Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com
2009 Head-2-Head Bow Test - 2009 Compound Bows rated by speed, kick, draw, noise, and feel
2009 Compound Bows

2009 H2H Intro
H2H Prologue
Voting and Test Procedure
Disclaimers
2009 H2H Evaluation Team
Special Thanks

Subjective Results

Noise Level
Balance / Feel
Kick/Vibration
Draw Cycle

Score Data Sheet

SPEED RESULTS

FINAL RESULTS

2009 Bow Evaluation Commentary

Rytera Alien X
Elite GT500
Mathews Reezen 6.5
Diamond IceMan
Quest HPS 33
Hoyt AlphaMax 32
Bowtech Admiral
PSE GX
Martin Warthog


Quest HPS 33

Personal Commentary by Jon Silks about the Quest HPS 33:

The Quest HPS 33 was my wildcard entry into the 2009 H2H test, which tells you that I was personally impressed with this bow. While it did not break the top five in shot noise or balance/feel the HPS 33 showed up in a big way in the draw cycle category placing #2. Quest also found its way into the top five in the shock/vibration category coming in at #5. These two categories helped Quest hit the #4 overall position in the combined subjective results. Where the HPS 33 trailed off a bit was in the speed category where it came in last. Personally I think this rig handles well at full draw and is easily maneuvered with its low mass weight. It has a smooth draw cycle and is well balanced.

 

 

Bow Specs:

  
Axle-to-axle length: 33"
Brace Height: 7.125"
Mass weight: 3.9 pounds
Let-off: 65-80%
Draw lengths: 26-30"
Peak draw weights:

50,60 and 70 lbs

 
 


Using this Table:

Kinetic Energy:  (in foot-pounds) This is the energy that actually goes into propelling the arrow. Basically it is the energy that is left over from the stored energy after all of the bow system friction is accounted for.
 
Stored Energy:  (in foot-pounds) When you draw the bow you supply power/energy into the limbs. The amount of energy that the limbs can hold is known as the stored energy.
 
Efficiency Rating:  (in %) This is the amount of the stored energy (in %) that can be successfully transferred into propelling the arrow upon release. The bow design, including limbs, limb pockets, cam systems, and axle types play into the bow’s efficiency. An example would be a sealed ball bearing in the idler wheel verses a simple unsealed rod bearing. It takes more energy to rotate the unsealed rod bearing (more friction) verses the sealed ball bearing (less friction) so more of the bow’s potential energy is used. The end result is a lower efficiency rating because less stored energy is left over to propel the arrow.
 
Power Stroke: This is the actual distance that the archer moves the string from its resting position to full draw.
 
EBFM Value: Draw weight as measured by the Easton Bow Force Mapper System hand-held unit.


Using This Graph:

The area under the graph signifies the amount of energy stored by the system from brace height to full draw (power stroke). The shape of the curve is generated by a plot of draw weight in pounds against draw length in inches and gives an indication of how the bow will feel when drawn. The more rounded the curve the more "smooth" the feel of the draw cycle, however, if the curve is "squared-off" it will likely feel more aggressive. The trade off comes in performance, as the more aggressive curve is generally indicitive of more stored energy and more speed.

 
 

 


  • Sitka Gear