Thus far, I've seen only evidence that points to an identical basic geometry. No, I am happy to learn and grow, but only when reason and evidence point in a new direction. OF COURSE they told us so! Their bottom line doesn't get anywhere near as much help if those new bows don't sell! While I'm NOT saying that the cams (or even cams plus roller guard) are all that's improved - if the general public perception becomes "I can just do a cam swap, and it'll be as good as the new bow" then as misguided and incorrect as that general perception may be, it will hurt sales. I would be quite happy to listen to a well reasoned argument, but I haven't seen any such thing here - I've seen "it's different, 'cause they told us so". It's not even a matter of "luck" to get ahold of some RKT cams - they're a standard part - meaning you can order them through your local Hoyt dealer. Change limb deflection later, when funds are somewhat recovered from the first part of the project. That's not bad, and most of us would be quite happy with that, at least temprarily, to help spread the cost out. I do expect, however, that the draw weight would not change THAT MUCH. Nor did I expect that moving from a #3 cam to a #3 cam would yield the same DL. ]Ĭlick to expand.I would not have expected that the string lengths (or cable lengths for that matter) would remain the same. That being said, the basic geometry hasn't changed. I am not complaining, like some are wont to do, that there hasn't been enough changes - quite the opposite - I'm thrilled that Hoyt has found a geometry that is really working, and hasn't changed it for the simple sake of change. However, the relevant question as to whether or not you could expect similar performace from the new cams on an older bow boils down to the geometry of the bow and how harness interacts with the geometry. [QUOTEFirst Of course you can't tell "all the differences". All of these changes added together may or may not represent an actual improvement in the way the bow handles, but they sure as heck have nothing whatever to do with the way the cams feel and perform in the draw and shot. There are some subtle differences in the contouring of the carbon tubes. Yes, there were other changes, they updated the ends of the carbon tubes, as well as the mating area where the limb pockets bolt on, and updated the limb pockets themselves. If the 35" bows are all based on the same basic geometry, are the shorter bows not? How is this not relevant to the bow the OP is asking about? Does it not stand to reason that if the 35" bows, from one year to the next are changing incrimentally, with the same basic geometry, then the same would very likely be true of the shorter bows as well? The 2012 Vector 35 is based on the same geometry as the preceeding, and the 2012 Matrix has the same specs as the 2012 Vector 35. The 2011 Matrix + and the 2011 CRX 35 were similarly based on the same geometry. I only bothered to mention the comparison I did above because when I did the same with the 2010 Maxxis 35 vs the 2010 Matrix they lined up perfectly. The difference in limb deflection from one to the next will cause a varyation in peak DW, but like I said, I'd be surprised if they were all that very different. The guard is different, so you would need the updated guard, and the proper harnessing length, but otherwise, you should be able to realize very similar performance. If the axles line up perfectly, and the rest of the limbs do too, the grip and berger hole do too, then the only different places where the harness interact with the bow are at the cams and guard. Of course you can't tell "all the differences".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |