[jonhdo]

Thank you .

I'm no engineer jonhdo but if I'm understanding what you said the measurement that I requested is 1.940" on your plate.

The same measurement on the picture of the limb I posted is 1-13/16" or 1.8125", leaving approximately .1275" clearance between the back of the U-notch and the Limb bolt.

Is that correct?

If so, certainly that is enough space to account for preload and tiller adjustments and still not make contact with the limb bolt.

Maybe Jinkster would be willing to post the exact measurement on his original DAS plate so we can compare. And if anyone has one of the new re-designed 3 Rivers plates, they can do the same.

I'm no engineer jonhdo but if I'm understanding what you said the measurement that I requested is 1.940" on your plate.
Yes (I add 0.005' clearance on the 5/16" slot)
The same measurement on the picture of the limb I posted is 1-13/16" or 1.8125", leaving approximately .1275" clearance between the back of the U-notch and the Limb bolt.
No, you don't have 0.1275" clearance. You must subtract 1/32" or 0.03125" for the thickness of the limb bolt busing.

 

[ILF Rocks]

No, you don't have 0.1275" clearance. You must subtract 1/32" or 0.03125" for the thickness of the limb bolt busing.

Yes, understood. But still enough clearance to avoid contact throughout the range of preload and tiller adjustment.

The measurements on the limbs I own are as follows.

Sebastian Flute - 1-13/16" between fitting and U-notch with 17/32" U-notch depth.

KAP - 1-27/32" between fitting and U-notch with 1/2" U-notch depth.

Samick - 1-13/16" between fitting and U-notch with 1/2" U-notch depth.

 

[Jinkster]

wow...

Just took the measurements and talk about ugly?.....

here's the top plate...

and here's the bottom plate...

no wonder I'm pulling my hair out here swapping limbs and trying to get them properly fit and acting right. :cussing:

but jonhdo too the rescue here...hopefully I'll be mounting up his plates sometime next week!

Then?...I might have something!

 

[ILF Rocks]

Re: wow...

Just took the measurements and talk about ugly?.....

...no wonder I'm pulling my hair out here swapping limbs and trying to get them properly fit and acting right. :cussing:

Based on new information, are you still thinking you have more of a limb problem or a riser problem?

 

[mwestvang]

So if we build ILF limbs with a 5/8 ear on the yolk and it binds you people will blame the riser manufacture. . . .right? LOL

Mike

 

[ILF Rocks]

So if we build ILF limbs with a 5/8 ear on the yolk and it binds you people will blame the riser manufacture. . . .right? LOL

Mike

I think a better question would be whether or not anyone ever heard of ILF limbs binding in ILF risers before someone decided to try to retrofit ILF limbs into a non-ILF connection of their own design, or until "custom" bowyers decided to try to pretty up ILF bows in such a way that they no longer looked like those "ugly ILF bows."

Lets face it, an extra 1/32" of "ear" didn't matter much until people started making risers with such tight tolerances that it mattered. ILF limbs with slightly different dimensions have been around for about 3 decades. Custom risers that wouldn't accommodate them have only been around for 8-10. Do the math.

 

[RobertR]

I use Mitutoyo dial calipers for most of my bow work..Today Using my iGaging digitals I measured the set of ILF limbs I'm currently working on. I drilled the limb holes 2.3125" apart center to center. I hand fit them onto a 17" Morrision riser and a 15" Trad Tech riser. The bolt hole edge to edge of Detent hole is 1.905" on a unfinished limb.

 

[Jinkster]

Based on new information, are you still thinking you have more of a limb problem or a riser problem?

Well thanks to my being extensively schooled by this thread regarding the trials and miss steps of all things DAS?...in this case it's obviously more the riser...more specifically?...the ILF plates...but even more specifically?...

a general misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the intent of the fundamental function of how ILF is supposed to work...load on limb bolt VS ILF stud stuff.

That said?...I still stand by my belief that ILF (in general) has been pretty much out of control since it's inception and never really was ever in control.

Please take into consideration that I've lived my life in an industry where Standardization is the rule and not the exception...so naturally?...I find myself very perplexed that such major mating components are so loosely manufactured by so many for so long and yes...because like Mike states below here...

So if we build ILF limbs with a 5/8 ear on the yolk and it binds you people will blame the riser manufacture. . . .right? LOL

Mike

Suppose I were to design my own ILF Riser...and let's suppose that riser is heads and tails better than anything else out there...but I also want it to be visually appealing so I make the transition from riser too limb look as clean and seamless as possible holding tight fitment parameters between the two components...so I quit my job and take out a 2nd mortgage to finance my start-up riser biz and then like Mike alluded too above?...some numb nutz comes out with record setting fast limbs but decides to incorporate a non-standard (because there is no standard) 5/8th" deep U-notch...and now it's my world class riser that's the problem?

