# Bowstrings: Strand Count, Serving, String Material, etc.



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Rather than have another thread get highjacked, I thought this might make a good topic for discussion.

Some may know this, but for those who don't.....

You might call me a string nut, or a string nerd....I prefer "bowstring enthusiast". :wink:

For near 20 years, I have been making strings for traditional bows from materials ranging from artificial sinew to some of the most modern materials available. I've discussed them with manufaturers and other string makers, including the head string maker for BCY and the best string maker I know, Rod Jenkins. I've spent hours and hours discussing them with literally thousands of every-day shooters and hunters. That, along with making well over 10,000 strings myself (mostly flemish, some endless), and I believe I have a decent grasp on them--maybe even a little better than most.

My "go-to" guy when I have a question is Rod Jenkins. World Champion archer, has coached World Champions, and at one time one of the most in-demand string makers around (he quit making strings for the public some time ago). I talk to Rod because he's not only one of the most well-rounded archers alive, he's also done tons of testing with various strings--different materials, different strand counts, different servings, etc. He's the only person I know who's made as many or more strings (by hand) than I have, and I don't know of anyone who's done the amount of testing he has.

I shoot 10-14 strands of Dynaflight '97 on most of my bows, all in the 58-66# range. 10 strands is more than strong enough. I don't advocate using less except on very light weight bows, and only dropped to 10 on a couple of bows trying to squeek out the best performance I can from them.

I see the argument about strings having to be stable. I used to be one that would have been right there alongside that argument, but you live and learn. Ever see a slow-motion video of a string being shot with fingers? Stable?

If by stable you mean lack of stretch and creep, most any of the HMPE ("Fast Flight") materials will be stable after a few shots or just let the bow stay strung, even with heavier draw weights and lower strand counts.

What do Olympic archers use for strings? Personally I don't know, and honestly don't care. I'm not an Olympic archer--I don't use three foot long stabilizers or spin-wing vanes either. While we are on the subject though, I'd wager they don't use #400 Nylon serving. :wink:

Serving is often overlooked and underrated. There are some great materials on the market that far surpass nylon in durability and function, since they come in different sizes to better fit different types of nocks and strand counts. You don't have to be stuck with one string for every bow from 20# to 50# and beyond. It's very simple to *customize the string to your bow*! Hey, you don't use the same arrows for every bow between 20 and 50#--why would it make any sense to have to use the same string? 

Of course, as the saying goes, you can only tune as well as you can shoot. If your shooting isn't that great, I suppose a "one size fits all" string is all you need in your archery wardrobe--but that is about as appealing as a lady who wears nothing but "one size fits all" t-shirts to me. In some cases a different string can bring a bow that was otherwise pretty run-of-the-mill to life. If you are a hunter, the string can play a big role in how quiet the shot is.

Anyhow, short story is don't paint yourself into a corner with a string just because John Magera or whoever said so. Cheaper to experiment with than arrows, especially if you build your own, and can be very enlightening. Try different things--that way you aren't stuck with "well, I use this because so-and-so said to". You can say "I use this because I did my own testing and this is what works best for me!".:wink:

Chad


----------



## Runningbuck (Mar 11, 2009)

Chad, it was some of your posts along with some of what OL Adcock had to say about skinny strings that got me started on making my own. I will say it can be addicting, just adding a little more personal touch to your own equipment. The best part is having a bunch of bows that shoot the same arrow with just string changes and some added weight. I stick with D-97 and 8125 these days, 8125 makes a real nice string and is a pleasure to work with.


----------



## Night Wing (Feb 4, 2009)

I'm lucky. I have two bows, which you can see in my signature, than can shoot the same string. 

As for serving material, I'm very happy with 62XS in size (.025). Since I shoot D97 flemish style bowstrings, I would like to try a D10 bowstring.


----------



## mcharles (Nov 11, 2009)

Great info Chad...a question or 2 if I may

Bought my wife & daughter a string jig, video, several spools of B50 & nylon serving material and an instructional video from 3 Rivers. They are crafty types & wanted to build me some strings. Now, after watching the video it seems they are afraid that their strings will blow up. 
Is B50 pretty much foolproof material?
Is there any way they can pre-stretch the material?
Finally, the bow that they are/would/will build the string for will be a 64" 45#. How many strands would you recommend, and 2 or 3 bundle. They were planning on 2, but saw 3 bundles made by 3 Rivers, so now they, and I, is confused..okay, I'm just bewildered.
Thanks
Mike

,


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Evidently, and I suspect, Rod Jenkins "lived and learned" a different opinion on string stability judging by one of his quotes from another thread or are there two Rod's folks have been listening to?



