Thanks PatK! I received a blem set with #80 deflection numbers on them last week. One of those limbs would not fit in the riser properly with enough clearance on each side of the limb....so I had to file a flat on one of the recoil strap spacers in order to mount that limb in the riser. When I shot those #80s through my chrono I got a surprise.... which prompted me to call & get another set of limbs on the way, so I can do some testing. Deflection numbers ain't what ya thunkin' folks....
Woke up this morning thinking 🤔 of a 400 assassin, held one a while back and really didn’t like it, something about them is way cool !! Have my bulldog hanging under my deer horns, the other bows I have don’t look as good lol 😝
In the past Excalibur's deflection numbers were relative to the amount of force to bend them. People got on to that and made demands. I dont know how they do it but the numbers are meaningless to the public now.
Well, I believe that Excal have more than one set of limb deflection rating group in use, internally, at this time. Certain deflection number groups are "categorized" for internal use & identification of various meaningful and relevant limb characteristics, which provides them with the ability to monitor (through failures/failure types/speeds and other known collected data) limb performance and reliability and as a result, actually allow them to meaningfully predict limb performance and behaviors of each deflection rating group when targeted for/installed on each model usage case. So limb deflection rating groups is an advanced quality control tool which helps them determine which limbs may be the most fit for the job and most trustworthy for each model usage case.
This type of internal use rating strategy is a very smart one, as it helps the company to provide greater customer satisfaction, minimizes warranty claims and clears up a whole lot of muddy waters pertaining to limb waste... which is a factor inherent to pressure-mold limb manufacturing anyway, and is very difficult to control. Certain deflection groups that are poor fitting or provide known low speeds and/or high likelihood of failure if put into service are never installed on any models leaving the factory. Certain deflection number groups may be designated as fit enough to be sold as blem sets. While certain other deflection groups that will underperform/fail on high output models do just fine when installed on least demanding models.... etc.
I know that I have incomplete knowledge of their deflection rating system, but I believe that I understand them well enough now that I can draw certain conclusions in certain model cases that I have been able to find numerous recent reports on, and identify some of those group correlations. With all that said... I'm gonna drop the subject entirely and leave Excal alone. The last thing Excal wants or needs is the public to discover their limb deflection system. Been there, done that.... hence the need for occulted complexity which is meaningless information to the public.
PM me if ya ever decide to sell off your #61s PatK!
Limb production is not an exact science; some are stiffer than others, so they use a numbering system to match them into "sets" or pairs. This is done to maintain tiller, which cannot be maintained with a set with varying stiffness. Some of the stiffer sets will naturally be faster than others, it's really not much more complicated than that.
I agree Cal but we now have to take into consideration a new numbering system that also encompasses all the different limbs that they now manufacture. On the old system it was the 36" limbs only and then they changed when the Matrix line came out and now of course the Micro series is thrown into the equation. Where does the numbering system change when each limb series is considered? There is no way the deflection numbers would be the same on a set of Exo limbs compared to a set of Micro limbs. 😳