And why?...because there were no established standards to begin with...hence?...zero accountability to determine who's doing it right and who's in it for profit via the abuse of this standard-less system.

From what I'm seeing here?...at least everyone except DAS products is in agreement that it's the .432" metal ILF dovetail stud resting against the metal ILF dovetail slot that should be the primary load bearing surface...where DAS products feels it should be the smaller, composite, .375" U-notch against the Limb Bolt...and they pretty much locked themselves into that via the DAS Limb Attachment System itself as that's pretty much the ONLY WAY the DAS system could work but like many others here have stated?...it's fundamentally flawed from inception....it still works..but imho?...not as good as true ILF...and then things got real ugly when they attempted to intertwine the two systems....kind of like a trail bike...you can ride it on street or dirt but it does neither well.

JMHO based on what I've recently learned and experienced first hand.

The shame to me here is I can clearly see DAS poured his heart and soul into his DAS Elite riser...he also incorporated some design features not found on many (if any) other risers...manufacturing intensive features that are rather costly to produce yet gave this riser a feel and balance like no other with little to no cost of structural integrity...shame about the plates and clearances...but thanks to jonhdo?...mine will be corrected shortly.

 

[ILF Rocks]

From what I'm seeing here?...at least everyone except DAS products is in agreement that it's the .432" metal ILF dovetail stud resting against the metal ILF dovetail slot that should be the primary load bearing surface...where DAS products feels it should be the smaller, composite, .375" U-notch against the Limb Bolt...and they pretty much locked themselves into that via the DAS Limb Attachment System itself as that's pretty much the ONLY WAY the DAS system could work but like many others here have stated?...it's fundamentally flawed from inception....it still works..but imho?...not as good as true ILF...and then things got real ugly when they attempted to intertwine the two systems....kind of like a trail bike...you can ride it on street or dirt but it does neither well.

IMHO you said a real mouthful here.

Think about this for a minute. A person feels that the ILF connection is flawed for certain applications and therefore sets out to design a better connection that is NOT ILF, and therefore in his opinion does not have the limitations of ILF in those particular application.

Understandable.

However, because the person who designed the "better" connection does not make limbs, he is forced to rely on available ILF limbs that are currently being manufactured by someone else. Not all ILF limbs, but a certain brand of ILF limb. Not only that, but the intention was to hand fit each and every set of those limbs to his risers in order to insure they will operate properly with the better connection that he designed.

OK.

Furthermore, if anyone wanted to use other brands of ILF limbs with his connection, he would have to hand fit those limbs too, in order to insure they will operate properly with the better connection.

OK

The person who designed the better connection, and was responsible for hand fitting the limbs to each riser, decided to sell his design to someone else.

OK

The people who purchased the better design, made the decision to sell the riser by itself. No more hand fitting of limbs, no more control of limb brands. The level of quality control that was being performed in order to insure that each riser/limb combination performed properly was no longer being done.

OK

Now, in the absence of the previous level of quality control performed by the original designer of the better connection, different ILF limbs of different manufactures are sometimes binding in the connection, that was designed to not be ILF.

This is somehow the fault of the ILF limb makers?

 

[Daniel L]

I just got some new ILF 3R plates and my other 21" Dalaa turns up on Monday. I can let you know if there's any difference in the mounting distance.

My other 21" Dalaa has the older generation ILF plate without the LLA.

I took a drive out to DHL to pick up my riser (I'll create a separate post on it) and within my limited skills and measurements... there's no difference between the old Dalaa ILF plate (no LLA) and the new Dalaa LF plate (with LLA.)

Sorry I didn't have 3 hands to hold them even but I did an attempt at measurement to the ILF dimple and the retaining bolt... and they are the same as far as I can tell.

You will also notice on my Kaya kStorms that there is plenty of clearance AND it it is not resting on the "u" notch of the limb:

Same with the new ILF plate on the newer riser.

