CRS, all the reasons you don't like ILF are what makes ILF a great system. Easy to tune, Easy to use, Reliable, no tools required to put together (Not so with a Bob Lee or many other custom take downs) - add in a rest and plunger and tuning that takes a day or two with a conventional bow can be done in minutes.......I have had more issues with stick on Velcro wearing out and poking toothpicks and matchstick behind the strike plates than I have ever had with any elevated rest and plunger combo. Whatever you want to use is fine with me, but you might just want to take a closer look at ILF before totally writing it off. Some of the IBO rules are a joke when it comes to rests and strike plates - putting bolts in with felt on the head is fine, but a plunger is not? Properly tuned and shot there is darn little difference in accuracy between them. Some folks just have a hard time admitting that it's the shooter not the equipment.
BTW, that "Scared of ILF" is a quote from a major custom bow maker explaining to me why they even have another attachment system for their take down bows.
I think CRS is strongly considering ILF. Yes, it's the rules "funny" that dictate how my rest is set up. I prefer an elevated rest and plunger. It makes tuning even simpler and seems more forgiving across a larger parameter to me. Equipment does "not" turn you into a better shooter. It simply makes tuning easier IMHO.