> I am a fan of *whatever strand count that provides absolute stability*...
> As far as accuracy......I can't find any difference between a skinny string and a higher strand count( provided the bow is tuned,for each setup)....but consistent accuracy is best served by enough strands to provide *stability in all situations*.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I personally ask an expert, buy one, check the brace height once in a while and shoot the heck out of it. I'm glad there are folks like this that do all that R & D so I don't have to. Chad (Champion Bowstrings I believe) makes very nice strings - I own several. They are priced very reasonable and are made and shipped in a timely manner. I've considered string building myself but for one or two string per year it's not worth the investment in materials and I'm sure the quality would be sub-par to that of these folks with lots of experience. FWIW I just ordered a Flemish D97 string and it was $18 shipped, about the same price as a mid quality D50 from my local shop.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Is B50 pretty much foolproof material?


Well, I don't know if I'd say "foolproof". It can be tricky figuring out the rate of stretch and creep, but it's not sneaky as far as breaking or coming apart.



> Is there any way they can pre-stretch the material?


Not really. The string can be stretched after it's made, either with a jig (have to make that) or something as simple as hanging a weight from it.



> 64" 45#. How many strands would you recommend, and 2 or 3 bundle.


For 45#, I'd use 12 strands of dacron. I would start with a 2 bundle. Depending on which video you got from 3 Rivers (they have two different ones, and another coming out towards the end of the year), you may or may not know about back twist or reverse twist when making a string. This "trick" helps make the string nice and round. If you didn't get the one showing backtwist, then a 3 bundle string may come out more round, but I'd still practice with 2-bundles for a bit before moving on to 3. When you learn proper backtwist, there are no real advantages to a 3 bundle other than being able to use 3 colors.

Almost forgot--it's very rare for a string to "blow up". At worst, it may slowly pull apart.

If I can help, just holler. PM me if you rather.

Chad


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Evidently, and I suspect, Rod Jenkins "lived and learned" a different opinion on string stability judging by one of his quotes from another thread or are there two Rod's folks have been listening to?



I know Rod, have known him for years, and picked his brain about strings for years. We recently did a project. Sufficient to say, I don't think I'd misunderstand him or take a quote out of context.

Chad


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Mike - 

B50 is fool-proof in the sense that it's safe for any bow. That doesn't mean that it's the best option of every bow. Current issue ILF rigs for example, take to a "harder" string, meaning one with less stretch (not to be confused with creep). Using B-50 on hi-performance limbs can result in excessive vibration. 

It's also fool-proof in the sense that it's cheap so you can afford to experiment. Ditto for #4 Nylon. Your first few strings may end up as learning experiences. 

Some people pre-stretch their strings, I don't bother. I let the bow stretch the string (this is called creep actually) with a little help from me. After one shooting session, a well made B-50 endless loop string should have reached it final length. Another nice thing about endless loop strings is that once to determine the length for a given bow, all you have to do is mark it on your jig and you're done. You might want to think about and endless loop string jig for your next next project.

My 45# B-50 target bows get 12 strands and my hunting bows get 14 - both with #4 nylon. The difference is due to different arrow/nock sizes. 

String building is fun in the beginning, but after a while it just becomes another required task (for me anyway). It's certainly not rocket science. It's also nice to know you can have a new string in under 1/2 hour whenever you need (or want) one. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> My 45# B-50 target bows get 12 strands and my hunting bows get 14...


Thought you quit hunting in the 70's? I mean, to me a hunting bow is a bow I hunt with--doesn't matter if it's 40# or 80#. A target bow is a bow dedicated strictly to targets. Pretty much all of my bows are target *and* hunting bows--mostly hunting bows.

Anyway....for those who want to get into making strings, I think learning to build both endless and flemish is a great idea--it just gives you more options. Hunters tend to lean toward flemish, target shooters tend to lean toward endless. Seems that longbow shooters like flemish better also, but ironically the noise difference between endless and flemish is much more pronounced with recurves (usually).

Some say a good flemish string requires more skill to build. I think it just requires good instruction, the same as a good endless. 3 Rivers will have a new video coming out toward the end of the year that covers both in detail.

I really enjoy making them myself--it's a challenge to do it better, to learn more, to figure things out. 'Course I don't build the exact same string over and over and over either. 

It's a lot like the sport of archery itself--you can be content with learning to build your one string, or learning to shoot your one bow and hit the target at 15 yds...or you can challenge yourself and constantly take it to the next level and keep on learning and improving. Just depends on your goals I reckon--are you satisfied with "good enough", or are you always looking to build it better?

