# 400 fps bow - crowdsource new bow company



## HOYT'n em! (Oct 21, 2011)

for me...i say go for it. but i have no interest in a bow that shoots that fast. i am fine with 300 fps. because it is FAST ENOUGH. i think the speed craze is idiotic, honestly. i do see the advantages of speed, but not so much i am willing to sacrifice ANYTHING OVER speed. i want a bow that is accurate, quiet, smooth drawing, forgiving, DURABLE, and shooter friendly....i dont give two craps about speed. i rarely even pay attention to the IBO ratings of a bow. my robertson custom recurve doesnt even hit 200, and it kills deer as dead as any bow shooting 500 fps....just my outlook on it. i am sure you will have a following, because too many people shoot bows that have that one thing going for them....speed, and not much else. so if you could build a bow that shoots faster, and if it actually had OTHER benefits, im sure you would sell them. good luck, and i honestly wish you all the luck in the world, i hope you succeed...but for me, the bows of today are so awesome, and plenty fast enough...that they are plenty good enough, AND fast enough. good luck though, and great ideas....hope you succeed.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Good points! Here's the cool thing about energy storage. You can translate that either into speed or forgiveness. That means you can either make a bow that shoots fast, or you only need to draw back 40# to get the 300fps, or maybe somewhere inbetween.

The other cool thing is that you can have limbs that are barely prestressed. One of the prototypes was a 290 fps bow that I could remove the string by hand.

Basically alot of options.... speed, reduced drawweight, foregiveness, combinations of these, etc, etc.

Mike


----------



## HOYT'n em! (Oct 21, 2011)

no doubt. i am a guy who shoots a bow that i like, that has to fit into my above mentioned criteria...so if you can build a bow that fits, that is faster...i would for sure shoot one...and if i like it, i will buy one. guys like you are what we need in the archery...thinking outside the box! with the materials and what we have available today...i believe we are pretty much at a plateau of what bows will shoot speed wise, while still being shootable...it is funny that evey year, all of these guys on here...ok, well maybe 'most' of these guys on here, expect archery changing technology...and when bow companies come out with only small refinements....these guys get all worked up and cry, and complain about how disapointed they are with all the new bows...and this is only by looking at specs and pics...not even shooting them! look at the comments on the spyders, the experiences, and the creeds...ALMOST everyone, even those companies shooters...were crying like little girls....but it is funny how all of the stories changed once people started shooting the bows! so if you are able to come up with something new, and it works...ESPECIALLY if it is any improvement...you should be infinately successful, and i wish you luck...because of guys like you....this sport and its equiptment, have just been amazing...so with work like yours, it will only get better...GOOD LUCK!


----------



## tchandlr (Sep 30, 2009)

Out of the box thinking. I like it. Go for it.


----------



## bstring (Jan 24, 2013)

I say go for it. I look at it like this way,Indians were killing deer hundreds and hundreds of years ago with really simple bows, now we have bow that can reach deer 40-80 yards with no problem. Did we stop therenand say that was good enough? NO!! Even the recurve bows now are a huge improvement from then. If we would have had the Internet 20 years ago you would have had people saying " oh, 200 fps is fine.That's all I will ever need." But no one is saying that now are they? I say if you can get 500 fps out of a bow, GO FOR IT!! You WILL have a market because some folks out there want that, and the big companies will stand up and notice because you will be inching over into there sales, especially if you can physically take one of there "speed bows" and out perform it. Sound like a good plan you have. Don't let the nay Sayers kill your drive. There will be some. Remember, they told the Wright brothers that people aren't supposed to fly!


----------



## Mordekyle (Aug 8, 2011)

A more efficient bow sounds very attractive. Even if someone is not a speed freak, archers with low draw weight or short draw lengths would benefit. I could imagine a 50# 28" DL bow shooting 300FPS.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Here is the concept for the bow. And before anyone says it, yes, those cams are round b/c they are for show, only on the concept drawings. Remember, concept only! Many details not shown.


----------



## RabbitAssasin (Mar 28, 2012)

looks pretty cool!


----------



## Cdpkook132 (Jul 8, 2009)

My only gripe is calling it a spiral cam. 

That's a no no in my book.

Of it shoots good and is accurate I like it though. Way to think out the box.


----------



## emtrchr (Apr 17, 2007)

If you can make it simple, dependable and an overall better bow, you will have a hit. Then watch the big name bow companies come nocking at your door. I will be watching this for updates. Go for it i say.


----------



## quickcat18 (Feb 23, 2010)

If it works you should just make the pulley attachment that fits on most any bow using the string stop mounting. Very cool idea, I like the out of the box thinking.


----------



## rodney482 (Aug 31, 2004)

Welcome to AT Mike!


----------



## emtrchr (Apr 17, 2007)

I was looking at the pictures of this bow, and have a question. Where would the peep sight go, if the cable from the top cam goes straight down. Just curious.


----------



## KurtVL (Nov 22, 2005)

Cool idea now make it and sell it, if you have the fastest bow you will sell


----------



## Godfather3696 (Feb 11, 2013)

I want it!


----------



## Wenty (Jan 6, 2012)

emtrchr said:


> I was looking at the pictures of this bow, and have a question. Where would the peep sight go, if the cable from the top cam goes straight down. Just curious.


I'd assume...no peep. One of the no peep sights would be in order.


----------



## DeanH (Feb 2, 2013)

interesting for sure. if its as easy to keep accurate, then why not.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Very cool.


----------



## Blazinpond (Sep 16, 2008)

I think you have great potential! I LOVE your line of thinking!

One of my concerns after reading through the thread so far is the new extreme curves/rollers/whatever and how it will negatively impact string/serving life.


----------



## aread (Dec 25, 2009)

I realize that the Origin designs are just to demonstrate a coupld of novel concepts. But the designs are only for speed. They don't seem to take into account the archer. Unless you come up with a unique design for the rear sight, which is the peep on most bows, accuracy will likely suffer. 

The extreme string angle, especially on II & III makes these difficult to shoot accurately unless an archer's form is radically changed. We see the loss in accuracy with the short ATA bows that are currently in fashion for hunters. The archers are already trying to fit their form to the bow rather than the bow to the archer's form. With Origin 3, it's worse than on any current short bow.

Your design is increadibly innovative. It will likely gain it's first acceptance with crossbows. 

I'll watch your progress with interest Good luck!!

JMHO,
Allen


----------



## Rikcey (Jul 23, 2012)

I really like the way you're thinking!

Well, I'd imagine a rear ghost-ring or any other rear sight being mounted to the "bars" that catch the string, will be even more consistent than a peep.

But it'll be hard to make me part from my CM


----------



## Zer09 (Jan 2, 2013)

Ok. I'll be the first to ask. My experience with carbon fiber comes from a cycling perspective and it isn't cheap. You can easily spend $4- 5,000 and up for a carbon fiber bike frame but cyclists pay it because of the weight savings. There is also a premium in that price for finishes that are second to none. We're basically talking the Ferraris of the bicycle world, yet they sell. At the same time you can go out and find a decent carbon frame for under $1,000 that'll work for the average rider. Just wondering if you have a ballpark cost estimate. We're not talking about materials that are quickly machined or forged. I'm guessing a bow would be monocoque? And, if on the cheaper end, will delamination become an issue with flexing and twisting.

I spend a lot on my bike stuff (much more than my bows) and yet I didn't just jump right into carbon designs and certainly wouldn't buy anything carbon that is cheap as there are still common failures at those prices.

The attached pic is of a Trek Madone frame that failed on a small hill. This is a $3,500 frame, the same as Lance Armstrong cheated on. I'm not trying to discourage. I just know that carbon fiber designs are expensive and I know I wouldn't trust the technology until I've seen it proven froma durability standpoint.


----------



## Onza (Jul 17, 2005)

aread said:


> " It will likely gain it's first acceptance with crossbows."


I have to agree with Allen, I think the crossbow world would eat this design up. With the ability to put the additional rollers on the stock, the potential is even easier to design than with a vertical bow.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

I think this stuff is why a crowdsourced product would be awesome, it takes everyone's imput into account.... which is how you get the best product.

I'll address some points made already:

1. Peep - I have several simple solutions to the peep on II and III. From the no peep discussed earlier (not for everyone but a good option) to a few simple solutions. The design does inlude a rear peep in all its forms though, but the patent is still pending on the peep.
2. Crossbow market - check out the link on my orginal post to my issued patent and you can see it was developed with a crossbow in mind too. Almost too perfect for a xbow.
3. Carbon fiber - I have developed a carbon fiber molding process that is simple, cost effective and very durable. I worked in the aerospace composite world for a few years and there are new technicques for carbon fiber. And i am NOT TALKING about the plastic/carbon fiber crap out there like on some AR guns. This stuff is stronger than aluminum yet at a lower costs. I know, hard to believe but trust me on that one. 
4. Extreme string angle of II and III -I have tested this but there may be issues like mentioned here that limit how far to take the angle. Maybe there is a "sweet spot" between the full extreme (III) and the soft (Origin I)

Mike


----------



## Viper69 (Feb 4, 2003)

Wow looks cool!


----------



## footballstar79 (Jul 9, 2008)

I feel like you really have some great ideas there! keep up the good work. Its the guys like you that change the game!


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

On the carbon fiber some more: attached is a pic showing the material. It is pure carbon fiber yet tough as nails. I have made a bunch of parts with this process and you can drive over the parts with a truck.

Back pack plate made of carbon fiber Picture


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

This carbon fiber process does not use woven mat and does not have a carbon fiber "look". It was developed for aerospace and industrial applications, not pretty dashboards, and covers, etc. It would still be camo dipped like any riser.


----------



## fbitang (Feb 25, 2013)

I shoot 50 lbs at 28'' and hit 300 no problem..... Darton DS 3800.... also Monster does the same. Im not trying to funsuck. Just letting you know that your imagination is a reality. Go get it and shoot straight!


----------



## Zer09 (Jan 2, 2013)

mterzo said:


> I think this stuff is why a crowdsourced product would be awesome, it takes everyone's imput into account.... which is how you get the best product.
> 
> I'll address some points made already:
> 
> ...


Mike,
If you're in aerospace I WILL take your word for it. The downside is that I can expect to pay MORE for my next bike when this better, cheaper technology makes it's way to bikes.


----------



## mtn3531 (Mar 6, 2009)

Well, I might be a funsucker but posting concept pics on the net just isn't the brightest idea. A few minor tweaks and already established companies can beat you to the punch with "your" own technology. I am assuming the carbon fiber process you are using is similiar to the same process used in F1 cars and in certain high end solid carbon limbs i.e. Uukha's.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Very , very interesting.


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

mterzo said:


> This carbon fiber process does not use woven mat and does not have a carbon fiber "look". It was developed for aerospace and industrial applications, not pretty dashboards, and covers, etc. It would still be camo dipped like any riser.


Yes, there are at least a few companies making CFRTP. Fully integrated design is certainly bold, if not very optimistic. Not sure that the limbs can be developed and be made durable with short fibers. A few details like the reactions at the pivot points and iterating to get spring rates and deflections need to be sorted out. Have at it and then show the full draw force curve when you are ready. Good luck.


----------



## slowen (Jun 27, 2006)

I like what i see. May i suggest a motto?

Catch me if you can!


----------



## tntone (Aug 13, 2006)

can we afford it, i see $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$....


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Arrows. Will continued use of arrows at 400fps cause issues?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

mtn3531 said:


> Well, I might be a funsucker but posting concept pics on the net just isn't the brightest idea. A few minor tweaks and already established companies can beat you to the punch with "your" own technology. I am assuming the carbon fiber process you are using is similiar to the same process used in F1 cars and in certain high end solid carbon limbs i.e. Uukha's.


All the technology points are already patented or patent pending. The main patent link is in my original post. Also, I am trying a new approach since technology does not help anyone if it just sits on the drawing board. I have all my intellectual property (IP) protected. I just want to see if this approach to developing a product / company is viable. No one has really had the development out there for all to follow as it goes along. Its like everyone is part of the "think tank". Who knows!

The carbon fiber process is not CFRTP or the process in any limbs or F1 cars. It does not use thermoplastics but thermoset resins. And it is already bringing the price of carbon fiber down in the few areas where it is in use. It is not in use in the outdoor industry at all yet.

Good stuff though. Keep the stuff coming, funsucking and all.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

I think it would be around the same cost as any of the mainline bow. Not nearly as expensive as the Hoyt Carbon, but not cheap either. The numbers are looking like $700-$800 but just a stab at this point.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Rick! said:


> Yes, there are at least a few companies making CFRTP. Fully integrated design is certainly bold, if not very optimistic. Not sure that the limbs can be developed and be made durable with short fibers. A few details like the reactions at the pivot points and iterating to get spring rates and deflections need to be sorted out. Have at it and then show the full draw force curve when you are ready.


All very good points - Are you going to be on the technical team for this new company??
Fully integrated design reduces weight and cost. - Yes, very optimistic but preliminary testing shows it should be doable.
Short fiber is only possible since the limb poundage is reduced due to the idler pulley design. 
Also, cam design is easy since the string exits the cam at the same position throughout the draw cycle.


----------



## ruffme (Aug 4, 2005)

Can it be pressed in today's presses?


----------



## rodney482 (Aug 31, 2004)

The material is strong and lightweight! :thumb:


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

redruff said:


> Can it be pressed in today's presses?


Yes, I can send you contact information for the company making parts out of this stuff. Its the real deal.


----------



## GyrPer1 (Jan 1, 2010)

Are you from Missoula?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

GyrPer1 said:


> Are you from Missoula?


Yes, Born and raised in Missoula. I moved to Sacramento a few years ago.


----------



## ruffme (Aug 4, 2005)

mterzo said:


> Yes, I can send you contact information for the company making parts out of this stuff. Its the real deal.


Pressability isn't necessarily the limb material , its the angle of the limbs.


----------



## rodney482 (Aug 31, 2004)

redruff said:


> Can it be pressed in today's presses?


Here is a small press


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

i'd want one


----------



## Bow Me (Sep 30, 2010)

Wouldn't the cams need to be huge in order to let out enough string? Or would the limbs load up a ton?


----------



## JRHOADES20 (Jul 11, 2012)

Don't let anyone tell you, not to do something, or persuade you on any idea you have. I say go for it, wish you great success!


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Bow Me said:


> Wouldn't the cams need to be huge in order to let out enough string? Or would the limbs load up a ton?


Yes, on the extreme end of the design (Origin III) you would use both. To keep the cam size down, you would double wrap the main cam. On the ORIGIN I, just a normal cam works.

Thoughts?


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

innovators are needed in any field. If it works like you say, go for it.


----------



## NAVYBOWHHUNTER (Jun 8, 2009)

Those are very interesting concept bows, the great detail and data that you have to support your theories. I hope you get some of them out, I for one would deff be interested in trying it out! Also showed a few other guys I know and all being in engineering field would like to know when they can possibly get one as well.


Sent from my mobile deer scouting device using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PFC FNG (Mar 28, 2013)

I don't have enough of an engineering or an archery background to comment on the design itself, I can only voice my questions from the point of a possible consumer. Would the geometry and manufacture of these concepts still permit the use of current aftermarket accessories such as rests, sights and stabilizers? What kind of vibration and noise could one expect to encounter? Would it being more efficient result in less energy lost as sound or vibrations of the bow itself? Any special concerns regarding care. maintenance, repair or transport? Forgive me if any of these seem to be uninformed questions. All of that aside, if it was available at that price point, it certainly would be a bow I would consider purchasing.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

PFC FNG said:


> I don't have enough of an engineering or an archery background to comment on the design itself, I can only voice my questions from the point of a possible consumer. Would the geometry and manufacture of these concepts still permit the use of current aftermarket accessories such as rests, sights and stabilizers? What kind of vibration and noise could one expect to encounter? Would it being more efficient result in less energy lost as sound or vibrations of the bow itself? Any special concerns regarding care. maintenance, repair or transport? Forgive me if any of these seem to be uninformed questions. All of that aside, if it was available at that price point, it certainly would be a bow I would consider purchasing.


Super good points.

I designed the bow to be a "standard" bow meaning all sights, rests, quivers, stabilizers, etc would mount the same and have the same function. One of the added benefits of this composite material is its natural dampening effect. You can do a bunch of good research on this and its one of the main reason its preferred in bicycles. http://www.livestrong.com/article/86919-aluminum-vs.-carbon-bikes/

Also, ask anyone who has shot a Hoyt carbon matrix about the vibration and "feel" of the bow. Hoyt uses a bladder molding process which is really expensive and uses glued joints which can be a failure mode. To make them even sort of affordable, they have to make them in CHINA. That being said, they are really excellent bows.

Since the material is extremely durable, care is not a concern. The sights, and rests will need more protection than the bow.


----------



## Razith (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm usually not one for wheelie bows, BUT I am one for innovative thinkers, and you sir are a innovative thinker. I say go for it if you can  I like that you got everything patented, then asked the potential customers input on it, wish more companies would do that. Making a bow around what the consumers want, and not what the company thinks they 'need'.


