Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

I was reading Hoyt's catalog and they state the the split limb design "provides an effective overall width of 2 1/4 inches, creating more lateral and torsional stability than a traditional 1 1/2 inch limb. This lighter, more efficient design also provides increased arrow speeds, durability, and accuracy."

I seems to me that split limbs aren't necessarily lighter. 2 limbs that are 3/4 inches wide each would weigh the same as one limb 1 1/2 inches wide and I don't see how it would make arrow speed faster. I don't see how it would improve durability or accuracy either. I do see how a wider, 2 1/4 inch, limb would provide more lateral and torsional stability than a 1 1/2 inch limb because of the wider suface area but is this necessary? I'm not bashing Hoyt here just questioning there marketing and reasoning behind split limb technology. My next bow will most likely be a Hoyt. Does split limb technology provide any real benifits to the archer or is this just marketing hype?

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

What the heck?!!? You some kinda troublemaker or sumthin'? Don't go applying logic to advertising! That's un-American fer cryin' out loud!! Get a grip, boy!:D

Well, I don't care for split limbs. But other than getting brush and twigs snagged between the limbs, I haven't had a bit of problem. The bow is plenty stable so I can't kick about that. Are the LXPro limbs on my ProTec any more stable than the solid Carbon Plus limbs on my old SuperSlam? Not that I can tell. Will they be as durable? I reckon I'll find that out if the bow is still around and shootable in another 10 years.

Frankly, I detest that buttugly truss riser too. I don't know where they get the idea it's superior at damping vibration, cuz my hand can't tell any difference over a conventional riser. But I gotta say I shoot this ProTec lights out.

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Hype.

Split limbs were originally designed for one thing--more profit. In early designs, manufacturers could get three limbside out of a blank instead of one limb, therefore increasing production of limb components by 50% out of the same amount of material. BIG gain.

Then it came to be found that those first generation split limbs basically sucked because the torsional rigidity (side to side movement) in them was terrible due to the fact that you had two independant limbsides instead of one wider and more structurally sound one, and even more unfortunate was the fact that they came out about the same time as solocams did, and cam lean quickly became a huge problem when combined with no torsional stiffness. So then companies went running back to the drawing board. Amazingly some companies still utilize those thinner splits today.

So Hoyt,High Country, etc, now come with split limbs that are now much wider and thicker, and with connecting limbsavers or some other contraptions between the limbsides trying to stiffen things up. They eventually had to bring them out to over 2" to gain sufficient torsional rigidity to compete with the full limbs. Many companies who once offered the split limbs have just decided to go back to full limbs and have gone away from splits. Hoyt and High Country and a couple of others still offer them.That's it in a nutshell.

Better? Up to you to decide for yourself. Faster? I doubt it---Hoyt limbs are just as heavy as any full limb, and a 2.25" axle is heavier than a 1.5" one by quite a bit. Add the other connectors and/or split-limbsavers, and it becomes even more apparent. (Mass weight slows reaction time) Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

I don't think there is anything that is beneficial to this limb design. All I can say is that I have owned three Hoyt bows, including the new Vipertec and can not complian a bit about the limbs. Its been a long time since I have heard of a Hoyt limb coming apart. I personally feel that Hoyt limb tolerances and quality are one of the best in the industry bar-none.

I'll freely admit, yes I am partial to Hoyt. But I'm also a big fan of a lot of bows I've shot and liked. Just from my experience, Hoyt seems to make a overall better quality bow, including limb than most manufacturers regardless of being split or solid. I know this will stir up some honets.:D

On note of the risers being ugly? Well come on, they are unique, unlike some other "popular" bows out there that start with a "B" and an "M" who seemed to have copied off one another an awful lot. And yes, the bridge design IMHO does work well. It makes sense that it does in fact stiffen the riser more than conventional designs.

There, that should get the pot a stirren! :D

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

The Hoyt limbs RAWK. By far the best split limb system out there. But Kevin is right, it's basically just a money saver for most comapnies. They are more trouble than they are worth on most bows.

Hoyt however, has done it right by re-designing and refining the system over the years. the XT limbs are touted as having one of if not the lowest failure rate % in the industry. Don't know if thats true, but would not surprise me in the least..they are incredibly well built.

As for the risers..they do a real good job of shock reduction, but as they have become lighter over the years, they do not reduce recoil nearly as well as they used to. They also tend to produce a bow that rolls back a little too easy and requires more stabilizer weight out front..something you don't have to have with one of those "popular B or M" bows :D

Unfortunately as they have lightened them up over the years they have also become more susceptible to bow press damage. The new Tri-ax pocket (or whatever it's called) is touted as so much better for a limb pocket, but IMO it's really to curb people goofing up the risers..The U-tecs and CyberTecs were particularly susceptible to this...Coincidence that the U-tec and the model that replaced the CyberTec received this upgrade? :)

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Jeff, thats a very good point about the Triax system they are using this year. I have heard the notorious stories of bent risers when someone who didn't know what they were doing put it in the press wrong.