Chad


----------



## dbake (Mar 5, 2007)

Chad,

When is your "project" going to be released?:wink:

Don


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Chad,

I guess I am a lazy stickbow shooter...I let the experts make my strings....and I believe you make some of the best strings I have shot...just tell you what weight, arrows, and presto...great string! Whether it's rocket science or not.....I'm just not into the do it yourself stuff...glad there are those who don't consider it boring or mundane....there are many great string makers out there....

but really, what in this sport IS rocket science??????


Lee


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I have never made a flemish, but I have made a couple of endless loops and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make them - if you have a good jig and a server it is really quite simple. As far as materials go - Hoyt recommends most all of the ones we have heard of Majesty, 8125, D97, etc...

from what I have gathered most olympic shooters use either Majesty or 8125. I like Majesty - I don't have to wax it, it is very fast, and quiet.

I discussed the idea of skinny strings with an olympic archer, the makers of Majesty, and someone from BCY years ago - and they all seem to believe that they are not a good idea. I don't remember what they said and why - but it stands to reason if you were gaining speed and not losing anything in return for that gain - that the Olympic shooters - the best of the best in our sport would be shooting skinny strings - but they are not - there must be a reason.

I'll stick with my 18 strand Majesty - i am getting over 210 fps - what more can I ask for


----------



## mcharles (Nov 11, 2009)

My 16 year old daughter finished her 1st string.

She knits, crochets and makes wrist bands all the time.

We watched the video again (with Byron Ferguson doing the interviewing) and dove in...

The results were..okay It was a great bonding event...

Each bundle was a strand short, so we really have a skinny string. The string had some fuzzies on each end, and one end wanted to unwind when we started to twist the string. It is really stretching...

Please pm me your website info Chad.

My daughter says she will give me the money for some strings rather than try to make more


Anyone interested in a like new string jig?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Not at all Lee--I saw you working your butt off at Compton's that year we were both there!

Making strings isn't for everyone, like making bows or shooting at paper isn't for everyone. Maybe it takes a special kind of brain damage to enjoy it? I have taken some pretty hard shots to the head over the years...

Making a string that will work isn't rocket science. Making a good string requires some knowledge and practice. Like the saying goes, if it really were that easy, why isn't everyone doing it?

"Skinny" is an objective term--depends on the draw weight, material type, etc. Like I said before, when you do your own experimenting you get to find out what works best for you and your style of shooting. 

Chad


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Make my own... still have some of the original fast flight I bought years ago that I still use.... I now make all strings 16 strand endless loop... just right for some, too much for others.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

I tried making a string once ... it worked , kinda , but It didn't end well .
I can knock a bunch of pretty, straight, well tapered wood shafts for a customer pretty quickly with a minimum of fuss ... put those string bundles in front of me and I am akin to Rain Man 

I could probably, with effort and blodshed, make a bow and have , in the past made a few knives .

But , life is short and I am not that handy nor smart so when afield I use gear made by pepple who do it for a living ... 
Especially bowstrings . With a longbow its really the one thing that can go wrong and hunting here in Oz is often pretty remote , so a well designed and durable string [ with a well shot in back up string ] is a pretty high priority for me .


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

The actual construction of a bowstring isn't rocket science. But, the study, and testing, and expirementing with variables related to strings is a rather a science unto itself. You know, like what LBR does.
1/2 hour to make an endless string? It takes me an hour to an hour and a half. But then again I consider the construction of my strings to be a process that requires full attention to detail coupled with careful construction techniques. But if one considers it an onerous task of little or no consequence to be blown off as quickly as possible, then, well, you get out of it what you put into it. 
I just feel bad for the Boy Scouts though.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

While the topic is still on sting materials, build, and testing methodologies, having and posted "results" from said builds and the subsequent testing is an important follow up to such tests. I found this interesting test and "results of test" from Ken Beck on the subject. Note the bottom line found in bolding (mine).

If someone has some contrasting "results" from testing, that would be interesting to read and compare.

_*TESTING STRINGS*

In response to a lot of interest in various string materials and “skinny” strings, we have performance tested several materials in both conventional and “skinny” versions to compare to our standard 14 strand DynaFLIGHT 97. Ray Caliendo (our milling machine guru and longtime string maker and expert) made the strings used for testing. The “skinny” strings had about half the strands but were padded in the loops to protect from what I call the “piano wire effect” that can split the limb tips. The center servings were also padded to get the desired arrow nock fit. For our purposes here, no silencers when installed.

