# beginner equipment vs "Olympic worthy" Equipment



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

interesting experiment but only validates what all of us already know...all other things being equal--- better equipment SHOULD lead to better scores...up to a certan point!

.....am also curious as to what your average scores are at 30m and 50m with your regular set-up just to get a better perspective and appreciation for this experiment...


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Very interesting but you did not mention what you shoot with your regular rig. The difference in score is the key. What you showed is that a skilled instructor could meet the standards with a beginner bow.

Looks like JMVargas hit enter while I was typing this.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

looks like i read your mind hank!...


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

*perspective scores*

I've been rehabbing a shoulder injury for the past 2 years so I don't have any real average scores. I've been slowly getting my main gear up in weight. I generally try not to shoot too much when we have lots of beginners. Since I don't normally shoot with the same technique that we teach the kids. Until they have shot with us for a while, and have begun to understand that in our practice, we don't shoot the same way we want them to shoot I find that shooting with them sometimes makes them want to mimic our shooting and it's not always in their best interest to move to that stage right away.

That being said, I am also interested in what I could shoot with my current setup so I may just do that this weekend if there's a small enough turnout at JOAD this Saturday. So far the RSVP has been small for this weekend.

I do know the scores should be quite a bit higher if for no other reason than the arrow should spend a great deal less time in the air and not drift nearly as much. When I had a nice calm wind set, of well executed shots I was shooting 8s - 10's and pretty good grouping with the beginner bow.

More on the experiment as it continues.


DC


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

"interesting experiment but "only" validates what all of us already know...all other things being equal--- better equipment SHOULD lead to better scores...up to a certan point!"
Perhaps "only" suggests a limited view of the results. As a relative beginner, with limited resources, I see another side. Form trumps equipment.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

When my son was in JOAD, he had one of those Rolan composite bows for a while. He shot some very impressive indoor scores with it. They are more capable that some give them credit for. 

But I will say that up to a point, proper equipment does make a difference. After which, you're only wasting money. That point changes for each archer... And that's the hard part. Knowing where your ability is in relation to the available equipment.

John.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

dchan said:


> An experiment with fun and interesting results.
> 
> So over the past several months I have been on the hunt for some "higher end" gear to supplement our fleet of beginner 10-15lb wood and "composite" bows.
> 
> ...



DC:

You and I have been running similar experiments,
but I have been doing my experiments at an indoor range here in Palo Alto.

My goal, my mission,
has been to take a wooden 3-piece recurve bow
(PSE Buckeye...AIM/Internature...Chiron...)
wooden riser,
barebow format,
just a $2 Hoyt Super Rest
and say 20 lb limbs....
and see how far I could take the accuracy
for brand new shooters.


It's primarily in selecting the proper aluminum arrow,
tweaking the cut length,
to get the proper spine...
AND
building a custom recurve string (B50 dacron)
and
using Easton G-nocks (large size),
and
get the serving outside diameter perfect.


I build free custom strings for all my students,
and when I modify their Jazz arrows to fit G-nocks,
to fit their new B50 string,
their "beginner" bows demonstrate a tremendous improvement in accuracy at 20 yards.


Add a simple Shibuya plunger,
and then the potential rises even higher.



Agreed.

Shooting a 20 lb wooden bow,
can get extremely picky about arrow spine,
and form.

If you can get your new students on a finger sling,
this can help a great deal as well.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

It would be very interesting to see what a consistently good archer could achieve with a beginner's set up compared to his usual scores. But I think that you'd have to be using beginner's arrows as well.

To get the real beginner's feeling, just use the Hoyt Superrest without a plunger. To be totally fair, though, I see nothing wrong with shooting the same draw weight as you usually would. 

I am sure that most competitive archers could shoot a higher score with the beginner's set up than I do with my intermediate. But I shoot better scores with the intermediate set up than with the beginner's.


----------



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

If you look at the photos from Ulsan, I believe I saw someone using a T-Rex riser. That is pretty low-end for someone competing for the world championship.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i saw that too and was wondering what her score was....IIRC it was a lady archer..


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Interesting test DC, but ACE's, that are close to the right spine is not a fair test 

IMHO, Bow + arrow combo = great scores.

Getting an arrow to cycle without contact on the poor shots is what makes or breaks a setup.

Try that with some Jazz arrows, like most of the kids shoot in JOADs all over the country and I think you'll find your results far far far from stellar.

Here's my list of things that make for a setup that can score.

1. Arrows, Arrows, Arrows, Arrows .........
2. Limbs that don't move in the pocket
3. Properly functioning button

Get those three ingredients and you can shoot some great scores regardless of the cost or quality of the bow.

I'll try one of our JOAD clubs wood bow setups and see what I can get for an 18m score with arrows from our bin. I can't shoot 50m because all those bows are 20 - 25 lbs at 28" and I can't reach 50m with them. It'll be interested to see what I can get.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

c3hammer said:


> Interesting test DC, but ACE's, that are close to the right spine is not a fair test
> 
> No where close in spine.. Shooting 620 spine with 22lb limbs. Bare shaft at 30 M, group in the gold, bare shaft off the target (80cm) and shooting small vanes
> 
> ...


If the arrows are all matched but stiff (I have tried it with Jazz and platinum plus arrows that are barely long enough) and they still group quite well. move the group and they would all be 8 and higher. I just have to adjust my draw (ie don't pull all the way back)

I agree contact with the bow is the killer..


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

*the experiment continues*

Today while I didn't have enough time to shoot 2 full rounds at 30 with both bows, 

With the beginner bow (22lbs) at 30M 80cm target, 48-55 per end. (6 arrows)

With my normal good rig. 53-57 per end. 

When I was shooting the 26lb limbs I was shooting 55-59's at 30. with an occasional 60 and of course occasional hi 40's for those stupid mistakes.

I had time to shoot 4 ends with each. Still building strength to shoot my normal rig so by the 5th and 6th arrow I start to shake. (I just increased my weight from 26 cranked all the way in to 34lb limbs about mid way on weight adjustment

My normal rig, Win win exfeel riser, beiter 4 rod stab, Sureloc xquest? sight, clicker, arco plunger and are rest. Currently Hoyt carbon300 long limbs. 

Same arrows both bows ACE 620.

More to follow experiments to follow.

DC


----------



## hokage (Aug 24, 2009)

jmvargas said:


> i saw that too and was wondering what her score was....IIRC it was a lady archer..


yup, your correct. It was a lady archer
She was using a red T-Rex riser.
Unfortunately the uploaded image was too small to check what her designated number was.
although, she was at the right end of the shooting line if that's any help.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

c3hammer said:


> Interesting test DC, but ACE's, that are close to the right spine is not a fair test
> 
> IMHO, Bow + arrow combo = great scores.
> 
> ...


I switched from Platinum Plus arrows to ACC, upped the spine, adjusted my plunger, and have really noticed an improvement, and the Platinum Plus are a sight better than the Jazz, which aren't bad in their own right. But do you really think that an expensive plunger/button (i.e. >$60) is better than a cheapo Cartel for $10?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Some years ago my son "officially" tested the difference between his competition bow and a beginner's bow. In two subsqunt weekends he participated to 2 different 18 mt indoor officila competitions with the different bows. 
First score was > 590, second was >540. Beginner's equipment was a wood beginner bow with around 30#, dacron string, full lenght 1713 Jazz arrows, sight with no micrometric adjustement, simple plunger, clicker just one long rod in front. Score went lower than expected as it was very diffcult to adjust the sight properly to the changes of light that were coming from a lateral window of the hall. We estimetd around 10 more points lost for the problem of the (non adjustable) sight. 
The full story was published in an article on an italian magazine and will be reprinted in THA2.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

*Some observations and thoughts.*

I think I'm finding that at the beginner stages and through the first year or two of shooting (assuming the archer shoots 2-3 times a month) a beginner bow is not going to slow the progress that much. Unless they are shooting more than 1 time a week and practicing the exercises we give them, it's doubtful we will even get to a "mastered" anchor before 2 months of shooting. I don't even approach the sighting using point of aim or a sight until I see consistent grouping of arrows. At 20 M it often takes 4+ months to get groups on the target. They may all hit the target but, but not in groups. 

If the archer progresses quickly or show the interest and drive to practice and exercise, we would see the point where higher end equipment would improve their shooting much more quickly. Which still shows that the archer is still the driving part of the equation.

An Accomplished archer at shorter distances should be able to put up decent scores with beginner equipment assuming matched arrows (of any kind) and a little bit of tweaking and tuning.