----------



## pabuckslayer08 (Nov 19, 2008)

I like the idea myself, but on a personal not I think you personally could make out better by selling into another company rather than starting fresh


----------



## Wood (Aug 3, 2006)

Very exciting ideas! My only concern would be, it's just too light. I like my bows at about 8 1/2 lbs. could I get there?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

pabuckslayer08 said:


> I like the idea myself, but on a personal not I think you personally could make out better by selling into another company rather than starting fresh


Tried that approach......


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Wood said:


> Very exciting ideas! My only concern would be, it's just too light. I like my bows at about 8 1/2 lbs. could I get there?


The great thing about a lightweight bow is that you are then free to add accessories to get it to the weight you want without being restricted by choices. Its much easier to add weight to a bow that remove it:shade:


----------



## P&y only (Feb 26, 2009)

I've said many times"when will we see a bow with pulleys?" one man can lift a shmit load of weight using pulleys. So it will also work on a bow. I like the idea and I say prove em wrong. Where can I buy stock?


----------



## Ronin Conan (Jul 4, 2011)

I like the concept and the tech, especially the new materials. The problems as I see them are;

a) 93% efficiency is extremely high, particularly for an IBO weight arrow. Most of the tests I've seen (particularly the head 2 head tests) indicate between 80 and 90% efficiency with that kind of arrow weight.

b) if any part of the draw is over 60lb, it's not FITA legal, which means that to me personally the applications may be limited. Clearly your biggest market is always going to be the hunting crowd, but I have an interest in any tech that will maximise the energy returned to an arrow with 60lb as an upper ceiling (while retaining a shootable brace and ATA).

This certainly piques my interest though.

Edit: and I'm curious, is the cam guard attached to the limb, or the pocket. If the limb, is it necessary? Ideally there'd be as little weight as possible attached to the limbs.


----------



## Blazinpond (Sep 16, 2008)

mterzo said:


> The great thing about a lightweight bow is that you are then free to add accessories to get it to the weight you want without being restricted by choices. Its much easier to add weight to a bow that remove it:shade:


Couldn't agree more!

I wish more bow manufacturers would focus on this aspect rather than the effort put forth on color coordinating harmonic dampers and the like.


----------



## Ghost 133 (Mar 18, 2005)

A man named Claude Pollington who owns this little company, http://cponeidaeagle.com/ has been using similar thoughts in his line of what I call Lever Action Recurve type bows. While he is not producing 400fps from the bows and is by no means the same as what you have laid out,the thought is along the same line. You said you have talked with several manufacturers already. I wouldnt be real quick to put to much out there till I had all the legal crap covered.


----------



## lovetohunt93 (Aug 3, 2010)

Very interesting!


----------



## Ghost 133 (Mar 18, 2005)

P&y only said:


> I've said many times"when will we see a bow with pulleys?" one man can lift a shmit load of weight using pulleys. So it will also work on a bow. I like the idea and I say prove em wrong. Where can I buy stock?


Bear,Jennings,Bowtech and Parker all had what you could call pullies. They all had 3 wheel bows,for lack of a better explanation. Parker and Bowtech called theirs a Force Multiplier. Parker liscensed it from Bowtech in 2003 I think. I am not sure what Bear and Jennings called it but they had em.


----------



## Ghost 133 (Mar 18, 2005)

Here is a link to one of the Parkers for sale on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Parker-Comp...235?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item460e4db48b


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

I like the idea and at that price point, I would certainly be a potential consumer. You have addressed most of the major topics about archery in general but I do have a question about the draw. 

In the first post, you said something about pulling 150lbs at the start of the draw and then letting off towards the end. What type of let off are we talking here? 

There would have to be a massive let off which would disqualify the shooter from P&Y? 

Also, how would the string react with the peak weight towards the end of the shot? It seems like the string would take a massive beating and rip up a string stop at that weight. If there is no string stop, when would the string stop moving forward and start moving back to the brace height? We have already seen normal bows hit arrow rests in slow motion videos so it seems like since the majority of the speed from the shot will take place at the end of the shot sequence which will propel the string farther into the "gray zone"? (past the brace height and before the arrow rest)


----------



## Chiro_Archer (Jun 6, 2011)

Very cool idea, love the concept! Definitely subscribing to this thread to keep up on your progress man, I wish you luck, and definitely think if you can get all of this into a bow you will have a great product!


----------



## Strodav (Apr 25, 2012)

Can you build a couple of working prototypes for a manageable cost, using readily available parts and materials, and get a few well respected archers to endorse the concept? A working prototype with endorsements, even with some limitations, would go a long way towards convincing potential investors you really have something. It would also help uncover potential user issues and manufacturing problems, which would lead to a much more refined product at the end of the day.

By the way, IMO, a patent for a great idea is merely a ticket to a fight, so be prepared.


----------



## Eastcoasthunter (Jul 9, 2012)

Keep the price at $600-700 and u will sell the, if u think for a min about pricing them in the $1000+ range u can forget it!!


----------



## punk2002 (Mar 13, 2012)

build one and the investors will come just look at the intrest


----------



## badbow148 (Dec 5, 2006)

Good luck to you sir bring it on and people will buy.


----------



## bucnut (Feb 24, 2013)

Build it and they will come

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SilentElk (Oct 6, 2004)

Interesting.

EDIT: Noise?


----------



## champus (May 28, 2006)

Really like peoples which think different !!!!

Question:
Do you use only one cable to connect the upper and lower limb/cam ?


----------



## Twitko (Nov 29, 2012)

just one thought - what's about arrows ? I have a "poor" Bear Motive 6 - now set at 68#/30"- didn't chrono yet, but I suppose somewhere around 300fps with my FMJ arrows. According SFAX (Ontarget) even .300 spine arrow is a little bit weaker, then it should be. And .. with 100gr point, but I'd like to use 125gr. No way - too weak in such case. 

If my bow provides more energy=more fps, I'm afraid there is no arrow for it ... (even FMJ DG 250 would be weak for 400fps bow)

But your concepts/pictures are really great - looks like a bows needed to hunt Aliens 

TW


----------



## klean1 (Jan 14, 2012)

Zer09 said:


> Ok. I'll be the first to ask. My experience with carbon fiber comes from a cycling perspective and it isn't cheap. You can easily spend $4- 5,000 and up for a carbon fiber bike frame but cyclists pay it because of the weight savings. There is also a premium in that price for finishes that are second to none. We're basically talking the Ferraris of the bicycle world, yet they sell. At the same time you can go out and find a decent carbon frame for under $1,000 that'll work for the average rider. Just wondering if you have a ballpark cost estimate. We're not talking about materials that are quickly machined or forged. I'm guessing a bow would be monocoque? And, if on the cheaper end, will delamination become an issue with flexing and twisting.
> 
> I spend a lot on my bike stuff (much more than my bows) and yet I didn't just jump right into carbon designs and certainly wouldn't buy anything carbon that is cheap as there are still common failures at those prices.
> 
> ...


Yah, and softball bats have been carbon fiber since 2003(first good ones) and they can be had for 150-300


----------



## RAbdou (Apr 30, 2012)

Amazing work and effort you put into this. I'm fascinated by your research. I hope you can get the ball rolling on this technology and find a niche in the archery community. Heck, I'd love to try something like that out.

At first glance though, I am concerned about potential noise and vibration issues. That's...a lot of force. That energy needs to be absorbed somewhere.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rikcey (Jul 23, 2012)

The point of the bow is to be more efficient too. The energy needs to be absorbed by the arrow (more than a conventional compound). Vibration wise, the carbon deals with that a great deal.


----------



## jdduffy (Sep 19, 2006)

with the sharp string angle would you be able to get a kisser button to your mouth?


----------



## sgrappone (Mar 19, 2012)

Sub'd for the outcome. I believe you may have something here if the archery world can think outside the box. Short draw guys and people with shoulder injuries will benefit from this technology. Awesome work Mterzo!


----------



## bghunter777 (Jun 24, 2003)

Shark Tank!


----------



## Unicron (Nov 26, 2012)

fbitang said:


> I shoot 50 lbs at 28'' and hit 300 no problem..... Darton DS 3800.... also Monster does the same. Im not trying to funsuck. Just letting you know that your imagination is a reality. Go get it and shoot straight!


Yeh, 28" 57# Evo Max does 297fps now, but it has yet to be finetuned - 323grain arrow. (waiting for the press) a MR6 would go up to 300fps at 50# with the same arrow. Omen pro at 50# 28" shot 312fps with 338grain arrows I used previously.

So far ALL fast bows have been rather unforgiving, which is not a bad thing, to an experienced shooter it will not make a huge difference anyway. Yet the comfort of the bow will likely suffer a great deal.

Another thing is that weight isn't necessarily a bad thing. There is such a thing as too light!

What exactly is the idea behind the cam-guards? I don't really get it. Cams are usually rather strong by themselves, surely you don't want to bend or scratch them, but I don't see how a carbon "shield" would really benefit. If anything they might get other things stuck in between them and actually cause some harm. A string change will also be harder because of them. And it will be additional weight.

Now on your point of a drawweight that is a lot higher up front: Yes, I too did notice this. The problem has always been (with PSE / Mathews Monsters) that the limbs have to be preloaded a terrible lot to achieve a higher drawweight up front and not in the back of the curve. That is actually what they tried to do with the Evo. The 2009/10 Monster and especially the XLR8 version was actually the most efficient bow in the power in = power out into the arrow. Yet the draw incredibly stiff, people ended up buyin the backed off MR series afterwards more. A lot of small companies have tried the reversed limbs / cam systems afterwards, so you could do without preloading as much and would still get the same results yet none of them have actually sold well. Please do better!

I also wonder if you can still hold this bow, as in, wether your arms won't be in the way of the string. Personally I think the peepsight is actually a great invention and I wouldn't be happy to do without it.


----------



## stork64 (Sep 11, 2010)

Like the ideas and effort. Agree it seems easier to make into a crossbow than to try to figure out how to fit it to an archer. But hunting bows are where the market depth would be. If you can make a prototype that is shootable and near those specs, the big companies will be beating down your door and bidding for your rights.


----------



## MELLY-MEL (Dec 22, 2008)

Awesome!


----------



## MiStickSlinger (Mar 15, 2013)

Wow cool read, I hope this happens


----------



## demoIL (Jan 1, 2009)

There was a day when a compound bow with cams and "all that stuff" was a new idea and it has been improved upon every year since. I say good for you and go for it. Extreme ideas change the industry and I enjoyed reading your article.. Look forward to seeing more..


----------



## aread (Dec 25, 2009)

I think that your ideas are the most innovative things I've ever seen in archery. It's taking me a while to get my feeble brain to understand what you are doing.

The Origin designs are cooler than anything that's on the market now. Could a more traditionally operating bow be built with the one piece riser / limb? I think that the limbs that are one with the riser is more innovative and interesting than the speed boosting pullys. I hope that you have the patent on that.

It solves several problems and introduces only one negative, which is the inability to adjust draw weight without changing ATA. Unfortunately, this is a pretty big negative. Maybe there could be a tensioner of sort on the riser.

Good luck,
Allen


----------



## xman59 (Jan 19, 2009)

we already have bows making over 400fps,,, they just do not meet ibo standards,,,


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

> It solves several problems and introduces only one negative, which is the inability to adjust draw weight without changing ATA. Unfortunately, this is a pretty big negative. Maybe there could be a tensioner of sort on the riser.



Yes, there is a standard way of changing your poundage just like any bow. I agree with you that it would not be good if you cannot change your weight without changing ATA. Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

xman59 said:


> we already have bows making over 400fps,,, they just do not meet ibo standards,,,


Thats the key, to make it work under IBO! Its easy to shoot 400fps when you do not have to fit inside the parameters of a "standard". Given enough draw length, we could launch a missile with a rubber band! mike


----------



## nc514 (Jun 27, 2012)

Please don't sell your design to Matthews. Anyone but them. Lol


----------



## Rod Savini (Nov 23, 2011)

I don't know if this has been mentioned but how will you adjust draw weight?


Sent from my iPhone using tapatalk 🎯


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Rod Savini said:


> I don't know if this has been mentioned but how will you adjust draw weight?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using tapatalk 🎯


That's a secret for now!


----------



## jayc1471 (Dec 14, 2008)

Subscribed


----------



## cconte (Feb 12, 2013)

I haven't read this whole thread to see if its been discussed, but I can see the value of these speeds with a crossbow, because the darn things are so loud, and you need that bolt to be a little faster fi they jump at the sound, but I don't see the value in having that speed in today's quiet bows, *unless* you're gonna be taking much longer shots, but that'll mean less qualified hunters taking somewhat unethical shots, because they have a faster bow and will assume their arrows will get to there target on target.


----------



## DuckExecutioner (Nov 26, 2012)

Very cool looking bows. I say go for it too. I understand you're not showing us everything because you don't want anything stolen or copied. So I don't have any questions other than how much would you sell stock for in the company? Haha


----------



## CamoCop (May 19, 2009)

i thought PSE already had a bow capable of 400 fps and they were just waiting to release it until their Omen was out classed by another company?


----------



## orarcher (Jun 3, 2006)

Looks cool !!! GO FOR IT !!!!! Hope you succeed in all areas !!


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

I like the idea and at that price point, I would certainly be a potential consumer. You have addressed most of the major topics about archery in general but I do have a question about the draw.

In the first post, you said something about pulling 150lbs at the start of the draw and then letting off towards the end. What type of let off are we talking here?

There would have to be a massive let off which would disqualify the shooter from P&Y?

Also, how would the string react with the peak weight towards the end of the shot? It seems like the string would take a massive beating and rip up a string stop at that weight. If there is no string stop, when would the string stop moving forward and start moving back to the brace height? We have already seen normal bows hit arrow rests in slow motion videos so it seems like since the majority of the speed from the shot will take place at the end of the shot sequence which will propel the string farther into the "gray zone"? (past the brace height and before the arrow rest)


----------



## mccoppinb (Aug 14, 2012)

Go for it. 
Looks like it would work wish I would have thought of it lol


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bowman92290 said:


> In the first post, you said something about pulling 150lbs at the start of the draw and then letting off towards the end. What type of let off are we talking here?
> 
> There would have to be a massive let off which would disqualify the shooter from P&Y?
> 
> Also, how would the string react with the peak weight towards the end of the shot? It seems like the string would take a massive beating and rip up a string stop at that weight. If there is no string stop, when would the string stop moving forward and start moving back to the brace height? We have already seen normal bows hit arrow rests in slow motion videos so it seems like since the majority of the speed from the shot will take place at the end of the shot sequence which will propel the string farther into the "gray zone"? (past the brace height and before the arrow rest)


The higher draw weight would on be at the beginning of the draw and it would go down in proportion to the arm strength and then have a standard let-off at the end of draw. That way you are matching the human body the whole way throughout the draw. I would be P&Y legal. Mike


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

mterzo said:


> The higher draw weight would on be at the beginning of the draw and it would go down in proportion to the arm strength and then have a standard let-off at the end of draw. That way you are matching the human body the whole way throughout the draw. I would be P&Y legal. Mike


How would the string react with the peak weight towards the end of the shot? It seems like the string would take a massive beating and rip up a string stop at that weight. If there is no string stop, when would the string stop moving forward and start moving back to the brace height? We have already seen normal bows hit arrow rests in slow motion videos so it seems like since the majority of the speed from the shot will take place at the end of the shot sequence which will propel the string farther into the "gray zone"? (past the brace height and before the arrow rest)


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bowman92290 said:


> How would the string react with the peak weight towards the end of the shot? It seems like the string would take a massive beating and rip up a string stop at that weight. If there is no string stop, when would the string stop moving forward and start moving back to the brace height? We have already seen normal bows hit arrow rests in slow motion videos so it seems like since the majority of the speed from the shot will take place at the end of the shot sequence which will propel the string farther into the "gray zone"? (past the brace height and before the arrow rest)


The critical thing is to transfer all of the energy into the arrow. If you are transferring that energy, there will not be a large impact or momentum to be absorbed by the string stop. In an ideal bow, all of the energy is transferred into the arrow and you would not need a stop, but there is no such thing as an ideal situation. This is one of the critical elements of the bow function. Without going into a bunch of detail, you are correct in your statement but that extra energy is put into the arrow instead of the stop, that's how you can fling an arrow faster. Let me know if that makes sense. Mike


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

mterzo said:


> The critical thing is to transfer all of the energy into the arrow. If you are transferring that energy, there will not be a large impact or momentum to be absorbed by the string stop. In an ideal bow, all of the energy is transferred into the arrow and you would not need a stop, but there is no such thing as an ideal situation. This is one of the critical elements of the bow function. Without going into a bunch of detail, you are correct in your statement but that extra energy is put into the arrow instead of the stop, that's how you can fling an arrow faster. Let me know if that makes sense. Mike


I understand the idea is to transfer all the energy into the arrow. Of which would create the perfect set up but as you said, there is no such thing as an ideal situation. So in understanding that there is no ideal situation, how would one stop the string with the peak weight towards the end of the shot sequence without it carrying into the arrow rest?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bowman92290 said:


> I understand the idea is to transfer all the energy into the arrow. Of which would create the perfect set up but as you said, there is no such thing as an ideal situation. So in understanding that there is no ideal situation, how would one stop the string with the peak weight towards the end of the shot sequence without it carrying into the arrow rest?


I can't give away all my secrets.... This one is still under wraps.

