Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
05-09-2006, 07:16 PM
#12
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Grindstone Branch KY USA
Posts: 318
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
some of the items you posted pics of are stabilizers, some are vibration absorbers. the rules for hc state only one stabilizer. the offset bracket with the vibracheck is in my opinion not legal. it is an additional stabilizer, mouted to an offset. imho, anything that is added to the bow, like the vibracheck would be an additional stabilizer. the simms products, with the exception of the s-coil would not be considered an additional stabilizer. the dampener placed on the cable slide, imho would not be a stabilizer.
some of the items you question will not accept additional weights, but themselves are in fact stabilizers, with noise dampening properties. the addition of them, with a standard front mounted stabilizer would be against the rules as i read them.
some of the items you question will not accept additional weights, but themselves are in fact stabilizers, with noise dampening properties. the addition of them, with a standard front mounted stabilizer would be against the rules as i read them.
05-09-2006, 07:54 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
Keith,
I guess that is where we differ. I read the rules to say "Un-weighted vibration dampers are not considered to be stabilizers". No matter what they are labled, if they do not accept add on weights, they are not considered a stabilizer.
You describe "in your opinion" that the the dampener placed on the cable rod would not be a stabilizer. How is that different than several of the other examples. Allmetal rods with vibration dampening material on them?
I guess that is where we differ. I read the rules to say "Un-weighted vibration dampers are not considered to be stabilizers". No matter what they are labled, if they do not accept add on weights, they are not considered a stabilizer.
You describe "in your opinion" that the the dampener placed on the cable rod would not be a stabilizer. How is that different than several of the other examples. Allmetal rods with vibration dampening material on them?
05-09-2006, 08:01 PM
#14
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
Ahhhhhhh, here is exactly what I have. What about this.
The MXV System is a uniquely designed "mini" V-bar system that is mounted through your riser. Archers can use one or both sides to achieve the desired balance on their tournament or hunting bow. Incorporating "Isolator" technology, the MXV system is an awesome vibration killer helping to deliver a soft, quiet shot.
No add on weights and designed for " balance" and a "vibration Killer" for tournament or a hunting bow.
The MXV System is a uniquely designed "mini" V-bar system that is mounted through your riser. Archers can use one or both sides to achieve the desired balance on their tournament or hunting bow. Incorporating "Isolator" technology, the MXV system is an awesome vibration killer helping to deliver a soft, quiet shot.
No add on weights and designed for " balance" and a "vibration Killer" for tournament or a hunting bow.
05-09-2006, 08:10 PM
#15
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Avon Lake Ohio USA
Posts: 232
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
Now here is exactly why ken stated he did not have enough information earlier. The exact example you now provide is definately not allowed in the Hunter classes. Why? It violates the single stabilizer criteria.
The rule is worded as is to allow the use of dampening equipment such as limb savers, STS and others. However, the rule does not say that stabilizers without weights will not be considered stabilizers. The single stabilizer rule still very much applies and wil be enforced, along with the length limitations.
The rule is worded as is to allow the use of dampening equipment such as limb savers, STS and others. However, the rule does not say that stabilizers without weights will not be considered stabilizers. The single stabilizer rule still very much applies and wil be enforced, along with the length limitations.
05-09-2006, 08:23 PM
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
Well, I guess the quote from the IBO website is incorrect then. It says exactly the contrary, "Un-weighted vibration dampers are not considered to be stabilizers". I still would like to get clarification on the rule. This is not all about my set-up, several of the above pictures are real examples of issues discussed this weekend.
05-10-2006, 08:02 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
Our definition will follow a littleclarification that we had in the rules for the past three years. (sts dampener or similar.)
We leftout that clarification in this re-write. We thought a vibration dampener was a pretty simple thing.
The rule says nothing about add on weights.
Why would you offset a device intended to dampen vibration? Kind of self defeating isn't it?
Unless it was doubling as a counter weight.
I would not set myself up for a problem, andthose words (off set) sent my Spidey sense to tingling.
Your own definitions for a couple of the devices pictured shows the problem with them.
One stabilizer is allowed in the hunter classes.
If your vibration dampener is providing counter weight oradditional stabilization it is not going be allowed.
In the manner you have defined these devices in question it is obvious that youhave a good handle onthe questionsyou are askingfor clarification.
ken12
We leftout that clarification in this re-write. We thought a vibration dampener was a pretty simple thing.
The rule says nothing about add on weights.
Why would you offset a device intended to dampen vibration? Kind of self defeating isn't it?
Unless it was doubling as a counter weight.
I would not set myself up for a problem, andthose words (off set) sent my Spidey sense to tingling.
Your own definitions for a couple of the devices pictured shows the problem with them.
One stabilizer is allowed in the hunter classes.
If your vibration dampener is providing counter weight oradditional stabilization it is not going be allowed.
In the manner you have defined these devices in question it is obvious that youhave a good handle onthe questionsyou are askingfor clarification.
ken12
05-10-2006, 03:46 PM
#18
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 18
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
I would have to think that the purpose would reflect on this. Is the "sole" purpose vibration or stabilization or a combination. I would have to say that given that the Icon, S-Coiland kickstand and the other similar items that are sold as "Stabilizers" they would be defined as such. The dampners such as the button style items would be described as dampners unless they were used on an extention in that case I would think they would be a stabilizer. If I were to put a 2" module on the end of a stabiliver than it would be a spart of the stabilizer and no longer strictly a vibration dampner. That is just a common sence view from where I sit. I would imagine that that is the "intent" of the rule.
Given the definition on the dual kickstand that you have pictured it states the purpose is to "balance" that would denote a stabilizer.
Given the definition on the dual kickstand that you have pictured it states the purpose is to "balance" that would denote a stabilizer.
05-10-2006, 07:12 PM
#20
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 286
RE: Hunter Class Specifics - Official Ruling Needed
Balance can not be achieved without adding weight somewhere.
ORIGINAL: eagle6
No add on weights and designed for " balance" and a "vibration Killer" for tournament or a hunting bow.
No add on weights and designed for " balance" and a "vibration Killer" for tournament or a hunting bow.