I-Beam riser vs contrasting slab risers

[Yule08]

Was it aesthetics or economics that gave rise to the change in recurve risers from being primarily I-beam in the late 50's/early 60's to contrasting slab risers where two (or more) contrasting woods usually separated by an accent stipe(s)?  I'm thinking primarily Bear here since I'm most familiar with them.  Did other major bow manufacturers make a similar transition?

I realize beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I prefer the I-beam or even a single-wood, but finely-figured riser over the multi-slab-type risers.

So why did I-beam construction fall from favor??

Yule

[Wade Phillips]

Yule - The riser shape changed from the sleek shape in the late 1950s and early 1960s with I-Beam or Solid Risers, to the designs with the horns on the back which prompted the logical addition of the accent stripes.

Simply put, the horn back bows have more physical weight and were supposedly better, balance, etc. In the era, bow design was similar to car design, with a relatively new redesign each year or two. (this is an over simplification of course).  

For me, every time I'll take a sleek, easy to carry all day, great shooting and great looking, Classic I-Beam 1959 or 1960 Kodiak over a heavier horn back Kodiak with their accent stripes.

[Yule08]

Wade,
Thanks for responding, I see your point about horns/riser mass and also tend to agree with you about the carry aspects of the earlier bows. Your car analogy is apropos considering the "finned" fender era I remember as a youth in the early 60's LOL, perhaps it set the trend for the Detroit area bows.....  

However, for every generality there are notable exceptions, and two that come to mind (since I have them LOL) are Bear's '63 Polar (I-beam, bubinga(?) and zebrawood(?)) and '66 Alaskan (solid bubinga(?).  I'm sure you are familiar with both.  Great shooters I often use in outdoor 450 league at the club.

Regards,
Yule