Mike


----------



## mccoppinb (Aug 14, 2012)

Would a string stop coming off of the pulley rods?
Maybe a stop with a hook and bungee style design may be berfect for the design.

Such as a THICK rubber coated smaller hook that sits horizontal with a rubber bungee type material holding the hook in place. When the string hit the bungee hook design would slow the string down dramatically but not cause it to come to a abrupt stop.
Just a thought im that popped into my head lol


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Mar 1, 2013)

I've read this entire thread... Half on my PC and half on my phone and I'm still missing the unique concept as to why this will achieve 400fps. I'm new to the game here, so can someone please explain. I looked at all the bows and they look great, but why is this different. Explain how it works please. 

I say go for it... People are way too set in their ways on here and anyone saying, "nope, I'm good with what I have," are being foolish. Why would someone not want better innovation? I'm not promoting a discontent attitude, I just think people need to always strive towards better. 

I'm in the process of redesigning the average dog bowl. It's genius... But if someone said I'm fine with my dog bowl, I'd show them mine and they'll see it fixes multiple problems people just put up with. 

I'm game for new and better. Way to go! 

via my LG Optimus G using Tapatalk...


----------



## dschonbrun (Nov 14, 2012)

I think it's like a longbow... no parts to take apart, and no way to change the DW. It's basically a carbon fiber long-bow, with cams. Could be interesting... 

That said... I'm not exactly sure how you've made the system more efficient. Since there is no prototype, and no test data... how are we to believe it actually works? Right now it's all theory.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

dschonbrun said:


> I think it's like a longbow... no parts to take apart, and no way to change the DW. It's basically a carbon fiber long-bow, with cams. Could be interesting...
> 
> That said... I'm not exactly sure how you've made the system more efficient. Since there is no prototype, and no test data... how are we to believe it actually works? Right now it's all theory.


dschonbrun: The DW is fully adjustable, I just don't show that on the concepts. Prototypes have already been made, testing has already been done. Please read the intent of the post (first post). Also read the patent on the free body diagram and the actual physics behind the design. It is not more efficient. Anyway, lots of people showing interest and the JOBS act was just signed into law today so I will be posting this on KICKSTARTER.com soon to open up the investment of the new company to anyone that wants in. 

I left out alot of data on purpose. 

Awesome stuff though!!
Mike


----------



## Buster of Xs (Nov 28, 2008)

mterzo said:


> Here is the concept for the bow. And before anyone says it, yes, those cams are round b/c they are for show, only on the concept drawings. Remember, concept only! Many details not shown.
> 
> View attachment 1647832


With this one you could eliminate the rod and slide altogether. Add rollers to the pylons and you're done.

I see one possible problem when it comes to tuning and shooting....severe nock pinch with the forced tight string angle. And nowhere to put a peep sight.

Overall an interesting concept, though.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

I just found out that it will be later this year that the SEC allows nonacredited investors. _ Later this year, the JOBS Act is expected to go fully into effect, allowing non-accredditted investors to back startups in exchange for equity, and startups to publicly promote that they’re raising money. But until then, online fundraising by accredited investors just got a critical thumbs up from the regulatory body that could have shut it down._ http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/28/equity-crowdfunding-sec/

So I will need to hold off until then to crowdsource this bow company. Please PM me if you are interested in getting on a mailing list for the progress of this project.

Mike


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Mar 1, 2013)

Mike,

I'm still confused about this and I really want to understand. I'm very mechanically-minded, but I'm still new to bows and the mechanics behind them. 

Someone call Nuts & Bolts... 

Please explain in detail. Meanwhile, I will attempt to read your patent filing.

-Ryan


----------



## P&y only (Feb 26, 2009)

Since I'd like to see you do this I'm left no choice........I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU TO MAKE ONE!!! Well, now you have been triple dog dared which basically means according to Man Law, you have to do it. Pitter patter, let's get atter!


----------



## RAbdou (Apr 30, 2012)

P&y only said:


> Since I'd like to see you do this I'm left no choice........I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU TO MAKE ONE!!! Well, now you have been triple dog dared which basically means according to Man Law, you have to do it. Pitter patter, let's get atter!


...it just got real...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## blakbelt (Jan 6, 2012)

Hey, post up some pics of the prototypes!


----------



## bstring (Jan 24, 2013)

P&y only said:


> Since I'd like to see you do this I'm left no choice........I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU TO MAKE ONE!!! Well, now you have been triple dog dared which basically means according to Man Law, you have to do it. Pitter patter, let's get atter!


Ohhhhhh!!! He just went THERE!!!!!


----------



## Lab Trainer (Nov 23, 2012)

The nice thing about the design is that ATA doesn't matter for the limbs and cams but instead for the pulleys. A string stop is needed to stop the string because there is a large mass of string weight moving forward, when you get to an extremely short pulley to pulley ATA then you don't have a lot of mass moving forward, also there is a lot more tension on the string at zero draw preventing the string from moving forward. Moving the pulleys forward (shorter brace) really increases speed. Speed nocks can be added between pulleys and limbs if there is enough string. A different nock design is easy to eliminate the nock pinch problem. on the extreme design you never have to worry about string to forearm slap, but instead with a string/rope burn. I also found on the one I built that having the pulleys more forward of the cams helped make it a bit more stable for the string. I also found that the closer together the pulleys got easier it was to accidently torque the string/nock up and down something not normally a problem on a bow. One other interesting thing I found was I could change draw length by just adjusting the distance between the pulleys, move the pulleys together shortens the draw length, but keeps the same cams/mods. One great thing about adding pulleys is that it doesn't matter if you have cam lean. Also depending on how far the pulleys are in front of the cams, loosening the pulleys can allow enough relaxation to actually take off the strings (if the pulleys can be adjusted front to back). There is also zero horizontal string/nock travel due to cam lean/limb cable guard deflection if the pulleys are solid to the riser and riser is stiff (there can be some horizontal travel due to fingers or torquing of bow).


----------



## raptor4life660r (Nov 19, 2007)

Two things...Check out the site Kickstarter.com

Secondly, Wouldn't the sharp angles on the pulleys cause some massive serving wear/separation?

Very cool design. I see it going far in the xbow world!


----------



## jdoc (Jul 31, 2012)

if you think you can build it you have my support and i will try it, follow your passion my friend.


----------



## Unicron (Nov 26, 2012)

Link to the kickstarter? I'm unable to find it, likely to back.


----------



## raptor4life660r (Nov 19, 2007)

Link to Kickstarter


----------



## boweng (Aug 7, 2006)

As a mechanical engineer myself, I applaud your creative thinking. I'm not sure that I buy into your thinking though. I'm sure it would work and would likely achieve 400+ fps but I don't think you can effectively rank it as that. If you exceed 70 lbs at any point in the draw curve then you aren't comparing apples to apples. I realize that the typical peak draw weight is mid stroke and not necessarily the best place for the human anatomy, but if you are above 70 even at a quarter inch from brace then whatever that peak is, is what the bow should be rated at.


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

Couldn't find it on Kickstarter. I've searched the website with no luck.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

boweng said:


> As a mechanical engineer myself, I applaud your creative thinking. I'm not sure that I buy into your thinking though. I'm sure it would work and would likely achieve 400+ fps but I don't think you can effectively rank it as that. If you exceed 70 lbs at any point in the draw curve then you aren't comparing apples to apples. I realize that the typical peak draw weight is mid stroke and not necessarily the best place for the human anatomy, but if you are above 70 even at a quarter inch from brace then whatever that peak is, is what the bow should be rated at.


I completely agree with you Mr. Boweng. The strictly 70# peak bow would be under 400fps (in the 390's) So yes, that would not be a 400. But for the over 70# peak version, you would need to redefine what peak draw means since it ramps down with the human body strength. You could not compare a "standard" 70# peak draw with this 150# peak since they would both be similar to draw. I am not sure that makes sense. Its a little hard to explain in writing sometimes. But what you said is completely correct. It would come down to how you rank or refer to it.

Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bowman92290 said:


> Couldn't find it on Kickstarter. I've searched the website with no luck.


I will have this project up on Kickstarter later this week. Check out my previous posts on the SEC laws for later this year. Right now, the law allows equity crowdsource except the SEC has not approved any portal (i.e. kickstarter) for equity investments. So right now, I am going to put up just PHASE I of the venture which will be to raise enough money to make production ready units. This wil llet everyone see the process of making the final prototype, get some units out to those people who first contribute via kickstarter to test and shoot and give feedback and by then (later this year) we would be able to launch PHASE 2 and let people invest for equity. Also, since the working bows will be proven by people out there, it will give everyone a much greater comfort level, instead of just taking my word for it!!

I will post the kickstarter link by Friday here.

Mike


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

I studied up on the patent details and I gotta say I like it. I would love to get my hands on one once it's completed. How much do you think you need to create a production ready model?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bowman92290 said:


> I studied up on the patent details and I gotta say I like it. I would love to get my hands on one once it's completed. How much do you think you need to create a production ready model?


In sticking with making this an opensource project, here would be the development process and costs associated with it: 

1. Finalize design based on voting from forum readers NO COST:
a. ATA length for first model
b. Approve final design feature, such as overall look, etc.
c. Poundage range (i.e. a 50-70# range)
d. Company name and bow name (can stick with Origin or vote a new one
e. Pulley location on first model, i.e. how extreme and how fast for the first goround
f. Consensus on speed vs. forgiveness. We would need to pick a spot since I think we should not launch two models at first to keep costs down.
g. Any other items that people want to see out in the open.

2. Phase I: Production ready prototypes. Cost $30,000 (27k + 3k overrun)
a. Produce short run aluminum tooling for bow: $8,000
b. Produce cams, string stop, strings, etc. for the first off $7,000
c. Shoot the first off on youtube with chrono,etc.
d. Produce 10 test units to send out for field testing. $12,000
We need a good way to pick who gets the first 10 demo units.
e. Get feedback on any tweaks after testing. :Free 

3. Production and taking preorders: TBD

Mike


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

mterzo said:


> In sticking with making this an opensource project, here would be the development process and costs associated with it:
> 
> 1. Finalize design based on voting from forum readers NO COST:
> a. ATA length for first model
> ...


Sounds like you have a solid business model to follow. I'll be keeping my eye out for ya.


----------



## boweng (Aug 7, 2006)

ok talked me into it. I'll try one of your first offs. Not only would another engineer be a good one to evaluate it but I'm also 6'5" with a 32" draw. I spend most of my evenings either shooting or in the gym so I'm sure I can make the weight look easy. It should provide some really fast chrono speeds with the poundage and draw jacked up.


----------



## dschonbrun (Nov 14, 2012)

With such high speed and energy involved, you need a good amount of forgiveness. As a result, I'd recommend something in the 35+ ATA range.


----------



## a390st (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't know how ata relates to forgiveness with this design of bow. Do ata and bh apply in the ways we're used to?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

a390st said:


> I don't know how ata relates to forgiveness with this design of bow. Do ata and bh apply in the ways we're used to?


It may be more related to overall riser length rather than ATA.

Brace theoretically should still be measured the same.


----------



## tony21 (Nov 18, 2009)

dschonbrun said:


> With such high speed and energy involved, you need a good amount of forgiveness. As a result, I'd recommend something in the 35+ ATA range.


I'm fine with 33"-35" as well..I'd like no less than 33 ata with my 32" draw and it works fine for average draw lengths as well


----------



## WMDTalley (Jul 1, 2009)

One of the most interesting things I've read about regarding archery in years. I am definitely intrigued. Very cool sir and I wish you the best of luck. I applaud your innovation. Now let's get this joker built and to the market place. I want to try one.


----------



## huntin_addict (Jan 25, 2006)

This was a good read and my curiousity is piqued. I now have a question, I am going to stay away from the bow and focus on the arrow instead. Based on the concept DFC of increasing the amount of stored energy, showing a potential increase of 40%, how is that going to affect the current model for arrow spine vs. draw weight / length? All in all I think you have a great idea here.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

huntin_addict said:


> This was a good read and my curiousity is piqued. I now have a question, I am going to stay away from the bow and focus on the arrow instead. Based on the concept DFC of increasing the amount of stored energy, showing a potential increase of 40%, how is that going to affect the current model for arrow spine vs. draw weight / length? All in all I think you have a great idea here.


Spine strength would be a big deal on this. I have spoken with a few arrow manufacturers about this. One person mentioned that they can make an arrow with a stiffer spline but it would be heavier... or a softer spine which would absorb more energy (slower arrow) which would be fine for this bow. You could have a heavier arrow, maybe not flying faster than 350 but you would have more downrange energy. As I mentioned before, the extra energy storage can be put towards different attributes, not necessarily just speed. Also from most of the post, it seems many people would prefer to trade speed for either arrow mass or forgiveness. This design would allow some of both if wanted.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Hey everyone - First major update to the crowdsource.

Due to the overwhelming positive response to this poject, it is now posted on the crowdsource website http://igg.me/at/theoriginproject/x/3024055 for phase 1.

By the way, kickstarter.com does not allow any weapons, weapon accessories, or anything sharp and dangerous so I changed to indiegogo.com and i hereby ban kickstarter.com!! 

Also, since I need to get the word out I created a twitter account and facebook page.
https://twitter.com/terzo_origin
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Origin-Bow-Project/120117561518546

Help we get the word out and see if we can create some groundbreaking technology and let the big guys try and catch up!!

Mike Terzo


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

*Crowdsource started*

Also, I will be posting a video explaining more about some earlier prototype work on indiegogo next week.

Mike


----------



## jdduffy (Sep 19, 2006)

maybe some rubber shocks between the limb and those small arms,to keep that from splitting from vibration.


----------



## stillern (Feb 1, 2005)

Can't wait to see the product. You make a 400fps bow, I don't care how you get there in the eyes of IBO ratings... if it is shootable you will make some cash!! Good luck.


----------



## OldMike (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm looking forward to following this. I think it has real potential and really think we could be looking at another revolutionary step in bow design. I like shooting heavier arrows, and would love the idea of having a considerable speed increase on an arrow that usually has me shooting in the sub 250 fps range.


----------



## bowman29092 (Oct 16, 2012)

I'm going to give what I can but what happens if the goal isn't met?


----------



## P&y only (Feb 26, 2009)

I whipped up a quick model for you. But I think I forgot a pulley or two.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bowman92290 said:


> I'm going to give what I can but what happens if the goal isn't met?


If the goal is not met, it will just take longer to get to market. I'm not sure if this will work but its worth exploring new ways to introduce new technology. Business nowadays has become such a marketing game, that unless you have a ton of money, you don't have much of a chance to introduce a product and survive long enough to establish yourself. The feedback people have given so far, their comments, design questions, advice, thoughts, etc. have already guaranteed that this bow will be amazing. I think more companies need to have their designs picked apart by the people that are potential customers, even if its pointing out the problems and issues. That way, you can actually change the product prior to launch instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing to try and convince us that there are no problems after launch.

Also - kudos to the vote yesterday in DC. 

Mike


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

Great innovation

Quote from your patent 

*"Due to the fact that the bowstring is coming off the cam at the same angle throughout the draw stroke, a less complex cam design is achieved. Non-planar cam lean is also reduced which leads to ease of tuning a bow, which is a shortcoming of all prior art compound bows. A further advantage to the present invention includes a simple and cost effective way to decrease the angle of the bowstring relative to the arrow without the need to substantially modify the traditional looks of a bow or compound bow."*

I'm not an engineer but by applying the same torque and force at the upper an lower limbs will transfer all the energy to the string and arrow and the string will stop vertically to the bow before hitting the riser.

Did you ever shot the Bowtech Admiral that is in one of your first pictures with the pulley set up?????

Did the shooting string stop vertically to the bow because even forces were applied to each limbs??????

http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&sa=X&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&biw=1680&bih=906&tbm=isch&tbnid=Nbl7zKbfKXrA0M:&imgrefurl=http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/411/Torque.aspx&docid=J4XIX_BO-cbnUM&imgurl=http://www.engineering.com/Portals/0/library/articles/torque/torque2.jpg&w=580&h=201&ei=86ZwUZ3MGo-p4APjp4GgAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:4,s:0,i:98&iact=rc&dur=1118&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=382&start=0&ndsp=29&tx=149&ty=63


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

bilongo said:


> I'm not an engineer but by applying the same torque and force at the upper an lower limbs will transfer all the energy to the string and arrow and the string will stop vertically to the bow before hitting the riser.
> 
> Did you ever shot the Bowtech Admiral that is in one of your first pictures with the pulley set up?????
> 
> ...


Yes, I shot the bow (it is a Guardian) quite a bit but I am not quite understanding the question of the string stopping vertically? The string is pulled straight up so yes it stops and transfers more energy into the arrow instead of into the string stop. I think that was your question??

Shooting the guardian was my first test. I then machined new pulleys to allow for full draw and shot that in testing. I then machined a new riser and cams and tested that. I did alot of testing prior to finalizing that patent and also prior to making any claims about performance.

Also, the tuning issue I think will be a pretty big deal that might be initially overlooked on the design.

Thanks for the comments!
Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

That might be the coolest steampunk bow on the planet! Looks like you went with gold and titanium for materials... NICE!


