# Can't get rid of Nock High!



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

Two things

One...it is possible that you need more than 5/8" above nocking point. A friend of mine that shoots 3 under uses 3/4".(he can bareshaft to 50 yds)

Two...There is a section in MBB2 that ken beck talks about this condition. Some archers never can achieve level bareshaft flight.It has something to do with the way the string is held or the release. 

I would say if you can find a setting that allows your field points and broadheads to group together, I would set it there and forget it. If it will allow good broadhead flight, there is no reason to keep banging your head against a wall.

My bow is tuned for 3 under, but I also shoot split finger at longer ranges. If I shoot bareshafts split finger it will show nock high. But fletched arrow flight , even with broadheads is perfect. 


Ike


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

1. I assume you meant you move your nocking point from 5/8's DOWN to 1/4....and you're still nock high.

2. What happens when you set your nocking point below 1/4"? I've not had a bow yet that I couldn't get it to read "nock low" by adjusting down.

3. I would "think" you'd want it to read (bare shafts) a "little" nock high.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

lazy ike said:


> Two...There is a section in MBB2 that ken beck talks about this condition. Some archers never can achieve level bareshaft flight.It has something to do with the way the string is held or the release.
> 
> Ike


I spoke with Ken Beck at last year's UBM festival about this very thing. He said that he had just started to figure out that the problem is often caused by the nock sliding down the serving during the shot (which probably has to do with how the archer holds or releases the string). As a side note, Ken's findings are consistent with the high-speed video Lancaster Archery did a year or so ago, discovering the same thing. Ken said that when he encounters this problem now, he has the shooter use a double nock set and the problem is immediately corrected. 

*Zigman:* If you're having this problem shooting off the shelf, try a double nock set. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know that I was.


----------



## Two Blade (Jul 13, 2008)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I spoke with Ken Beck at last year's UBM festival about this very thing. He said that he had just started to figure out that the problem is often caused by the nock sliding down the serving during the shot (which probably has to do with how the archer holds or releases the string). As a side note, Ken's findings are consistent with the high-speed video Lancaster Archery did a year or so ago, discovering the same thing. Ken said that when he encounters this problem now, he has the shooter use a double nock set and the problem is immediately corrected.
> 
> *Zigman:* If you're having this problem shooting off the shelf, try a double nock set. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know that I was.


I guess this means that all that talk about putting downward force on the arrow that Ken Beck talked about in MBB is out the window at this point. I kinda figured that they would have something so simple figured out by now.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> I spoke with Ken Beck at last year's UBM festival about this very thing. He said that he had just started to figure out that the problem is often caused by the nock sliding down the serving during the shot (which probably has to do with how the archer holds or releases the string). As a side note, Ken's findings are consistent with the high-speed video Lancaster Archery did a year or so ago, discovering the same thing. Ken said that when he encounters this problem now, he has the shooter use a double nock set and the problem is immediately corrected.


:thumbs_up

Nock travel! Why I have used 2 nocks for many moons. Yet, something (2 nocks) that many still say is not necessary and of no benefit.


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

I will install another nock in the morning, and see how it goes. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Floatsum (Jan 14, 2010)

Using heavier heads?
Checked your FOC?
When you see the arrow going away, how's it look?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Zig -

You didn't mention one thing that's kinda critical. Did playing with the nocking point have ANY effect at all?

Viper1 out.


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> Zig -
> 
> You didn't mention one thing that's kinda critical. Did playing with the nocking point have ANY effect at all?
> 
> Viper1 out.


Not really. I forgot my nocking pliers when I was bare shafting. When I got home I went in the basement and made something so I could do some paper tuning, and there wasn't any real difference. At least nothing that made me feel like I was moving in the right direction.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Zig - 

You can (and should) try the double nocking point thing is you like, but the fact is, you moved the nocking point and saw no appreciable change, that means something is over ridding the setting. (BTW - a quicker test would be simply nocking ABOVE you're present np. That will raise the point a little more than 1/8" AND prevent the nock from slipping down the string.) If you continue to paper tune, make sure the frame is at 15'. The one thing that a lot of people forget when tuning is that data has to be confirmed. Sounds like you've done most of that, except the for the "change" part. 

When a bow seems to have a tuning *problem*, the first thing that you have to do is confirm that it IS reacting as expected to changes.

Viper1 out.


----------



## longbow billy (May 19, 2008)

http://www.limbsaver.com/2010/video_center/

click on slow motion videos, click archery, click nock travel


I would imagine a 3 under archer would have more issues that split ?


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

longbow billy said:


> http://www.limbsaver.com/2010/video_center/
> 
> click on slow motion videos, click archery, click nock travel
> 
> ...


WOW! Cool Video, Thanks


----------



## I'm Not Ted (Feb 12, 2009)

Wouldn't split put more downward force on the arrow?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

billy -

Great video, notice the disclaimer that starts "If your nock is loose at all..."

Now, if want to use speed nocks ot self nocks, you might end up with more problems that nock travel. Getting the right nock purchase on the string is a pretty basic tuning requirement. Probably why most people never need worry about it. Unfortunately, it's just another case of some people with too much information and not enough understanding. 