There will be a point where beginner equipment will start to hold back an archer and that will depend on the archers progress and commitment to working on their shooting.

Higher end equipment properly tuned will yield a more forgiving setup and higher scores but generally it's still in the hands of the archer to get to that level first.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Wonderful.ukey:

Now you can see me shooting my beginner bow. (stills only)
Me shooting at 50M with my green Rolan

Along with the rest of the CCSF achievement shoot pictures and captions from the past year or so


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

dchan said:


> Wonderful.ukey:
> 
> Now you can see me shooting my beginner bow. (stills only)
> Me shooting at 50M with my green Rolan
> ...


You guys have a nice range! What would the difference in score be at 50m?

Our club still starts youth archers on wooden risered bows (usually Samick Polaris or Ragim Ranger, usually rental, so they exchange limbs at no cost as their draw weight increases) with simple beginners' sights, no stabilization, dacron string, no clicker, Hoyt Superrest, no plunger, shooting Easton Jazz. After about a year and a half of training, we talk with them about buying a set-up of their own.

To the adults we usually recommend a metal risered ILF rental with the whole works. They don't start using the clicker, though, until they are shooting groups at short yardage.

Keep in mind, these are the recommendations of our coaches. No beginning archer is required to follow that advice, but most do.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

By the way, I was just wondering...

Last Fall I helped referee our Provincial Youth Indoor Championships. I saw all kinds of set-ups, from beginner (Samick Polaris) to professional (Hoyt Nexxus riser, 900CX limbs, Shibuya sight, etc., etc.), costing between $200 and $2,000! 

How promising would a young archer have to be for you to recommend a professional, top of the line set-up? Obviously, there are enough coaches/parents out there who think the high-end equipment improves performance enough to warrant the costs for a growing archer.


----------



## s26286603 (Jul 13, 2008)

This should be an interesting one, i have made a shooting machine, did a quick test with it today, shot 55 at 50 per end consistantly, and im testing three risers, hoyt avalon, kap winstar 2, and my own homemade:wink: one. Ill be testting group size at 70 and doing vibrational testing on it. and i think the result is going to be (it dont matter)


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> By the way, I was just wondering...
> 
> Last Fall I helped referee our Provincial Youth Indoor Championships. I saw all kinds of set-ups, from beginner (Samick Polaris) to professional (Hoyt Nexxus riser, 900CX limbs, Shibuya sight, etc., etc.), costing between $200 and $2,000!
> 
> How promising would a young archer have to be for you to recommend a professional, top of the line set-up? Obviously, there are enough coaches/parents out there who think the high-end equipment improves performance enough to warrant the costs for a growing archer.


I don't think I'd ever recommend a top of the line setup unless the archer was already shooting 1200+ and looking to gain a few more points.

If a parent started or youth started to ask, A higher end rig, WinstarII, or better with ILF limbs, Good sight, plunger and stabilizer? Once the archer starts to put some what consistent 4" groups at 20M I think most would benefit from the forgiveness of a better bow. 

The experiment I've been running was more to emphasize that an archer can excel using just about any equipment and that we should not base our judgment of the quality of an archer by the equipment they are shooting. 

good equipment will make a good archer better, but it will not magically make you a better archer.


----------



## Clang! (Sep 29, 2007)

s26286603 said:


> This should be an interesting one, i have made a shooting machine, did a quick test with it today, shot 55 at 50 per end consistantly, and im testing three risers, hoyt avalon, kap winstar 2, and my own homemade:wink: one. Ill be testting group size at 70 and doing vibrational testing on it. and i think the result is going to be (it dont matter)


What were your test results? How much of a difference is there between a budget ILF riser and higher end models?


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

The differences between high end gear and low end gear in terms of physical capability is only ever going to be established by shooting machine tests. 

This should establish what we already know. The bow doesn't change much between shots. In fact, it won't change at all unless some part of it is failing. The forces used to shoot it without change.. won't change. 

What DOES change every shot is your arrows. So if you test with the same arrow and it doesn't go into the same hole at 20 yards, (if you're shooting indoors with a shooting machine) then your test regime sucks. 

The more closely matched your arrows are, the more expensive they'll be to buy and assemble. 

Buying points only covers the difference in consistancy of your gear. It becomes very quickly an exercise in diminishing returns. If your gear can shoot 1440 in perfect conditions, would you spend money on different equipment? If it can only shoot 1430 because it's of less quality, just how much difference will it make to you if you can JUST manage 1200?