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

tony21 said:


> I'm fine with 33"-35" as well..I'd like no less than 33 ata with my 32" draw and it works fine for average draw lengths as well


I am surprised but a longer ATA is definitely more popular than shorter. I like a 30" ATA for treestand hunting where you need to have more room to twist around for a shot but for elk hunting and general shooting, I agree with the 33.

Mike


----------



## reaper159 (Feb 15, 2012)

You the man Mike. Build this bow, make it the fastest production bow made. Make it extremely forgiving, durable, quiet, and you will out sell any bow company out. They WILL use your patents and you will receive royalties. Conservative thinking holds other manufacturers back and doesn't allow thinking outside the box. 

The bow design is phenomenal. The cam guards would be beneficial when tree stand hunting to avoid cam to stand contact upon the shot. I personally like the second design best and think it would make the best prototype because the third design is so radical. Once the second design is a success then you can exercise extremities in design. I wish you the best of luck and hope to shoot one of your innovative bows in the near future. $52,000 for initial start up for manufacturing a prototype in not that bad. Once you get your design perfected investors will flock to throw money at you.


----------



## reaper159 (Feb 15, 2012)

IMO 33.5" ata is the best of both worlds. Not to long for hunting and not to short for target and 3D.


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

mterzo said:


> Yes, I shot the bow (it is a Guardian) quite a bit but I am not quite understanding the question of the string stopping vertically? The string is pulled straight up so yes it stops and transfers more energy into the arrow instead of into the string stop. I think that was your question??
> 
> Thanks for the comments!
> Mike


Yes that's what I meant; your new bow design will not required an string stop because the two opposing force at the limbs and pulley forward concept will stop the string before hitting the riser. I seen couple of times the shooting string of a bow traveling forward and hitting the riser or the rest

Let's get these bows done......


----------



## BlackRiverHA (Jan 26, 2012)

Please send me disclosure information on yourself and this new company including what your personal investment will be in this venture. I'm interested, but wish to check under the rug if you don't mind.


----------



## BlackRiverHA (Jan 26, 2012)

Oh, and if my understanding of phase one is correct, you are not sharing profits for investments. How does phase two work?

Please explain in detail how one gains from ANY Investment, other than you. I'm confused.


----------



## BlackRiverHA (Jan 26, 2012)

"Under current federal laws crowdfunding cannot offer equity or "interest" in a company, but the JOBS act is about to change that so it might be possible for anyone contributing money can own part of the company. Sort of like an employee owned company.

The intent of my posting this thread is NOT TO OFFER INTEREST OR SECURITIES of any company. I merely want to see if there is any interest in looking at this further."

Your quote......

But yet you already started a site and are excepting funding? So, things are changing, and we should except your word for it. 

I'm confused, someone please explain the legalities of all of this. I am extremely skeptical considering the man that holds more archery patents than anyone in the world told him to take a hike. I'm all ears.


----------



## Ray knight (Jan 9, 2012)

pretty cool concept! A few issues i see off the bat that could be addressed:

Serving wear. from the tiny rollers at the ends.
Peep sight. I for one am not about to ditch my peep! The string angle is WAY steep. Maybe some kind of scope system.
Anchor. With such a steep string angle, it would be hard to anchor well. No nose will touch that string!
The first concept would probably be the most neutral and would probably be the easiest to get used to shooting.
The last concept would be GREAT for a crossbow platform but probably pretty awful to shoot as a compound bow. 
Combined limbs and riser. In my opinion, this will detract buyers and effect re-sale as well as make for more expensive warranty repairs. If a limb splinters, the bow is trash. It gives a disposable quality to the bow. removable limbs are very important in my opinion and combining with the riser would not be any sort of advantage except for in weight. Some titanium pockets could solve that really easy. Also, if production is not exactly consistent and if you have ever manufactured anything you will know that it is always NOT consistent, then you may get some with a twist in the limbs at draw, etc. 
ATA on this would be best i would think around 36" and set the rollers at about 32" so you have a nice balanced bow but string angle is not too steep. 
Cam guards are only adding weight to the limbs and could lead to more warranty repairs and replacement. I don't think they are needed. 
Change the cam name to something other than Spiral cams as those already exist in the Hoyt catalog.

Overall, this is awesome! I am excited to see what comes of it. Speed is always good! I would think the best market for the overall concept would be for crossbows where string angle does not matter. If you make a prototype on a crossbow system i think you could sell the design to a lot of crossbow makers and get some good royalties.


----------



## BlackRiverHA (Jan 26, 2012)

Bump, any legal minds care to jump in?


----------



## hollywood88 (Feb 9, 2009)

Id say make the ata a tad longer so the roller contact points would mimic a standard hunting bow, for instance 36" ata with rollers spaced at 30" or even a 38" ata with the rollers at 30". That way string angle would be no different than what alot of people are already shootig


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

BlackRiverHA said:


> Please send me disclosure information on yourself and this new company including what your personal investment will be in this venture. I'm interested, but wish to check under the rug if you don't mind.


BlackRiver:

I am not trying to hide anything nor trying to pull on over on anyone. That is why I put this out for discussion:

More about myself:

Born and raised in Missoula, Montana.
Conservative / Republican part leaning although I care about the environment.
Pro Guns
Started my engineering schooling at Texas A&M and finished with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (here is the linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=182464279&trk=tab_pro
Designed and patented a pool lift for some Memphis investors who eventually forced me out of the company (my first business learning experience) go to www.aqaucreek.com to see the products I invented to help disable people.
Started consulting in mechanical and civil and earned my Professional Engineers license in Montana (PE License# 13986 go to Montana SOS website to verify)
I started Terzo Consulting, Inc. and did many types of manufacturing and product development consulting work.
Started Terzo Products, LLC. and developed the Zoptix sight and an arrow rest that never go off the ground. Yes, that venture failed but I put 200k of my own money into it and learned alot about product development in this industry.
After Terzo Products closed up shop, I took a job in Sacramento at Spencer Composites (an aerospace composite company). I then went back to Montana for a short time and did more consulting, mostly for oilfield manufacturing.
I then moved back to Sacramento and I currently work for Western Integrated Technologies and love this industry. It is my full time job.
I am naturally inclined to tinker on designs and that is why I spent a year studying the mechanical of a modern bow. I did alot of testing and finally filed for a patent with my own money (10k+ so far). I had mostly forgotten about it until my patent was issued a few months ago so I started thinking more and more.
I do not really care to start another company but I was interested to try a new approach and basically "put it all out there" and see what people thought.
I received thousands of positive messages that said go for it but since most people want to hold the bow in their hand, they were reluctant to believe. 
ALSO, you cannot solicit investments on ARCHERYTALK so I have tried not to really go there on the public thread.
My plan is this:
Phase I: get field ready demos and show everyone the process. This process, since the law does not yet allow equity investment, is CONTRIBUTION only. It is merely a way to fund the first stage and is just a new approach. I am not saying its the best, just a new way.
Phase II: hopefully the SEC approves a funding portal and I can open up the venture to anyone who wants to equity invest. This would be the Phase that people could actually own part of a company. 

Please feel free to ask me any further questions. 

Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

BlackRiverHA said:


> Oh, and if my understanding of phase one is correct, you are not sharing profits for investments. How does phase two work?
> 
> Please explain in detail how one gains from ANY Investment, other than you. I'm confused.


Please see my previous post just a minute ago.


----------



## waydownsouth (Jun 18, 2012)

fbitang said:


> I shoot 50 lbs at 28'' and hit 300 no problem..... Darton DS 3800.... also Monster does the same. Im not trying to funsuck. Just letting you know that your imagination is a reality. Go get it and shoot straight!


how? i shoot 28in. draw 60lb. and get no where close to 300 fps!


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

BlackRiverHA said:


> "Under current federal laws crowdfunding cannot offer equity or "interest" in a company, but the JOBS act is about to change that so it might be possible for anyone contributing money can own part of the company. Sort of like an employee owned company.
> 
> The intent of my posting this thread is NOT TO OFFER INTEREST OR SECURITIES of any company. I merely want to see if there is any interest in looking at this further."
> 
> ...


Skepticism is fine. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, that's why I have tried to put information and facts on this post.
Anyway, I pulled the indigogo campaign since I think you have a good point... I need to find out the legality about that first and I don't want it to appear like I am trying to get people to just "give" me money.

Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

waydownsouth said:


> how? i shoot 28in. draw 60lb. and get no where close to 300 fps!


I wasn't going to say it, but I thought that same thing.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

hollywood88 said:


> Id say make the ata a tad longer so the roller contact points would mimic a standard hunting bow, for instance 36" ata with rollers spaced at 30" or even a 38" ata with the rollers at 30". That way string angle would be no different than what alot of people are already shootig


Good suggestion.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Ray knight said:


> pretty cool concept! A few issues i see off the bat that could be addressed:
> 
> Serving wear. from the tiny rollers at the ends. *I agree, this will be something that needs to be determined.*
> Peep sight. I for one am not about to ditch my peep! The string angle is WAY steep. Maybe some kind of scope system. * I agree again, it won't work to force people to go nopeep.*
> ...


See answers in bold above.


----------



## Jascan00 (Jul 22, 2012)

Perhaps I am misreading your graphs and your wording but to get a true IBO speed should you not be using a 550 grain arrow and not a 350 grain arrow since it would be pulling 110 lbs.


----------



## bgbowhunter (Oct 30, 2012)

ttt


Jascan00 said:


> Perhaps I am misreading your graphs and your wording but to get a true IBO speed should you not be using a 550 grain arrow and not a 350 grain arrow since it would be pulling 110 lbs.


----------



## Reed (Jun 18, 2002)

waydownsouth said:


> how? i shoot 28in. draw 60lb. and get no where close to 300 fps!


then you shoot a slow or untuned bow or very heavy arrow. my ds3800 at 28" 60lbs/5gpp was close to 320. my supra at the spame specs is 309


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Jascan00 said:


> Perhaps I am misreading your graphs and your wording but to get a true IBO speed should you not be using a 550 grain arrow and not a 350 grain arrow since it would be pulling 110 lbs.


What I am calling "true" IBO speed is the 70# IBO speed without all the tricks that the manufacturers do to get their ratings. They use a bow that is not set up for actual use, i.e. they have no string silencers, no peep, a solid arrow, not a flexible carbon, no vanes, etc, etc. I do not consider this a real world, or "true" IBO speed, I call that theoretical IBO speed. Just the way I choose to refer to IBO speeds. 

That is why you get your bow, set it up to 3d shoot or hunt and you get nowhere near the rated speeds.

Also, with this new way to make a force draw curve, by matching the human body, their will be alot of ways to refer to it. Its going to open up alot of debate for sure.

Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Onza said:


> I have to agree with Allen, I think the crossbow world would eat this design up. With the ability to put the additional rollers on the stock, the potential is even easier to design than with a vertical bow.


Not being a crossbow man, I think you have a great idea. I need to license the crossbow rights off to a crossbow manufacturer and that might pay to develop the bow. I thought about this longer and it would let all the xbow guys that can't do a reverse like Scorpyd due to the patents compete on the speed and they could get the powerstroke and additional speed and should even surpass the scorpyd performance.

I don't know any of the xbow guys though so getting in with them might be a challenge.

Mike


----------



## Jascan00 (Jul 22, 2012)

If your model bows draw weight is 110 lbs. at the start of the draw force curve are you shooting a 550 grain arrow or a 350 grain arrow to determine your "IBO speed".


----------



## string music (May 5, 2009)

Very Interesting. I like it. How have I missed this thread??!!!


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Jascan00 said:


> If your model bows draw weight is 110 lbs. at the start of the draw force curve are you shooting a 550 grain arrow or a 350 grain arrow to determine your "IBO speed".


350 grain


----------



## Kahkon (Jul 22, 2009)

I like your ideas/concept but, I would use a different approach to get it introduced. I would have it 70# up front and 35# in the middle with about 5# holding weight. This would appeal more to the masses.


----------



## bgbowhunter (Oct 30, 2012)

mterzo said:


> 350 grain


So your 70# bowtech turned into a 110# with the modification? So you would adjust the design of your bow to draw 70# with the modification. How does that make your bow more efficient? Or are you saying I buy a 70# bow with a 110# draw force curve? I need to start over on this thread! Lol. Sorry for the questions, I'm very interested and excited for ya


----------



## wisesteve (Jan 29, 2005)

mterzo said:


> Good points! Here's the cool thing about energy storage. You can translate that either into speed or forgiveness. That means you can either make a bow that shoots fast, or you only need to draw back 40# to get the 300fps, or maybe somewhere inbetween.
> 
> The other cool thing is that you can have limbs that are barely prestressed. One of the prototypes was a 290 fps bow that I could remove the string by hand.
> 
> ...


Now if I could hit 270-290 at 40# of draw I'd be very interested. The more energy you expend the less time you can hunt!


----------



## wisesteve (Jan 29, 2005)

wisesteve said:


> Now if I could hit 270-290 at 40# of draw I'd be very interested. The more energy you expend the less time you can hunt!


This being said. If a bow can hit 31.5" draw, solid back wall, smooth draw, and around 70# of KE at 20 yds. I'd give it a shot. I'm easy that way. Accuracy and comfort is everything to me. Name brand, not so much.


----------



## headstrong (Jan 13, 2011)

hope to see this out in a couple years. would love to field test one of these.


----------



## bambikiller (Feb 27, 2004)

Can't believe it took me so long to find this thread


----------



## CaArcher (Jul 7, 2011)

Hey Mike..

I'm right below you here in California.. when you get a bow made up I can find my way there and test it out...


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Will do but I might have to trade you for some info on where to hunt in Cal. I am taking my son out for a week in the high sierras in August for his first bowhunt for mule deer and it will most likely be more a scouting expedition than a hunting one, but thats how it goes when you are learning new country.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Yes, I am working with Jason Fogg (who was the head engineer at Hoyt for years and pretty much invented the Tech Riser and the Carbon Matrix for them.) He started his own outdoor design firm and is one of THE most well respected and knowledgeable engineers in the Archery industry.

Mike


----------



## michaelkronmann (Jun 5, 2011)

ok so cool bow most definitely would be willing to be a staff shooter if i get one for free lol but only concern for this is with the limbs being part of the riser if somthing hapened to limbs or riser you spend 800 bucks to replace the bow businesses wise id make some kind of carbon pocket that ataches limbs to riser and then ad a carbon rod thatcomes of at bottom of the first riser that ads a extra brace to the limbs like your bowtec but not as far down on the limb hope this works for u


----------



## alligood729 (Mar 25, 2007)

Mordekyle said:


> A more efficient bow sounds very attractive. Even if someone is not a speed freak, archers with low draw weight or short draw lengths would benefit. I could imagine a 50# 28" DL bow shooting 300FPS.


I like his idea.....as far as a bow for short draw archers at 50lbs and 300ft....it's already there. Last season, I hunted with an PSE Omen, 50lbs, 27" draw, 350 gr arrow at 285fps....probably could have bumped 300 if I'd wanted to shoot a lighter arrow, but that is just what my hunting arrow weighs..

OP, that is definitely out of the box, I wish you luck!!


----------



## sclampa (Sep 18, 2005)

Looks cool id say go for it!!


----------



## Bourbon Boy (Mar 18, 2013)

mterzo said:


> Super good points.
> 
> Also, ask anyone who has shot a Hoyt carbon matrix about the vibration and "feel" of the bow. Hoyt uses a bladder molding process which is really expensive and uses glued joints which can be a failure mode. To make them even sort of affordable, they have to make them in CHINA. That being said, they are really excellent bows.
> 
> Since the material is extremely durable, care is not a concern. The sights, and rests will need more protection than the bow.


Hoyt's carbon riser is made in china? You just took the bow off my want list, now get off your butt and make these ASAP!! Also will you be able to do long draw lengths, say 32,33"? Cheers--BB


----------



## klean1 (Jan 14, 2012)

You could do this through kickstarter?


----------



## Whitetail88Arch (Sep 4, 2012)

I would love to get in on the financial backing or phase 2 of your plan let me know if that's a possibility. Thanks, Adam


----------



## MrSchaefMan (Jun 24, 2013)

This is awesome. I am in college still and strapped for cash. Not sure I would be able to help much on the start up funding side of things but if you can get this thing up I would be a willing customer. Haha, best of luch mike. Really hope this thing takes off.


----------



## Eastcoasthunter (Jul 9, 2012)

i wouldnt by one for the simple fact that that speed isnt needed! it just not necessary, whether it allows u to shoot lower poundage or whatever, we all have got to the point that a lot of us can stack arrows we dont need more accuracy and 320-330fps is more then we will ever need to hunt! but good luck and go with it, it will be a small market!


----------



## MrSchaefMan (Jun 24, 2013)

Eastcoasthunter said:


> i wouldnt by one for the simple fact that that speed isnt needed! it just not necessary, whether it allows u to shoot lower poundage or whatever, we all have got to the point that a lot of us can stack arrows we dont need more accuracy and 320-330fps is more then we will ever need to hunt! but good luck and go with it, it will be a small market!


If his claims hold true it would have more applications than just the speed. I would want one for my wife. That way she could shoot her 30 lbs and still have enough KE for an elk hunt!! Awesome.