Guess this is going to revert back to the older and equally useless debate on nock tightness. Accu-nocks anyone??? 

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Zigman: Did you try a second nock set? If so, did it help?

Windwalker: Good call on the PM, but I'd have guessed that it would have happened sooner. :wink:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> billy -
> 
> Great video, notice the disclaimer that starts "If your nock is loose at all..."
> 
> ...


Viper,

You left out the other statement: *"Even if your nock is tight, it will probably slide a little,"* followed by footage of a tight nock sliding down the serving. 

No matter how much we _think_ we know, there's always more to learn. :thumbs_up


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

JW:

Additionally, you know, I know, and some others know, that due to wear on the arrow nock and serving, at some point the nock fit will loosen. The question is; how much, when and where.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Great video! At the end, they pretty much sum it up as stating that string angle is a big factor, along with previously mentioned nock fit. For their test bow, there is high string angle and close pinch from a mechanical string release. For that test, no way could anyone achieve a finger release and maintain that string angle. Fingers or string gotta give. This easily explains the string/nock movement for this test. Their message: try for a more symmetrical load on the sting pull, i.e., string loop for that compound bow. 

It would be interesting to see if same applies to lower string angles and finger release, where the load is already more symmetrical. Did the Lancaster test do such, or is this the aforementioned video and we are translating that setup into longbows/recurves?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Sanford,

The Lancaster tests were done with traditional bows shot with fingers, both split and three-under. As I recall, Lancaster's videos came about because they wanted to allow people to bring in their equipment and see what their shooting looked like with the aid of high speed video. The proof of nocks sliding during the shot was an unexpected surprise.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Sanford - 

There's a little more to it than that. 

OK, I really should apologize. I did see the second video in that clip showing a tight nock sliding down the string. I disregarded it as it was pretty bogus for finger shooters. (also wanted to see if anyone would comment on that.)

Standard dual nock practice is that the nocks are spaced about nock width + 1/8", to prevent the nocking points from pinching the arrow nock. In the second vid, the arrow "moved" about 1/8". Doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. At anchor, the arrow is resting on the upper nock. Given the spacing between the nocks, the arrow might (note the term MIGHT) still be able to travel that 1/8" and make the effect of the second nock useless. 

Now, if you want to set the nocking points so that the arrow nock is sandwiched between them, eliminating any chance of travel, that's cool. It's just more work than necessary and possibly detrimental. 

If you recall a while back I mentioned that there is a vertical paradox as well as a horizontal one. That oscillation can move the arrow nock, trying to eliminate it makes as much sense for a finger shooter as does trying to eliminate the more common horizontal paradox. 

Theoretical? No, it's practical; based on the fact that the majority of archers use only one nock and never experience any issues. Gathering data is great, being able to interpret it accurately is something else. If we as soon as we consider nock travel am issue, we had to admit that any one with "loose nocks" would be vertically stringing arrows on a regular basis and the ONLY fix would be dual nocking points. If that's the case, then somebody better tell all the guys who aren't experiencing that cause and effect.

The point I'm trying to get across is that you can worry about whatever you like. It takes a little experience (and honesty) to know what matters and what doesn't. "Creating" a problem that doesn't exist only benefits the guy with the "cure", either financially or emotionally.

There are no rules unless you decide to shoot in a class that only allows one NP. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Sanford -
> 
> OK, I really should apologize. I did see the second video in that clip showing a tight nock sliding down the string. I disregarded it as it was pretty bogus for finger shooters.


Then how do you explain Lancaster having video proof of it _not_ being bogus for finger shooters?



Viper1 said:


> There are no rules unless you decide to shoot in a class that only allows one NP.
> 
> Viper1 out.


Now you're being disingenuous regarding the terms "nocking point" and "nock locators (nock sets)" as they pertain to shooting classes. Certain shooting classes (NFAA Traditional, Barebow, and Competitive Bowhunter for example) only allow one "nocking point," but also allow the use of two "nocking locators."

Bullet point #6 from the NFAA shooting styles rules for Traditional easily clear this up:



> _”The string may be of any color but must have a single color center serving. One single nocking point is permitted. *One or two nock locators may be used.* Brush buttons and string silencers, properly placed, may be used. Any other marks or string attachments will be illegal.”_


How many times, and on how many threads, do you need to be proven wrong on this issue before you concede that you may, in fact, not know everything there is to know?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Westbrock -

You sir have yet to explain why most people do not have this problem or any other problem caused by a single nocking point or "locator", providing they know how to set up a bow. That's why it is bogus and why I generally don't bother with your posts. 

Reply to that with something valid other than "I have pictures" or "so-and-so said" and we can discuss. You see, I need to have a cause and effect reason to do or teach something. I'll make it even simpler, if it doesn't effect where the shot goes or how it gets there, it's meaningless. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

> I'll make it even simpler, if it doesn't effect where the shot goes or how it gets there, it's meaningless.