Here is our testing protocol: For the recurve test, we selected a 60" PSA X. We chose to do the tests at a 30" draw (rather than 28") to maximize any benefit gained. The bow was braced at 8 1/ 4" and weighed on our electronic digital scale (0.1 increments) and it weighed in at 57.5#. Then we built an arrow that weighed exactly 517.5 grains (9 x 57.5#). (A higher brace would give a slightly higher draw weight and thus require a heavier arrow.) The shooting was done with our shooting machine. For each test, the bow was drawn with the winch to exactly 30" and the mechanical release was then activated. Each test requires only two or three shots through the chronograph. The readout will never vary more than one foot per second. If the first and second shots read the same (which is usually the case), we record this fps number. If not, we shoot a third arrow and record the two-out-of-three number. Since our chronograph does not measure in tenths of fps, our method is only accurate to within plus or minus 1/ 2 fps. A different chronograph might read faster or slower, but our testing protocol would produce the same consistency.

PSA X 60" RECURVE 57.5# @ 30" 517.5 grain arrow

DynaFLIGHT 97 14 strand 196 fps

Ultra Cam 16 strand 195 fps

Ultra Cam 8 strand 195 fps

Excellerent 12 strand 195 fps

Excellerent 8 strand 195 fps

Astro Flight 20 strand 195 fps

Astro Flight 10 strand 195 fps

Trophy 20 strand 196 fps

Trophy 12 strand 196 fps

D 10 18 strand 197 fps

D 10 12 strand 196 fps

We then tested a 60" (so we could use the same strings) PL X longbow of exactly the same draw weight at 30" with basically the same results, only 2 to 3 fps slower than the recurve. A 64" longbow would have been more suitable for a 30" draw and would have reduced the difference between the longbow and the recurve. We also compared speeds with and without the typical four Spider string silencers with a difference of 2-3 fps (2 fps on the DF 97}.

*As you can see, it’s a washout. I was not surprised because I had tested an endless “skinny” string some time ago with the same result. Even though these 60" “skinny” strings (with padded loops and center serving) weigh 20 to 30 grains less (depending on which strand material), fewer strands allow more stretch or elasticity and we thus loose what we hoped to gain.*
The conventional D 10 string was 1 fps faster for both the recurve and longbow.
Well, there may be those who question these numbers and feel that the “Old Man” has gone over-the-hill and senility has set in. I would simply suggest “Grumpy” old man. So here’s the deal: Since I’m “from Missouri”, bring your Black Widow bow to Missouri with your properly padded “skinny” string and “show me”. Using the scientific testing method described above (you may determine the brace height), *if you can achieve an additional 3 fps over a standard 14 strand DynaFLIGHT 97 string, we will build you a new Black Widow bow of your choice*. BUT.... if you can not achieve an additional 3 fps, you must leave your Black Widow bow with us, OR.... pay for a new Black Widow bow that we will build for you. SUCH A DEAL! If there is a better mouse trap, we want to know about it! (This offer will expire 12-31-2010.)

I have also resurrected a post from the past entitled "TESTING & COMPARING BOW PERFORMANCE” for you to review.

Let me summerize: PHYSICS is PHYSICS is PHYSICS.... and you can’t get around it.

Ken Beck _


----------



## jcs-bowhunter (Jul 7, 2007)

I used to build strings and cables for compound bows a few years ago when myself and another guy had a small archery repair/setup side business going. I did not enjoy it enough to keep the jigs and materials when we liquidated the assets. I currently have a couple friends who really enjoy making them that keep me in stock.

I'm at the level of archery that until my shooting form is so rock solid that I can differentiate my shooting between low, medium and high end equipment that fiddling with strings seems almost pointless.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I've been making strings for about 7-8 years since I started shooting Blackbrook Longbows, the limb tips are very small and just couldn't get anybody to make strings the way I liked with right size loops, I have a small trad shop so I've made a few 100 strings, my pet hate is twisted loops and take the time to make sure both loops sit nicely on the strung bow. 

Larry Yien intoduced me to Bob at BCY, I've been very happy with this product and only ever used (14-16 strands) D97 or 8125 with Halo serving for my bows, I don't regard myself as an expert as I haven't used every product available or experimented that much with different strand counts, what I'm using works very well for me. I did get my 21st century bows from Milton with 10 strand strings, they killed my fingers and the first thing I did is make a new string for comfort.

I like the Halo for release but a nightmare to serve and keep in place, I started using and impact adhesive to stop it moving which seem to work really well, anybody else do this?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

steve morley said:


> I like the Halo for release but a nightmare to serve and keep in place, I started using and impact adhesive to stop it moving which seem to work really well, anybody else do this?