What you can't dismiss is the psychological aspect of being confident in your equipment. That's why every club should have a shooting machine. It lets people know that it's THEM which is the problem and then they might spend time on coaches and not pointless equipment purchases in search of the non existant holy grail. 

It might also cut down on a lot of pointless discussion because people will actually be able to prove what they claim is true...or not..


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> The differences between high end gear and low end gear in terms of physical capability is only ever going to be established by shooting machine tests.


Not quite. A machine test is a proper way to establish the _mechanical_ accuracy potential of a bow and arrow combination. But getting a bow to be accurate for a human to shoot it is more than just the mechanical potential, the bow has to interface with a human and be tolerant of human foibles. A mechanical shooter is not prone to finger pinch, or bow torque, or shaking, or inconsistent draw length or any of a number of things the way a human shooting a bow is. A good bow design can compensate for some of those foibles or be more forgiving or more tolerant, in ways that a shooting machine cannot easily distinguish. So a machine test is a great idea and I'm totally interested in the results, but it doesn't tell the whole story.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Today I had a half hour to spare. It was pretty windy at the range so I decided to just go shoot a score at 30 Meters for grins.. No warmup, just 36 arrows. Shooting the green Rolan you see me shooting in the picture I posted a link to earlier.

30M, 80CM target. 10-15MPH wind gusts. I didn't have my regular rig with me to shoot so no score with that.

52, 48, 49, 50, 51, 50 Total 300. 4 x's

The last score I shot with my regular rig about a month and a half ago and under much better conditions (Calm day and after 2 ends of warmup) 54,56,55,53,55,53 Total 326, 

Can't complain.

DC


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

whiz-Oz said:


> What DOES change every shot is your arrows.
> 
> The more closely matched your arrows are, the more expensive they'll be to buy and assemble.
> 
> ..


I heard of a shooter who had a generous sponsor (an arrow manufacturer) who went out to the range with about 60 X10s. He shot out to 70m and sorted out all the arrows that hit outside of the red, then shot again and sorted out some more, etc., until he had the 12 with which he shot most consistently. I guess we could all do that as well, if we had unlimited resources.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i read in "THE HERETIC ARCHER" that michelli frangili follows a very similar process when he chooses his competition arrows...and he is also one of the few elite archers who favors ACE's over the X10s...


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Not quite. A machine test is a proper way to establish the _mechanical_ accuracy potential of a bow and arrow combination. But getting a bow to be accurate for a human to shoot it is more than just the mechanical potential, the bow has to interface with a human and be tolerant of human foibles. A mechanical shooter is not prone to finger pinch, or bow torque, or shaking, or inconsistent draw length or any of a number of things the way a human shooting a bow is. A good bow design can compensate for some of those foibles or be more forgiving or more tolerant, in ways that a shooting machine cannot easily distinguish. So a machine test is a great idea and I'm totally interested in the results, but it doesn't tell the whole story.


That's why I said PHYSICAL capability of the bow. 
But nobody shoots any particular design bow, significantly better than anyone else for statistically significant time in top level competition. 

HOWEVER, which arrows are statistically significantly prevalent in top level competition?

There IS no magic bow, but that never stops anyone from trying to find it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> That's why I said PHYSICAL capability of the bow.
> But nobody shoots any particular design bow, significantly better than anyone else for statistically significant time in top level competition.
> 
> HOWEVER, which arrows are statistically significantly prevalent in top level competition?
> ...


Nope, no Magic bow, but you'll find that certain innovations have made a difference, such as V-Bar rigs, and tunnel sights, the latter being so effective as to be banned... And anti-torq limbs and risers, like those being made by W& W may also make a difference. None of those thinks will make me a better archer, but they may make a top archer an extra point when he or she needs it.