I'm sure I'll be saving this one.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Westbrock -
> 
> You sir have yet to explain why most people do not have this problem or any other problem caused by a single nocking point or "locator", providing they know how to set up a bow. That's why it is bogus and why I generally don't bother with your posts.


The fact that it doesn't happen with most people (as confirmed by Ken Beck) is of no consequence to the fact that it does happen with _some_ people. Simply telling those one-in-six that their problems are bogus is not only a disservice to them; it’s the height of arrogance and ignorance. “If it doesn’t happen to everyone, then it doesn’t happen to anyone” is a very, very uneducated approach to reality.

With respect to you not bothering with my posts: You generally tend to ignore people who prove you wrong, and flock to those who agree with you unquestioningly. Some people’s egos simply won’t allow for the possibility that they may not know everything. I think it’s referred to as narcissism. 



Viper1 said:


> Reply to that with something valid other than "I have pictures" or "so-and-so said" and we can discuss. You see, I need to have a cause and effect reason to do or teach something.


The cause and effect has been discussed and demonstrated. The fact that you fail to acknowledge it is not the litmus test for its existence, you own delusions of omniscience notwithstanding.




Viper1 said:


> I'll make it even simpler, if it doesn't effect where the shot goes or how it gets there, it's meaningless.
> 
> Viper1 out.


You’re apparently missing the part where this is an arrow flight issue, as in, “how it gets there.” You may want to reread this, and the preceding two similar threads on this subject, because it’s clear that you either lack a basic understanding of what’s being discussed, or are simply arguing for the sake of doing so.


----------



## Finger_Flinger (Mar 25, 2009)

Your arrows are definitely on the weak side. Maybe you should try a stiffer shaft or lighter point?

According to Stu's Dynamic spine calculator, cutting your arrows to 30.25" and using 100 grain points should put the dynamic spine very close.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> If you recall a while back I mentioned that there is a vertical paradox as well as a horizontal one. That oscillation can move the arrow nock, trying to eliminate it makes as much sense for a finger shooter as does trying to eliminate the more common horizontal paradox.


Thanks. It's common sense as usual.


----------



## hockeyref (Jun 2, 2006)

*Can we get a couple pics or video?*

Hey Zig,
The answer has to be out there... Any chance of you taking some pics and or video? This is one that I would really like to have hands on access to work it out.

Pics - for a sanity check:

1- the rest\shelf by itself to see how you constructed\built it up
2- the rest\shelf with and arrow on the string showing rest and nock point
3- the rest\shelf with a bow square attached to the string showing rest and nock point
4- the paper tune tear
5- the arrow in the target to see the orientation of the nock end

Video:

Video from arrow side of the riser showing the arrow reaction going over it
Video from anchor side of the riser showing the holh, anchor, and release
Video from behind showing the arrow release and subsequent arrow flight

Also, just for the heck of it, try a way high nock point like maybe 1 1/4"...


----------



## Floatsum (Jan 14, 2010)

May I add something here?

The vidio -
Guy is shooting a compound.
EXTREEMLY abrupt string angle due to short axel to axel.
Long bows and Recurves don't have that issue (as much).

Alright, watch the vid again. 
The string is MAKING the nock "jump" (slide) down. The high angle on the top string is pulling and sending the arrow to the valley of the "V" in the string.
It will do it the same every time. As long as it does do it and it is consistant, and the bow was tuned to compensate then it's effects are negated.
Short version,, it don't matter.

Trad bows do not have that abrupt of an angle. Split finger it will not happen.
2 or 3 under and it may a bit. But again with a fairly consistant release it will be the same each time and..... it wont matter. Not as long as it is consistant shot to shot.

I'd be much more concerned with too tight knocks or inconsistant tightness with them.

Oh, the guy in the vid,,, he's using the antiquated single jaw release. That went out with Dobie Gillis. Replaced by duel caliper, then the tie in loop, then the aluminum clamp loop, then.. It's old. Selling gimick.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

its funny, but I just went and reviewed a whole bunch of slow motion clips and the only time an up and down paradox was present was when the nock slid down the string.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

2nd nock locator. 
It doesn't hurt anything.
It will probably help.
If nock slide is happening to you, and you chose to continue to allow it to happen, are you willing to bet that, while using fingers, it really will happen exactly the same way every time?


----------



## Floatsum (Jan 14, 2010)

No, it doesn't "hurt".

Walk up on a deer and you need to knock an arrow, I want to set it on low and slide it into position without taking my eyes off the shot. Also don't want to need and add the movement of turning my head to see if I'm between the lumps either.

Probably more of an issue with some than others.:zip:

I'm sure it don't mean squat on targets though.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Floatsum said:


> No, it doesn't "hurt".
> 
> Walk up on a deer and you need to knock an arrow, I want to set it on low and slide it into position without taking my eyes off the shot. Also don't want to need and add the movement of turning my head to see if I'm between the lumps either.
> 
> ...