I haven't but, but then I'm not a string maker  It sounds like a good idea to my inexpert ears, though. Speaking of mono-filament...have you seen how Michele Frangilli does his center serving? He uses mono-filament only on the top part, in the area where the arrow nocks and then uses regular serving below for better durability.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Sanford said:


> While the topic is still on sting materials, build, and testing methodologies, having and posted "results" from said builds and the subsequent testing is an important follow up to such tests. I found this interesting test and "results of test" from Ken Beck on the subject._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is a spot on post, Sanford. I don't know if you could possibly have found a better quote.

While there has been a lot of talk in this thread about "testing," so far Sanford's post is the _only_ one to actually cite any testing. And from the description, Ken Beck used sound scientific methodology to eliminate variables and ran enough trials to get reliable averages. I don't know if Beck's hypothesis about elasticity is correct; it seems reasonable an is consistent with the data. What one can say for certain is that his data shows that you don't get any statistically significant advantage in arrow speed from using fewer strands--in spite of the confident protestations to the contrary that we've seen in this forum. Sound data and testing trumps presumption--and Ken Beck's data and testing stand independent of whether Ken Beck's trad archery credentials are sufficient for anyone who might wish to take issue with his results.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Results? Here's results:

Pressure (Pascals) = .6V (m/sec) 2

85% is good efficiency 

Lee @ 28” =87% Stored Energy/Peak Draw Force

Lee @ 30” = 90% 

Pascals = 0.6 x (m/s) squared

1 Pascal = 1.45 x 10-4 lbs. / in.2

Bob Lee Bicentennial Elite Longbow:

369 grain arrow

10 strand BCY 450 + 

62.5” working length .082” unserved dia. 5.125 in.2 100 grains 178 fps (54.3 m/sec.)

Resistance = .6(54.3) squared = 1769.1 Pascals = .26 lbs. /square in. = 1.33 lbs.

6 strand BCY 450+

62.5” working length .070 unserved dia. 4.375 in.2 79 grains 181 fps (55.2 m/sec.)

Resistance= .6(55.2) squared =1828.2 Pascals=.27 lbs/square in. = 1.18 lbs.

6 Strand =

21% lighter

15% less area

12% less drag

1.7% faster

I did this when Adcock told me that skinny strings show gains due to less wind resistance. Obviously absurd, but I guess when you're into flight archery after awhile everything begins to look like wind resistance. As you can see, there is a slight decrease in drag, which doesn't hurt, but the lower mass is the greater factor.
When Beck did his testing he ran a "bet" that if a person built a skinny string to his specs and that if that string showed a gain, then they would get a free Black Widow bow. You'll note that Beck's string showed very little weight loss. He was overbuilding a skinny string, thereby keeping its mass nearly equal to that of a his "standard" string. The gains from skinny strings, although small, are quite real and are to gotten from shedding mass. 
Basically Beck stacked the deck with his testing protocol so he could cherry pick his data so he could artificially support his own preconceived notions.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

He had 20 to 30 grains variance. How much does 10 strands of D97 weigh?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Bender said:


> 6 strand BCY 450+
> 
> 62.5” working length .070 unserved dia. 4.375 in.2 79 grains 181 fps (55.2 m/sec.)
> 
> ...


Hmm...I'm really not getting your back of the envelope calculations on air resistance. It isn't a super simple calculation because the motion of the string is complex, the string pivots off two separate fulcrums (the limb nocks) as the limbs move down and forward. So you can't merely calculate the drag co-efficient of a cylinder the length of the bow string moving through the full power stroke. At the very least you have to calculate the drag based on the string sweeping through two separate arcs. And drag varies with speed relative to the fluid it is traveling in--and the speed of the bow string varies through out its power stroke, and the speed (and distance traveled) of the bow string *also* varies with its distance from the two fulcrums. So I'm not seeing how you got your "1.33 lbs." and "1.18 lbs." out of what you have shown us. 

Anyway, by "over building" the skinny string I presume you are referring to having 8" of serving on the skinny string that insures the serving has the equivalent diameter on the fingers of a full strand count string? Such strings with full diameter servings are exactly the kind of strings proposed by the OP as having increased performance. From the parent thread that spawned this one:



LBR said:


> I will give my opinion on the string listed in the above opinions. 14 strands is overkill on most bows--especially 20-50#.
> 
> It's like putting ethanol in a dragster, or fishing in a bass tournament and leaving your anchor out from the time you leave the dock until you put the boat back on the trailer. Just doesn't make good sense. I'm not a fan of tiny strings, but lighter draw weights normally show the most improvement with reduced weight strings.
> 
> Depending on the draw weight and personal preferances, 8-12 strands of 8125 or Dynaflight '97 work great for most--especially weights normally used on target bows….





