understand where we are today and that it would be a brave mainstream manufacturer to go out on a limb (sorry). I cannot also deny that bows are accurate and do the job and within current design/geometry restraints there are still new changes coming out each year beyond colour.

But looking at the massive advances in cars, electronics and even compounds, has the winning formula of ILF actually stifled development and had it not been the case would Hoyt and the others over the past 15 years have been spurred on to develop new and even more exciting advanced products with even more of their own signature.

Or is it really the case that we are at the stage where "it's as good as it gets"

[Schme1440]

A good point. The problem we have now is that All manufactures would have to revert to there own method at once otherwise the masses would stay with the ILF range of bows. However the ILF allows people to mix and match. In that instance I think it has made the sport more competitive cos you can mix and match to your personal preference.
I do see where you ar going. Could companies have done more with oout the ILF? Do we need a new moement in recurve designs like a 27" riser for example?

[Old Bloke]

You have to ask yourself, why is it that in general terms, despite all the so called advancement in archery equipment, why are the scores of the masses of archers not much (if at all) better than they were over 20 years ago? I accept that the top flight scores have gone up, but I consider that to be more of the training aspect rather than equipment.
I have my doubts about the ILF as whenever I have tried to tune these bows (which included ones owned by myself), that everytime the bow was debraced and then rebraced, the limbs, more often than not, did not settle into the same place. One also has to consider with the dovetails on the ILF, that some are manufactured to imperial tolerances and some to metric. Forgive me but if you are putting a metric limb into an imperial riser, (and visa versa) then it could (and does) give rise to a limb movement when shooting, with the resultant left/right/middle/middle/left grouping pattern. Some of the cheaper versions of the ILF limb haven't a hope in hell of shooting a group of straight arrows and spew arrows out in a scatter gun approach. The poor old archer will think that they are doing something wrong, struggle despite words of help, see no improvement and pack up the sport.
I am passionate about the ILF limb and of the problems I have seen and encountered concerning it's use, and as you are aware Whiteheart (we have talked) there are some bowyers who are aware of the issues but are not prepared to put their head on the chopping block and lose potential (if not all) their business by not having ILF.
I will be talking to a couple of bowyers very shortly to see if I can have a bow made with ILF but with a very minor adaption which will give me absolute confidence in the ILF. The day the bolts were removed was a step backwards in my opinion.

[WhitehartFB]

I agree with both Schme and OB, but even the Luxor is based on the same geometry. I was not just thinking of the limb pocket design (fully understand all your concerns OB and maybe a case for sticking to one manufacturer for riser and limbs and oh where would that take us ) but the overall package.

Some manufacturers have made tweaks to the ILF geometry I am thinking of BMG as one example but as I say just tweaks 1 degee here or there, an inch off or an inch added all which then have to be fused together by the archer/coach and or dealer not the bowyer.

I just wonder if manufacturers do have new radical designs sitting in a filling cabinet or on Autocad wishing desperately that they could build them.

Today you do not buy a compound because of an industry standard you buy it because to you it feels and shoots great compared to all the other offerings. You trust the manufacturer to put all thier experience in to providing you with a great piece of kit. And that bow lives or dies by it's reputation, the pivot technology from bowtech is a great example.

It used to be the same in recurve, so is it the case that history has shown that this economic model works great for compound but not recurve?

[Schme1440]

Originally Posted by Whitehart

I agree with both Schme and OB, but even the Luxor is based on the same geometry.

I know I was being a bit toungue in cheek. I understand your talking about inovations like the introduction of stuff like tec bars and the V limb mount sytem on Bowtech's.

[WhitehartFB]

Originally Posted by Schme1440

I know I was being a bit toungue in cheek. I understand your talking about inovations like the introduction of stuff like tec bars and the V limb mount sytem on Bowtech's.

No problems Schme only doing your job, Vittorio will be proud and lets face it the more you say about the handle the happier we at Perris will be

[Nick Forster]

I have spoken with keith at KG Archery many time's on this point and he has been reveiwing and looking into making a new bow with bolt up limbs ( he does still make a couple of bolt up models but they are quite dated ) He is convinced that scores would go up with modern materials and his new riser but! he feels that the archery comunitee is so against anything non ILF, that the risk is too high to manufacture. This is because of tooling cost ect.
At present if you want anything non ILF Stylist is about the only way to go.
Nick.
Whitehart any progress on reintroducing the Whitehart

[grantwomack]

I think that ILF is a very good system. That's not to say that it couldn't be improved!

A parallel example is that of VHS versus Betamax. Beta was, by far, a better system with a clearer picture and smaller tapes. But, since VHS was so widely distributed and so many people already had a VHS recorder, it won out as the system most people stayed with. Same with minidiscs vs. CDs.

I think that limb pockets could be improved, and there probably have been better systems released (Hoyt Axis and the limb lock system for a start) but so many people have "universal" limbs and there is no absolutely clear advantage over other limb systems. It would take something very dramatic to make a change to a better system.

[Schme1440]

Originally Posted by Whitehart

No problems Schme only doing your job, Vittorio will be proud and lets face it the more you say about the handle the happier we at Perris will be

Everyones a winner!

[Schme1440]

Originally Posted by grantwomack

I think that ILF is a very good system. That's not to say that it couldn't be improved!

A parallel example is that of VHS versus Betamax. Beta was, by far, a better system with a clearer picture and smaller tapes. But, since VHS was so widely distributed and so many people already had a VHS recorder, it won out as the system most people stayed with. Same with minidiscs vs. CDs.

I think that limb pockets could be improved, and there probably have been better systems released (Hoyt Axis and the limb lock system for a start) but so many people have "universal" limbs and there is no absolutely clear advantage over other limb systems. It would take something very dramatic to make a change to a better system.

I think the Axis method is probably the best place t start. Just supply a kit to change out the dovetails from the limbs like with the helix. That way people with ILF limbs would still be able to use the new system riser, like with the axis.