----------



## bstring (Jan 24, 2013)

Eastcoasthunter said:


> i wouldnt by one for the simple fact that that speed isnt needed! it just not necessary, whether it allows u to shoot lower poundage or whatever, we all have got to the point that a lot of us can stack arrows we dont need more accuracy and 320-330fps is more then we will ever need to hunt! but good luck and go with it, it will be a small market!


If you look at it that way the Indians were killing buffalo 200 years ago with a stick with a string attatched. Getting a whopping 95fps. 20 years ago we were in the low 200s. Why not shoot those bows. Because with technology come improvements and with that improvement you increase your speed. You don't have to shoot at 80# nobodys going to make you but if you could take a bow that was shooting 400fps and drop the draw weight down to about 50# and have an easier draw with alot more speed of a bow from 20 years ago at 70# what's there not to like. I'm in. Where do I sign to buy one??


----------



## Tony219er (Aug 14, 2011)

I wish I was as smart as the OP, my mind is still trying to understand what's going on lol.


----------



## bstring (Jan 24, 2013)

Tony219er said:


> I wish I was as smart as the OP, my mind is still trying to understand what's going on lol.


Just another day of opinions flying on AT.


----------



## mccoppinb (Aug 14, 2012)

What's the update?


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

MrSchaefMan said:


> If his claims hold true it would have more applications than just the speed. I would want one for my wife. That way she could shoot her 30 lbs and still have enough KE for an elk hunt!! Awesome.


Your 30 lbs will not be enough for elk get real.


----------



## Hoythunter01 (Oct 23, 2005)

kjwhfsd said:


> Your 30 lbs will not be enough for elk get real.


Why not ?? 40% more stored energy at 30 pounds of draw is what ??

I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thread. Just chimed in ?? I said I'm guessing here.

Go back to the very first page and start reading.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Hoythunter01 said:


> Why not ?? 40% more stored energy at 30 pounds of draw is what ??
> 
> I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thread. Just chimed in ?? I said I'm guessing here.
> 
> Go back to the very first page and start reading.


No I have read most of the thread. There is this little thing called peak weight. It is what the peak weight is regardless of where in the draw its reached. 40% more stored energy means nothing. It's stored not used that is what it is


----------



## mtn3531 (Mar 6, 2009)

Hoythunter01 said:


> Why not ?? 40% more stored energy at 30 pounds of draw is what ??
> 
> I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thread. Just chimed in ?? I said I'm guessing here.
> 
> Go back to the very first page and start reading.


Not much. 30lb bow that is 85% efficient for example, so if it is 40% more efficient than that then you are looking at 40% of the remaining 15%, which would be 6%, right? So, that would mean your 85% efficiency rate has gone up to 91% efficiency but your bow is still 30lbs and has nowhere near enough energy for elk. I've read most of the thread and call me a naysayer but I don't see it happening.


----------



## mtn3531 (Mar 6, 2009)

Bourbon Boy said:


> Hoyt's carbon riser is made in china? You just took the bow off my want list, now get off your butt and make these ASAP!! Also will you be able to do long draw lengths, say 32,33"? Cheers--BB


Last I heard their carbon risers were being made in England, not China. Seems to be some misinformation floating around in this thread from someone looking for crowdsourcing. Nice.


----------



## AJ Peacock (Dec 29, 2011)

Good luck Mike,

I've made my living "Outside the Box", my friends/colleagues call me "The Idea Man". YOU are the idea man.

Keep dreaming and good luck with your sons Muley hunt.

AJ


----------



## Chiro_Archer (Jun 6, 2011)

Looking forward to keeping up with this thread updates, added you to fb to also keep up there with info as well


----------



## sneak1413 (Aug 15, 2007)

kjwhfsd said:


> Your 30 lbs will not be enough for elk get real.


Funny...I had a coworker kill her elk at 45 yards with a 38 lb draw bow...oh and it was with a grim reaper....and her arrow lodged in the opposite side shoulder...just saying


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

sneak1413 said:


> Funny...I had a coworker kill her elk at 45 yards with a 38 lb draw bow...oh and it was with a grim reaper....and her arrow lodged in the opposite side shoulder...just saying


And blind squirrels find a nut every once in a while. That distance with that poundage you she got lucky end of story. Good thing it wasn't a big elk.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

mtn3531 said:


> Not much. 30lb bow that is 85% efficient for example, so if it is 40% more efficient than that then you are looking at 40% of the remaining 15%, which would be 6%, right? So, that would mean your 85% efficiency rate has gone up to 91% efficiency but your bow is still 30lbs and has nowhere near enough energy for elk. I've read most of the thread and call me a naysayer but I don't see it happening.


 It wouldn't be 40% of 15%.

It would be an additional 40% added to what the shooter invests in the draw. If the bow is 85% efficient, the bow would then return 85% of the 140% that was invested during the draw.

Assuming the shooter invested 40# of KE into a bow, and it returned 34# of KE in the arrow, the "new bow" would extract 56# of KE and return 47.6# of KE in the arrow.

That is assuming that both bows are 85% efficient.


----------



## hicktownbowman (Jul 14, 2013)

Interesting post at the least!

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

hicktownbowman said:


> Interesting post at the least!
> 
> Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2


 It's a neat idea.
​But, from a performance and efficiency stand point, it doesn't accomplish anything different than this bow design does.










The string still has mass, that must be moved. 
And the string still stays with the bow, while the arrow gets to leave.

The machine doesn't care whether it has to to move the string perpendicular to it's plane, or parallel to it.
It still has to get the same amount of mass, moving the same distance, at the same rate of speed.

At least with a super short ATA, there is a lot shorter string.


----------



## sneak1413 (Aug 15, 2007)

kjwhfsd said:


> And blind squirrels find a nut every once in a while. That distance with that poundage you she got lucky end of story. Good thing it wasn't a big elk.


Yeah it wasn't very big. It dropped one side already but it would have been somewhere between 290-320 depending on the other side. She also had pass throughs on two 160+ mule deer also at 40+. Buy hey I guess you know better. A fast shot always kills better than a slow well placed one with quality equipment and a good tune setup right


----------



## guy64 (Dec 6, 2012)

bump so that i can read it all after work.... lol


----------



## rodney482 (Aug 31, 2004)

I can tell you the carbon material he is talking about is very strong....


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Many states limit minimum ATA length. Liberty bow is not considered bow in many regulations


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

In your draw force chart please explain how that is not a 110 lbs draw force curve.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

copterdoc said:


> It wouldn't be 40% of 15%.
> 
> It would be an additional 40% added to what the shooter invests in the draw. If the bow is 85% efficient, the bow would then return 85% of the 140% that was invested during the draw.
> 
> ...


Ummmm.... You realize you've just solved the worlds energy problems by getting more energy out of the bow than you put in it?


----------



## Mathews4ever (Jan 13, 2007)

Tell you i would love to try one


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

I explain this in one of my previous posts. Yes, it is a 110 lb force draw curve but the peak draw weight of 110lbs (or whatever your preferred peak weight is) occurs when your body is strongest. This is at the beginning of your draw. A standard bow design cannot achieve peak draw weight that soon. So you are not comparing apples to apples when you talk about a 110lb peak draw weight bow in a standard bow design versus this bow design.


kjwhfsd said:


> In your draw force chart please explain how that is not a 110 lbs draw force curve.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

mterzo said:


> I explain this in one of my previous posts. Yes, it is a 110 lb force draw curve but the peak draw weight of 110lbs (or whatever your preferred peak weight is) occurs when your body is strongest. This is at the beginning of your draw. A standard bow design cannot achieve peak draw weight that soon. So you are not comparing apples to apples when you talk about a 110lb peak draw weight bow in a standard bow design versus this bow design.


So you are dropping efficiency and 40% (at least) of the stored energy of compounds that we have today. So you have come up with a 110# bow that stores 20% more energy than a conventional 70# bow.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Speed sells like nothing else!


Amazed at how most want the fastest bow on the wall when they walk into the bow shop.

Good luck, design looks good. 

Light weight has never shot well for me in the past. One can always add weight.


DB


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Try and read my patent and previous posts. They explain the math and physics involved. There is no dropping of efficiency or stored energy. Its hard to explain in a post. Give me a holler on the phone if you have any questions.




kjwhfsd said:


> So you are dropping efficiency and 40% (at least) of the stored energy of compounds that we have today. So you have come up with a 110# bow that stores 20% more energy than a conventional 70# bow.


----------



## Hun10-freak (Feb 18, 2013)

Your a genius, I love the idea and personally I love more speed out of my bows. Don't let the other companies hold you back, prove them wrong.


----------



## jerkeife (Feb 12, 2010)

Just a tag. Don't have time to read thru everything at the moment.


----------



## mhill (Jul 11, 2011)

Mike, 

A few questions about the bow design...

1) How do you plan on getting 400 fps without making the draw harsher then what is currently on the market and consumers complain about them?
2) How do you plan on eliminating hand shock and keeping the bow from jumping in your hand upon releasing the arrow?
3) what is the Limb design your planning to use. With current fastest bows hitting 340-366 some have limb problems, also there is a concern about more speed = less life of limbs. Durable limb design is crucial. 
4) Have you thought of specs yet, many people buy bows because of their ideal specs. Some like long ATA and long brace height bows and they compensate speed. others like short ATA short brace height speedy bows.
5) have you thought what the Let off will be?


----------



## Briareos (Aug 10, 2013)

Has anyone brought up how this design might affect or compound tiller issues? 

I think this design has some real merit, and should not be considered for an aftermarket retrofit. Lets face it, many people are just as wrapped up in appearances as they are speed, and an attempt to produce this design for the aftermarket with aesthetics in mind, maybe
very difficult fit a majority of bows and cost prohibitive to consumers. 

I love the concept bow drawings, very elegant and streamlined. Without people thinking outside the box, Lighter and more efficient bows or "more of the same of what we have today" bows are all we are going to get in the foreseeable future.

Mterzo, this is an excellent idea and hopefully some *******ized company does not come and snatch it from you.


----------



## klemsontigers7 (Jul 1, 2008)

Did you even read any of the posts in this thread?



mhill said:


> Mike,
> 
> A few questions about the bow design...
> 
> ...


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

All good questions. I answered them all in previous posts but here are short answers again.

1. Draw is able to be customized to your body kinematics, not bow geometry. Thereby making a smooth draw.
2. Carbon fiber is much more vibration dampening than aluminum. See alot of posts about the Hoyt Carbon matrix. Carbon fiber is used in industrial vibration springs in industrial equipment all over the world. PM me for more technical examples of carbon fiber dampening
3. Limb is actually loaded much less than traditional bow design. This equals more durable bow and higher safety.
4. Bow specs would be most likely be addressed through multiple models and through user feedback on preference.
5. Let off would be industry standard as well as P&Y standard.

Mike



mhill said:


> Mike,
> 
> A few questions about the bow design...
> 
> ...


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

No doubt there will be some innovation from the big companies that are spurred from this concept and this thread as well but I see that as a good thing for our industry. Regarding the main points of the design.... that's why I patented it and waited until the patent came through. Also, I do not show other features that are patent pending and/or proprietary. 

Re: the tiller tuning issue, good question and can only be thoroughly answered in testing phase. 

Mike



Briareos said:


> Has anyone brought up how this design might affect or compound tiller issues?
> 
> I think this design has some real merit, and should not be considered for an aftermarket retrofit. Lets face it, many people are just as wrapped up in appearances as they are speed, and an attempt to produce this design for the aftermarket with aesthetics in mind, maybe
> very difficult fit a majority of bows and cost prohibitive to consumers.
> ...


----------



## Briareos (Aug 10, 2013)

bstring said:


> *If you look at it that way the Indians were killing buffalo 200 years ago with a stick with a string attatched. Getting a whopping 95fps.* 20 years ago we were in the low 200s. Why not shoot those bows. Because with technology come improvements and with that improvement you increase your speed. You don't have to shoot at 80# nobodys going to make you but if you could take a bow that was shooting 400fps and drop the draw weight down to about 50# and have an easier draw with alot more speed of a bow from 20 years ago at 70# what's there not to like. I'm in. Where do I sign to buy one??




People really need to refrain from using the "Indian hunter scenario", it is completely asinine and totally irrelevant. Actually it's quite offensive to Native Americans. It wasn't one Native harvesting one buffalo; it was ten to twenty Natives harvesting three to eight Buffalo, and they chased them by horseback for miles before they bled out.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Briareos said:


> People really need to refrain from using the "Indian hunter scenario", it is completely asinine and totally irrelevant. Actually it's quite offensive to Native Americans. It wasn't one Native harvesting one buffalo; it was ten to twenty Natives harvesting three to eight Buffalo, and they chased them by horseback for miles before they bled out.


No actually the real Indians the ones who's great grand fathers actually fought in the Indian wars. That actually know and keep their ways going. They think this PC Crap is just that crap. Yes I have family that is Indian. So drop the PC crap and quit offending the vast majority of them.


----------



## Briareos (Aug 10, 2013)

I do not call the Native peoples "Indians" because they are not from India, they are natives to the lands known as the Americas. I also have Native relatives and I am a Native as well. Apparently your family and my family have differing values.

I apologize for Hijacking your thread Mterzo.


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

Make one thats at least 40+" ATA and you could get the finger shooters too.
I know I would shoot it in a heart beat.
Don.


----------



## Tommyid1 (Oct 11, 2012)

Im in concord and would gladly drive up to sactown to see this bad boy 

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

Mahly said:


> Ummmm.... You realize you've just solved the worlds energy problems by getting more energy out of the bow than you put in it?


 For someone that holds the self appointed title of "archery scientist" you aren't being very scientific.

Think about it.


----------



## TAP (May 28, 2002)

I have to ask a simple question of you. How does adding two additional pulleys or whatever you are going to use increase efficiency? I am trying to wrap my head around this and it just doesn't seem possible to add friction and increase efficiency at the same time.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

mterzo said:


> Many states limit minimum ATA length. Liberty bow is not considered bow in many regulations


 I'm pretty sure that's not true.

In fact, I don't believe that ANY state other than Montana, has a minimum ATA length limit. 
​let alone "many".


----------



## countrykang8 (May 29, 2008)

Looks like you've put a lot of thought into it. I may be one of your customers if your concept comes to fruition.


----------



## Scott D. (Aug 9, 2010)

How would a quad cam bow work? if it could be done (r) that's copy write info now. Just an FYI.


----------



## practice-more (Nov 10, 2005)

I have no horse in this race, but I'm going to chime in anyway and try to help with some of the physics questions. 

The bow isn't going to be more efficient or "make" energy in any way.

The whole concept of the design is to look at the how an individuals arm strength varies throughout the draw cycle. What the OP is saying is that there are certain areas throughout the draw where you are physically capable of pulling more weight than in other areas. 

It is my understanding that the idea is to design a bow that shifts the peak draw weight to a point in the draw cycle where your draw muscles are the strongest, and lessen the draw weight where your draw muscles are weaker. 

The goal of this is to maximize the amount of max poundage you are able to pull, because you are pulling it at the point in the draw where your muscles are in the position to give you the most strength. 

Ok, now if you can change the shape of the draw force curve, and increase the peak draw weight, you will have more area under the draw force curve. Since area under the draw force curve shows the stored energy, you will in turn have more stored energy in the bow, not because the bow "made" energy, but because you put it there. 

More stored energy in the bow, at the same efficiency as any other compound will result in more kinetic energy and thus more arrow speed upon release. 

Now, I assume the OP has done some research to graph the areas of relative draw muscle strength throughout the draw cycle. From that he seems to have concluded that the area of "strength" lets call it, is actually located near the beginning of the draw motion. 

Compare that conclusion to a standard compound which requires you to pull the most weight (peak weight or high point on the draw force curve) near the very end of the draw cycle. 

The ideal draw force curve would match the "strength" curve the OP has documented. 

The reason you can't do that with a standard compound design is that, if in fact this high strength area is early in the draw cycle, is because in the early stages of the draw of a standard compound, drawing the string back is causing very minimal cam rotation due to the geometry of the cam/string design. In other words, in the first couple of inches of draw, the nock point moved back, but very little string is rolled off the cam, thus rotating the cam very little. It is the rotation of the cam that "winds up" the cables and flexes the limbs. With very little rotation you are causing very little limb flex, thus you have a low draw weight and are storing minimal energy at this point. 

The new design the OP has proposed on the other hand will allow the early stages of the draw to cause far greater movement of the limbs, thus yielding a higher early draw weight and storing more energy early in the draw. 

If this new draw force curve more closely matches the "strength" curve, the bow will be easier to draw back. If you are capable of pulling a 60 pound peak weight "regular" compound, which requires you to pull that 60 when your draw muscles are not in an optimal position, you may well be able to pull a 70 pound bow if the 70 pound peak were located where your muscles are in their strongest position. 

This design will allow you to put in more energy, thus resulting in more arrow speed.

I sent the OP a PM early on when this thread first came out with some thoughts/ideas/concerns I had. I think after seeing this take off again I may send him another. 

I'm glad to see people thinking outside the box and I hope he can see this through. 

Mitch


----------



## kballer1 (Aug 31, 2010)

Very interested. Follow through.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I hope blowing all your money on these patents doesn't end a marriage or anything. 
Making a bow that shoots 400fps is not a problem. Making one people want to buy is another. 