On the subject of pockets, why doesn't Bowtech put a pocket system like Hoyts on their bows? By this I mean putting a bridge across the front of the limbs. Bowtech doesn't have any problems that I'm aware of with this, but an improvement like that would be great. Really, thats one of the only things that I didn't like about them design wise.

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Or like Mathews, both Hoyt and Mathews have the best limb pockets out there! But Bowtech probably will add it sooner or later!

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

As for Hoyt and their pockets,I will have to agree that they are among the best if not the best available.


As for Mathews having 1 of the best pockets,I will have to disagree on that one,sorry.I feel the v-lock pocket is nothing more than hype and from a design perspective is actually backward from what it should be to do what they claim.The design should promote the limb shifting and it should have a tendancy to want to back out of the pocket.

This is strictly my opinion and I have not tested it but really look at the design and think about it.I am not bashing but mearly an educated observation on my part.

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Thanks guys, that was pretty much my opinion as well. It seems to be all hype and advertising. I don't doubt that Hoyt has some of the best limbs in the industry but aren't most if not all limbs made by the same company (Gordon) regardless of the bow company? I also do like Hoyts limb pockets and I like there riser design.

What's sad though is that so many archery companies are twisting the facts like a lawyer and coming up with so much B.S. and then putting it out as the gospel truth in there advertising. What ever happened to honesty?:(

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

In terms of split limbs being "better" than solid limbs in general? Yes, I would agree. But I definitely would not say that they (Hoyt's limbs) are inferior to the solid limb designs on the market today. In fact, in regard to their materials and construction they may be somewhat superior in my opinion.

Yes and No. Some companies produce their own limbs in house and some companies have some of their limb styles produced in house while others are produced by Gordon glass. And, there are different grades of limbs that Gordon Glass produces so just because two bow companies have their limbs produced at Gordon Glass does not mean that they are the same quality limb.

I could not agree more. What else is sad is that now you are seeing companies (and their representatives) taking cheap shots at one another, or their designs, not only in advertising but in other areas of communication as well.

Very unprofessional in my opinion

The key to figuring out most advertising..bow specs, etc... is common sense. Take everything with a grain of salt. If a company says "We have the best limbs in the industry." then ask around and see what folks have to say. Alot of time the truth arises relatively easily.

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Thanks PABowhunter, you cleared some of the fog regarding the different limbs from the same company being different qualities, I'd never looked at it that way before. My main question still exists though is the wider/split limb of Hoyt some how superior to the narrower limb of other manufacturers in terms of torsional stability? If so how, why, and is the wider limb really that much better and necessary?

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Totally true, however that statement would probably be more accurate if you were to compare a split limb to some of the previous solid limb designs that were not designed specifically to address that issue.

I cannot answer that one with total honesty as I do not know. Can I deduce that it could potentially offer an advantage? Yes, I could. I am sure that not all of the companies with bows on the market currently use the best limbs or limb materials.....regardless of their style/configuration.

As for an actualy physical representation of torque or stress tests on Hoyt's XT2000 limbs in comparison to other manufacturers' limbs...I, obviously, do not have it. You would need to have an independent engineering firm to actually perform these tests in order to get a true answer to your question. Trusting Hoyt or any other manufacturer to give you the full "skinny" on their limbs in comparison to the competition seems hard to fathom. ;)

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Frank has stated some very true points, and I agree. I also believe the Hoyt splits are the finest of the splits, and they do have one of the lowest percentages of return/repair ratings in the industry. Superior overall? Individual choice.;)

The solid limb fork cracking has been eliminated on many bows now due to superior design, materials, and new space-age processes used in manufacturing. Barnsdale limbs, and the new Merlin Pro-Fusions, are arguably some of the finest limbs made anywhere. The Merlin Pro-Fusions have even eliminated the "buttons" which in the past were needed to help stabilize the fork"V" in an attempt to counteract cracking. Since we now have these new materials and aerospace processes available, it is simply no longer a concern.

Bottom line between the Hoyt limbs and some of the other solids built today---toss a coin, whatever floats your boat. I do believe there are many split limb designs out there that are in grave need of "help", but there are also many companies that still use the standard old Gordon glass sold limbs too....[:'(] All depends upon what you are looking for in a bow . Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Most companies use Gordon in some way, shape or form.

