"Ultra forgiving bows"

[James Park]

It seems to me that many of us talk about "forgiving bows", but what do we actually mean?
If we could perhaps define what "forgiving" means, we could perhaps then be better placed to understand what might make one bow "more forgiving" than another.
So, what do you think "forgiving" means when applied to bows?
(Once we have that all sorted out, I will pose a subsequent question or three).

[Marcus]

To me a forgiving bow is one that allows you to make minor mistakes and doesn't throw the arrow too far from the centre. If you shoot a bad shot you can't expect it to land in the 10 (although sometimes they do) however that arrow landing in the 9 could give you the win over someone who throws the same arrow into the 7.
Basically a forgiving bow should require more movement by the shooter to move the arrow on the target.

[Jbird]

Excellent answer Marcus. A bow that allows your poorest shots to hit closest to the center is what I call forgiving. For me that means defex design because they are harder to torque and high brace height because of the faster lock time. Round wheels are a comfort item not necessarily
related to forgiveness but instead are easier to draw, easier on the old joints, and without the shock to the shoulder and elbow, especially when letting down. I feel that at the end of the weekend after shooting 224 arrows in a Field shoot the guy with the round wheels will be less fatigued and his body in better shape. In long events like the NFAA Outdoor Nationals where you shoot 112 arrows each day for five straight days, it becomes somewhat of an endurance test for a lot of us older guys. Staying strong and being able to shoot strong shots all the way to the end adds points. How many times at the end of a long shoot have you finished one or two points out of the running? I want those two points!
Jbird

[James Park]

jbird,
What do you mean by "because of the faster lock time"?

[Marcus]

Can I add too that a forgiving bow will stay stable on those days you are not. An unforgiving bow will jump around in the hand when you are not rock solid, thus making aiming more difficult.

[Jbird]

At any given speed, the "lock time" is the time from release that the arrow stays attached to the string. The higher the brace height, the less distance the the arrow travels from release to disengagement. The thinking is that the longer the arrow stays attached to the bow after the release, the more time you have to introduce negative input to the shot such as bow hand movement. Lock time is a term you hear rifle and pistol shooters talk about but the principle is the same.
Jbird

[2Dogs]

ditto on what Marcus said.

Easy to aim, and don't have zingers. That's where you get up and shoot perfect shots aimed right in the 10 and it ends up in the 7.

And you have no idea why :o

[Eberbachl]

A good question Jim, and I agree with most of the answers relating to forgiveness so far. A forgiving bow must give us the best chance to hit the middle when we execute a less than perfect shot. Also, a forgiving bow may be one that we can pick up after not training as hard as we should, and allow us to shoot acceptably well with relatively little effort...

I think an interesting question, and one that will provoke some interesting discussion here is what makes that bow forgiving. I hear people say things like round wheels, long ATA, high brace height, long limbs, deflex riser, etc etc etc...

Some of those factors may be true, and some may not. It is interesting to see some excellent scores from what I would have previously termed hunting/3D/treestand bows rather than target bows. One point I find interesting is that rightly or wrongly, many people associate a forgiving target bow with slow arrow speed. After all, a ProTec with LX limbs and round wheels is not exactly a speed demon :) I beleive, all things being equal that it's better to get that arrow away from my inconsistent form as quickly as possible. There are other reasons why I like a fast bow of course, but some discussion here might dispell some "older" theories :roll:

:D :wink: :D

[James Park]

ok, we have collected a few ideas on what "forgiving" means.
It seems to be that a "forgiving" bow is easy to aim, and that when you make a mistake the effect of the mistake is small.
Next question:
For each of the aspects that get mentioned in relation to "forgiving" bows, why do they make it "forgiving"? For example, why does a high brace height make a bow "forgiving"? (Jbird has already given one view on this one).
Why does axle-to-axle length matter?
Why does reflex or deflex matter?
What other parameters matter, and why?

What I am trying to get at here is not just that something matters but WHY does it matter, and how do you optimise it to get the bow that is going to let us score the highest.