Of course I agree with you that excellent matched arrows are vital. However, if there are a number of top arrows in existence that perform at a high level, there are other factors besides performance that can influence their popularity, including marketing and sponsorship. And top archers don't necesarily get the same arrows from their sponsor that I would if I bought the same make and model, they get cream of the crop, selected arrows, and they test and choose the ones that work the best for them out of those.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Nope, no Magic bow, but you'll find that certain innovations have made a difference, such as V-Bar rigs, and tunnel sights, the latter being so effective as to be banned... And anti-torq limbs and risers, like those being made by W& W may also make a difference. None of those thinks will make me a better archer, but they may make a top archer an extra point when he or she needs it.
> 
> Of course I agree with you that excellent matched arrows are vital. However, if there are a number of top arrows in existence that perform at a high level, there are other factors besides performance that can influence their popularity, including marketing and sponsorship. And top archers don't necesarily get the same arrows from their sponsor that I would if I bought the same make and model, they get cream of the crop, selected arrows, and they test and choose the ones that work the best for them out of those.


Vbars? Can you point to a statistical jump in scores across the board as they became prevalent? Tunnel sights were banned because they allowed alignment as a sighting plane, the same reason that fiber pins in a straight line to the eye are banned. The top archers that I know who have used the "anti torque" risers from W&W say that they're no different and I agree with them as physics DOES happen to point out that it's rubbish. 
Pointing out something as "possibly" giving the elite archers a point here or there makes as much logical sense as saying that hairbands to stop stray hairs getting in their eyes could possibly make a difference. 

I also happen to know archers sponsored by Easton. As far as they know, they get the same arrows as everyone else, but I'll bet that you can point to a conspiracy theory, (unproven) that says that Easton have special arrow checkers. I can point to the fact that these people don't always win and the distribution of winners changes. Hence, their "dominant" equipment isn't so dominant or advantage proven. 
I'm all for technological innovation, but I'm VERY anti marketing. I will also call unproven information and conjecture what it is. The amount of it involved in Archery is simply astounding.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> Vbars? Can you point to a statistical jump in scores across the board as they became prevalent? Tunnel sights were banned because they allowed alignment as a sighting plane, the same reason that fiber pins in a straight line to the eye are banned.


Data? No, just these anecdotes from Rick McKinney, which, admittedly, are not dispositive:



Rick McKinney said:


> There are virtually no amazing mechanical properties attached to the bow per se. However as for incredible inventions for recurve bows, it might (and I use this term very strongly – might) become one of the greats like carbon & foam limbs, dyneema/fastflite type strings, stabilizers, plungers, sight extensions, TFC’s & Doinkers, take-down riser/limbs, etc. I am sure there are more, but these seem to be major home runs when they came out.
> 
> And by the way, we talked about a gyro system attached to a bow years ago…. So get cracking!
> 
> ...





whiz-Oz said:


> I also happen to know archers sponsored by Easton. As far as they know, they get the same arrows as everyone else, but I'll bet that you can point to a conspiracy theory, (unproven) that says that Easton have special arrow checkers.


I can't speak to that. I had read that that certain top archers don't receive the same production runs as are sent to retail--but I can't find the source to confirm that.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

my philiosophy on equipment is pretty simple--buy the best you can afford so that equipment does not become an excuse for poor performance.

i started with a pre-owned hoyt elan riser, vector limbs, X7 arrows, and a sure-loc supreme sight adapted for recurve--i have upgraded my risers and limbs but still have my X7 arrows and the sure-loc supreme..

for beginners just remember that you will SURELY be changing your limbs and arrows as you improve...the others will depend on what you get at the start..

start with the best you can afford and you will be replacing less in the long run...and don"t forget to get proper coaching!!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

jmvargas said:


> my philiosophy on equipment is pretty simple--buy the best you can afford so that equipment does not become an excuse for poor performance.
> 
> i started with a pre-owned hoyt elan riser, vector limbs, X7 arrows, and a sure-loc supreme sight adapted for recurve--i have upgraded my risers and limbs but still have my X7 arrows and the sure-loc supreme..
> 
> ...


This is very sound advice.

I guess I should now give you all what prompted this experiment.

Someone at our range began implying to our students that because we don't have and supply "Olympic Worthy equipment" that our program was inferior, and that when they were handed "Olympic level" gear they got a lot better a lot faster. One of the people that left our program for this other person then later took a stab at our group saying that the program he is currently in "has Olympic quality gear and not those cheap wooden bows you see at birthday parties" The part that wasn't mentioned is how much more this person is practicing (probably several times a week when he first started) compared to the kids and several adults that come out and shoot at the most, one time a week, several only 1 time a month. A lot of the kids only get an hour of shooting in because they get up late.