 

[Daniel L]

What I didn't check ... was the distance to the limb bolt... which does look the same, but sorry i totally forgot to check that!! Not that it matters much... I think this topic is done to death

 

[kenn1320]

All speculation guys. Das could have done anything he wanted, after all he developed his risers, not just copied somebody elses. He could have put an 1" of clearance in there, but he didnt. There must be something to it, or he wouldnt have decided to hand fit everything. Think about that for a minute, why would any bowyer want to hand fit stuff for free, especially limbs he didnt sell/make money on? There are lots of whys in this world, and arm chair quarterbacks that would have done it better. Truth is, theres a reason those quarterbacks are sitting in the chair and not on the field. Either enjoy what ya got or pass it along to somebody that will. I see dalaas for sale and sorry but Im not reading tons of post about refitting limbs, though they maybe out there. No company is going to deal with the heartburn of calls from every product they sell, so it must be fixed. Get off the couch and build something better or go shoot your bow. Nit picking a product that hasnt been made in years is wasted effort in my opinion.

 

[Jinkster]

Think about that for a minute, why would any bowyer want to hand fit stuff for free, especially limbs he didnt sell/make money on?

Okay...thought about it and I didn't need a full minute to know that what most likely happened was this....

He tried to trump ILF with his own new attachment system...he also designed some excellent risers with awesome engineered designs (with some features borrowed straight from the cutting edge aerospace industry he worked in)...then he came out of pocket to outsource his works too job shops...and then went.....

Oh chit!

Not realizing the non-existent standards limb manufacturers were apparently NEVER held too.

And now this white collar engineer was stuck with thousands of dollars worth of stuff that needed to be "Hand Fitted" on a case by case basis.

I might imagine he was only too happy to turn the whole mess over too 3R.

Now you were saying? :lol:

 

[ILF Rocks]

All speculation guys. Das could have done anything he wanted, after all he developed his risers, not just copied somebody elses. He could have put an 1" of clearance in there, but he didnt. There must be something to it, or he wouldnt have decided to hand fit everything. Think about that for a minute, why would any bowyer want to hand fit stuff for free, especially limbs he didnt sell/make money on? There are lots of whys in this world, and arm chair quarterbacks that would have done it better. Truth is, theres a reason those quarterbacks are sitting in the chair and not on the field. Either enjoy what ya got or pass it along to somebody that will. I see dalaas for sale and sorry but Im not reading tons of post about refitting limbs, though they maybe out there. No company is going to deal with the heartburn of calls from every product they sell, so it must be fixed. Get off the couch and build something better or go shoot your bow. Nit picking a product that hasnt been made in years is wasted effort in my opinion.

Nothing here to disagree with kenn, except for the fact that we aren't only talking about a product that hasn't been made in years. The design is still being made and it is still proving to be problematic with some limbs. This has been acknowledged by the people that are offering them, and it happens with their own limbs.

The problem is, just because everyone with a fitment problem doesn't post it here doesn't mean it's not happening. Those of us who participate here are actually the minority of customers overall. If you only go by the amount of different times we have seen it here, that should be enough for any manufacturer to take notice. What about all the people who never visit these sites that get one of these kits, find it noisy as hell, chalk it up to all ILF bows are noisy as hell and list it in the classifieds saying "AWESOME BOW, just don't get along with the grip." That very thing just about happened here, hence the reason for this thread, and had we not discussed it at length there would have been yet another pissed off ILF/DAS former owner blaming it all on the limbs and talking bad about them every chance he got.

Say what you will, but in my opinion, if these issues aren't dealt with honestly, they give everyone else that's producing a quality products, limbs and risers both, a bad name.

 

[ILF Rocks]

Not realizing the non-existent standards limb manufacturers were apparently NEVER held too.

And now this white collar engineer was stuck with thousands of dollars worth of stuff that needed to be "Hand Fitted" on a case by case basis.

I might imagine he was only too happy to turn the whole mess over too 3R.

Now you were saying? :lol:

This brings up a very interesting subject, and in my opinion is the crux of this entire discussion. Just how bad is this problem of all these ILF limb manufactures being so far out of "spec." Are they really as bad as certain bowyers want us to believe, or are bowyers just trying to pass the buck when it comes to fitment problems, or is it a combination of both.

Knowing what we know about how an ILF limb is supposed to work, what is supposed to make contact and where, we can look at how much difference really exists between manufacturers, and if there is a slight difference, will it matter in terms of the dimensions that really matter.

Like I said before, I'm not an engineer and I'm certainly not a photographer, but I took three limbs, from three of the largest manufacturers in the business, and I wanted to see just how much difference really existed, and whether those differences were in an area that actually mattered. In my opinion, those areas are (1) the distance between the shaft of the dovetail fitting and the end of the U-notch, and (2) the depth of the U-notch itself.

Understand, if the distance of dimension (1) is shorter, it is irrelevant. Binding on the limb bolt will only occur when that dimension is too long.