Major bow companies are not run by idiots. They are run by very successful millionaires. If they think your design is foolish, chances are...


----------



## why3zx (Mar 16, 2009)

Well stated practice-more, I think that the point a lot are missing is that it is not a "faster 70lb bow" its a 150lb bow that pulls like than a standard 70lb bow. Using enhanced mechanical advantage and an understanding of human anatomy. Great work, let me know how I can help.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Nope, still happily married. 

And practice-more - you stated the basis of the patent and the physics principles much better than I have been able to. Thank you for that!! Also, I pm'd you back.


----------



## BuckTeeth (Apr 12, 2012)

Very interesting thread! Thumbs up for out of the box thinking!


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

OK, my previous post was based on my "thoughts" and I stand corrected. I should not have made the statement and after researching it, I was completely off base. Although there may be others, Montana is the only one I could find with an ATA regulation, but Pope and Young does not allow any bow under 30" http://www.pope-young.org/bowhunting_equipment.asp

Way to keep it real copterdoc.



copterdoc said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not true.
> 
> In fact, I don't believe that ANY state other than Montana, has a minimum ATA length limit.
> ​let alone "many".


----------



## MrSchaefMan (Jun 24, 2013)

why3zx said:


> Well stated practice-more, I think that the point a lot are missing is that it is not a "faster 70lb bow" its a 150lb bow that pulls like than a standard 70lb bow. Using enhanced mechanical advantage and an understanding of human anatomy. Great work, let me know how I can help.



I'm glad you said this. It was my understanding as well. A couple pages ago I made a comment that the applications of this wouldn't be limited to just speed. I said something like using this technology could help my wife who pulls less than 40 pounds (38 or something like that) have enough energy to make an ethical shot on large game like an elk. People through a hissy fit so I just stopped responding. I think what I said was misinterpreted because of exactly what you are stating. I don't mean to say that she could get more energy out of a 30 some odd pull and I don't think that's what the op was saying either. I meant she could shoot a 53# bow and have it feel like a 38# pull on todays bows if my understanding is correct. If not please educate me. I think it's awesome, sorry to all if I was unclear before.


----------



## walks with a gi (Oct 1, 2002)

The bow may work as imagined but how will it be to shoot? The string angle will be terrible and a regular peep will be impossible to see through. Also how will hand torque affect the shot? Speed is not everything especially if you want to hit what you're aiming at. Will you even be able to see your sight pin?


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

MrSchaefMan said:


> I'm glad you said this. It was my understanding as well. A couple pages ago I made a comment that the applications of this wouldn't be limited to just speed. I said something like using this technology could help my wife who pulls less than 40 pounds (38 or something like that) have enough energy to make an ethical shot on large game like an elk. People through a hissy fit so I just stopped responding. I think what I said was misinterpreted because of exactly what you are stating. I don't mean to say that she could get more energy out of a 30 some odd pull and I don't think that's what the op was saying either. I meant she could shoot a 53# bow and have it feel like a 38# pull on todays bows if my understanding is correct. If not please educate me. I think it's awesome, sorry to all if I was unclear before.


It's very simple look at the draw force curve he posted its a 110 lbs bow that has very little more stored energy than a 70 lbs bow and about 35% less stored energy than a 110 lbs bow has. 
Bottom line if the peak draw weight is 110 it's a 110 lbs bow regardless how much the weight drops during the draw.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Marcus said:


> I hope blowing all your money on these patents doesn't end a marriage or anything.
> Making a bow that shoots 400fps is not a problem. Making one people want to buy is another.
> 
> Major bow companies are not run by idiots. They are run by very successful millionaires. If they think your design is foolish, chances are...


People thought Tesla's alternating current was foolish too because the millionaire (for the time) Edison said it was. Edison was pushing direct current and since the entire world runs off alternating current, it's obvious that people were wrong. Who knows, this just may be the OP's alternating current.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

MrSchaefMan said:


> I'm glad you said this. It was my understanding as well. A couple pages ago I made a comment that the applications of this wouldn't be limited to just speed. I said something like using this technology could help my wife who pulls less than 40 pounds (38 or something like that) have enough energy to make an ethical shot on large game like an elk. People through a hissy fit so I just stopped responding. I think what I said was misinterpreted because of exactly what you are stating. I don't mean to say that she could get more energy out of a 30 some odd pull and I don't think that's what the op was saying either. I meant she could shoot a 53# bow and have it feel like a 38# pull on todays bows if my understanding is correct. If not please educate me. I think it's awesome, sorry to all if I was unclear before.


It's very simple look at the draw force curve he posted its a 110 lbs bow that has very little more stored energy than a 70 lbs bow and about 35% less stored energy than a 110 lbs bow has. 
Bottom line if the peak draw weight is 110 it's a 110 lbs bow regardless how much the weight drops during the draw.


----------



## walks with a gi (Oct 1, 2002)

There is a way to get incredibly high pre-stress in the limbs of a bow without risking premature limb failure and result in a heavily front - loaded draw force curve.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Huntinsker said:


> People thought Tesla's alternating current was foolish too because the millionaire (for the time) Edison said it was. Edison was pushing direct current and since the entire world runs off alternating current, it's obvious that people were wrong. Who knows, this just may be the OP's alternating current.


Since the entire world doesn't run on alternating current. Ever heard of a battery. This is not a millionaire trying to make more money. It's pretty simple if it works well he would be bought out by one of the big company's and make a huge profit.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

kjwhfsd said:


> Since the entire world doesn't run on alternating current. Ever heard of a battery. This is not a millionaire trying to make more money. It's pretty simple if it works well he would be bought out by one of the big company's and make a huge profit.


Yes batteries are DC but what is the current that powers your tv, refrigerator, washer, dryer, lights, AC, hot water heater, stove, dishwasher, charges your cell phone? It's AC. The world does indeed run off of both so you aren't entirely wrong and he is not entirely correct. The fact of the matter is that both are used though I think that a bit more electricity is consumed via AC due to the majority of items in the average household requiring it.


----------



## DRock (Sep 7, 2012)

I like the idea but peak weight is peak weight, that is a 110lb bow and not a 70lb bow.

Dial it back to a 70lb peak and then compare, you want a really square DFC and your first graphs do not show that at all.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

kjwhfsd said:


> Since the entire world doesn't run on alternating current. Ever heard of a battery. This is not a millionaire trying to make more money. It's pretty simple if it works well he would be bought out by one of the big company's and make a huge profit.


All right you got me. My example didn't match this scenario down to the last minute detail. What the he** was I thinking trying to add a harmless comment offering support for the OP in his endeavor? I obviously am on the wrong side and should jump ship and join the "bit*ch at everyone and stomp on their ideas because they aren't the same as mine" side.

On second thought I think I called that side "di*kville" in another thread. That doesn't seem like a place I want to be so I guess I won't come join you there.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> All right you got me. My example didn't match this scenario down to the last minute detail. What the he** was I thinking trying to add a harmless comment offering support for the OP in his endeavor? I obviously am on the wrong side and should jump ship and join the "bit*ch at everyone and stomp on their ideas because they aren't the same as mine" side.
> 
> On second thought I think I called that side "di*kville" in another thread. That doesn't seem like a place I want to be so I guess I won't come join you there.


You are right in the support of the OP's idea. It is rude for others to come in and stomp on his dreams. None the less I don't think it will affect him much in his endeavors as he seems plenty enthralled in the project himself to let what anyone thinks stop him now. He has welcomed both negative and constructive criticism though the constructive would be much more beneficial we all know that there are people here on AT who like nothing more than to hop on a thread just to try and **** on someones parade. I support his ideas and hope that his plans come to fruition i know that without the support of my friends and family I would never have gotten as far in life as I have so far. Instead of owning my own firearms retail (and later on when I have more capital manufacturing) business I would probably be somewhere flipping burgers and dropping fries.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Huntinsker said:


> All right you got me. My example didn't match this scenario down to the last minute detail. What the he** was I thinking trying to add a harmless comment offering support for the OP in his endeavor? I obviously am on the wrong side and should jump ship and join the "bit*ch at everyone and stomp on their ideas because they aren't the same as mine" side.
> 
> On second thought I think I called that side "di*kville" in another thread. That doesn't seem like a place I want to be so I guess I won't come join you there.


You are right, we should blindly agree with everyone who files a patent and call them a genius. 
The only thing worse than people who criticize, are those that encourage someone to blow all their money chasing an idea that's not viable.


----------



## Rock Steady (Dec 26, 2009)

Marcus said:


> You are right, we should blindly agree with everyone who files a patent and call them a genius. The only thing worse than people who criticize, are those that encourage someone to blow all their money chasing an idea that's not viable.


Marcus

Can you give us a detailed reason why the idea is not viable? 

Michael


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Dbjac summed it up well in the other forum on the engineering side. 
As a retailer it does not get me excited either. 
And as I said, this isn't the 1800's, if Pete Shepley thought he could make money off it, he would. 
The idea may be 100% spot on, still doesn't mean people will BUY it, which is actually the point.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Marcus said:


> You are right, we should blindly agree with everyone who files a patent and call them a genius.
> The only thing worse than people who criticize, are those that encourage someone to blow all their money chasing an idea that's not viable.


I never said anything about blindly agreeing with what people say. Question all you want. Questioning is a good thing but don't be a dick about it. I was nicely replying to your post using Tesla and Edison as an example that maybe the idea is a little strange now but in a few years it could be the norm. I never said that the OP should blow all his money on this idea. But what's wrong with that? If that's what he wants to do and feels strongly about, who are you to tell him not to. What if Tesla didn't do that very thing? We may not have alternating current right now and then we'd likely be decades behind in our technologies. By saying that I'm worse than someone who is criticizing an idea because I'm offering a little support shows how truly sad and cynical you must be. I know living upside down in Australia must be hard but keep your chin up (or down in your case). It'll be summer there again soon :wink:

Now since you seem to be so sure that it's not a viable idea and people won't want to buy it, why don't you go get a few Phd's and engineering degrees and then tell us why it won't work. As far as people not buying it, I've seen a lot of responses on here saying that they'd buy one as soon as they come out.


----------



## seiowabow (Dec 19, 2010)

kjwhfsd said:


> Your 30 lbs will not be enough for elk get real.


Correct. Using this technology that the OP is taking about would allow your wife to draw 70# as easily as 30# by changing the bow design. We are still talking about heavy draw weights here, the OP has just come up with a way to utilize human strength more efficently.


----------



## NoDeerInIowa (Mar 5, 2012)

Huntinsker said:


> I never said anything about blindly agreeing with what people say. Question all you want. Questioning is a good thing but don't be a dick about it. I was nicely replying to your post using Tesla and Edison as an example that maybe the idea is a little strange now but in a few years it could be the norm. I never said that the OP should blow all his money on this idea. But what's wrong with that? If that's what he wants to do and feels strongly about, who are you to tell him not to. What if Tesla didn't do that very thing? We may not have alternating current right now and then we'd likely be decades behind in our technologies. By saying that I'm worse than someone who is criticizing an idea because I'm offering a little support shows how truly sad and cynical you must be. I know living upside down in Australia must be hard but keep your chin up (or down in your case). It'll be summer there again soon :wink:
> 
> Now since you seem to be so sure that it's not a viable idea and people won't want to buy it, why don't you go get a few Phd's and engineering degrees and then tell us why it won't work. As far as people not buying it, I've seen a lot of responses on here saying that they'd buy one as soon as they come out.


You really don't know who you are talking to, do you? Ever hear of German Kinetics? 


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

NoDeerInIowa said:


> You really don't know who you are talking to, do you? Ever hear of German Kinetics?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4


I didn't but now that you mention it, yes I've heard of them. Great broadheads by all accounts. Doesn't mean I'm wrong in what I've said.


----------



## NoDeerInIowa (Mar 5, 2012)

Haha. I guess I don't know either. I think he is a different Marcus- not Markus. Lol, sorry, carry on.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

NoDeerInIowa said:


> Haha. I guess I don't know either. I think he is a different Marcus- not Markus. Lol, sorry, carry on.


I wasn't sure what you were getting at haha. I wondered why the creator of the german made broadhead would be coming to us from down under.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> I wasn't sure what you were getting at haha. I wondered why the creator of the german made broadhead would be coming to us from down under.


LULZ. Gotta love when people think someone is who they are not. An example - Once Charlie Chaplain entered a Charlie Chaplain look-alike contest and lost, didn't even make it to the finals.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

s3x5hun8 said:


> LULZ. Gotta love when people think someone is who they are not. An example - Once Charlie Chaplain entered a Charlie Chaplain look-alike contest and lost, didn't even make it to the finals.


Whoa easy with the historical examples. People don't like those around here. It is a good one though :thumbs_up


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Gee you are struggling with this hey. 

We still would not have alternating current if it didn't sell. That's the fundamental requirement to making products. It could be genius, but if no one buys it, it doesn't matter. 

It's really that simple. A bow that is harder to draw at the start, weighs nothing and will likely require VERY heavy arrows due to an increased power curve will not be popular. 

Are YOU prepared to pay some random dude money to develop a product with specifications that are designed to impress people on archerytalk but won't actually sell in a shop?
I'm not a German guy but I do own a large pro shop and see what sells and what doesn't, and gimmicks don't sell. 
Don't need an engineering degree to know what sells in archery, it's already my job.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Marcus said:


> Gee you are struggling with this hey.
> 
> We still would not have alternating current if it didn't sell. That's the fundamental requirement to making products. It could be genius, but if no one buys it, it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


If I had money, I might put a little in. Right now with my wife and I both working our way through grad school, there is no money to be had haha.

Anyway, I'm not having a hard time with it. All I'm saying is that we won't know if it will sell until it's been made and people get their hands on it. I think the biggest market for this design would be the short DL shooters. The guys that only draw 25" that are trying to shoot a heavier arrow and still maintain a decent amount of speed. Those guys would benefit hugely if this design is viable. 

I do think a bow that shoots a VERY heavy arrow would be popular. Head over to the bow hunting forum on this site and see how many people are obsessed with heavy arrows, high FOC, KE/momentum and penetration. If you could tell those guys that they could shoot a 500grain arrow over 300 fps off a bow with more than a 5" brace height, they'd do a little happy dance. Here in the US there are maybe 10 to 1 bow hunters to archers so I think it would work over here.

I'm sure you know very well what sells in archery. The problem is, this isn't in archery yet so you can't know that it won't sell.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Huntinsker said:


> If I had money, I might put a little in. Right now with my wife and I both working our way through grad school, there is no money to be had haha.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not having a hard time with it. All I'm saying is that we won't know if it will sell until it's been made and people get their hands on it. I think the biggest market for this design would be the short DL shooters. The guys that only draw 25" that are trying to shoot a heavier arrow and still maintain a decent amount of speed. Those guys would benefit hugely if this design is viable.
> 
> ...


Wow there you can already shoot a 500 grn arrow 300 fps. With quite a few bows just need them with 100 pound limbs. The big question is how do you figure it's going to be done with 35% less stored energy than we have now.?


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

How to fail in life

Step 1) invest in a product that doesn't exist and claims to do everything not done now by multi-million dollar corporations. 

"I've made a bow that shoots 400fps and is super easy to draw back. I've drawn a couple of pictures, but if you send me money I promise you'll get one when I make it. "

Anyone who considers this is clearly stupid. And if you send me $20 I'll tell you better ways to blow your money.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Marcus said:


> How to fail in life
> 
> Step 1) invest in a product that doesn't exist and claims to do everything not done now by multi-million dollar corporations.


Tell that to a young Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.


----------



## rodney482 (Aug 31, 2004)

Lets see a working model...


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Tell that to a young Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.


lol right?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Marcus said:


> How to fail in life
> 
> Step 1) invest in a product that doesn't exist and claims to do everything not done now by multi-million dollar corporations.
> 
> ...


Marcus - You are clearly right. I quit. I give up. But before I do, can you answer these questions:

1. Why won't you answer Rock Steady when he asked if you can give one "viable" reason.
2. How you you know with so much conviction that the idea won't sell in other countries, since it appears you are from Australia.
3. Why do you spend so much of your energy getting on forums and bashing people without any good thought behind your comments.
4. What is the name and location of your "big pro shop" that you own and is so successful and has all the answers. Please post some evidence that you are who you say you are. I put all my info out there for all to see, so I only ask you do the same.
5. Why won't you post your real name on here.
6. Why have you posted over 3,500 times since 2002 and only have three friends??
7. Have you even read my patent, and my original post?? 

You obviously have all the answers in the world so please answer these few questions.... or else s&*$%t the F*#$ UP!

Mike Terzo


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

mterzo said:


> Marcus - You are clearly right. I quit. I give up. But before I do, can you answer these questions:
> 
> 1. Why won't you answer Rock Steady when he asked if you can give one "viable" reason.
> 2. How you you know with so much conviction that the idea won't sell in other countries, since it appears you are from Australia.
> ...



Oh, very bad move. Even the person you claim to be collaborating with on this "venture" personally knows who Marcus is. You really should control your temper if you wish to maintain any credibility.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> Oh, very bad move. Even the person you claim to be collaborating with on this "venture" personally knows who Marcus is. You really should control your temper if you wish to maintain any credibility.


