• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Tethrd One Sticks Gen 2

Buckeye said:
Justin is a good guy, I've known him a long time. He personally knows the tethrd crew. He wouldn't make a post of speculations.
Click to expand...

Right on. He said he knew the recall was coming from a conversation he had with Greg. I'm not casting doubt on him at all, he's sharing what he's been told.

It still isn't from the horse's mouth directly to the hunting community. That's all.

We've speculated on the cause of the issue, but mums the word form Tethrd. Just passing along information on what's being put out there.
 
Topdog said:
Tethrd is getting roasted on every hunting forum, facebook page, everywhere, why and heck wouldn’t they just post a short youtube video on how exactly they are testing these sticks, what they are looking for, and a brief explanation of the whole situation, nothing cutesy just speak the truth and put some of these fires out, damage is done already…obviously.. but if this was my business I would be communicating a lot better than this, I’m sure the video would set off another firestorm of people judging the whole process but at this point what is there to lose, I’m sure they are not legally obligated to post a video like that, but lets be honest they made a business by exploiting the awesome power of the internet..facebook..youtube..this forum.. one would think if they have any chance of moving forward after this latest debacle some more transparency is needed, but hey what do I know, I’ve only been in business 20 years and see know change in my future..
Click to expand...

Putting out a YouTube video explaining the whole situation and their testing methodology might be "the right thing to do" (from a variety of angles) - but it would also be absolutely the wrong thing to do from a risk, legal, and liability standpoint.
 
After picking up a ONE stick at the Harrisburg show, I was prepared to drop coin on it if they proved they fixed the design issues. It is ALMOST an incredible piece of gear. I'd pay 2-3x the current cost IF it was something I felt 99% confident wasn't going to break and last me most of the rest of my hunting career. I didn't trust they fixed it, didn't pull the trigger, and it seems they may have made it worse.

We'll see, still want to get into these sticks eventually but I am not product testing for them unless they ship me a free set. What little faith I had left in the company is drained down to about 1%. Never trust a company that can't even spell its own name!
 
ShooterMike said:
Testing to 700lbs is more dangerous since there isn’t an NDI performed after loading the stick/steps. There now has been an excessive load that has stressed the already suspect bolt/joints.

Semper Fi,
Mike
Click to expand...

It also seems possibly unnecessary given the alleged conditions, where a rockwell hardness test and eddy current conductivity test may be appropriate.
 
raisins said:
Huh...thanks for the info. Can you think of a way to use aluminum to its fullest and get light platforms without resorting to exotic materials?
Click to expand...

Thin-walled tubing (or C or I profiles), expanded metal, and minimizing the bending load by supporting the outer portion of the platform from above or below. Taller profiles are better.

Or mill it out.

The main drawback these can have vs. cast is noise and more labor to assemble, both somewhat depending on fabrication. Cast is cheap to make, easy to make quiet, and relatively light/strong.
 
I sent my 3pack back but UPS wanted $10 for a box for my single stick so I'm still waiting on a box that will work to return the single. I did ask UPS if they would charge the box to the return label!
 
dalton916 said:
Damn near everything they make is ripped from someone else so it may just be projection of guilt on my part, but TN had their carbon stick at ATA then the next ATA they come out with the clone and it’s “new product of the year” or whatever dumb title they have, lol.

The beef with the TN that I recall is about the depth of the offset which is no go for me either way because a) I’m a big dude and don’t need to be on no dang CF stick and I have big feet so I like all the offset I can get from a tree.

DanO standoffs and thick walled aluminum stick for me.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%
To Be honest.
Here is the real beef.lol
They all kind of (not knowingly) ripped off desings with stands and sticks from the og lone wolf equipment.
Look at the designs of stick standoffs, stands, batwings. They are all the same just different shapes.
its like the whole water jet patten with Infalt and Andrae.
**** is ridiculous Lol
That **** cracked me up.
 
Last edited:
n6dlh said:
Someone in this thread speculated heat treat. Think they were saying strength if 6061 was like 16k psi vs T6 @ 48k psi. Something like that.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was @boyne bowhunter. This post from Justin at the bowhunting.com forums is the first I've seen someone say that is actually the case.

It seems peculiar then that they are stress loading the sticks to determine the out of spec metal, when there are less intrusive methods.

@boyne bowhunter also mentioned hardness testing. From my little looking, Eddy current testing would complement that.

thermalprocessing.com

Heat treatment of aluminum Part VII – Hardness and conductivity | Thermal Processing Magazine

In the previous article, we discussed the artificial aging of aluminum. Once we have heat treated the parts, we need to verify the properties. While a tensi ...
thermalprocessing.com
 
"In many instances, the values for the hardness and conductivity of a heat-treated aluminum part are fixed as part of the specification. This is especially true in the aerospace industry where the hardness and conductivity of heat-treated aluminum parts are specified by AMS 2658D"

173CAE90-6C65-4255-A5E5-B6DAD686B1B4.jpeg
 
Plebe said:
It seems peculiar then that they are stress loading the sticks to determine the out of spec metal, when there are less intrusive methods.
Click to expand...
In principle they should be keeping away from the yield stress and in the elastic regime where this loading is not intrusive.

Or put another way - if this damages the sticks, they're out of spec.
 
Plebe said:
"In many instances, the values for the hardness and conductivity of a heat-treated aluminum part are fixed as part of the specification. This is especially true in the aerospace industry where the hardness and conductivity of heat-treated aluminum parts are specified by AMS 2658D"

View attachment 69670
Click to expand...
That technically only implies the Titanium is aerospace not the aluminum
 
mattsteg said:
In principle they should be keeping away from the yield stress and in the elastic regime where this loading is not intrusive.

Or put another way - if this damages the sticks, they're out of spec.
Click to expand...

And since it's just one cycle they are on the good side of design fatigue then?

Idk, seems there is a better way. I don't know the cost to go another route or the required expertise.

I reckon some degree of engineering savvy would be needed for any of the testing approaches. As well as to successfully produce such an intricate design.
 
Plebe said:
nd since it's just one cycle they are on the good side of design fatigue then?

Idk, seems there is a better way. I don't know the cost to go another route or the required expertise.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 1 cycle is nothing if you're not close to the limit.

There are certainly more clever ways. I can't say with confidence that they're "better". While I don't really trust tethrd engineering, I do trust simple, system-level testing more than clever component-level testing. And I trust clever testing a lot more if I trust the engineering behind it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top