Hoyt buys their glass from Gordon and manufactures the limbs themselves.

Some companies have Gordon build a limb layup to their own spec and Gordon produces the bulk layups and then the limbs are precisely cut/machined by another company (who specializes in such matters) such as Patton.

Gordon also offers their own “stock” layups such as “power-tuff, bo-tuff”, etc which is what a great many manufacturers (especially smaller ones) buy. Some of these are just fine and dandy and some are pretty cheap as far as limbs go.

PSE’s Magnaglass limbs are built “in house”. The straight solid limbs they used on models like the old Durango, Enforcer, etc. were at one time built by Barnsdale, which is widely regarded as one of the best if not THE best limbmakers out there. However, I’m not so sure PSE is using Barnsdale anymore. The newer bows I’ve seen don’t quite look the same.

Martin, Merlin, Darton, and some other companies produce their own limbs. Whether they buy raw materials from Gordon or not and then build I’m not sure of. I suspect Martin & Darton do, but Merlin probably has a supplier in their neck o’ the woods.

Personally, after many years of being a “have to have the “elite” limbs on my bows” type of tech head, my feelings now are pretty much that 99.9% of the archers in the world probably would never know the difference from a shooting standpoint from a Gordon limb to a Barnsdale or whatever. I can’t see where my Barnsdale equipped PSEs, Martin XRG Limbs, Darton Limbs, or Hoyt XTs’ offered any noticeable advantage killing animals or spots or what have you. Mathews doesn’t use a high end “elite” limb (they use a Gordon style limb, but word is they are made out of the US), and they’ve whipped up on everyone else’s limbs in 3D and won some big spot shoots too. :shrug: These "elite" limbs biggest benefit is likely longevity over a several year span.

How well the limbs are matched, shaped & cut/machined & how precise the axle hole & limb bolt hole drillings are done are considerably more important factors for accuracy than who makes them.

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

I agree Jeff, most average archers out there will not see a significant difference in accuracy-- however top shooters will, and average shooters will definately know the difference should a limb ever fail and slap them up side the head!:D LOL Yes, you are correct that Gordon supplies "Core tuff", "Power Tuff", and other compositions in addition to their standard Powerglass limbs, and also provides raw materials for other companies---however many of the processes used to manufacture alot of todays' limbs has changed little over the years. Limb deflection ratings and torsional stiffness differs like the wind with some of these old processes due to "close enough" mentality, and this is where such ways of thinking leads us astray IMHO. A limb with a differing deflection rating AND differing torsional rigidity (due to the fact that each limb may or may not be made from the same panel of material, flip a coin) can greatly affect the performance and handling characteristics of a bow, not to mention that some of these older processes have a greater chance of failure---that is why we've needed limb buttons and why manufacturers of bows opted to try split designs in the past..(in addition to the added money made;)) True not many bowhunters will notice all of this hoopla, but they certainly can benefit from it irregardless-- and serious target shooters sure do see the difference! Limbs that are made to exacting tolerances and deflections, bred and matched from the same panel, will always cost more to produce and that is why many manufacturers will not choose them, but those that do exhibit better shooting characteristics because of it.

Sort of like it's "supposedly" now OK to just swap out one limb after you've shot the bow for say a year---you'll get one limb that is brand new, and have one that is fatigued-- OK for some people, but IMHO these will shoot like**** also. You can never be sure of deflection ratings over time if the limbs are not born as twins and made from the same panel---densities of various panels differ and will thus react differently later on down the road, regardless of whether the initial deflection ratings are the same or not. QC on bores and tolerances of course also comes into play as you mentioned above, and which companies do you feel will be closer on this--the ones who take the time to build the finest limbs that are perfectly matched, or the ones who just run a million and say "good enough"?;)

It all goes right back around to the same old issue--it all depends upon what each person wants out of their equipment-- flat-out junk, workhorse middle of the road, or top shelf perfection. I have always been under the impression that most everyone wants to shoot the absolute best that is technically available, or at the very least whatever they can best afford. Seeing as the limb is one of the most important components of a bow, I'm very surprised that at this stage in the evolution of the compound bow and the obvious importance of the limb itself, that more companies do not put more emphasis on them. However as time progresses we will see many more companies building their own limbs in-house and using a broader range of materials and processes. This will help us all in the long run. JMHO, Pinwheel 12

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Kevin,

I guess what my opinion boils down to is:

“Are we really going to see the benefit or is it just a perceived benefit for our own peace of mind”? (or even just marketed as a tangible benefit?). Like so many things In archery it’s a fine point that can be debated ‘til the cows come home, but there is no evidence to show that it truly is superior (or isn’t) in use. We can put a bow w/ Gordon Limbs in a machine, and a bow w/ XRG lam limbs or whatever in a machine and they both will bust nocks all day long assuming a good set of arrow shafts and proper drilling/matching (and a well built riser, etc).