I am not worried about my credibility. Maybe people like Marcus should be worried about theirs. I don't care if he is the president of Australia, his posts are closed-minded and bitter and have no constructive place in this world. Marcus - if you come to the next ATA show, I will tell that to your face too.

Mike


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

Marcus said:


> How to fail in life
> 
> Step 1) invest in a product that doesn't exist and claims to do everything not done now by multi-million dollar corporations.
> 
> ...


Marcus -Calling people stupid is not the best move for someone who knows so much about the world. Post your full name and your pro shop so I know who is not allowed to buy this product when it comes to market. 

Mike


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

If you are really trying to fund a venture of any sort through "crowdfunding" then credibility is everything. Marcus runs one of the most important Pro Shops in his country, has been an international team member for his country, comes from a family of Olympians, has the respect of many prominent people in the industry (including the former Hoyt engineer whose name you dropped here recently) and has many more qualifications and achievements that more than establish his credibility.

You have a thread on Archerytalk. _res ipsa loquitur_.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> If you are really trying to fund a venture of any sort through "crowdfunding" then credibility is everything. Marcus runs one of the most important Pro Shops in his country, has been an international team member for his country, comes from a family of Olympians, has the respect of many prominent people in the industry (including the former Hoyt engineer whose name you dropped here recently) and has many more qualifications and achievements that more than establish his credibility.
> 
> You have a thread on Archerytalk. _res ipsa loquitur_.


Those are not qualifications that make him an expert on bow design, engineering, or product development. And I stand by what I said that his posts are close-minded, arrogant and bitter.

I have patented and / or designed and developed products that are currently producing "NET" profits exceeding $30 million dollars a year and if you read my first posts and did any research you would see that I have some credibility when it comes to engineering and product development. I have made many people multi-millionaires. My only fault up to now is not having the money to develop some of my products myself and have controlling interest in the profit. Lessons learned.

But --gt-- you are right. I let Marcus goat me into loosing my temper a bit. My bad.

Mike


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

>--gt--> said:


> If you are really trying to fund a venture of any sort through "crowdfunding" then credibility is everything. Marcus runs one of the most important Pro Shops in his country, has been an international team member for his country, comes from a family of Olympians, has the respect of many prominent people in the industry (including the former Hoyt engineer whose name you dropped here recently) and has many more qualifications and achievements that more than establish his credibility.
> 
> You have a thread on Archerytalk. _res ipsa loquitur_.


Yes Marcus has a name in the industry but don't you think his sponsors and team members would want him using it for good rather than being a detriment to their brands on an open internet forum? When people in the public eye who are sponsored by public brands say negative things that may reflect badly on them or the brands that they represent, they often get dropped. If I were a public figure in any circle, I'd try to be a little nicer to people who may look at you as a role model or "name" in the industry. I've never read or heard Reo say mean spirited things to anyone. A person who has no problem telling others that they are FAILING AT LIFE is not exactly what I'd look if I wanted to sponsor someone with my brand. Not to mention that he called everyone on this thread who's showed support for the OP's idea STUPID for even considering it. I don't care who Marcus is. I was taught to respect people who behave respectfully. People who act like Marcus has on this forum are a nobody to me.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Yes Marcus has a name in the industry but don't you think his sponsors and team members would want him using it for good rather than being a detriment to their brands on an open internet forum? When people in the public eye who are sponsored by public brands say negative things that may reflect badly on them or the brands that they represent, they often get dropped. If I were a public figure in any circle, I'd try to be a little nicer to people who may look at you as a role model or "name" in the industry. I've never read or heard Reo say mean spirited things to anyone. A person who has no problem telling others that they are FAILING AT LIFE is not exactly what I'd look if I wanted to sponsor someone with my brand. Not to mention that he called everyone on this thread who's showed support for the OP's idea STUPID for even considering it. I don't care who Marcus is. I was taught to respect people who behave respectfully. People who act like Marcus has on this forum are a nobody to me.


I agree with this post. One difference between you and I. I was taught that respect was earned not owed. If you want it earn it but never just expect it. Marcus has not earned my respect in fact he has kinda dug himself a lil hole in the negative with his posts here.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I didn't realize I was even looking for sponsors. 
I guess I should not say anything in case I don't get things I'm not interested in. 
Steve Jobs never went to a forum and said "hey you guys wanna fund my 'puter that'll be the bestest thing ever?"
Nope. 
He and Woz built their product and took it to market. Then developed from there.

Best of luck to you, sorry you only want positive feedback, being a sensitive petal is also not a good thing in business BTW. 
Imagine starting off your product development by threatening retailers. 

Thanks for the kind words GT, might see you in Turkey.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

mterzo said:


> I don't care if he is the president of Australia


This line actually made me laugh out loud.


----------



## TxSportsman (Nov 7, 2007)

Marcus said:


> I didn't realize I was even looking for sponsors.
> I guess I should not say anything in case I don't get things I'm not interested in.
> Steve Jobs never went to a forum and said "hey you guys wanna fund my 'puter that'll be the bestest thing ever?"
> Nope.
> ...


You didn't even give "feedback". You just slammed him for no reason. I'm glad you live on the other side of the world... 

OP: Cool idea, I hope you can make it work!


----------



## ajoh (Jun 26, 2013)

marcus the inventor of metal storm had people make the same negative comments as you've made directed towards him yet he managed to make
something no else was able to even our own government doubted him there loss americas gain as they did get behind him even though it was only
an idea with a few drawings 

now they(america) have a million round gun protecting ships etc that was invented by an aussie (search.. metal storm) 


as an aussie marcus i'm ashamed by your attitude an the way you've conducted yourself here i was going to be doing some
business with you http://www.urbanarchery.com.au/index.php?route=product/category&path=93_94 clearly i wont be now!


to the OP i wish you the best of luck an sorry if a certain person has given you a bad impression of australians we're not all
like him!


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

That's obviously your choice. 

If the OP has shown a working prototype I would be far less skeptical. 
If the OP produces a working prototype and its awesome Ive got no problems saying "wow that's awesome!" If I am wrong and this is a huge seller I will personally come on Here and apologise. I'm cool with that. 

But the fact remains, he has not shown us anything that would make me think it would be a worthwhile thing to invest in. Which is the ultimate crux of it all isn't it. 
Would I as a retailer order this bow based on what I have seen? No way. That's what I'm trying to communicate (obviously badly)

Are any of those who have slammed my view on this prepared to put their money where their mouths are? One has so far admitted he won't back it up with straight cash. 

So, come on, those who are slamming me please show me you are prepared to back up your words with sizable investment into this project.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

ajoh said:


> as an aussie marcus i'm ashamed by your attitude an the way you've conducted yourself here i was going to be doing some
> business with you http://www.urbanarchery.com.au/index.php?route=product/category&path=93_94 clearly i wont be now!


His prices suck anyway lol. All the stuff I looked at was priced well over MSRP. (and yes even still with currency exchange) Not sure how they do things down under but paying over MSRP is stupid in most cases.


----------



## ajoh (Jun 26, 2013)

like i told you marcus the inventor of metal storm had the same reaction voiced at him as you have at the OP 

he was dragged threw the mud as you an some others have to this OP our OWN government did it to him yet it took
someone in the USA to take a leap NOW an aussie inventors product is protecting the USA instead of his home land

because of small minded people who said "it'll never work. others tried an failed" it was just an idea on paper too!!

without people thinking outside the box we'd all still be living in caves! 


be skeptical, question the ideas but don't put people down just because they are coming up with new an different ways of doing things
it's a gutless thing to do! you may have a good rep in your circles but seriously your attitude stinks an DAMN right it's my choice not
to shop with you instead i'll shop overseas where at least i wont get over inflated prices yesterday i would of accepted that today however
NOT a chance!!


----------



## ajoh (Jun 26, 2013)

s3x5hun8 said:


> His prices suck anyway lol. All the stuff I looked at was priced well over MSRP. (and yes even still with currency exchange) Not sure how they do things down under but paying over MSRP is stupid in most cases.


it's pretty much the same everywhere over here bud you'd fall over if you saw the price they try charging for a
bow press (USD $400-500....AUD $1500+) it's the same for cars a new vette is $150000AUD the list goes on


i'm all for supporting aussie business but NOT when i see attitudes like marcus i'd rather give him some else to whine
about an sit back an laugh...... we can order under $1000AUD online without a rip off tax called the GST being thrown on it
it really annoys australian businesses who want it lowered to $100AUD 

they then try telling us for an eg, someone orders a bow from the USA an something needs fixing they try telling us it
has to be sent back to the USA which is :bs: they are just mad because we didn't buy it from them at over inflated prices


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

ajoh said:


> it's pretty much the same everywhere over here bud you'd fall over if you saw the price they try charging for a
> bow press (USD $400-500....AUD $1500+) it's the same for cars a new vette is $150000AUD the list goes on
> 
> 
> ...


Hell with prices inflated that much you would most of the time come out cheaper to just buy from us and pay shipping. Sorry your Govt. is screwing yall over but dont feel bad ours is fking us over pretty good too lol


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Marcus said:


> That's obviously your choice.
> 
> If the OP has shown a working prototype I would be far less skeptical.
> If the OP produces a working prototype and its awesome Ive got no problems saying "wow that's awesome!" If I am wrong and this is a huge seller I will personally come on Here and apologise. I'm cool with that.
> ...


He did show how the draw force curve changed with the simple addition of the pulleys on his own Bowtech. Knowing what we know about physics and the relation of a draw force curve to bow efficiency, It's reasonable to assume that a bow that shows a more efficient draw force curve would actually be more efficient. I don't have money to help but I already have an idea to make a working prototype or at least a proof of concept. Hopefully we'll be able to change your mind in a couple weeks.


----------



## Briareos (Aug 10, 2013)

ajoh said:


> like i told you marcus the inventor of metal storm had the same reaction voiced at him as you have at the OP
> 
> he was dragged threw the mud as you an some others have to this OP our OWN government did it to him yet it took
> someone in the USA to take a leap NOW an aussie inventors product is protecting the USA instead of his home land
> ...



James Michael O'Dwyer is the inventor of record for Metal Storm project. Do you have any more info in this Marcus fellow?


again, sorry to hijack your thread MTerzo.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Briareos said:


> James Michael O'Dwyer is the inventor of record for Metal Storm project. Do you have any more info in this Marcus fellow?
> 
> 
> again, sorry to hijack your thread MTerzo.


He wasn't saying that Marcus was the inventor of metal storm. He was telling marcus about the trouble the Australian Govt. gave O'Dwyer about metal storm. Ya know taking a dump on his parade telling him it would never work blah blah blah ect ect. (basically the same thing marcus is doing here to the OP)

As for info on Marcus.

Marcus Anear: The owner of UrbanArchery and is a level 3 coach who has developed many archers to an international level. He also competes at state, national and international levels. Finished 29th in Flight 5 at Vegas 2011 (162nd out of 671)

His (im assuming brother but could be other family member)
David Anear: Represented Australia in the 1976 Olympic games where he finished 13th. Monaco Cup winner and multiple Australian champion. 

His Archery Related stuff:
Outdoor

Bow: Mathews Apex 8 and Mathews MR8

Arrows: Carbon Express Nano Pro and CX Blue Streak Selects with Beiter Universal pin nocks

Sight: CBE Tek-Target and Quad Lite 3D

Scope: Beiter 029 Scope 6x

Rest: Beiter Compound Rest

Stabilizer: Doinker Estremo and Doinker 421 weights

Release Aid: Carter Insatiable and Scott Longhorn III

Indoor Arrows: Carbon Express CXL Pro and CX X-Jammer with Beiter Hunter Nocks, FLP400, Socx wraps and ProPoints

Also represents: Beiter, CBE

2008 Warralong Field Open Mens Compound Winner
2012 Warralong Field Open Mens Compound Winner
2012 ABA State Indoor Champion Freestyle Unlimited
2012 Whitehorse Trophy winner

Personal Best scores

Mens FITA: 1371

90m: 338

70m: 347

50m: 348

30m: 359 21x

Double 70m: 692
Double 50m: 694

FITA 1 Indoor: 592 (practise)

587 (competition)

Aust 1 Indoor: 300 28x 
Vegas Archery Festival: 296

Just cause he has an interesting pedigree doesn't mean he knows bunk about the physics of archery.


----------



## hoody123 (Aug 11, 2004)

Marcus said:


> This line actually made me laugh out loud.


I face-palmed and shook my head.


----------



## Hoythunter01 (Oct 23, 2005)

rodney482 said:


> Lets see a working model...


The more I read through this thread, the more I have to agree with Rodney.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

Huntinsker said:


> ....Knowing what we know about physics and the relation of a draw force curve to bow efficiency, It's reasonable to assume that a bow that shows a more efficient draw force curve would actually be more efficient.....


 No we don't, and no it isn't.

Efficiency has nothing to do with the shape of the draw force curve.
Efficiency has everything to do with the bow's ability to transfer energy invested by the shooter, into the arrow.

If all you are doing is investing more energy, there is no reason to believe that the bow is going to transfer a higher percentage of that energy into the arrow.

There are two ways to "cheat" the IBO criteria, and make it look like your bow is more efficient.
(1.) Shorten brace height. This adds length to the power stroke, extracting more energy from the shooter during the draw.
(2.) Steepen the draw force curve. This again extracts more energy from the shooter during the draw.

In neither case, is the bow made more efficient. It "cheated", by requiring more energy from the shooter, than other bows at 70#/30".

The bow that is described in this thread, will actually be less efficient.
It demands that the string be longer, and the cams larger. It demands that the bow move more mass, that is not arrow.


----------



## chip1 (Mar 8, 2013)

I am not an engineer, but I am wondering the effect of the short power stroke on down range kinetics. I guess my question is does the arrow come out fast and hot, just to lose speed and energy down range due to the shortened power stroke?


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

chip1 said:


> I am not an engineer, but I am wondering the effect of the short power stroke on down range kinetics. I guess my question is does the arrow come out fast and hot, just to lose speed and energy down range due to the shortened power stroke?


Speed is speed. Doesn't matter if it takes 10 feet to get to that speed or 10 inches. If it's the same arrow traveling at the same speed, it will have the same flight pattern if all things else are equal. 

Copterdoc, you may be right. We'll see when a model is built I guess. Either way it's an exciting possibility.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

After going back and re-reading the patent again and looking at the concept pictures, It is my own personal opinion that the best one would be somewhere between 1 and 2 with the idler wheels farther from cams but still far enough apart to be able to get a string angle where one could use a standard peep. Most bows today are no less than 30 ATA and still use peep but the cams add another inch or more to each side so in order to get a similar string angle I assume that the pulleys would need to be 30 - 34 inches apart and this the ATA of the bow somewhere around 40 maybe. Would love to discuss this more in depth.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

chip1 said:


> I am not an engineer, but I am wondering the effect of the short power stroke on down range kinetics. I guess my question is does the arrow come out fast and hot, just to lose speed and energy down range due to the shortened power stroke?


Well simple physics tells us that once the arrow leaves the bow it is no longer effected by the bow. So if the arrow comes out "fast and hot" any energy and speed lost down range will be due to the same forces that slow any other arrow. If it shoots a 350gr arrow faster than another bow, the 350gr coming from the faster bow will have more KE and P (Kinetic Energy and Momentum) at range than the slower.

So in short. No. The power stroke affects arrow speed before it leaves. after its gone its gone and power stroke no longer matters.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

What are you talking about?

The power stroke wouldn't be any shorter.


----------



## chip1 (Mar 8, 2013)

s3x5hun8 said:


> Well simple physics tells us that once the arrow leaves the bow it is no longer effected by the bow. So if the arrow comes out "fast and hot" any energy and speed lost down range will be due to the same forces that slow any other arrow. If it shoots a 350gr arrow faster than another bow, the 350gr coming from the faster bow will have more KE and P (Kinetic Energy and Momentum) at range than the slower.
> 
> So in short. No. The power stroke affects arrow speed before it leaves. after its gone its gone and power stroke no longer matters.


Ok, I got ya. I am still a bit perplexed on how to get any draw length out out of this pulley system. If you look at the first pictures you would have to hold the bow out in front of you and shoot it like a sling shot. Even if you spool longer strings on a cam, I would think you would still have wall, valley, and knock pinch issues to sort out. Don't get me wrong not trying to take a shot just some honest thoughts as I look at this concept.


----------



## chip1 (Mar 8, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> The power stroke wouldn't be any shorter.


Look at the first two pictures, now in your mind knock a 29 inch arrow on each bow. Now tell me what bow has a longer power stroke.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

chip1 said:


> Look at the first two pictures, now in your mind knock a 29 inch arrow on each bow. Now tell me what bow has a longer power stroke.


 It doesn't matter how long the arrow is.

The brace height and the draw length is still the same brace height and draw length.


----------



## chip1 (Mar 8, 2013)

That's the problem I see. If you look at the pictures the added fixed pulleys on the shooting string reduce the draw length by pinching it together.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

chip1 said:


> That's the problem I see. If you look at the pictures the added fixed pulleys on the shooting string reduce the draw length by pinching it together.


 Do you honestly think that somebody is attempting to market a Bowtech Guardian, bolted to a work bench, with a 12" draw length?

You can't be that stupid.


