Arsenal Platform

[wizzkid8631]

Very interested to hear from people who have tried the RZR and Fix and 2.0.

 

[Pic1]

Very interested to hear from people who have tried the RZR and Fix and 2.0.

Also didn't like the curved arrangement to the RZR's platform teeth. Which accentuated the already flexy nature of the flatform. Regardless of how tight it was cammed to a tree. Teeth cut in a V like the Fix, Predator or most any other platform, allow for more tooth contact on different diameter trees and a more solid base.

This would be a worthwhile change if they were to make it .

 

[enkriss]

Also didn't like the curved arrangement to the RZR's platform teeth. Which accentuated the already flexy nature of the flatform. Regardless of how tight it was cammed to a tree. Teeth cut in a V like the Fix, Predator or most any other platform, allow for more tooth contact on different diameter trees and a more solid base.

This would be a worthwhile change if they were to make it .

No way. That radial tooth geometry gets more teeth engaged than a standard V. I have run all those scenarios in creo with diameters from 2”- 24”. That wasn’t the problem. Also, the platform didn’t flex more than anything else on the market. What flexed a lot was the post. That needs to be stiffer.

 

[Dope on a Rope]

No way. That radial tooth geometry gets more teeth engaged than a standard V. I have run all those scenarios in creo with diameters from 2”- 24”. That wasn’t the problem. Also, the platform didn’t flex more than anything else on the market. What flexed a lot was the post. That needs to be stiffer.

I’ve not experienced any flex on the post, but I’m a small guy. What I’ve seen is it seems it almost bites too well, so if you’re used to camming the heck out of it like you would another stand, it tends to want to stick straight out from the tree when you take your weight off it(making it harder if you’re a leaner to get a downward angle)

 

[Black Titan]

Ya'll that have had the rzr or rzr magnum, could you comfortably turn around on the platform for weak side shots? Is it big enough for that?

BT

 

[BTaylor]

Ya'll that have had the rzr or rzr magnum, could you comfortably turn around on the platform for weak side shots? Is it big enough for that?

BT

If you are bowhunting that move is called doing a pirowhack

 

[Plebe]

Ya'll that have had the rzr or rzr magnum, could you comfortably turn around on the platform for weak side shots? Is it big enough for that?

BT

Razor Magnum: About every time I made the turn the platform shifted. If it stays put, I can manage it in running shoes. (Size 13) Don’t know about boots. The turn certainly has to be performed with more precision than other deeper platforms. The Magnum is not even 12” deep. That’s one of a few things I don’t love about it.

 

[Black Titan]

Razor Magnum: About every time I made the turn the platform shifted. If it stays put, I can manage it in running shoes. (Size 13) Don’t know about boots. The turn certainly has to be performed with more precision than other deeper platforms. The Magnum is not even 12” deep. That’s one of a few things I don’t love about it.

Thanks. I wish they'd hurry up and release the details on the 2.0. I'm hoping for a slight size increase. I doubt it, but still hopeful.

BT

 

[enkriss]

Ya'll that have had the rzr or rzr magnum, could you comfortably turn around on the platform for weak side shots? Is it big enough for that?

BT

For me it’s not deep enough to easily do that. But the magnum it’s possible.

 

[Plebe]

No way. That radial tooth geometry gets more teeth engaged than a standard V. I have run all those scenarios in creo with diameters from 2”- 24”. That wasn’t the problem. Also, the platform didn’t flex more than anything else on the market. What flexed a lot was the post. That needs to be stiffer.

I didn’t give it a substantial trial, but I too never noticed any issue with the bite of the platform teeth. The post flex was bad as is the two tooth bracket.

It’s sat in it’s box, even though I found it pretty comfortable to stand on. The platform does flex a bit more than other platforms I’ve used, but that little bit of additional give kind of softens it underfoot. It‘s not like it it flexes excessively, compared to others.

I like that I can fold it flat and toss it in a pack. Wish it didn’t have those problems you mention.

 

[Dope on a Rope]

Ya'll that have had the rzr or rzr magnum, could you comfortably turn around on the platform for weak side shots? Is it big enough for that?

BT

I’ve got both and no issues turning around on either. I don’t need to pay attention(look down) to do it on the magnum. Size 9.5-10 uninsulated boots all season, though, which are basically like sneakers.
I usually use the magnum because it’s plenty light, and keep the other for days when I’m not sure I’m going up a tree.

 

[Plebe]

I’ve got both and no issues turning around on either. I don’t need to pay attention(look down) to do it on the magnum. Size 9.5-10 uninsulated boots all season, though, which are basically like sneakers.
I usually use the magnum because it’s plenty light, and keep the other for days when I’m not sure I’m going up a tree.

Obviously we have different sized feet, but I’ve kept the Magnum for the same reason you keep the regular RZR.

 

[Black Titan]

I'm a 12 insulated and wear an 11.5EW non-insulated. Hmmm....I need to try one of these darn things. Hopefully I can make it to the southern expo. May need some of you to pretend to be my coworkers and tell the wife I'm needed to come in for a meeting lol.