My point being if Hopkins and Calloway can clean up Vegas w/ their Gordon style limbs, then the limbs are not limiting them for accuracy. Again perhaps for an extreme range competition (FITA distance) the high end limbs may give you a few points here and there, but I just don’t see guys w/ barnsdales and what-not tearing up the lines anywhere to any noticeable degree. The Hoyt and Martin guys do for the most part, which really just means like Mathews in 3D, they have the most consistent/best shooters. For the guy who walks into a shop to buy a bow to kill whitetails or Elk or even shoot a summer of 3D out to 45 or 50 yards (meaning the vast majority of archers, and the vast majority of folks here on this and other net communities in the USA), the point is moot (again assuming the limbs are properly matched/drilled, etc) AFAIC.

As another example: will Eric Griggs and Nathan Brookes now stop shooting as well because the Mach series bows they use have PSE’s “standard” Magnaglass limbs compared to the Hoyt XT’s or Barnsdales? Remains to be seen, but somehow I doubt that will be a limiting factor. Ulmer (and I believe yourself as well as many other folks) did just fine w/ Gordon limbs for years, and Randy not only tore up 3D courses but also set several distance and indoor records. And they were shooting against bows with “better” limbs like the Hoyt Fast Flights, and Martin XRG’s. Yeah I’m sure Randy went though a lot of HCA limbs & band-aids..we ALL did ;). That was more a problem w/ HCA using the lowest quality Gordon lams, and poor QC at the axles and forks.

Gordon still does make some “junk” like that. However, they also make several really good lams/layups too (just gotta pay the price). And they can build bulk lams in whatever configuration is desired by a manufacturer and then can be precisely cut and matched at a place like Patton (which is what BowTech does, BTW). Limb failures are not in my perception at the shop a huge deal except for maybe two or three manufacturers, however everyone has their problems at one time or another as you well know. I have had only one complete limb failure in the past several years (and you know how many bows I’ve gone through) and it was from one of the manufacturers who make their limbs in-house (“custom”, if you will) :shrug:

Now as for the warranty replacement of only one limb by a certain manufacturer, I am in total agreement with you :D However that is not a limb problem necessarily but definitely a poor business practice.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree as we have done many times before. I will try however to make some time at the ATA to come over and look at the new Merlin stuff (If I can get away from the BowTech booth, I have a feeling they are going to work me to death :D)

That reminds me, anyone from the boards who will be at the ATA show, please stop by the BowTech booth and say “hi” I’d love to put faces with the names! :D

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Just to get back to one of the original questions...

The Hoyt split limbs do have a significant benefit over other "skinny" split limb designs. That is due to the width of the limb that the axle rigidly passes through being greater on each side of the cam. As the bow goes through the draw cycle, the sting and cable loading are dramatically changed, resulting in differing force vectors along the axle. By having this width on each side of the axle, the limb system will resist cam lean (that is induced by the varying axle point loading)moreso than the skinny split limbs.

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Jeff-

Eric and Nathan, along with Jeff, Randy, and all of the other top Pros, go where the money is, that's the bottom line and it in a nutshell. Sure they can win with most anything, but they also have a very decent idea of what works the best too, (ask them!) and they will push that into their bosses brains (no matter who they are) over time. I'm more thinking about top Amateur shooters--ones that do not have the sponsorship monies, but ones that can shoot the lights out with the best of them anyway--these guys , especially those who have a great technical background-- will always choose the better equipment. Anyway, you're correct, this is one of those personal preference issues, and we'll just agree to disagree on this one. Always interesting getting others' views on the technical attributes of limbs. (yes, I was shooting the HCA's when they were going through many sets of limbs--know all about it, been there and done that more than once--we've come a long ways since then, but I do believe we should always strive to keep that forward momentum going and not spin our wheels and stagnate)

Congratulations on your becoming a part of Bowtechs' staff--yep, you'll also be busy at the show!;)

Yes, I certainly welcome you or anyone else to swing by and try out some of the new Merlin products, and say "Hi"----and altho I already know all about "being busy" having recently opened the new Merlin USA offices and heading that as well as two other full-time Archery businesses-- I'll try to get over to the Bowtech booth at some point to do the same.;) Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: Hoyt split limb technology, beneficial?
 

Mathews V-Lock system is one of the best, they do not prmote any movement of the limbs or backing out of limbs, they are some of the best I have ever seen!! Hoyts pockets are rock solid too!