What you described is exactly how I nock an arrow. As a bowhunter, it's very important to me to be able to do it that way. The last thing I want to worry about when I’m getting ready to shoot an animal is whether or not I have my arrow nocked correctly. That’s why after my discussion with Ken Beck, I tried to figure out a way to still use a double nock set while eliminating the possibility of nocking an arrow incorrectly.

Ironically, when I wrote the article for TBM that some folks mentioned in the previous thread, I figured it would just go in and out of print silently. How-to pieces sometimes end up that way. But in the two months since it was published, I have received dozens of emails and other feedback from folks I didn’t know, telling me how they’ve ended years of tuning frustration in a matter of seconds. 

For that, the real credit goes not to myself, but to Ken Beck. It was his idea. I just tweaked it a little and wrote about it.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Its weird. I never even thought about it. I just don't ever really need to look at the string to tell if I'm between the 2 locators. Target or turkey it doesn't matter. I'm looking at the shot and its just kind of automatic. I'm holding the nock in my fingers and I feel it go in between the locators. 
I guess that for some it could be problematic in a hunting situation, but I admit that my own experience does not support that.


----------



## Floatsum (Jan 14, 2010)

I'm just old fashioned anyways I guess. Set in my (comfortable) ways and all.
I've never notice / experienced an issue with it either. Lucky?
Just tie in a point, screw it up/down to adjust and shoot.


----------



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

Maybe Howard Hill was ahead of his time on this issue too. Nocking above the locator would fix this wouldn't it ? I know that won't work for 3 under , but for split , I think it would.


Ike


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents -

Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing.

What it comes down to is that a very specific set of events has to be present for "nock travel" to exist and show as an issue.

The combination is typically a long draw shooter shooting 3 under on too short a bow and using fairly loose nocks. That creates a string angle problem similar to what was seen in the compound video posted, where the arrow nock is far enough away from the apex of the string angle that it can push a loose nock toward the apex, before the apex shifts. Usually eliminating ANY of those parameters resolves the problem, but I guess a band-aid can work just as well.

Every time someone mentions a vertical flirt, it gets turned it into a nock travel issue, rather than correcting the under lying cause(s).

I'm not saying that nock travel CAN'T be an issue, but it's rare and that jumping on that band wagon IS bogus. 

Using dual nocking points isn't new, and if someone prefers that, that's cool, just have some idea of why you're doing and not because someone posts misleading information.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Steve Milbocker (Sep 15, 2009)

I shoot 3 under and have always used one NP. Recently I started experiencing some terrible porpoising and had to raise my NP to a rediculous height to get good flight. I thought it was something I was doing wrong but couldn't put my finger on it. I never paid too much attention to nock fit so the idea of an arrow slipping down never occured to me. I talked to Rob at LAS at the Kalamazoo show on sat and he told me about the movies and suggested I tie on a 2nd NP. I went home dropped the NP to where I used to have it, tied one below the arrow nock and presto, problem solved. I had recently changed some of my strings over to monofiliment serving and the nocks didn't fit as tightly as they did on the halo. So I guess it comes down to nock fit. I don't even notice the tied on NP below the arrow nock so it is good insurance in my book. Thanks for the tip Rob!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Sanford,
> 
> The Lancaster tests were done with traditional bows shot with fingers, both split and three-under. As I recall, Lancaster's videos came about because they wanted to allow people to bring in their equipment and see what their shooting looked like with the aid of high speed video. The proof of nocks sliding during the shot was an unexpected surprise.


Excuse my over analysis of things, but that's just how I'm wired. As I understand the observation, folks who brought *their* rigs in were allowed to shoot in front of HSC. I wish I had that opportunity. The observation was that a given percentage of folks exhibited nock slide - reasoning now is that there exists an inherent anomaly with individual shooters. I guess, if it were not a shooter issue, as being described, and were equipment/tuning issues, it could be corrected through tune or bow setup.

Now, the only citation we have of this observation, which has formulated the present "fact" being reported, "that for a given number of shooters (approx. 1/6), the problem exits", is that it was translated to you through someone who got the info from the primary observer.

Based on this alone, the observation fails confirmation. Nock travel, yes. Why? Inconclusive. 

Did Lancaster pull all of these shooters off their "individual" equipment and redo the videos having everyone shoot the same setup? This isn't a taunt question. It just seems to be a missing part of the observation.

Now, if Lancaster went the extra steps to confirm and eliminate the shooter from equipment/tune, it would help to substantiate and educate folks on this. That's the importance of citing authority on stated facts over making opinions. Opinions are OK, too.

Again, not nocking (pun) or creating argument - just asking.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Sanford,

Actually, we're looking at two different sets of evidence. One is the Lancaster videos. The reference of "one-in-six" comes from Ken Beck's personal experience over decades of setting up literally thousands of traditional archers. That was told to me directly from the primary observer (Ken Beck). He has far more experience in the subject than anyone else I know—certainly anyone on this thread, myself included.

Your observation about eliminating the shooter from the equipment was an excellent one. Can this problem be an equipment issue (improper nock fit etc.)? Perhaps, but in some cases, it’s something the shooter is doing that creates the problem. Maybe how their particular fingers leave the string is causing the nock travel. The fact that Ken only sees it in about one in six cases strongly suggests that, as with a lot of things of this type, it’s the loose nut behind the wheel. 