[Jbird]

I am not sure that A to A is as important as some think. Seems like A to A
is relative to draw length. I think string angle is somewhat important for comfort and fit and of course this relates to a to a. A long draw archer needs more a ot a to get the same string angle that a short draw person does with less a to a. How this relates to forgiveness I am not sure other than from a comfort stand point. The more comfortable you are, the easier it is to repeat your form. As far as reflex vs deflex goes, it is simply a matter of leverage. A deflex bow is harder to torque with less apparent movement on the target face from inconsistant hand position.
This is the same reasoning that makes putting the support point of the rest directly over the pivot point of the grip important. The further in front or back of the pivot point that the support point of the arrrow is, the more it amplifies minute errors in aiming and any applied torque to the handle. Some people feel that longer a to a bows are easier to hold in the vertical plane, but with a balanced bow and attention to the bubble in your scope, I don't see this as a major issue. Sight bar length is very useful in making a bow more forgiving. A lot of people just push the bar out to the end and never realize that sight bar length can be used to get the scope to fit the peep size and can also be used to increase or decrease apparent magnification to make the sight picture more steady and or more in focus.
Jbird

[mike]

I would like someone to explain how a deflex bow is harder to torque than a reflex one. And at any rate, if a bow is hard to torque, this implies that more force is required to torque the bow. Since bow torque is released upon the shot (which causes the ultimate problem of having the arrow not go to where you pointed it) wouldn't it be better to simply shoot a bow that was easy to torque and just learn to shoot it without torque?? Just a thought.

Another thing I've noticed on different bows is that it is easier to create an angle between the string and the line of the limbs (when viewed from above) on some bows than others. This seems to have a relationship to ATA but not entirely, for example on a thunderbolt (PSE) that I drew back, it was easy to do, but on a brute force (High Country) it is not, despite the brute force being shorter ATA. This possibly is the answer to the problem because if it is hard to create this angle, then it is difficult to move the string in relation to the limbs at all. If this is the case, then any movement will manifest itself as a sighting error as you aim (rather than just a torque of the riser), allowing you to correct for it. This way, you actually spend more time properly aiming at the 10 and so, statistically, you are more likely to hit it, creating the impression that the bow is more "forgiving".

I do not necesarily subscribe to the above, but I raise it as a possibility.

[James Park]

Regarding the tolerance of bows to errors from torque:
Aside from the fact that you can completely cancel out any torque effects by using an appropriate sight extension length (see the different message thread covering this), some bows are "more forgiving" in this respect.
My conclusion is that it is not the shape of the riser (deflex or reflex) or the axle-to-axle length that matters here but the brace height.
My take on this is: if you consider the distance from the grip to the release device at full draw (what you might refer to as the draw length), some portion of this will be taken up by the distance from the grip to the line between the axles (call this the "limb portion"). The rest will taken up by the distance from the line between the axles to the release device (call this the "string portion"). My experience is that it is easier to twist a bow when the portion of the draw length taken up by the "string portion" is greater. This will be the case when the brace height is lower, regardless of the riser shape or axle-to-axle length. That is: a higher brace height makes a bow more "forgiving" (whatever that means).
If a higher brace height is more "forgiving", why then not make it huge, say 10"? The obvious trade-off is that the bow gets much slower and you are then much more affected by wind and slopes. Consequently, I aim to get the brace height sufficiently high that the bow is easy to shoot, but sufficiently low so that I still get good speed. I aim to have a brace height of about 7.5 to 8 inches. I also have taken particular care to ensure that my hand location on the bow is both very repeatable, and such that I do not twist the bow.
Note that for a bow with a reflex riser, the limbs need to be well laid back to get a high brace height. For example, my Xcellerator has a reflex riser and a high brace height, and the limbs are well laid back. It is also reasonably resistant to torque.

[Marcus]

Yep, keep in mind that only 10 years ago a radical bow had a straight riser, 41" A to A and maybe an overdraw. Reflex bows were invented so overdraws were not needed. They lowered the brace height. A Deflex bow will have a higher brace height, thus more forgiveness.