In our program, once the kids start showing signs of good consistent form, we start adding sights and other gear. When they are ready to spend money, we usually recommend that they purchase a riser only. We have several sets of limbs that they can progress through until they build up strength.


We do have 3 fairly high end right hand risers and 2 left hand risers for those that are not ready to purchase.

Adults we usually guide them to an ILF Riser as well and as mentioned we do recommend not a total entry level bow but at least a little better than entry level.

The whole point of the experiment was that "While an upgrade in equipment will help with scores, it's much more important to get proper instruction and build proper form. With that, better equipment will only enhance your shooting."

DC


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

jmvargas said:


> i read in "THE HERETIC ARCHER" that michelli frangili follows a very similar process when he chooses his competition arrows...and he is also one of the few elite archers who favors ACE's over the X10s...


That's really interesting. I know that Easton developed the X10 especially for the OR, but that doesn't mean you can't shoot better with a different arrow. 

Whether the pros get different arrows than retailers or not, they are getting their arrows for free. In any mass production process, quality standards are never tested on each and every piece that is made, but rather on randomly selected individual pieces.

So when Easton guarantees straightness and uniform wall thickness or whatever, there is of course a margin of error, no matter how small, slight variations in quality. That won't make much of a difference at 18m, but it sure might make a big difference at 70m. Once you've reached a professional level of performance, you need that edge to win. 

Like I said, if you've got the resources, then you really only want to be shooting the _very best_ equipment. If I were setting up a new youth program today, I don't think I'd go with the typical wooden risered beginners' bows, though. Not because they aren't okay, because there's nothing wrong with them. Rather, it's because I am convinced of the advantages the ILF system offers, and you can now get some nice quality, inexpensive entry level ILF equipment. The advantage is that new archers begin learning on the same style of bow that they will later be shooting if they decide to pursue archery seriously. I also like being able to "mix-n-match" limbs and risers. And ILF equipment is always FastFlight compatible.


----------



## s26286603 (Jul 13, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Not quite. A machine test is a proper way to establish the _mechanical_ accuracy potential of a bow and arrow combination. But getting a bow to be accurate for a human to shoot it is more than just the mechanical potential, the bow has to interface with a human and be tolerant of human foibles. A mechanical shooter is not prone to finger pinch, or bow torque, or shaking, or inconsistent draw length or any of a number of things the way a human shooting a bow is. A good bow design can compensate for some of those foibles or be more forgiving or more tolerant, in ways that a shooting machine cannot easily distinguish. So a machine test is a great idea and I'm totally interested in the results, but it doesn't tell the whole story.


Well Guys i will have to agree, preliminary results are up. The Hoyt avalon vs its copy the Kap Winstar 2, well first up the quality of the Kap can be seen in its limb alignment and limbolt setup, i was really disappointed with this and found it difficult to get something decent out of the limb allingment system. But that is not what you want to here. As you know i have created a shooting machine which has been used to determine accuracy over a distance of 70m. At seventy the avalon was far superior in terms of group size with consistant grop of 30cm in circumferance, whilst the kap with a 45 cm group. The best for the avalon was a 19.6cm circumference group ie 6.2 cm and the kap only managed a 25 cm circumference, ie 8 cm group. That is the difference my friends, i will be testing my own design and see how this goes. and give further resulst. Not this is my final year thesis report!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

s26286603 said:


> Well Guys i will have to agree, preliminary results are up. The Hoyt avalon vs its copy the Kap Winstar 2, well first up the quality of the Kap can be seen in its limb alignment and limbolt setup, i was really disappointed with this and found it difficult to get something decent out of the limb allingment system. But that is not what you want to here. As you know i have created a shooting machine which has been used to determine accuracy over a distance of 70m. At seventy the avalon was far superior in terms of group size with consistant grop of 30cm in circumferance, whilst the kap with a 45 cm group. The best for the avalon was a 19.6cm circumference group ie 6.2 cm and the kap only managed a 25 cm circumference, ie 8 cm group. That is the difference my friends, i will be testing my own design and see how this goes. and give further resulst. Not this is my final year thesis report!


Thanks for the report.

Are both bows supplied with the same exact limbs, and use identical plunger, rest and string? And are both risers bareshaft tuned to their arrows to the same metric? Do both grips fit the machine itentically? How many ends did you shoot? When you swaped bows back and forth, did the groups for the different model risers stay consistent? I ask only because I'm curious about various possible confounding variables and to what degree they were sought out and controlled for.