LBR said:


> It still makes no sense to add all that extra weight if you are trying to get the best performance from a bow...
> 
> I serve my strings to fit my nock. It doesn't matter if the string is 10 or 14 strands, where I put my fingers is the same, because I use a larger serving on a smaller diameter string.
> 
> ...


And from the OP:



LBR said:


> If by stable you mean lack of stretch and creep, most any of the HMPE ("Fast Flight") materials will be stable after a few shots or just let the bow stay strung, even with heavier draw weights and lower strand counts.


Beck's numbers refute that the idea that normally served skinny strings are faster than full strand count strings. 

Curiously, the OP completely agreed with Beck's findings back in November. From another trad forum where the Beck study was also posted:



LBR_at_other_forum said:


> *...
> The facts are: most bows don't show a noticeable performance gain*--I think Mr. Beck's offer has been on the table for a year or so, and no takers so far--that says a whole lot; in all these threads we see lots of opinions, but rarely if ever any real test results and/or apple to apple comparisons; *when you reduce the strand count you reduce durability; when you reduce the strand count you increase the stretch/creep*; and finally there is no "magic" string just like there's no magic bow, no magic arrow, no magic broadhead. There's no replacements for tuning and practice, at least not without trade-offs.
> 
> Like I said, if you like 'em, shoot 'em. Just list the opinions as what they are, and not as facts. That's all I ask.
> ...


 {emphasis added}

http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=096877;p=3#000031

The Beck study showing that 14 strand strings are just as fast as normally served 10 strand strings is evidence. The assertion that normally served 10 strand strings have more performance than 14 strand strings seems to be an assertion without evidence.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

The FITA/Oly guys spend a lot of time test various equipment. They use high-speed video and are meticulous about tracking equipment performance. The international level competitors will track where each arrow lands and cull any which show a tendancy to land on the edges of the group.

They generally don't shoot over 45# on the fingers, they all use strings in the 16-20 strand range. If that strand-count showed any reduction in performance in any way they wouldn't be using it.

As an offshoot of that high-speed film analysis there is a theory that larger strings recover from paradox considerably faster, which is why they generally make arrows tune stiffer. This effect was originally thought to be because the thinner string put more energy into the arrow but there wasn't a corresponding increase in velocity to explain it.
The benefit of the larger string was felt by being able to increase tip weight and/or go one spine weaker. Both of which added performance either through stability or speed respectively.

So what does that mean for us at the traditional side of things:
You may get a (very) little extra speed with a skinny string. But you also may require a stiffer spine or less tip weight, which could reduce your speed and stability.

I have been running everything from 6 to 12 on my 30# NFAA Trad set-up with corresponding changes in spine requirement, most of which were able to be tuned-out without changing arrows. However the 6-10 strand strings were never as accurate even when in tune and seemed much more critical. All were padded to equivilent of 14 strands then served with .022 diamondback. All are flemish twist white FF+.

My latest string is 12 strand and show considerably more forgiveness, I think I will make-up a 14 strand for my next experiment; besides I need something to fit standard size nocks for my latest arrow choices.

-Grant


----------



## BuckKilla (Jun 11, 2003)

Anyone try 8125G yet?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Sorry for the slow reply--I've been making a bunch of strings and didn't have time to talk about them.

I'll be blunt--when someone goes as far as digging through the archives of a different site's message board in an attempt to defame me, I don't see a point in trying to have an honest discussion with them.

I will say that anyone interested in what I have actually said, in context, is welcome to contact me. 

Last points: Mr. Beck tested two bows, both BW bows, both 57.5#. Even though one was a recurve and the other a longbow, limb construction is similar. I have learned since that post that limb construction can play a big factor in performance differences. Like I said before, I am constantly studying and learning. I don't claim to be an expert, just honest with what I know at the time. Just because I'm honest doesn't mean I'm always accurate. As I've said before, do your own homework, double-check things--I'm no exception.

I have said numerous times that lower strand count strings show up more with lighter draw weights. 57# is not what I consider "light". 10-12 strands is not "skinny" when taken in context of the discussion, at least from my view.

I have said I don't like to go under 10 strands, except on very light bows. The strings I was referancing in the quotes taken out of context were 4, 6, and 8 strand strings used on hunting weight bows. I did not and do not advocate strings that small. 

I have and still do advocate doing your own experiments--what works for some may not work for others. My opinions generally stem from a hunter's viewpoint. I have no experience with Olympic style archery, never claimed to, and this isn't an Olympic forum.

If anyone has a question for me about strings, I'm easy to contact. No need to rely on bias and misinformation.

