I doubt there is a perfect solution, no matter what. The old cable guard creates torque and lateral nock travel. The CCS creates torque and lateral nock travel. The TRG, helps minimize this, but is still in it's infancy. If Martin keeps it aroond then maybe they'll refine it some or one of the other companies will. The problem is that companies keep comping out with something NEW & IMPROVED, but never keep it around long enough to improve upon it.
Originally Posted by Hutch~n~Son Archery
I know Copterdoc and a few others are going to agree with me, as I consider the Nitrous X system to be the best that has come along since the mid 70's when bows had 4 wheels, two of those mounted mid-limb which held the cables to the side for fletching clearance while having an equal amount of tension on both sides of the wheel. Even this had a little torque as the string groove in the cam was offset about 5/32" away from center (left on a RH bow).
I had heard so many negative comments about Nitrous X cams from people who never shot them nor had any idea how the system worked. Such comments as cutting the cables with a broadhead while loading the bow just had no merit. Stupid people!!!!!!! They had no idea that the arrow was loaded from the front with the nock backed through the cables and onto the string, which became easy to do with the slightest bit of practice.
Instead of canning the Nitrous X Martin should have expanded on the idea and redesign the cams to get the draw cycles they have on the Binaries. Maybe even keep the Nitrous, change the letoff, and give it a more solid wall. Give us different modules for 65% like they did before. But I guess that's all history now.
If You're Not Living on the Edge You're Taking Up Too Much Space
Martin/Rytera Staff Shooter
PSAA Life member, UBP Life member
PADI AOW Diver