----------



## s26286603 (Jul 13, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Thanks for the report.
> 
> Are both bows supplied with the same exact limbs, and use identical plunger, rest and string? And are both risers bareshaft tuned to their arrows to the same metric? Do both grips fit the machine itentically? How many ends did you shoot? When you swaped bows back and forth, did the groups for the different model risers stay consistent? I ask only because I'm curious about various possible confounding variables and to what degree they were sought out and controlled for.


Ok ^_^ so the only thing i changed was the riser, This is the equipment used, Hoyt G3 38# 70", string 14 strand Dynema 97, Win and Win Plunger, Easton ace side and extender bar stabilizers, Cartel long stabilizer, Hoyt Toxic recurve sight. and Spigareli zero tolerance rest. 18 ends were shot with each bow each end had six arrows. Procedure for tunning was brcae height, 4 ends with varing brace height which is plotted. Then nocking point hight( bare shaft at 30m) then plunger ( 30m bare shaft). Arrows 570 ace 100 grain points and the rubber fletching ( will get the make). Arrows were a bit long so the tunned at 40 pounds. Draws were kept identical. Ok the one factor which could affect the group is the grip. On the machine i molded the grip arround the avalon grip which was customised and was almost identical to the KAP, i tried to swop the grips but to no avail, after doing some tweaking on the machine the grip angle was compensated for and it was fair. the bow was not clamped in the machine and mearly rested in the rubber hand, when the bow is fired i would have to catch the bow. With all that said, the kap did seat very consistantly in the rubber grip. "the kap was very harsh". Tests were doner at night, very little to no wind!!

The groups between the bows were consitant, but due to the fact that the geometry of the kap is different, the machine had to be tuned to compensate. Ie max i could get out of the kap was 40 # whilst the avalon was 42 # the tune difference on the plunger was 2 and a half turns. the geometry of the KAP is not nice. But i have just shot my own designed bow and it works well and is consistant with what is seen with the avalon. Also note the rubber grip was treated with baby powder for a smooth bow grip release.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

s26286603 said:


> Ok ^_^ so the only thing i changed was the riser, This is the equipment used, Hoyt G3 38# 70", string 14 strand Dynema 97, Win and Win Plunger, Easton ace side and extender bar stabilizers, Cartel long stabilizer, Hoyt Toxic recurve sight. and Spigareli zero tolerance rest. 18 ends were shot with each bow each end had six arrows. Procedure for tunning was brcae height, 4 ends with varing brace height which is plotted. Then nocking point hight( bare shaft at 30m) then plunger ( 30m bare shaft). Arrows 570 ace 100 grain points and the rubber fletching ( will get the make). Arrows were a bit long so the tunned at 40 pounds. Draws were kept identical. Ok the one factor which could affect the group is the grip. On the machine i molded the grip arround the avalon grip which was customised and was almost identical to the KAP, i tried to swop the grips but to no avail, after doing some tweaking on the machine the grip angle was compensated for and it was fair. the bow was not clamped in the machine and mearly rested in the rubber hand, when the bow is fired i would have to catch the bow. With all that said, the kap did seat very consistantly in the rubber grip. "the kap was very harsh". Tests were doner at night, very little to no wind!!
> 
> The groups between the bows were consitant, but due to the fact that the geometry of the kap is different, the machine had to be tuned to compensate. Ie max i could get out of the kap was 40 # whilst the avalon was 42 # the tune difference on the plunger was 2 and a half turns. the geometry of the KAP is not nice. But i have just shot my own designed bow and it works well and is consistant with what is seen with the avalon. Also note the rubber grip was treated with baby powder for a smooth bow grip release.


Cool. Sounds very well thought out. Thanks for the details.

...now if someone can just replicate the experiment...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

The two risers considered have totally different geometries that need totally different fine tuning. 
Differencies in geometries include:
1) different pocket angles
2) different riser lenght
3) different long rod bushing position
4) different riser weight

As noted, because of 1) and 2), one riser is giving 2 pounds less than the other, that usually is one full arrow size difference. Also, if difference is limited by going to the upper poundage limit with one riser and to the lower limit with the other, limbs are working in a very different conditions in between risers, string has a very different number of tourns. Strange you can use same arrows in this comparison. 
Dinamically, because 3 and 4, you can't get the same balance with same stabilizers set up, as the distribution of the masses is quite different. Stabilizers set up should be different in between the 2 risers to reach the same fine tuning level.
Basic tuning at 30 mt can't get good results on grouping at 70, and this is another issue.