Chad


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

LBR said:


> I have and still do advocate doing your own experiments--what works for some may not work for others. My opinions generally stem from a hunter's viewpoint. I have no experience with Olympic style archery, never claimed to, and this isn't an Olympic forum.
> 
> Chad


Last I checked Newtonian physics were pretty universal, unless hunting somehow changes them. 
From a strickly tuning aspect there is no group of archers with more research-based experience then the FITA/Oly recurve guys, that point isn't even debateable.

Given the large increase in people shooting Oly derived tech for hunting and 3D its pretty safe to say that following their lead in getting your equipment in tune is a solid move. I don't know a whole lot of trad guys with access to highspeed video equipment, but everyone involved at an international level with Oly archery does.
But then again you can only tune to the level of precision of your shooting skills and equipment.

-Grant


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Both the skinny and standard string will go through the same complex motions. There will be a reduction in drag. In order to model it, treat it like a cylinder. Two cylinders of different diameters travelling through the same medium in the same fashion. And besides, from the approximate model all that I was showing was that drag is a neglible aspect of the speed gains.
Durability may be considered an aspect of "performance" but it is none the less seperate than whether or not there is a speed gain. Which there is. You can't argue that fact away.
Although the speed gain is an actual fact, it is relatively small. When we talk about the strand count on an Oly rig, what base string material are we talking about here? 8125? 20 strands of that would be considerably smaller than 20 strands of 450+. So are you even comparing the same string materials in order to make your arguement? People forget that in archery what we do is often a compilation of compromises. Look at Moreley's post. To him 10 strands is too skinny. Hurts his fingers. I can easily see an Oly shooter foregoing a 1 or 2 fps increase in order to maintain a good release that helps him maintain accuracy.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Bender said:


> And besides, from the approximate model all that I was showing was that drag is a neglible aspect of the speed gains....Although the speed gain is an actual fact, it is relatively small.


I think the drag is even more negligible than your assumptions account for because the whole string doesn't move forward at the same speed or the same distance. It is not the same as putting string in a wind tunnel. The drag of the string swinging off of two fulcrums would be considerably less. And strings are not perfect cylinders, so your presumed drag co-efficient may not be right nor comparable between strings of different strand counts strings--many unintuitive things affect drag, such as the dimples in a golf ball which improve rather than harm its aerodynamics. But I think we can agree that the affect of drag on bow string performance is negligible, that a the negligible difference between strings times a negligible effect means we can move on to other areas.

As to whether skinny strings can offer a minor FPS improvement based on mass, I think we are talking different applications. A flight shooter can afford to make special strings that would be impractical for day to day target shooting or hunting, including having very minimal center serving. What Beck's study showed was that the kind of strings the OP proposed, low strand count strings with servings beefed up to make them the same diameter as s full strand count string don't have any more performance. The OP once agreed with that, but now contests Beck's study. It is possible that a bow lighter than that Beck studied, say, 45 pound bow, might provide different results. However, the only thorough objective evidence we have on record in the thread is the Beck study. The OP's protestations are assertions without evidence. And according to a sig the OP has used, what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. 

I'm interested in is knowing what works. I'm not stuck to any one idea. I'll go where the sound and tested evidence leads. Evidence and testing is what tells us what works and what doesn't. But it needs to be _sound _evidence, collected and tested with sound methodology. Beck's study does that. It is thorough and uses a shooting machine and a calibrated arrow for precision and repeatability and a chronograph and other measurements for objective quantitative data. And it uses multiple trials for sound averages. It is important to be that methodical, because our subjective impression of a string we shot last week, or two strings we tested shooting by hand are subject to a host of variables and our own cognitive biases. Scientific methodology is designed to reduce confounding variables and account for cognitive biases. Science helps us separate what is true from what merely seems to be true, so that we can come up with hypothesis and theories that make useful predictions, such as whether a normally served 10 strand string will out perform a 14 strand string.

Physicist Richard Feynman reminds us to use sound objective science, because if we don't we can reach incorrect conclusions, and even believe them very, very strongly. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool." Sound science is the antidote to that. Assertions and anecdotes are not.

So, if anyone has a study comparable to the Beck Study with different results, or confirmation, I'd love to see it.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Last I checked Newtonian physics were pretty universal, unless hunting somehow changes them.


Of course hunting doesn't change physics. The physics do change when bow design and set-up change. 

Try comparing the limb construction of a Black Widow bow and an Adcock ACS. It's not hard to understand.

I derive my information from actual hands-on experience, and from experts and champions in the sports I'm interested in, namely 3-D and hunting.

I don't know if my main sources have a high-speed camera or not. I do know they have trophies and meat in the freezer, along with a reputation that is unblemished. Good enough for me.