I believe that a long A to A should help with stability and consistancy in vertical bow position. Reason is that if you consider the bow a triancge at full draw the long A to A is the base of that triangle and should be more stable than a bow with a shorter base.
Also I believe that longer limbs help stability in the shot because the stored enery is over a larger area and not as concentrated, thus providing smoother energy transfer to the arrow. It's one of those things I can't explain, but know. :) What do you guys think?

[clever_guy]

James Park;

Not quite. When you are looking at bow geometry brace height, riser shape (reflex/deflex), and ATA all come into play. As JBIRD explained quite well the riser shape can make a bow more or less critical to shoot. In general deflex or even geometry risers are less effected by bow hand torque. Reflex geometry bows in general produce more effected by bowhand torque. Longer ATA bows are generally more forgiving than shorter ATA bows. The "triangle" the bowstring makes on a higher ATA bow is less pronounced than a shorter ATA bow and as such is less effected by string torque. Brace height as you mentioned plays a factor; longer brace heights shorten the string geometry and makes that string geometry less pronounced (the power stroke end sooner). You really can't just have one and not the others.

So when you look at it as an equation, a bow with a deflex geometry, high brace height and longer ATA should be the most forgiving combination. If you ever "fly over the pond" and visit Vegas you will see a lot of top indoor shooter shooting exactly this kind of bow. Heck, I am shooting an older "spot" bow 46" ATA, even riser geometry, and a 9" (or so) brace height.

Now the only problem with the classic spots bow is the speed. Add all the geometry factors together and you get one mighty slow bow especially if you are looking to shoot FITA regs (60lbs peak draw weight limitation), at long distances in wind. So in the old days we threw on overdraws, effectively creating a reflex geometry, but keeping the longer brace heights and longer ATA. Most people found overdraws made bows harder to shoot (though faster), primarily because the arrow contact was behind the handle, and it magnified any torque a great deal. So bow companies started making reflex geometry risers and with the handle under the arrow contact there was less torque (but still more than a deflex riser).

Now of course speed can mean a lot of things, speed freaks it is fun to get equipment to work at the outer limits, for hunters it is K.E., for outdoor target shooters it is trajectory. Flatter trajectory means generally faster flight, less time in the air, and arrows are flying lower through their flight path (not as effected by winds at higher altitude). So a lot of shooters move to reflex risers (or slightly reflexed risers), and given the increasing quality of bows as time goes on, they shoot higher scores. They want a little more speed, they reduce the ATA. They are increasing string angle and thereby string torque, but the speed is advantageous. Brace height can be reduced as well, but the lower the brace height the longer the power stroke, and the more paradox the arrow goes through (as well as the easier it is to whack your arm).

Some companies decrease brace height proportionally to ATA and riser geometry, and as a result you get very forgiving bows that have speed as well as forgiveness. Other factors have to include cam type (power stroke\ let-off\speed\roughness of the pull over), bow cable torque (shoot-though), and mass weight. What use is a bow that is designed to be a short reflexed riser (lower ATA and lower brace height) designed to be forgiving but fast - and then you throw on a round wheel. Alternately why get a bow with a deflexed riser/high brace height/long ATA and throw on hard hatchet type cams. So there is certainly room in the equation for cams/cable torque/mass weight. So for a truly forgiving bow it looks like a deflexed riser/longer ATA/high brace height/round wheel/shoot through cable/with a moderate mass weight.

Well maybe for some archers. I think the issue is the bows intervention with the archer. You can take a crappy little PSE Team Fitzgerald put it on a hooter shooter and shoot some fantastic scores. Even better you can give it to the likes of Roger H or Dave C and they will out shoot the shooting machine (which Dave C has done). If the archer who uses the bow has great form, the forgiveness of the bow becomes less of an issue. The intervention between the bow and archer becomes less of an issue and the archer shoots better scores. I haven

[James Park]

It seems to me that one of the reasons for using a long axle-to-axle bow is if you want to use round wheels or cams rather than a single cam.
With two cams, or wheels, the size of the cam gets larger as the axle-to-axle length gets shorter for a given draw length.
This means that as the axle-to-axle length gets shorter it becomes more and more difficult to ensure that the cams are in sync, and the bow becomes less forgiving. Hence, I can well understand archers using bows of 42" to 44" when using twin cams or wheels. A 36" twin cam bow would probably be unshootable.
However, with a single cam this is not necessarily the case, and shorter bows seem to me to be ok, and quite forgiving.
Hence, I think the desired length of the bow really depends on the configuration of the wheels/cams.