As to dimension (2), the only time this will bind on the back of the limb pocket is when it is too long, and that still interdependent on dimension (1). In other words, if dimension (1) is 1/32" shorter than average, dimension (2) can be 1/32" longer and not be an issue.

So, I measured the first limb, both dimension (1) and dimension (2) and kept those measurements as constants to see how the other limbs compared. As you can see, there just really isn't nearly as much difference between them, at least not in terms of what would cause a fitment issue unless...

A. The person that is making the riser has tolerances SO close that any deviance from his design is going to be a problem. In my opinion, that is not the fault of who made the limb, but the fault of a riser that is just not tolerant of any deviance in limb dimension. If you're designing a riser that by definition intends to be universal, and you make it intolerant of the most minor differences in dimension, you screwed up.

B. You design a riser that has a connection with an oblong thumbscrew slot that allows the limb to travel fore and aft until it actually binds with something making it stop. That can either be U-notch hitting the limb bolt collar, or the end of the limb butt hitting the back of the riser wall...both which are undesirable in terms of potential for problems. The least of those problems being excessive noise, the worst being delamination of the limb butt. Again, this is NOT a problem with the limb, but a problem with what a specific connection design allows the limb to do and what you intended to be your positive limb stop.

This can and should be a very educational and beneficial discussion. Unfortunately it can be neither if all people are interested in is protecting turf.

 

[ILF Rocks]

Sorry I didn't have 3 hands to hold them even but I did an attempt at measurement to the ILF dimple and the retaining bolt... and they are the same as far as I can tell.

Thank you for posting those Daniel.

Actually, in my opinion the important dimension is between the back wall of the dovetail slot and the limb bolt collar. If it's too short, there will be binding of the U-notch and the limb bolt. Not a good thing.

Again, not scientific, and I could only use the mounting bolt hole as the constant, but it actually does appear that the new design has been elongated somewhat in order to allow more room. That's a good thing.

 

[DDD]

I think it really becomes a proprietary classification. If your a ILF buyer and you like to mix and match, do yourself a favor and learn about how this works. I had a couple cases were things would of got bound up. I just didn't go maxing the limb bolts (longer eared limbs give you more adjustments range). User's must be demanding more poundage adjustments. I don't know why, it's for tiller. Well unless you get too light or too heavy match. I use BH to get what I needed in stead. I didn't call out for a internet review either, the fine print said poundage would not be predictable. Bower's list this on there web page giving your best estimate.
Dan

 

[Jinkster]

Gentlefolk...I started this poll to find out more about what sort of ILF limb base dimensions were most common and what the ranges were...trying to see if any sort of standards were being held and all in preparation to resolve what is apparently a well known issues with what is my favorite by far riser...my DAS Elite.

In the O.P. I indicated that I didn't wish for this to become a witch hunt or blame game or turn into a bash fest of anyone's particular products....I just wanted some answers...7/16ths or 1/2"....so that no matter what it took?...I could resolve the apparent limb fitment issue on my beloved DAS Elite and "Know"...that when I was done?...any ILF limb out there would fit it properly whether the limbs be from W&W, Hoyt, Uuhka, Samick, MK, Dryad or Borders....basically any limb being sold under the label of "ILF".

But it got heated...and admittedly much was painful to discover...for instance?...no matter what side of the debate fence you're on?...there's simply no logical or sound reason for one of my risers ILF plates dovetail slot too be nearly .040" shorter than the other.

and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.

But I said..."whatever it takes"...right?....and while I can only imagine how stressed DAS himself must have been in his attempts?...the way I see it?...he made a mistake...maybe even two...then did his best to rectify it by hand fitting limbs on a case by case basis.

But now that we've gotten about as much mileage as anyone should ever get out of crucifying the man for being imperfect?...it's the rest of his fine efforts that have me wanting to do "whatever it takes" to insure my DAS Elite will in fact accept any limbs sold as ILF compatible...because this is one riser?...I want to keep...and as such?...I want it....

"ILF Fitment Correct"

So on a brighter note?...I'd like to take a moment to point out why I think this riser (and it's creator) are so great and wonderful...that I'm willing to do...."whatever it takes"...and here it is...