Viper speculated: _”the combination is typically a long draw shooter shooting 3 under on too short a bow and using fairly loose nocks.”_ Unfortunately, the facts don’t support that narrow conclusion. Tight nocks, loose nocks; long draw, short draw; long bow, short bow…that previously stated one-in-six is across the board.


----------



## innate123 (Dec 4, 2006)

I can't comment much as a newbie, but for the life of me can't imagine not having time to nock an arrow properly whether you have one nock or two nocks. I've shot quite a few deer, maybe with recurve and more stalking it comes into play more, but If I'm stalking an animal that I can see, I've likely got my arrow nocked. 

Tim


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JW,

I recently went through a similar issue and PM'd someone here about it. Bareshafts were great on impact, nock angle on flight bothered me and would not correct. I was given three alternatives: 1) if my preference/personality allowed me, forget about it; 2) play with some tune some more, and I was given some advice there; or 3) look more at that nut behind the bow.

Some concentration on certain aspects of #3 did more good than any tuning parameter change. Tuning seemed to run me back and forth between other issues, issues that would correct in tune one way and push out in the other. By this, I can confirm that the shooter can contribute. If there were any nock slide going on, I cannot confirm it. If there were nock slide I could know of, I guess that would leave me in a pickle - at least, according to my personality - do I try to correct through me or add a lower nock? Do I just ignore? If it was nock slide, did I fix it by me? Interesting stuff here, no doubt.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

You made some excellent points. No doubt, not every nock high tuning problem is due to nock slide. I don’t know that anyone presumed otherwise. But if a perpetual nock high tuning problem exists, and the use of a double nock set eliminates it, you know for a fact that your nocks were sliding. 

The absolute worst thing you could do is to ignore the problem, especially if you intend to put broadheads on your arrows and go hunting. Poorly flying arrows with field points may be all right for punching paper or foam. But putting a sharpened airfoil (broadhead) on the front of that arrow and sending it after a living animal is a recipe for disaster. 

And don’t worry about over analyzing things. I’m wired the same way.


----------



## John49 (Feb 25, 2006)

I have watched the videos and have read everything that has been said on this thread. I have always had a slight nock high result from my shooting, approx. 1/2 inch. I shoot split finger. I tried a nock set from 0 to 3/4 inch high with no noticeable change. I noticed one day that on my tab, I could see where the string was leaving an indentation going away from the back of the tab as it traveled down the tab, indicating to me that I was holding my hand at a slight upward angle when drawing the bow. I worked on keeping my hand in a more level position which seemed to me like I had lowered my forearm and elbow some. Now I shoot perfect holes in the paper with no nock high indication. This also helped with the bottom hen feather wear, not near as noticable now. I feel I was putting downward pressure on my nock prior to release which was causing my problem.


----------



## hockeyref (Jun 2, 2006)

*Let's help this guy*

We seem to be in agreement that nock slippage does occur... Not gonna debate anyone on the frequency or even if that is what's happening to Zig .... let's consider it a possibility and try to eliminate it from the equation. Then if he still has the high nock issue we'll figure out what else needs done to get Zig flying right...

Zig,
Did you try the second nock locator and did you try putting the arrow ON TOP of the current nock locator to try to eliminate the possibility of downward movement? I'd still like to see photos of the setup as tested.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

*videos*

how can we view lancaster archerys videos in slow motion you guys are talking about does someone have a link...


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

Hey everyone,
I didn't have time to shoot yesterday, so I have not done any tuning. I did just do a half hour of blank bale, and found some things out.

First off let me say that my release needs work. I have been working on back tension, and pulling through the shot, had a problem with stopping at anchor. While doing this tonight I noticed that my grip on the sting might need some work. I have most of the string tension on my ring finger, three under, and was reading a post on tradtalk about this sometimes causing a knock high. I am going to work on my grip before I do any more tuning and was just wondering if anyone could confirm this. Of course I will see myself, but just wondering.


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

hockeyref said:


> Hey Zig,
> The answer has to be out there... Any chance of you taking some pics and or video? This is one that I would really like to have hands on access to work it out.
> 
> Pics - for a sanity check:
> ...


Hey Hockeyref,
Our camera is in for warranty work right now, should be getting it back soon. I will take some pictures when it comes in. Might take me a while to figure out how to get them on this sight, but I will upload ASAP. As far as video goes, I don't know how to do that. Appreciate the interest in helping me out.

OH, I did that wrong, look up and read the response to the questions. Sorry!


----------



## Floatsum (Jan 14, 2010)

Sounds like a "worst case scenario" to me.

I need to appologize here.
You guys come up with the darndest problems! 
Been in archery for many years. Taught classes on archery & safety.
I've never whitnessed some of the stuff that comes up here.

"old school(?)"
Part of the release was even tension above & below. Went along with string roll, palm presure points, wrist torque, etc. I assumed anyone shooting "under" was shooting longer Longbows. 