[Eberbachl]

Interesting James, that you consider a 36" two cam bow unshootable. In my experience this axle to axle length is not critical (at least in my case). My last bow was a 41.5" axle to axle AccuTec with somthing like an 8" brace height, and my current bow is a 36" axle to axle CyberTec with Command Cam+'s and a 6.5 " brace height.

I understand that the 6.5" brace height is not doing wonders for my forgiveness, but then again I am something of a speed freak....

Thw 36" two cam CyberTec for me has shot numerous 296's, a 297 indoor (aust indoor) and easily porked the 3D scores and IFAA field scores I was capable of with the "forgiving" AccuTec. The short axle to axle command cam CyberTec has also been a pleasure to keep in time also - very little effort required after the initial timing after my string/cables settled in. Would the vast increase in speed (from 265FPS AccuTec to around 300FPS CyberTec) make enough difference on the slopes of the field course to outweigh the lack of forgiveness because of axle to axle length and brace height?

What explanation could be made for the similar scores I'm shooting in the indoor compared to the AccuTec....I did shoot one 300 with the AccuTec, but was averaging in the indoor around 294-297, so my indoor scores haven't changed much with the more radical of the two bows.....

hhhhmmmmm........interesting :roll:

[clever_guy]

James Park;

Like Eberbachl mentioned, there are a lot of great shooting shorter ATA/Reflexed riser bows out here. The Cybertec is a great example, at 36" is is a great shooting bow, it has a reflexed riser, proportionately short limbs and lower brace height. No issues from anyone I have ever talked to using one keeping CC cams in time.

-CG

[Marcus]

Brace height huh?
Is this a misrepreseted term?
What is more forgiving

Archer A
23" draw
6" brace height
38" A to A

Archer B
30" draw
8" brace height
40" A to A

I think Archer A will, because there is only 17" of travel with the arrow connected while the longer draw has 22" of travel. Also the A to A is in better proportion for the shorter draw person.
So, if a 27" shooter has a 8" brace height, would a 31" shooter ned a 12" brace height for similar forgivness?

As for torque. I can not think why a reflex bow would produce more torque, or a deflex less. The pivot point is the same at the grip.

[clever_guy]

Marcus;

A deflex (or even) riser is in line with the arc of the limbs, and I have always found deflexed risers more forgiving. That being said, how much more forgiving is the question. I don't think there is a lot of difference as in forgiveness due to riser geometry between for example a Hoyt UT and a Hoyt Protec (same limbs, same draw weight/length, cams, etc.). When you are looking at slightly reflexed (1-2") as opposed to even or deflexed risers, the difference isn't as apparent. A good shooter would shoot well with either. I have looked at both Protecs and UT's and liked the feel of both, they react to stab weight a little differently, but either would do. I didn't find any difference in grip torque between the two. As an archer with a shorter draw I would be tempted to use a UT for outdoors, and get that little extra speed bump.

When you look at a cybertec, it does feel differently than a UT (slightly reflexed), and a Protec (deflex). However because the geometry is in proportion it quite forgiving as well. I think it is easier to affect arrow flight with uneven hand pressure with the Cybertec, but if you had good form it isn't extremely critical. In comparison to the Cybertec the Sapphire feels simular with more brace height and shorter ATA.

If you want a better comparison grab a Hypertec and compare it too a Protec (or UT). If you flex your thumb while aiming you can move the dot around the gold.

