Видео

I typically shoot either 30 or 30.25"

This is the first I am hearing about a speed mod for the LIFT X platform.... Can you share any more details or links? If they do release speed mods, I'd love to re-check the draw force curve and speeds!

@@ApexArchery For some reason my browser had Lift comments up on the Form video. Sorry about that.

@ No problem - thought perhaps I had missed a major announcement.

I agree. They are making a very tunable and adjustable bow that performs well and has good geometry.

Oh man, that's great to hear. This is part of the reason we try to be so objective and technical with our metrics and measurements for the bow. I want to see people making choices about products based on the fundamentals of how they've been engineered. I also want to see the archery industry advance! I am really "rooting for" every brand's products when I test them :)

You're right! I forgot to mention it on this review recording, but I did measure it (36.5 degrees). I included it on the final graphic for the bow near the end of the review. :)

Agreed - Mathews appears to typically design a new platform and run it for several years before a truly new platform. They run themselves like a tech company. It will be interesting to see what they add for next year's bows. Perhaps some timing feature, smaller draw length increments done via mod positions on the cam (1/4"), as well as some new ATA measurements (maybe something around 34")? If they offer a longer ATA measurement, I wonder if they will do it by updating the limb pocket angle on the existing riser. This could also positively impact the dynamic brace height.

@@ApexArchery I have had the exact same thoughts and completely agree with everything you just mentioned. To have a 1/1 riser to ATA ratio on that 33 and not at least test a longer option (such as a 35) would be very surprising to me. I only have doubts for a longer ATA because of the release of the Title 34. That makes me think they want a hard line between their hunting and target lineups. They are always about maximizing efficiency and hybrid bows don't typically fall into that philosophy. The LIFT seems to be Mathews attempt to perfect the aluminum compound bow. They are arguably some tuning and mod features away from achieving that in my opinion and having said all that, I am still hopeful for a LIFT 35!

It's a great idea, and something I'd love to do! The major issue is the need to keep these bows in "new" condition. I don't typically set these up with peeps, sights, proper rests or arrow tuning..

It's coming!

Correct. Mathews and some others use IBO and not ATA. IBO allows for maximum draw length, and +/- 2.0 lbs. of peak draw weight shooting a 400 grain arrow.

Stay tuned - that review video will be coming once we get through several more individual bow reviews.

Totally agree. IBO speeds allow +/- 2 lbs. and the maximum draw length of the bow system. The good news for Mathews is that they are still producing very good speeds relative to other bows on test this year, especially considering the very smooth draw cycle of the system!

Facts!! He’s putting in work! I love it

@@optimuscrime608 Thank you! It's definitely a passion project. I love technical gear reviews, and I want to make the kind of reviews I enjoy.

@brandonmcdonald6121 Much appreciated and great to meet you last year at TAC. Excited to see the new project/bow shop in TN.

You're absolutely correct - IBO allows up to 82 lbs. of peak draw weight for a 400 grain arrow, and the maximum draw length of the bow. We like to use ATA at exact spec to create a nice comparison between the bows for realistic speeds. The good news: Mathews stacks up nicely, especially relative to the force required to draw the bow!

That's true, but the known and most widely used standard in the industry for advertised speed is 70# at 30". Hoyt advertises ATA, but Bowtech, PSE, and Elite all still label IBO speed and use the 70# 30" standard. Mathews isn't fudging or lying, but they know exactly what they are doing by advertising the speeds the way they do.

I've noticed the same. There seems to a little inconsistency between my readings, and the readings that other reviewers. But to your point, as long as my chrono is consistent it'll allow for a nice comparison between all the bows I review

It'll be coming up! Stay tuned.

Mathews definitely champion the long riser concept.

Thank you! Hope you enjoy the new LIFT when it comes in - that Kuiu Verde is going to look amazing.

Agreed! They've really worked that riser design.

What's interesting is that despite looking a little bit different, it Xpedition actually has a nearly identical cam design to the Mathews LIFT which was launched after the newer Xpeditions! I'm actually optimistic that Xpedition could become a player in the space - they are trying to innovate, and you see the interest in new metals from companies like Bowtech (magnesium) headed into the 2025 season!

Thank you!