All the "under shooters" used to use at least 80% presure closest to the knock, Split was 50/50 above/below.

Guess things really, really change according to times and locality.
I'm wondering why that is? Maybe modern bow tech, archer technique?

Anyways, feeling like a dinosaur with the antiquations. 

Have fun guys. I'll shut up and watch a spell from now on. :zip:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

F - 

These days everyone needs a edge to survive or thinks they've found something new and exciting. We rarely had these problems, not sure why  Oddly enough it's the same crowd that gets upset when someone states that a mediocre group at 10 yds (for other than a *new* strickbow shooter) is well, not so hot. But what did we know, we were using aluminum arrows and dacron strings ... 

Zig -

I can change my point of impact 6 - 8" vertically @ 20 yds by consciously going from an index finger load to a ring finger load. That's using a sight, so there are no aiming variations. There's also rarely an advantage to either loading preference, providing you keep it consistent and are not "hanging up" on one finger (see qualifier below). Years back, having the index finger go along for the ride was somewhat in vogue, and more recently a heavy index finger has became popular (not sure what the deal THIS week). Haven't really found one to work better than the other, but yes since you're changing the dynamic tiller of the bow, you will need to settle on one and tune you're nock point accordingly. Ring finger loading will require a higher nocking point.

One thing to cover all bases (the qualifier): if your bow length to draw length ratio is LESS THAN 2:1 (for example you're using a 60" bow and drawing over 30") you might have problems with 3U + a heavy ring finger. Refer to Floatsum's post and my "perfect storm" scenario above. You may have been really stacking the deck against yourself.

Viper1 out.


----------



## innate123 (Dec 4, 2006)

Viper1 said:


> I can change my point of impact 6 - 8" vertically @ 20 yds by consciously going from an index finger load to a ring finger load. That's using a sight, so there are no aiming variations.


Tony, 

Could you elaborate a bit more on this? It is really interesting. 

Thanks, 

Tim


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Tim -

Kinda simple, I sight in at 20 yds using my normal string grip, which is pretty even, slightly favoring my middle and and ring fingers. Using the same setting, I switch to holding more weight with either the index or ring fingers. The group shifts. (Started playing with this when I was fooling around with the BEST system - didn't like it  )

Since you're changing the pull point on the string, you're changing the dynamic tiller and effectively where the nocking point position should be. Remember I'm shooting split.

If you're comfy with your groups, try it and see what happens. Goes a long way to driving home the hole consistency thing. 

BTW - The same thing happens when going from a high wrist to a low one on the bow grip. Try it!

Viper1 out.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Viper:

*"The combination is typically a long draw shooter shooting 3 under on too short a bow and using fairly loose nocks." *

I have a 28" draw, shoot a 60 or 62 inch bow (depending on the limbs) and I experience the nock travel without the lower nock point.

One thing you might not be considering is that for those of us that shoot off the shelf, it is very easy to notice when "nock high" is caused by the shaft bouncing off the shelf. It leaves a mark on the shelf and causes fletching wear.

I'm guessing that you shoot off an elevated rest. That can very quickly hide the symptoms of nock travel. 

KPC


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

CLASSICHUNTER said:


> how can we view lancaster archerys videos in slow motion you guys are talking about does someone have a link...




http://picasaweb.google.com/mtravis58/AVIs#5440061375576120818

http://picasaweb.google.com/mtravis58/AVIs#5440061855245109586


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

Great video's Jim, thanks for posting that. 
Since this came up again, who here uses metal nocking points, and who ties on a nocking point. Been reading about this, and was wondering what you guys do?


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

So besides nock fit, what would cause the arrow to slide down like that. Is it shooting 3 under (which I do) or is it string angle or something basic like nock height.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LongStick64 said:


> So besides nock fit, what would cause the arrow to slide down like that. Is it shooting 3 under (which I do) or is it string angle or something basic like nock height.


We can't see the riser, but if on draw, tiller was set so that the upper limb (bow) rotated towards the shooter, upon the release, we can expect the opposite. An initial forceful yank would (could) cause the string to pull through the nock. Watch that first video, shortly after the arrow move forward in a smooth controlled movement, you can see that yank upward in the nock set. Heck, I see it in the second video too.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

I wouldn't say that tiller has nothing to do with it, surely tiller can affect this. But tiller isn't the whole story. 
At the moment of release, the upper section of the string starts to move up and forward, and the lower section down and forward. However in between the 2 sections is that section that is held by the fingers. During the microseconds of release that section acts like slack. The upper section, since the end of it is right there at the nock begins to pull up through the nock, and the angle between the string and nock starts to force the nock down. The nock slides down into slack area, remember it only exists for a few micrseconds. In the meantime the lower section is still taking up that slack. Finally end result, when the angle between the 2 sections and the nock is equal, the nock stops being forced down and winds up being a little lower than it started. Since a 3 under shooter makes a larger section of slack below the arrow, it is more likely to have an affect with them. This process will happen no matter where you put the nock point. 
I imagine that those shooters who don't have this happening have a release such that as the string is leaving their fingers no big section of slack is generated. Perhaps it leaves their fngers progessively during those microseconds?
Maybe tiller can be used to affect this process. Still it is good to see and understand what is going on, especially for those of us who shoot bows without adjustable tiller.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents - 

I'm stilling waiting for an explanation why (if we take Beck's data as valid) that this only effects 1 in 6 people. If we look at all the high speed videos presented, it looks like pretty conclusive evidence. So we have something that may effect roughly 17% of shooters, so what makes them so special? And why exactly would this effect 3Under shooters more than split (not my words)? The dynamics should be the same???