BT

 

[BTaylor]

I'm a 12 insulated and wear an 11.5EW non-insulated. Hmmm....I need to try one of these darn things. Hopefully I can make it to the southern expo. May need some of you to pretend to be my coworkers and tell the wife I'm needed to come in for a meeting lol.

BT

Just call it what it is, a summer mental health retreat.

 

[Pic1]

No way. That radial tooth geometry gets more teeth engaged than a standard V. I have run all those scenarios in creo with diameters from 2”- 24”. That wasn’t the problem. Also, the platform didn’t flex more than anything else on the market. What flexed a lot was the post. That needs to be stiffer.

Although, I can appreciate the effort that went into your modeling scenarios, having owned a RZR and spent more time than I care to remember trying to make it work and learn to love it when compared to any other platform, my seat of the pants real feel results tend to differ with your findings.

Regardless of number of platform teeth engaged in the two platform jaw shape scenarios, Creo although a great tool, cannot accurately duplicate the different bark, cambium layer and densities of the trees that we climb.

Isolating just the platform alone, never mind the post, and forgiving my crude back of the napkin illustration, given the two platforms (minus even any teeth), are of equal and greater density than the two identical type and dia. trees they are mounted on and are being acted upon with identical inward and downward forces on the extreme outer edges of the platforms. Which would be your choice for the more stable in an actively weighted scenario when worked with a repeated changeable weight shift to either side of the platform? Which of the two platforms would have less affect on the tree and the mating joint with its contact points when worked over time under same tension? The choice is obvious to me. I'll leave it there.

 

[enkriss]

Although, I can appreciate the effort that went into your modeling scenarios, having owned a RZR and spent more time than I care to remember trying to make it work and learn to love it when compared to any other platform, my seat of the pants real feel results tend to differ with your findings.

Regardless of number of platform teeth engaged in the two platform jaw shape scenarios, Creo although a great tool, cannot accurately duplicate the different bark, cambium layer and densities of the trees that we climb.

Isolating just the platform alone, never mind the post, and forgiving my crude back of the napkin illustration, given the two platforms (minus even any teeth), are of equal and greater density than the two identical type and dia. trees they are mounted on and are being acted upon with identical inward and downward forces on the extreme outer edges of the platforms. Which would be your choice for the more stable in an actively weighted scenario when worked with a repeated changeable weight shift to either side of the platform? Which of the two platforms would have less affect on the tree and the mating joint with its contact points when worked over time under same tension? The choice is obvious to me. I'll leave it there.

Well… you are wrong. You can’t get the platform tight enough is part of the problem and that 2 point bracket does not allow proper alignment. I didn’t say the platform is flawless it does have fundamental flaws. But the teeth on the platform are not one of them.

 

[Pic1]

Well… you are wrong.

Don't think so.

Let me dumb down my illustration even further.
Take a quarter on edge push it down on a wooden cutting board and try to rotate it. Now take same quarter cut it in half. Take the cut edge and push it down on edge on same cutting board try to rotate it. Same example on a tree with say a curved or straight blade for that matter. Which is easier to rotate?

 

[Dope on a Rope]

Although, I can appreciate the effort that went into your modeling scenarios, having owned a RZR and spent more time than I care to remember trying to make it work and learn to love it when compared to any other platform, my seat of the pants real feel results tend to differ with your findings.

Regardless of number of platform teeth engaged in the two platform jaw shape scenarios, Creo although a great tool, cannot accurately duplicate the different bark, cambium layer and densities of the trees that we climb.

Isolating just the platform alone, never mind the post, and forgiving my crude back of the napkin illustration, given the two platforms (minus even any teeth), are of equal and greater density than the two identical type and dia. trees they are mounted on and are being acted upon with identical inward and downward forces on the extreme outer edges of the platforms. Which would be your choice for the more stable in an actively weighted scenario when worked with a repeated changeable weight shift to either side of the platform? Which of the two platforms would have less affect on the tree and the mating joint with its contact points when worked over time under same tension? The choice is obvious to me. I'll leave it there.

Seems pretty obvious the one on the right would always be better all else equal

 

[Dope on a Rope]

Don't think so.

Let me dumb down my illustration even further.
Take a quarter on edge push it down on a wooden cutting board and try to rotate it. Now take same quarter cut it in half. Take the cut edge and push it down on edge on same cutting board try to rotate it. Same example on a tree with say a curved or straight blade for that matter. Which is easier to rotate?

Little rough trying to follow how it relates to a platform, but it sounds like the same logic that says wider tires are better on a slippery road(they’re not)

 

[Center Punch]

Little rough trying to follow how it relates to a platform, but it sounds like the same logic that says wider tires are better on a slippery road(they’re not)

What's best for slippery roads? Does it matter what makes the road slippery? I would think so. Gravel. Mud. Snow. Ice.