Good question. There are really 2 speed ratings for the archery industry that are common. ATA Spec: 70 lbs. of peak draw (+/- 0.2 lbs.), 30" of draw length, 350 grain arrows IBO Spec: 80 lbs. of peak draw (+/- 2.0 lbs.), Maximum draw length, 400 grain arrow. ATA spec is commonly considered a much better spec because it only allows for a maximum of 70.2 lbs. of peak draw weight and 30" of draw. IBO will actually allow up to 82 lbs. of peak draw weight, and the maximum draw length for the bow (often 31-32" for non long-draw bows). IBO speeds are typically quite a bit higher and much less realistic than true ATA spec. :)

It's a great point, and you are directionally correct. Inch Lbs. most often refers to torque (that is, force applied around an axis), however, it is also allowable for "work" (you can see this in some engineering applications). Foot-Lbs. is really applied to torque measurements. Ultimately, I could go to the trouble of converting my measurements to work (J, kJ, etc.), but its just easier for me to call it "inch pounds" since my setup is using a pound-based scale and 1/4" sampling increments. So long as my method is similar across all bows, it will give us a "unit" that we can compare to speeds to come up with a useful description of efficiency. :)

I guess it really depends on the context. Good engineering practice should avoid ambiguity. Ft-lb could also be a work measurement. 1 in-lb (work) is approximately 0.112 Joules, minimal work to be explicit in the data you are presenting. I liked the technical parts of your video, really well put together. I’ll be on the lookout for more. Thanks again.

I am definitely looking to get a Darton bow in for review soon!

My understanding is that PSE is advocating that you should measure the dynamic brace height from the end of the cam at full draw. I am measuring from the last point that the string is actually touching the cam. I argue that mine is the more important way to measure it, because the point where the string is actually applying force/supported by the cam, is the true "dynamic brace height". Notably, the Hoyt RX-9 Ultra (for example) actually has the best dynamic brace height we've measured so far this year (it grows fairly substantially).

I mentioned in the review that we had the bow with the medium cams. Those max out at 30" draw.

@ApexArchery so the standard cam. Not the LD cam

I thought the same thing. Interesting that other manufacturers are actually doing more to provide a longer dynamic brace height than the people marketing the spec! Anecdotally, I achieve my highest ever Vegas round score out of the RX-7 Ultra that I had a few seasons ago. I'm curious how much that dynamic brace height may have played a role...

No website. That type of analysis will be part of our "wrap up" video once we are done with several more longer ATA bows.

Thanks for feedback! I put a ton of effort into these - hope people enjoy them!

It's a great idea. My plan now is to come up with overall efficiency for comparison's sake when we do our "roundup" after all the bows are in.

@ it would be very interesting if the bows that are less efficient generate more noise!

@@Lucas_Palmer_Archery certainly noise is one place that energy would "leak" out of the system, but its also probable that noise/vibration dampening would blunt shot volume independent of efficiency. It's interesting that the two loudest bows on test so far have not had limb dampeners 👀 I think some companies are abandoning limb dampeners in order to shed any weight that might reduce arrow speeds.

@ oh absolutely, I have been curious about if you can add arrow weight while taking off limb dampeners and speed nocks on the string and end up with the same or similar noise and similar vibration level while transmitting more energy to the arrow rather than energy to move said weight. I am planning on doing an experiment or two with this on my channel.

Right now, I am pretty focused on the longer ATA bows on the market, as these are what I prefer to shoot. But perhaps when I am wrapped with that series I might do some shorter bows!

What kind of bow do you have?

@ApexArchery No Cam HTX. I know the specs on it but you go a step further. Really interesting stuff as to why these measurements are relevant

In terms of at-home tuning features, I believe this one takes the cake!

Darton Sequel XT squared has more tuning options

@@josephfolsom2030 We are excited to get the Darton Sequel 33 2 in for testing! Looks like a terrific bow. That said, I don't believe it's accurate to say that it has more tuning options. Similar to the Bowtech, they have a system for affecting the timing, which is really very neat. They also have a system for tuning paper tears - although it involves altering the cant of the entire limb assembly rather than tuning the cams on the axle. They also offer dedicated mods that will extract a bit more speed from the bow. However, the Bowtech also offers the GripLock to alter grip angle. I think these bow are actually remarkably similar in terms of tunability and adjustability. The Darton offers a bit more adjustability with letoff, and Bowtech offers slightly more elegant tuning and grip options.

@ I wrote my comment before you showed the timing adjustment on the Bowtech. I was totally unaware that they had that feature. My bad

@@josephfolsom2030 No worries at all! Just here to provide information :) I really like what Darton appears to be doing with the Sequel 2's this year. Can't wait to have one in for testing.

I have another bow review being edited right now, and another bow in for testing!

@ApexArchery You're the man.... Good Job

Yep! Very similar overall construction and specs to the SS34. Includes all the latest features that bowtech has developed, plus the 2 cam system for optimized draw length ranges.

yep - our plan this year is to get through all of the major flagship bows (I think I have about 6-7 more to go!) and then do a sit down where we look at all the important spec's side by side. This will include examination of draw force curves and overall efficiency of the system.

thank you for saying it! a ton of effort goes into these and I am glad you and others are finding value. Keep your eyes out because I am publishing 2 more reviews in the next 2 days, and we have another bow in for testing right now.

Why do you hate the bow?