-CG

[James Park]

I detect a range of opinions:
- some of your are saying that to be forgiving, a bow must be long and deflexed.
- some others are saying that short and reflexed is ok. (Just look at how fast I got jumped on for saying short twin cam bows are unshootable).

Hence, one could only conclude that either:
- some of you are right and the others wrong (you might like to debate which are which). or
- length and handle shape do not matter at all for a bow to be forgiving.

What do you say to that?

[Marcus]

- some of your are saying that to be forgiving, a bow must be long and deflexed.

Disagree. I've found for me a straight riser is more forgiving, and prefer shorter bows (41"), but with recurved limbs.

- some others are saying that short and reflexed is ok. (Just look at how fast I got jumped on for saying short twin cam bows are unshootable).

I think short is fine, but I have seen some good scores shot with a CyberTec with Command Cams

Hence, one could only conclude that either:
- some of you are right and the others wrong (you might like to debate which are which). or
- length and handle shape do not matter at all for a bow to be forgiving.

I think length is nice, but with a bubble, not too required.

Ah, this is a good one!! :)

[Eberbachl]

I'm sorry James if you thought I was jumping on you regarding the short twin cam bow bit, I didn't mean it to come across that way, and just thought it was an interesting statement. I'm genuinely interested in hearing more of why and how you came to this conclusion.

I know that you, and others shoot short one cam bows with good results, and I don't beleive apart from string angle and pinch that the length of the bow makes much difference.

As far as real aspects of forgiveness are concerned, I really don't know what is true and what is not? Perhaps none of it does matter? After all, there are as many conflicting opinions from good shooters out there as I've shot arrows.....

Many aspects of forgiveness also seem to have enough pros and cons to cancel each other out? For example, a long brace height means that the arrow comes of the string quicker, thereby shortening the time that the arrow is connected to the string. This should be more forgiving, but a shorter brace height means that the arrow is subjected to a longer power stroke and comes out of the bow quicker, escaping my bad form more quickly than a slow bow.

Is my logic right? Or am I just very confused??? :roll:

Cheers,

Luke :D

[mike]

Given equal brace height and equal draw length, ATA affects the string angle at full draw. The low string angle of a short ATA bow means that the horizontal component of force at the moment of release (the force directed along the arrow, not towards the limbtips) is greater than that of the equvalent long ATA bow. This is why many of the shorter ATA bows should theoretically be faster (I think they probably get more inefficient as well though, to some extent eliminating this advantage).

On the speed thing, the bow's efficiency at transferring the energy of the draw into the arrow determines the arrow's kinetic energy and thus its speed -- it is possible that the more complicated the system of shooting the arrow, the less efficient the bow, but nonetheless, the transfer of energy into the arrow is partly dependant on the string angle
(Fcosa where F is the force in the string, a is the angle from the arrow up to the string :roll: )

The problem with this is that any torque applied during the shot gets transferred into the bow's power stroke. If that torque is in the horizontal plane, then its effect will be determined by two main factors -- 1) the length of power stroke (which we have said is constant in this example) and 2) the instantaneous horizontal component of the force on the arrow. Thus, if the bow you shoot has a high horizontal force component (which, as stated above comes from a short ATA), then it will to an extent amplify any torque compared to that of a long ATA (and thus relatively smaller horizontal force component)

What does this all mean. Well, forgetting the trajectory of the arrow for the moment, the easiest set up to shoot consistently accurately would have -- Very short power stroke, very high string angle. This means long ATA, high brace height. Just like what people like to use for indoor.
This leaves the problem of speed, because at long range, the flatter the trajectory, the less error is manifested at the target (due to the pitch of the arrow's approach to the target face -- exactly the opposite of whats good for clout) this is probably why 90m scores have increased dramatically with the advent of faster bows.
Thus you trade off brace height and string angle for speed (assuming constant poundage and constant bow efficiency)
I guess this means you want a very fast, long ATA bow with high brace height (thats not too much to ask is it? :-? )
Longer ATA puts more weight at distance from the center of rotation (the bow hand) thus increasing the bow's moment of inertia and so the bow feels more stable (same reason target shooters use long stabilisers). but you can't go too long or the bow becomes cumbersome and too much speed is lost -- that damned string angle again (speed is also lost with increased brace height due to shorter power stroke)