Sanford - I was thinking along the same lines. In all the videos, the arrow is always at the apex of the string angle. Does that happen because the arrow os providing resistance to the forward motion of the string or because the arrow is finding the natural center of force vectors? I don't know.

Either way, unless a shooter has a problem (as reflected in arrow flight or scores) it's pretty low on my list to worry about, but I won't tell anyone else not to.

Compare this the the normal paradox of an arrow. (Looking at those films, you'd think a arrow couldn't possibly hit the target - yet it does). The difference is that those effects are reproducible 100% of the time, not a fraction of the time.

Viper1 out.


----------



## njstykbow (Jul 30, 2007)

*nock points*

I've been around this game pretty seriously, mostly as a hunter...but spent some time in FITA competition...for over 40 years. I also believe I spend more time in the winter months tuning and testing different combinations of things than most do shooting their bows. That said...I have a simple question...Why *WOULDN'T* you use a second nock locator so there can be no question of nock travel. It certainly can't be that we're all such great stalkers of deer that we have to keep 100% of our focus on the deer or lose that chance because we didn't know which nock locator we placed our arrow between. It also can't be that we're unwilling to lose that 1 fps a tied on nock locator will take away. This game is about consistency...period. If your arrow doesn't leave the bow the same way, you're causing yourself problems...and I'm NOT talking about pie plate accuracy.

Joe


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Joe - 

Ya know that just makes good sense. Along the same lines, perhaps we should all start tuning our bows past center shot (to negate the effects of string roll on paradox) and start using capture rests to eliminate paradox all together as well - now that would really make things more consistent! Oh, and don't forget the accu-nocks while you're at it. 

On the other hand, just never been a fan of solving non-existent problems or using band-aid fixes, unless there really wasn't an option. 

If you guys need/want to do this, do it. No one is stopping you. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> On the other hand, just never been a fan of solving non-existent problems or using band-aid fixes, unless there really wasn't an option.
> 
> 
> Viper1 out.



This is where you either don't get it, or simply are just arguing because you can't accept being wrong: for those 1-in-6 people, it *is not[/i] a "non-existent" problem. The videos are right here on this thread, and you still call it "non-existent?" 

You say that you're not a fan of using "Band-Aid fixes," yet you tell people who have this problem to simply slap on an elevated rest and not worry about it...instead of helping them tune their bows properly from the start. In this case, a double nock set would solve the problem; an elevated rest is just a Band-Aid.

I understand and respect the fact that you've never killed anything with a bow and never competed beyond the club shoot level, but there are people here who aspire to do those things. If you plan to put an arrow through an animal, proper arrow flight is very, very important. Telling someone with those intentions not to worry about poor arrow flight is extremely bad advice.*


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> I understand and respect the fact that you've ...._never killed anything with a bow and never competed beyond the club shoot level_


?...


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Whether the solution is to add another nock, wouldn't make more sense to figure out what causes it. I'm not dismissing the additional nock as a remedy, but I don't see it as a solution if we don't have a solid cause established. Maybe if we started using thumb rings we could eliminate it but again we still haven't nailed down the cause.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

LongStick 64:

With all due respect, we DO know the cause.

I may be saying the same thing as bender but this is the way I see it, and it makes complete sense to me why 3 under shooters (or release shooters) will experience this more than slit finger shooters (or those that use a string loop). 

When a release is used, (or three fingers under) the string, because of the angle, is actually drawn further back than the nock. Not so with a string loop or split finger. Therefore, immediately upon release (fraction of a second), the nock is naturally going to slide down until the it meets the furthest-most drawn part of the string...then it will be pushed forward.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Now, in the case of a string loop or split finger, the nock is more centered in the middle of the "furthest-most" part of the string, therefore it doesn't slip down on release...it is just pushed forward. The second nock point overrides the first scenerio (3 under or release) as it doesn't allow the nock to slip down, even though it may want to. 


It really isn't rocket science in my point of view.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Gerep

That would apply I assume if a three under shooter was applying more pressure on the string using his/her middle finger right. I try to apply some pressure using my index finger as well. So I don't belong to that 1 out of 6.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Actually, no. 

With 3 under, even if all the pressure were on the index finger, it would be just like using a release.

The only way to iliminate it all together is to use something that "straddles" the nock such as a string loop or split finger.

