Sagittarius

Guys,

Here is a link to the ArcheyTalk thread that shows a pic from Bowhunting World of Martin's new Onza II bow.
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showth...&threadid=1844
If you like the Hoyt Tec risers, take a look at the Onza II before deciding.
It, imo is stronger built than the Tec bows and is available with the superior 3 track FuryX cam system to elliminate cam lean, limb tilt, and uneven wear on them. Plus, uneven bushing and spacer wear.
It also features vibration dampening built in the riser.
I feel, it's somewhat superior to what Hoyt has to offer.
Merlin is going to also offer a 3 track system for 2003 and that is what I will be getting.
It will retrofit Max 2000 and Super Nova's.


Sag.

JeffB

SAG,

Now stop pissing in all the Hoyt fan's wheaties, ok? <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

While I will agree that a 3 track system is superior from an accuracy and torque (or lack thereof) standpoint.. 3 track systems are quite simply a pain in the ass for the Bowhunter. They are more difficult to load, and you run a greater risk of slicing something important if you use conventional broadheads.

For targets and 3D, yes..for hunting (which is the vast majority of the market here in the states), I don't see them ever catching on.

Re: the Onza..stronger? possibly..Uglier? most deinitely! In that respect the Onza has not changed. Now the COugar III and Scepter III are nice looking, but yikes that Onza looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>.

JeffB<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

PABowhntr

Sag.,

Now you know darn well that you can't go postin' something like that and not expect me to respond.

First question, How do you know that the Onza II's riser is going to be superior to the 2003 Hoyt TEC models?...especially when, I don't think, there are any production bows out there to test? And along those same lines, how would you test both to determine that one is superior to the other? Is this more of a weight issue since the Onza II's riser is going to weigh more than a comparable Hoyt TEC riser? Not to mention the fact that the Onza II's riser has one of the very characteristics that I found negative about the original Hoyt TEC riser designs...a built-in overdraw.

I respect your opinion on this issue but disagree with it. I would tend to have more faith in a company that has been continuing to refine the bridge style riser over the last six years when compared with one who has only offered two bows with this style of riser design and even then the time differences between when these two bows were introduced is substantial. Don't get me wrong though, I think very highly of Martin's quality and innovative designs. I do agree with your comments about the &quot;shoot-through&quot; cable system. Hopefully, Hoyt will offer something along these lines in the next year or two. It seems like a natural progression if one would want supreme accuracy and efficiency from the current cam systems.

Second question, you mentioned vibration dampening built into the riser. I am assuming you meant the VEM moduls. Are you saying then that the VEM modules are superior to the Sims Split Limbsavers on all of the Hoyt TEC bows?

(This oughta be a good discussion...<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>)


















Edited by - PABowhntr on 10/16/2002 09:05:08

Pinwheel 12

Oh, boy, here we go! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> Pinwheel 12

HuntingBry

Frank,

I think that vibration dampening in the riser that Sag is referring to is that black material found above the shelf. From what I have heard it is similar to Pearson's Vib-X technology just put in a different place in the riser. This in conjunction with the modules should sufficiently dampen any riser noise and vibration to a whisper. However, I would still put limb savers on the limbs since that is where the vibration begins.

As far as the shoot through/3 point systems go, I'm still not sure about them. I realize their benefits, but on a hunting bow I just can't see as practical. How many times I have had an opportunity to quickly nock an arrow for a second shot I can't count. I'm always focused on the game and I could just see trying to blindly thread a broadhead tipped arrow through the cables as being disasterous. I would have to work with it quite a bit before I was confident in hunting with it. For me, the increase in how forgiving the set up is and the accuracy would have to be significant for me to want to chance it, but that's just me.

PABowhntr

HB,

Ofcourse, I agree with both you and Jeff when it comes to a hunting bow. I would still like it offered as an option as it would be something interesting to &quot;play with&quot;.

Pinwheel 12

If my Hunter's Quest could be fitted with a shoot-through, I'd have one on it, that's a fact. Unfortunately in it's current configuration the shoot-through system cannot be incorprated into shorter ATA bows due to the fact that the crescents need a certain amount of travel, and on short bows this comes into peep view. But watch the horizon for better ideas down the road. (how's that, Frank? <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>)

I've gotten so used to the shoot-through that it's like second nature to me, and I personally would have no problem with it in my treestand. The advantages over a conventional cableguard system far outweigh any little time needed (and it doesn't take long) to re-learn how to load a bow. Quite simple, really, you grab the arrow closer to the middle, swing the nock end over the outer cable and directly into your loop, and you're good to go. No slower than loading a conventional system once you get used to it.

No chattering, sticking slides, worn cables, cam lean, premature and uneven bushing wear, side torque, jeez I could go on all day! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> The shoot-through definately will be another &quot;given&quot; in the future, and cableguards will soon be a thing of the past.(within a few years, anyway)

As I see it in my crystal ball, anyway. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> Pinwheel 12



Edited by - Pinwheel 12 on 10/16/2002 15:26:49

Bighorn75

Although I've sold more than a hundred of their bows in the last four years, I've never shot a Hoyt that made me want to own one personally. The company is very quality capable and the folks in Salt Lake are a pleasure to deal with, but their design history of late seems to be a bit quirky. I don't buy the &quot;bridge effect&quot; argument they use to suggest their Tec risers are stronger than other manufacturers, for one. In fact, the only risers I've ever seen bent were Hoyt's. The versa cam is the worst perimeter-weighted one cam I've worked with to date. Parker seems to have gotten the best out of that design in my view. I've also seen too much splintering in the ZR 200 limbs. North American Archery Group is the only company I've seen do split limbs consistently well from the top to bottom of their line (and even they have some solid limb options).

I was very pleased to see Hoyt go with the dual-tracked idler wheel last year. I think that was a positive feature on their 2002 line. Darton's CPS system remains the best engineered cam design I've ever seen. I'm glad to see the theory gaining wider acceptance.

IL_BOW_MAN

Talk about some <font size=5><font color=red>UGLY</font id=red></font id=size5> bows!!<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

My Web Page
www.geocities.com/hfpmad

PABeardBuster

Realtree camo!?! Blecchh! I'll stick with my '02 HavocTec and it's Mossy Oak covering. Everything else looks good though, I'm planning on keeping my current bow for awhile, my next bow purchase will probably be a longer target/3D bow.

PBB

Pick a hair.....or a caruncle!!