The efficiency (and therefore ultimately the speed of the arrow) seems to be the last item that we can change on this theoretical high brace height, long ATA bow (at constant poundage). This depends on limb material, riser material, the cams (single, dual, wheels) the weight of these components, a whole lot of things, but we can say that it is the area under the force-draw curve that determines the amount of energy available. There is generally more area under a dual cam or single cam graph than under a wheel bow graph and this is why the cam options are faster -- they store and then return a greater proportion of the limb energy to the arrow.

Dual or single??? That is hard to answer. I think you choose the cam system that you can tune most easily and that will get you the best speed for that particular bow (which you chose with the above requirements in mind) -- its then all up to you the shooter.
I would probably be suspicious of twin cams on a really short (like 32 inch for example) ATA bow because any error in the tune would be amplified by the same horizontal force issue as mentioned above, but I don't think anyone can argue with the 1434 indoor fita for the twin cams on a longer bow by Dave Cousins :o . Or the 1414 by Roger Hoyle. Equally, I can see no reason why a similar good single cam bow shot by someone of equal standard couldn't shoot the same score. I think that a wheel bow would be too slow and given the subsequent trajectory characteristics of the arrow, such high scores would be extremely difficult for a human being (someone will do it tomorrow now that I have said that).

[mike]

I have just re-read my last post. Required a packed lunch. Sorry peoples!!! :oops:

[James Park]

Luke,
My comments on it being more difficult to get the cams timed on a shorter bow come simply from the cams being larger for the same draw length. Hence the timing becomes more critical. I do agree that you can get them timed, just that you have to be more accurate in doing it.

As I stated in an earlier post: "My conclusion is that it is not the shape of the riser (deflex or reflex) or the axle-to-axle length that matters here but the brace height."
I would add that one nice reason for having a reflexed riser is that it probably makes it easier to get a bit more tension into the string in the undrawn position, which makes the bow much crisper to shoot (and more accurate).
I am convinced that the shape of the riser is not the determining factor in how hard it is to get torque - I think it is the brace height again that matters.

I normally shoot a 38" single cam bow, and find it works particularly well (it is capable of much higher scores than me). However, I have lent my sight from that bow to Bryce for the World Field and so have been using my 32" single cam bow recently for 90M and 70M, and for the recent FITA. Several years ago I would never have imagined I could shoot a 32" bow accurately - it simply does not mach the "rules of good target shooting equipment selection". However, I find it is particularly nice to shoot at 90M and (if ever I could figure out what it means) it seems to fit the definition of "forgiving".

When I was first offered a sponsorship to shoot a PSE bow, I was handed the catalogue and had a free pick of any bow. As a target archer, I headed straight for the 42" deflexed round wheel bow, and used it to win the Nationals target and overall events in 1999. The Mach 9.5 really was very nice to shoot. I was then offered a 36" single cam Thunderbolt as a "spare", although I was a little dubious that it would work well for target. However, I did use it for the 2000 State Target event, and won with a World Top Ten score. I found it just as easy to shoot as the Mach 9.5, and just as accurate, with the added advantage that it was also very fast and hence very good in wind (which is just about the standard target conditions).

I note that Clint Freeman uses a reflex riser, and has done so for all the World Records he has obtained while shooting for Hoyt. (Those he shot prior to that were with a deflex riser PSE). 347 at 90M is a pretty amazing score, and he shot that with a Striker (I think), which was a reasonably aggressive bow.

[Marcus]

A note on Clint's setup. He actually had at the time a Stratus Plus (deflex) and the Striker 2 (reflex). He didn't even bother with the Striker due to it's dimensions. After a few months he thought "better at least shoot the thing" and was blown away by it. Rest is history.