As for the FITA/Olympic folks, you won't see me invading their forum in a lame attempt to discredit someone for unknown reasons--and almost all of those folks show this forum the same amount of respect.

It's also obvious that a search for honest answers, information, and opinions isn't the drive behind several of the posts. I'm done with it--I have better things to do.

Chad


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Beck's methodology that is so highly regarded is suspect. 2 MAYBE 3 shots and we call it statistically significant? Why not 100 shots (50 each string) with a shooting machine like I did just to be sure? Calibrated arrow? Smoke and mirrors BS. The arrow doesn't change from one shot to the next. A tuned arrow is a tuned arrow, regardless of what it weighs. Over building the skinny string so it weighs virtually the same as a standard string negates the whole point of the exercise. Who sez that the center serving has to be bulked up doubled served or what ever in order to get nock fit? All that is doing is putting mass back into the worst possible place to have it, at the nock point. Why can't we use different nocks? Or wrap a tiny bit of dental floss at the nock point? Oh no can't do that because Beck didn't do it.
What? I didn't make a post with my own results? I'm not "on record"? Only the hero du jour is worthy of consideration? Better to just parrot the words of others I guess.
Whatever.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Bender said:


> Beck's methodology that is so highly regarded is suspect. 2 MAYBE 3 shots and we call it statistically significant? Why not 100 shots (50 each string) with a shooting machine like I did just to be sure? Calibrated arrow? Smoke and mirrors BS. The arrow doesn't change from one shot to the next. A tuned arrow is a tuned arrow, regardless of what it weighs. Over building the skinny string so it weighs virtually the same as a standard string negates the whole point of the exercise. Who sez that the center serving has to be bulked up doubled served or what ever in order to get nock fit? All that is doing is putting mass back into the worst possible place to have it, at the nock point. Why can't we use different nocks? Or wrap a tiny bit of dental floss at the nock point? Oh no can't do that because Beck didn't do it.
> What? I didn't make a post with my own results? I'm not "on record"? Only the hero du jour is worthy of consideration? Better to just parrot the words of others I guess.
> Whatever.


I'm not sure I'm getting your issues with Beck. 

There seem to be two separate issues going on:

1) Do everyday working strings with normal sized center servings (like the kind advocated by the OP) give higher performance with lower strand counts? Beck's study showed a resounding "no".

2) Can highly specialized low strand count, minimal center serving strings give a minimal but measurable increase in performance? Your study says "yes."

I don't see those two things as being mutually exclusive, so I don't get your animus towards Beck. Especially since Beck noted this:



> This exercise is not about building a “hotrod ten-shot “ bowstring for bragging rights. It is about using sound testing methods with good equipment to gather unbiased and accurate data to back up claims in hope of finding “a better mousetrap”....if there is one.
> 
> For us at Black Widow, a “ better mousetrap” (bowstring) is not just fps, *but it also must be durable and reliable, feasible to make and, most importantly, suitable and desirable for most all of our customers.*


http://www.blackwidowbows.com/widowwall/thread.cfm?threadid=10407&messages=71&forum=1000#115139

You and Beck are talking about different classes of string.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

LBR said:


> Of course hunting doesn't change physics. The physics do change when bow design and set-up change.
> 
> Try comparing the limb construction of a Black Widow bow and an Adcock ACS. It's not hard to understand.
> 
> ...


Winning 3Ds and shooting deer doesn't exactly require splitting hairs during set-up. Definitely not to the level that is required for other archery disciplines. If its good enough for you then you shouldn't be so defensive if others want to take their own tuning a few steps further or in a different direction, its not like their tuning makes your tune worse.

I love 3D, it and indoor is the only competitive shooting I do. But I dabble in FITA barebow for fun and it has made me realize that set-ups I considered in tune before were not as close as I believed. It doesn't take much to land an arrow outside the 8-ring at 70m.
I look to the FITA types as a source of knowledge because they do the testing, they gather the evidence and in general they are very free with the results. They back-up statements with verifyable data, something we generally fail at in the trad world.

All of my strand counts are for FF+ (I believe .014) and the FITA types almost universally use 8125.

Back to skinny strings, I would hazard that in general the skinny strings would show more speed gain in the following circumstances:
Lighter bow
More efficient bow
Lighter arrow

Since the bow Beck tested was of higher weight, lower efficiency and with relatively heavy arrows its reasonable to understand why it saw fairly minimal gains.
I've seen (video, not in person) flightbows shot with 4 strand 8125 strings that were unserved. Not durable, not comfortable, but definitely high performance.

-Grant


----------