I have seen several trying to do the same kind of comparisons in the past, myself included, and failing. A good fine tuning in a new bow combination may need to a top level archer around some months of testings to get close to the limit that gives the best grouping at 70 mt. 
To find the real limit in your comparison you have to try to fine tune at 70 mt by your shooting machine, changing all parameters of the bow, including ALL added parts and arrows too, excluding limbs and risers only, until you are sure that really the optimum compromise is reached for each bow. It may take not months, but some days for sure. 

This search is just a little less complex than the one of the Holy Grail for recurve archery, or the evalutation of the limbs sensitivity to torque on release.


----------



## s26286603 (Jul 13, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> The two risers considered have totally different geometries that need totally different fine tuning.
> Differencies in geometries include:
> 1) different pocket angles
> 2) different riser lenght
> ...


Yeah, i have thought of the above, and i do admit i am just scratching the huge surface of the holy grail. I think to fine tune the system would take me alot of time and i admit a couple of more years of experience, I knew that going into this i would have hundreds of variables and i think the way im doing it now is the best i can do with the equipment i have. The aim of the excersise is not to determine which bow is better but rather to prove win and win wrong in some sense. With the new tf apec, they claim better accuracy with less plunger deflection, i dont believe in this as if the displacement at the plunger is constant it should not make a difference, so the next step in the testing phase is to determine what the accelerations and displacemnets are at the top bottom and plunger point of the bow and see if the grouop sizes can be correlated to the tune and displacements seen in the bow. Strangly enough, the bow i made, modeled of an avalon, pse xpert and an apec, ( looks similar to a Siruis, found it after i designed it) that the tune for the avalon and my bow where almost identical, plunger was the same, brace out by 1/4" and so on. But sometimes i think we as archers and sometims engineers over think a little.... The data that comes out is still very valuable.


----------



## MichaelR (Aug 3, 2009)

First time poster here, and I've been reading this thread and enjoying it immensely. However after reading it I have a few questions.

If an accomplished archer can pickup two bows one entry level, and one "Olympic worthy" and shoot similar scores. Where is the line drawn, or is there not really so much a line as fine graduations between levels of bows?

And that being said I've read it numerous times on here that it's not the bow it's the indian. But... if that's the case then shouldn't there be no difference for an accomplished archer between two sets of equipment?

And finally, given an entry level set of equipment, what "upgrade" is the most beneficial as you start investing money. Riser? Limbs? Arrows? Sight? Etc.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MichaelR said:


> First time poster here, and I've been reading this thread and enjoying it immensely. However after reading it I have a few questions.
> 
> If an accomplished archer can pickup two bows one entry level, and one "Olympic worthy" and shoot similar scores. Where is the line drawn, or is there not really so much a line as fine graduations between levels of bows?
> 
> ...


It is not a black and white world. There isn't a big sharp line where things magically make things novice or Olympic.

Because Olympic bows are modular you can upgrade piecemeal. If yoru interest is just budding and you've already shot enough to know that you are interested in competitive target archery, then it may make to start out with a low end Olympic set up, such as a KAP Winstar II and some light T-Rex limbs. But, you can buy a good sight right off the bat, like a Sibuya or Sure-loc.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Warbow said:


> It is not a black and white world. There isn't a big sharp line where things magically make things novice or Olympic.
> 
> Because Olympic bows are modular you can upgrade piecemeal. If yoru interest is just budding and you've already shot enough to know that you are interested in competitive target archery, then it may make to start out with a low end Olympic set up, such as a KAP Winstar II and some light T-Rex limbs. But, you can buy a good sight right off the bat, like a Sibuya or Sure-loc.


I certainly agree with you, though the Winstar II is considered intermediate level, even in the ILF world, and it is a pretty good riser for the money. The manufacturers have only recently started offering entry level ILF equipment, so there's not that much out there, but it's better than 5 years ago. KAP offers the T-Rex, Samick offers the Universal/Privilege and Hoyt now has the Excel in addition to the Eclipse (though I believe the Excel is more on par with the intermediate level, the pricing and riser size of 23" is definitely entry level).


----------