I still don't know how you got the Thunderbolt to work Jim. While I was waiting on my UltraTec last year I shot one for a bit and found any slight shot would go into the 7 at 18m. Guess it just suited your style better. :(

[clever_guy]

James Park;

Don't forget the better a shooter you are the wider the equipment options become. If you can shoot a 300 18m FITA with twin cam, you can do it with a single cam. Also it is easier to move too a more reflexed riser and reduced ATA. Good form and a consistant shot execution can allow a more "critical" (as opposed to forgiving) bow to shoot well. I believe that you liked the 36" single T-bolt more than the Mach 9.5 with round wheels, you were probably getting more out of the T-bolt. The Mach 9.5 with round wheel is more forgiving, but you may not it's forgiving features (as you have good form), as much as the speed - especially if you were shooting outdoor FITA. Round wheels = slow.

A top pro can shoot most bows a manufacturer has in thier line well. They can work around the problem areas (low brace height, grip torque, etc.) more easily, not interfering with the bow. Novice and intermediate archers have a harder time though. If you give a novice a "speed bow" (very reflexed, short ATA, low brace height), you will see them struggle - as opposed to a more forgiving bow. They cannot consistantly adjust thier form to allow the bow too shoot well.

-CG

[Eberbachl]

Good post clever_guy,

I think this is true, many archers with excellent form will be able to get away with a more "radical" bow, some even shooting better with it because of the speed, whilst some beginners or intermediate level archer may need the slower "forgiving" bow to bring out thier best.....

this is an interesting thread :D thanks Jim..... :wink:

[clever_guy]

James Park;

"would add that one nice reason for having a reflexed riser is that it probably makes it easier to get a bit more tension into the string in the undrawn position, which makes the bow much crisper to shoot (and more accurate)."

Still thinking that over. In compound bows tension in the bowstring is consistant and is always under stress (about 400lbs in most cases). A reflexed riser won't increase string tension in a bow at rest. Different manufacturers stress limbs differently though, and the starting bend (shape) of a limb on an unstrung compound, can be much different than the bent limb under tension (strung). Bowtech is now using "parallel" limbs (bend), which looks to increase the amount of limb stress under tension (strung) - and claims that it aids cam rotation (smoother). By the sound of it, most bow company's are looking to ultimately create limbs with even stress through-out the shot cycle. GT and Barnrat53 could probably add more to this.

-CG

[James Park]

And Dave C with a broomstick and a string kicks 99% of us on our respective butts.

I think I agree with CG on this.

An interesting point to ponder: if the top archers can pick up any bent stick and piece of string and still blow the field away, which seems to be true, should the average archer take any notice of what equipment the top archers are using when they are considering their own equipment purchases? If some bows are actually more difficult to shoot, but the top guys can be very accurate with them anyway, it could be quite misleading for the average archer.

Perhaps we need a rule that the top guys are only permitted to use bows that the average archer could easily shoot accurately!! I hesitate to add that this would mean that they would all have to shoot PSE Quantums, but I suspect that such a comment would only provoke a sustained outcry from all the Hoyt/Matthews/Martin/High Country/etc shooters - even though it is probably true!! (spoken as a true PSE sponsored archer, of course).

[Marcus]

Yeah, I've shot a Quantum, and my arm is still vibrating. ;)

I think something again not touched on is balence. It's quite hard to balance a deflex riser well, they always tilt backwards. A straight or reflex bow requires less weight to tip forward and thus I find easier to shoot and hold still. This in itself I believe could outweigh the benifits of the deflex and could also be a reason why so many top shooters go with reflex designs.

BTW some bow makerss are starting to seriously build bows for target again. It will be interesting to see what they pull out this October.

[clever_guy]

James Park;

<rant on>

Unfortunately in North America archers and bowhunters are sold on speed instead of forgiveness/accuracy. Part of this is due to bowhunters desire for higher KE on arrows, part of it is due to bow companies focusing on speed in their advertising. In the 3-D arena there is also a lot of focus on speed, and many 3-D shooters focus on the faster speed bows the pros there use.