"Stress Point Webbing"

The (6) milled pockets on the outboard side of the riser wall creating what is known as a "MESH" using "Stress Point Analysis"....

and because the parent material was forged billet aluminum?....those pockets are deep...very deep....

and while I've done no volumetric weight calculations?...I'd bet the farm on swag of saying approx. 70% of the base geometry weight has been removed from that riser wall.

and here's the great part...having been in the military end of jet engine R&D for most of my adult life?...I've seen that very sort of MESH PATTERNING before...many times over...on many jet engine components...and it's stress points (A.K.A. "NODES") are calculated using "F.E.A." (Finite Element Analysis) enabled software...as well described here...

Skeletonizing a riser by milling a bunch of "Through Holes" of various sizes and shapes is one thing...but what David gave everyone in his DAS Elite riser was decades ahead of it's time and as far as public availability and commercial consumption is concerned?...(and imho still is)...making available this technology which allowed the geometry above the shelf to be both as light as possible and far stronger than "skeletonizing"....this advanced technology gives up next to nothing in strength and in many cases/planes can even be stronger than solid...then coupled with the large mass of material below the shelf (affectionately referred too as "The Romeo Buldge")...makes for this fine stud of a 21" riser...

The likes of which I've not seen rivaled by many others and bested by none.

I had a mission here...which was to make this riser both mine and compatible with any ILF limbs sold on today's market...I had originally figured that it would be myself who wound up designing and machining the new plates but thanks too the knowledge gleaned and revealed in this thread?....I have concluded that jonhdo has then already nailed and made...and was kind enough to save me the time and trouble by offering me a set that are already on their way and should be here this coming Tuesday and I can't wait!

Note: I did my best to remain emotionally detached here so I could take an unbiased look at what was really going on and evaluate the situation for what it truly was/is.

I thank you all for your helpful information, suggestions and collected measurements.

Have a great weekend and L8R, Bill.

 

[ILF Rocks]

I think it is only fair to address two things you said in your last post Jinkster.

But now that we've gotten about as much mileage as anyone should ever get out of crucifying the man for being imperfect?...it's the rest of his fine efforts that have me wanting to do "whatever it takes" to insure my DAS Elite will in fact accept any limbs sold as ILF compatible...because this is one riser?...I want to keep...and as such?...I want it....

I don't think anyone attempted to crucify anyone for their design. Current application maybe, but not design. The DAS connection was designed to be a better alternative to the ILF connection for shorter hunting riser applications. There were a number of reasons that the designer thought this, but for this discussion, it's not really relevant. The point is, it was designed to be different in a number of areas. It was also NEVER intended to be a "universal" type connection like ILF. The intention was to utilize ILF limbs, but only when they had been fitted to a particular riser. The designer himself said as much. It was essentially a propriety system using another maker's limbs. In that particular application, it worked very well. It was only when it started to be marketed as a "universal" component system that things became less than what was intended. This did not change the quality of the original design, but somewhat bastardized it's application. It's application become something that it was not designed for. That is not the fault of the designer. You can design the best butter knife in the world but it still makes a crappy screwdriver. That is not a reflection on the design but the application.

I did my best to remain emotionally detached here so I could take an unbiased look at what was really going on and evaluate the situation for what it truly was/is.

This is very important also. As long as people are more interested in protecting their own turf and their own pride, not much gets accomplished. That's why I really have to hand it to those that designed the DAS Tribute riser. ALL things were on the table, no sacred cows, no protecting personal turf, and no decisions being made on the basis of personal pride. Just an honest desire to make the best riser possible.

No, it's still not going to be the end all riser for everyone, no riser is or ever will be. What it is, is a good example of what can be accomplished when all preconceived notions are left at the door.

GOOD for them!

 

[BentLimbs]

I've been following this thread closely, being very new to anything ILF and being a DIY'er.
Sometimes a question [or even an accusation] asked for all the wrong reasons can be very educational. As some very knowledgeable people responded, explaining the why's and how come's of certain aspects inherent to ILF and manufacturing principles, a very clear picture, to me anyway, emerged from all the discussion. I've been putting off machining one riser and making plates for another, because I had some doubts in my mind about the validity of some assertions I'd encountered along the way.

I think I got it now. So thanks to archers that are willing to give freely of the hard won knowledge they have accrued and I'm sure at more cost than just time spent.

Since one-off, precision machining is part of my everyday life, I can tell you that accuracy costs money and anything marketed for the masses is a series of compromises. The market narrows as the level of intentional specialization intensifies.
Many folks will buy a "fish'n pole" for those few times they go out and Walmart has lots for sale. And they work.
Then you have the guy that will spend big bucks for a crappie rod just for surface fishing live crickets, from a small boat, with a north wind, in late fall to lethargic fish in cold, semi clear water.

Nice that we have choices and that there is something for everyone.