As long as you are pulling the string from under the nock only, the string is going to be pulled further than the nock. It is only when you pull from above AND below the nock that it evens out. (picture two)


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

I thought this thread just took off in a different direction...as most do. LOL! Is the "Zig Man" _still_ having the nock high prob?


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

Well Walker, I did something kinda stupid! Wanted to see how broad heads shot out of my bow, so I screwed in some Slick tricks that I sometimes use with my compound. Took 2 shots, and on the 3rd, while nocking the arrow, I grazed my string with the broad head and put a nick in it. Not feeling real smart about it, but I have not shot my bow in a while now. Just don't trust the string.

I am ordering my DAS Dalaa early next week, and getting a string for my X-200 at that time, so I am going to start over. I have been reading about tie on nock points, and am going to try it on my X-200 to get it right and then get my Dalaa set up. I will be putting 2 nocking points on my bow string! Weither it is needed or not, I'll let you guys discuss that! I've seen the videos, and a picture is worth a thousand words!
Thanks to all,
Zigman.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> _I grazed my string with the broad head and put a nick in it._ :mg:


A few questions, Zig.

-Length of your X-200
-Brace height you are using
-Shooting glove or tab. If tab, what type
-1 or 2 string nocks
-3-under release? Where do you anchor? Index or middle finger at corner of mouth?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Zigman,

I don't blame you for not trusting the string after nicking it with a broadhead. As a side note: you may want to order backup strings for your bows. That way, if something like that ever happens again you're not out of commission.

If you're interested in tie-on nock locators, there's a great tutorial on TradGang.com, complete with lots of photos and step-by-step instructions. If you need the link, shoot me a PM and I'll send it to you.


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

WindWalker said:


> A few questions, Zig.
> 
> -Length of your X-200
> -Brace height you are using
> ...


60" bow, shooting a glove but ordering a black widow 3 under tab to try, 1 nock, anchor with the V between my thumb and index finger behing my jaw bone and that puts my index finger in the corner of my mouth, yes 3 under. Brace ht is 8 1/4"


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Zigman,
> 
> I don't blame you for not trusting the string after nicking it with a broadhead. As a side note: you may want to order backup strings for your bows. That way, if something like that ever happens again you're not out of commission.
> 
> If you're interested in tie-on nock locators, there's a great tutorial on TradGang.com, complete with lots of photos and step-by-step instructions. If you need the link, shoot me a PM and I'll send it to you.


I'd really appreciate the link. I just checked it out, and I am not a member, so I don't think I can do a search. As far as the extra stings, I am getting one for my dalaa, but I am ordering a flemish and an endless loop for my martin just to check them out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Zigman,

PM sent.


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Zigman,
> 
> PM sent.


Thanks!


----------



## aryan (Jul 2, 2004)

I did a search on nock high & found this thread.

I recently switched arrows from 2114 to 1916 when I ran into the constant nock high problem.
After reading some of the thread I went back & started looking at my nocks & the nocks on my 
2114 arrows fit snug on my bow string where as the throat on the 1916 arrows was extremely 
loose. Tomorrow back to the shop to see if I can score some better nocks. Im hopping for a easy fix.


----------



## Outback Man (Nov 21, 2009)

Just posting so I can find this thread easier later...having the same issues right now...


----------



## pickahair (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You Guys,

I have been shooting split finger for 25 Years and have always used one nocking point and could always work out the nock high. Then I purchased this 64", 46# A&H TD and have been pulling what little hair that I have left out with this nock high problem. Tried different spined safts, different nocks (might not have found the right one yet), different nock point settings, Built the shelf material in and out and everything else that I could think of. I tried the Two nocking point thing and now I am a happy guy and still have some hair left. I knew that the shaft had to be hitting the riser or the shelf somehow but never thought of the nock sliding down the string.

Thanks again.
Jim


----------



## martha j (May 11, 2009)

did'nt bother to read all the posts, but if you show a nock low, then you have a real problem. it will bounce off a solid object like a shelf.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Jim,

I'm glad it worked for you. I had the same feeling after trying it at Ken's suggestion.


----------



## BOW BUM (Jul 31, 2009)

Interesting read. I had the same nock high issue. Then I got out o the trad scene for a while, now I'm back into it. I've done some strength training and also have cut down on the number of shots per shooting session. This problem has now aleviated itself.

I believe its due to my previous bad form, which is now better. At times, when my session is winding down I will get some bad porpoising. I believe this sis due to my form falling apart resulting in string pluck, and nt pullng inline with the bow and arrow.

Now, I believe the majority of these problems are a result of form in some way or another. Some guys will never have good form, but may be consistent enough to "fix" the problem with a double nock point. Some bows may also be tillered such that this condition will persist.

As for the videos, and the nocks moving...I have no way to make a determination. Even if the nock was sliding, maybe it does not affect accuracy, or arrow flight. Perhaps a double nock would be of no benefit, even with the condition shown in the video?

I'm FAR from a trad expert. BUT...I'd really focus on FORM 1st to solve the vast majority of shooting issues that come up. Given that, I'll probably still add a small bottom locator of serving or dental floss, just to help...LOL

Brian


----------