Unfortunately this means a lot of beginning archers (target, 3-D, hunting) buy a speed bow for their first bow. Low brace height, short ATA, high draw weight and a very reflexed riser. They also tend to be over bowed, they "sky-draw" to get over the hump of the cam into the 80% let off valley. I am never suprised when I hear of archers with shoulder injuries, especially after watching them shoot a high-letoff bow at 70-80lbs, barely getting over the cam hump, and slamming into the wall of the cam. I am also never surprised when they ask for advice on how to shoot tighter groups, seeing as how most can't/don't hold for more than a second when aiming.

Unfortunately there are a lot of proshops out there that sell speed bows to customers. When a customer finds that s/he cannot shoot the bow well, they sell him/her another speed bow in a different brand. The focus is always on fps not features that would allow the archer to compansate for inconsistant form (which many beginners have).

<rant off>

-CG

[mike]

Well, Jim, I have to agree as PSEs go, most average archers couldn't handle the speed of a High Country!!! :P Just kidding.

Agree, it would be much more sensible for a beginner buying a PSE to get the Quantum over something like the Nitro, which even Marcel had trouble shooting really well.

Equally, you can't expect the top archers to choose a bow that they don't want to shoot. They will pick the bow that they will "get the most out of" as was said earlier. For you Jim that was the Xcellerator, I would go for the Enforcer and others might do best with the quantum or a mach 11.


Horses for courses....

[James Park]

Mike,
You are absolutely correct, a sponsored archer will always try to select the very best model to suit himself, and what he wishes to use it for. I have also been careful to ensure that my sponsor was happy with my selection in that part of the deal is that he must get some return for his investment (otherwise he is wasting his money). For example, I would prefer my Xcellerator to be in the "good vibrations" colour scheme, but Alan was more interested in having one out there and being used to obtain high scores than in waiting to get a custom bow made. (And in reality, the colour really does not bother me - I just want it to be nice to shoot and to score mainly 10's).

[mike]

Agreed, colour of the part of the target that you hit is more important than the colour of the bow you shoot, particularly as part of a sponsorship agreement where the promotional value of having you shoot it well is more important than it looking good to the archer's personal tastes. On that note, I'm sure that Alan will sell more camo bows than target bows anyway and so it is good to have you shooting a bow that at least looks like the one that a prospective customer might buy (the Good Vibrations scheme, whilst being a bit of fun probably doesn't do it for the hunting market!! Unless your name is Luke Eberbach and you wear bright pink jumpers to tournaments)

If I were in your position, I would like to shoot a nice colour bow, but would certainly be more interested in performance. I'm sure that when you win a tournament with that bow you will start to really like "mossy oak" or what ever that camo colour scheme is called!!! :)

It seems that the colour red doesn't have the same effect on bows that it does on cars... :P

[Marcus]

I agree with that. I got the second the second Super Slam in the country and it was snow camo. Didn't care less as it shot very well. Funny thing is I copped some flack for it because no one shot a camo bow for target.

Matched my pants though!! :)

Personally though if I have the choice I try to go for a colour that few others use. I like my UltraTec because I have not seen another like it, most of my bows have been like that. Next time I buy I will look into a custom bow, just for the fun of it.

Only bad thing about the camos these days are they are all rather dull. I liked the older camos with strong leaf patterns, now they are all twigs etc. Sur ethey work better, but I don't hunt!! ;) :)

[OldDog]

Lucky bugger Marcus, My superslam came in the same batch as yours (it was the first left hander in the country) unfortunately it was frog green, I would have given my left one for that snow camo I thought it was way too cool.

[Marcus]

Green! Urgh! If I was going target it would be the Midnight blue or the Leafy silver camo colour.

Here is the beast in action!!

http://www.archery-forum.com/4sale/20020910164525.gif

[OldDog]

Brings back memories, (mostly good) I shot some great scores with that bow, Green yuk. you bet I actually pulled it apart and had it powdered coated burgundy, I still have that riser laying around somewhere.

[Marcus]

Yeah same here. Shot some of my best scores with it, and later got it sprayed black. Still being shot in the club by an ABA guy, he loves it! Shooting PB's for him too.