----------



## chip1 (Mar 8, 2013)

No, but it is the concept picture. All I am am saying is it appears to me there would be more work to this then some drawings and the concept pictures we have here.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

chip1 said:


> No, but it is the concept picture. All I am am saying is it appears to me there would be more work to this then some drawings and the concept pictures we have here.


 No kidding?

Like maybe designing the cams to feed out a whole lot more string, so that the market base doesn't consist entirely of Oompa Loompas and Leprechauns?


----------



## UKNick (Apr 20, 2012)

The whole bow is a single piece? limbs, riser an all? I can see how that would make it cheap to make and light but what if you damage it? anywhere... the whole bow is scrap? Also, I dont see any draw weight adjustment and theres no replacing limbs so....?


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

chip1 said:


> No, but it is the concept picture. All I am am saying is it appears to me there would be more work to this then some drawings and the concept pictures we have here.


What copterdoc is saying, in not a very polite way, is that the finished working model will allow for a normal length draw length. Because the pulleys would shorten a bow with a standard set of cams, new cams need to be designed to allow for more string to be let out. The final DL would be the same. The pics are showing a bow that is designed to be drawn without the extra pulleys so when you add the pulleys, the effective DL is much shorter. Designing new cams would be the only way to allow you to use the pulleys and still get to normal draw lengths.

s3x5hun8, I agree with you. You'd have to place the pulleys far enough from the cams so that when the limbs flex, the stationary pulleys would not get in the way of the cams. You also don't want the pulleys to be too close together to create a very sharp string angle. Hopefully what I have in mind for the working model or proof of concept bow will be a happy medium. It may be a short DL but it should work to prove or disprove the concept which ever way it works out.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

chip1 said:


> Ok, I got ya. I am still a bit perplexed on how to get any draw length out out of this pulley system. If you look at the first pictures you would have to hold the bow out in front of you and shoot it like a sling shot. Even if you spool longer strings on a cam, I would think you would still have wall, valley, and knock pinch issues to sort out. Don't get me wrong not trying to take a shot just some honest thoughts as I look at this concept.


Yeah the 1st concept pic seems to be most viable but apparently it will not give as much advantage as one with a more extreme string angle so i think that the optimum would be somewhere between the 1st and 2nd concept images. you would have to increase string length for sure to get proper DL i think that with a less extreme design like i stated the nock pinch would be eliminated as well allowing for a less extreme string angle solves all sorts of potential issues in my opinion.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> What copterdoc is saying, in not a very polite way, is that the finished working model will allow for a normal length draw length. Because the pulleys would shorten a bow with a standard set of cams, new cams need to be designed to allow for more string to be let out. The final DL would be the same. The pics are showing a bow that is designed to be drawn without the extra pulleys so when you add the pulleys, the effective DL is much shorter. Designing new cams would be the only way to allow you to use the pulleys and still get to normal draw lengths.
> 
> s3x5hun8, I agree with you. You'd have to place the pulleys far enough from the cams so that when the limbs flex, the stationary pulleys would not get in the way of the cams. You also don't want the pulleys to be too close together to create a very sharp string angle. Hopefully what I have in mind for the working model or proof of concept bow will be a happy medium. It may be a short DL but it should work to prove or disprove the concept which ever way it works out.


That being said I'm beginning to see this becoming, by todays standards anyway, a fairly large bow. But I am still none the less interested. if it will push a 350 or 400 grain even close to 400fps i dont think many people would care that its larger than the new 2013 bows. (i know a few will but the added length will add stability and thus accuracy so the tradeoffs should make it viable in the market.)


----------



## Bow Me (Sep 30, 2010)

chip1 said:


> Look at the first two pictures, now in your mind knock a 29 inch arrow on each bow. Now tell me what bow has a longer power stroke.


Power stroke would be the same. The amount of string to "take up" increases.


----------



## Hoythunter01 (Oct 23, 2005)

You guys doing the OP's homework for him ?? For free ??


----------



## DRock (Sep 7, 2012)

I like the idea a lot and I am rooting for the OP but I have to think that if it is as easy as adding a single pulley on each cam system then the big guys must have tried it or at the very least given it enough thought to deem fruitless.

These guys sell bows by making and improving upon technology and if it can deliver the performance increase that the OP is claiming then they would be idiots to not bring it to market immediately.

But...who is not to say that they aren't holding out on us until these modern bows hit the magical speed cap and then BAM look we found a new method to get even more speed! If that was the case then they probably would've patented it by now then...

I can see it both ways...


----------



## Briareos (Aug 10, 2013)

DRock said:


> I like the idea a lot and I am rooting for the OP but I have to think that if it is as easy as adding a single pulley on each cam system then the big guys must have tried it or at the very least given it enough thought to deem fruitless.
> 
> These guys sell bows by making and improving upon technology and if it can deliver the performance increase that the OP is claiming then they would be idiots to not bring it to market immediately.
> 
> ...




Holding back technology can be very profitable. With the current energy crisis in mind, and advancements in technology, Why do we not yet have a viable replacement for fossil fuels? The energy giants are making payoffs and hits on the research, until they hash out a way to remain in control of whatever the replacement energy source comes from. What would happen if all the sudden fossil fuels became obsolete? Just imagine what would happen to the U.S. Dollar!


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

DRock said:


> I like the idea a lot and I am rooting for the OP but I have to think that if it is as easy as adding a single pulley on each cam system then the big guys must have tried it or at the very least given it enough thought to deem fruitless.
> 
> These guys sell bows by making and improving upon technology and if it can deliver the performance increase that the OP is claiming then they would be idiots to not bring it to market immediately.
> 
> ...


They may have not tried it. Have you ever thought of a bow that its strings dont roll off the tips? They might not have either. Just because it's their job to think of new stuff doesn't mean they have thought of everything.

Only thing I havnt been able to wrap my noggin around yet is how the draw is going to be heavier at the beginning and gradually decrease and then have a letoff. To me it seems that the addition of the pulleys would just make it harder to draw overall though I am not certain.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Sweet you got patents. Nice but a patent does not mean it actually works remember the Phrenology machines to study the bumps on your head. They were patented and did nothing but rob people of money


----------



## white.greg (Mar 15, 2007)

What is the status of this bow project? The Crowdsource page was abandoned a while back and there has been no activity on the FB page.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Hoythunter01 said:


> You guys doing the OP's homework for him ?? For free ??


I'm always looking for a cool project to do. I have some parts at my disposal that I think would lend themselves very well to making a working model. I've offered my help to the OP and don't expect anything in return except to have some fun making a first of its kind frankenbow. To me that's cool enough to not care about money. If it helps answer some questions, all the better.


----------



## tony21 (Nov 18, 2009)

Briareos said:


> Holding back technology can be very profitable. With the current energy crisis in mind, and advancements in technology, Why do we not yet have a viable replacement for fossil fuels? The energy giants are making payoffs and hits on the research, until they hash out a way to remain in control of whatever the replacement energy source comes from. What would happen if all the sudden fossil fuels became obsolete? Just imagine what would happen to the U.S. Dollar!


This guy gets it...its not the technologies aren't available, their either held back because people will pay for what available now or they're being payed off.


----------



## Speed2Max (Feb 15, 2009)

Marked for later.


----------



## LOL (May 5, 2013)

Very interesting thread. 

Have you considered two extra pulleys more near the riser that would bring the string closer to the grip hand? I'd like to think an extra 5 inches of draw length would increase the time the arrow spends under acceleration, and would increase the velocity quite a bit. 

In your design, number 3, if the two extra pulleys are too close together, what keeps the back of the arrow from being able to move up and down with the string? Is it even an issue?


----------



## UKNick (Apr 20, 2012)

without any draw weight adjustment, how could you tune it to arrows or tune the top limb to the bottom limb or the peak to competition regs or anything??? what if you just changed your mind and wanted more or less? new bow time.


----------



## practice-more (Nov 10, 2005)

s3x5hun8 said:


> Only thing I havnt been able to wrap my noggin around yet is how the draw is going to be heavier at the beginning and gradually decrease and then have a letoff. To me it seems that the addition of the pulleys would just make it harder to draw overall though I am not certain.


It all has to do with the shape of the cams.

The new inner pulleys, as others have pointed out, will cause there to be be more string take-out when compared to a standard compound, especially in the early stages of t he draw. This additional take-out in the early stages will cause more early draw cycle cam rotation. 

Ok, now if the cam is rotating more, and you have cable track positioned on the cam such that it is far out from the axle, there will also be more cable take-in during the early stages of the draw. It is this cable take-in that loads the limbs, therefore you will have more limb loading during the early stages of the draw. 

Now, to keep this early loading from stacking too much in the later part of the draw cycle, as the cam rotates, the cable track must get moved in closer to the axle so that as the string take-out keeps rotating the cam, the decreasing radius of the cable track from the axle causes less cable take-up, thus less limb loading. 

Just looking at it quickly, a 7-8" diameter cam might be a reasonable place to start. If we have a 7" brace height, to get to a 30" draw, we would need 23" of string take-out on each cam, or a little less depending on how close to the nock point the inner pulleys are. An 8" cam would give a potential string take out of just over 24". 

The 4" radius of an 8" diameter cam would also allow for a wide change in cable track radius that will be required as stated above. 

Mitch


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

practice-more said:


> Just looking at it quickly, a 7-8" diameter cam might be a reasonable place to start. If we have a 7" brace height, to get to a 30" draw, we would need 23" of string take-out on each cam, or a little less depending on how close to the nock point the inner pulleys are. An 8" cam would give a potential string take out of just over 24".


 With a 7" BH, you would need each cam to feed out about 21.25" of string.

And, the two center pulleys that hold the string, "rob you" of the "free" two inches or so that the cams conventionally add to the power stroke when they roll over to the string side of the axles.

This bow is going to be a lot less efficient. 

It's efficiency percentage won't even get into the 80's. 
It might not even get into the 70's.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> With a 7" BH, you would need each cam to feed out about 21.25" of string.
> 
> And, the two center pulleys that hold the string, "rob you" of the "free" two inches or so that the cams conventionally add to the power stroke when they roll over to the string side of the axles.
> 
> ...


No how can that be. Come on AT experts have it figured out. Let them keep it going and waste the money to make a prototype to see it just doesn't work the way they think.


----------



## ksubigbuck (Jul 27, 2007)

Wouldn't this system be nearly impossible to keep in time? If the cams or limbs weren't in 100% perfect sync it would be a huge problem.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

ksubigbuck said:


> Wouldn't this system be nearly impossible to keep in time? If the cams or limbs weren't in 100% perfect sync it would be a huge problem.


It wouldn't be any more impossible than a standard dual cam bow. If you make a single cam version of this then there wouldn't be an issue at all although the single cam would take a little more engineering to make it function properly.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

Single cams don't do anything to eliminate timing issues.
Neither do binary, or hybrid cams.

They all need to be timed by setting the string at a certain length, and the cables at a certain length.
​If those lengths change, then cam timing is effected.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

copterdoc said:


> Single cams don't do anything to eliminate timing issues.
> Neither do binary, or hybrid cams.
> 
> They all need to be timed by setting the string at a certain length, and the cables at a certain length.
> ​If those lengths change, then cam timing is effected.


Okay then cam sync. Cam timing is really just starting position and cam sync is keeping the cams moving together. You and everyone else knew what we were getting at.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> Single cams don't do anything to eliminate timing issues.
> Neither do binary, or hybrid cams.


Binary cams dont do anything to eliminate timing

The binary cam is described as a modified twin cam setup where each cam is slaved to the other via a loop of string connecting the two cams. This is contrasted with a typical twin cam setup where the ends of the bowstring are physically anchored onto each of the bow limbs.

*As a twin cam system relies on each cam rotating independently, based solely on the force of the string and the resistance of the bow limbs being absolutely symmetrical, there is room for a twin cam system to "lose tune" [3] through wear and tear, string stretch, or just general age. The effect of a detuned twin cam bow is that the two cams rotate out of sync with each other, causing the bowstring to accelerate in two alternating directions upon release. This causes a number of adverse consequences, the most obvious being unsteady arrow flight.*
*This we know to be true. Twin cam systems require more frequent maintenance to keep them properly in tune unlike solo, binary, and if I'm not mistaken hybrid cams*

*Now comes the kicker*

*The binary cam overcomes this by 'slaving' each cam to the other; as one cam is unable to rotate without the direct equivalent action of the other, the two rotate in near perfect synchronization, with any possible differences in rotation automatically correcting themselves as the shot cycle is completed. In effect, a binary cam bow never needs cam-timing tuning,[4] whereas a high end twin cam equivalent might need it done as often as every few months in order to maintain critical accuracy.*


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Okay then cam sync. Cam timing is really just starting position and cam sync is keeping the cams moving together. You and everyone else knew what we were getting at.


Don't take it personal he likes to think everyone is always wrong and he is always right, and your use of the word timing was just as correct as sync. it means the same thing


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> And, the two center pulleys that hold the string, "rob you" of the "free" two inches or so that the cams conventionally add to the power stroke when they roll over to the string side of the axles.
> .


 Copter - how does the idler pulley's "rob" the effeciency? Are you talking about the extra friction in the bearings? Just wondering.

Mike


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

mterzo said:


> Copter - how does the idler pulley's "rob" the effeciency? Are you talking about the extra friction in the bearings? Just wondering.
> 
> Mike


Just look at your draw force curve. See the drop after the peak of 110. That is your efficiency dropping. Then on top of that add your friction from the bearings. 
Specifically what he was talking about is. With your system in relation to the hand the string rotation point does not have horizontal movement. With a regular bow as the cam rotates you have a horizontal movement. Not all the power stroke is in string play out (it would have to be in your system) it also is in the horizontal movement of where the strings comes off the cam. With your vast design knowledge why is this needed to be explained to you.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

kjwhfsd said:


> Just look at your draw force curve. See the drop after the peak of 110. That is your efficiency dropping. Then on top of that add your friction from the bearings.
> Specifically what he was talking about is. With your system in relation to the hand the string rotation point does not have horizontal movement. With a regular bow as the cam rotates you have a horizontal movement. Not all the power stroke is in string play out (it would have to be in your system) it also is in the horizontal movement of where the strings comes off the cam. With your vast design knowledge why is this needed to be explained to you.


I think there is a discrepancy between the term efficiency as someone stated earlier. The dropping of the force draw curve is not efficiency dropping, it is drawforce dropping as designed.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

mterzo said:


> I think there is a discrepancy between the term efficiency as someone stated earlier. The dropping of the force draw curve is not efficiency dropping, it is drawforce dropping as designed.


They are interrelated.
By the way the beginning of the draw is not the biometrical strongest point. Actually it is at full draw. But that is a different flaw. We will wait until or if you ever get to that point to point that out


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

kjwhfsd said:


> They are interrelated.
> By the way the beginning of the draw is not the biometrical strongest point. Actually it is at full draw. But that is a different flaw. We will wait until or if you ever get to that point to point that out


They are not interrelated, efficiency in the terms we are talking about here is how much energy do you get out (i.e. into the arrow) from what you put in. The force draw curve I show is merely showing the draw force vs the draw length. Energy in - energy out (*100) equals efficiency of the system.

I am not sure where you are coming up with full draw as your body's strongest point? Do some homework on that one and then do some physical tests. I mapped out about 20 peoples strength during draw with force meters into a NI data acquisition system and found that you are weakest at full draw (that is why compound bows have a let-off and why the developed "hard cams")

Mike


----------



## TAP (May 28, 2002)

mterzo said:


> They are not interrelated, efficiency in the terms we are talking about here is how much energy do you get out (i.e. into the arrow) from what you put in. The force draw curve I show is merely showing the draw force vs the draw length. Energy in - energy out (*100) equals efficiency of the system.
> 
> I am not sure where you are coming up with full draw as your body's strongest point? Do some homework on that one and then do some physical tests. I mapped out about 20 peoples strength during draw with force meters into a NI data acquisition system and found that you are weakest at full draw (that is why compound bows have a let-off and why the developed "hard cams")
> 
> Mike


I believe your formula should be:
Energy out/Stored Energy *100 = efficiency.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

TAP said:


> I believe your formula should be:
> Energy out/Stored Energy *100 = efficiency.


Yep, that's the one. Corrected.


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

marking for later, sounds interesting so far


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

mterzo said:


> Yep, that's the one. Corrected.


Sent you a message mike as any questions posted here are just gonna get buried in negativity.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

mterzo said:


> They are not interrelated, efficiency in the terms we are talking about here is how much energy do you get out (i.e. into the arrow) from what you put in. The force draw curve I show is merely showing the draw force vs the draw length. Energy in - energy out (*100) equals efficiency of the system.
> 
> I am not sure where you are coming up with full draw as your body's strongest point? Do some homework on that one and then do some physical tests. I mapped out about 20 peoples strength during draw with force meters into a NI data acquisition system and found that you are weakest at full draw (that is why compound bows have a let-off and why the developed "hard cams")
> 
> Mike


Being as the bow dispenses 100% of the energy input into it by drawing it. What we are talking about is the energy put into the arrow. The draw force curve most defiantly is interrelated to that. 
Where do I get that at full draw is the strongest biomechanical position. You bring 2 250 pound men I will bring 1 95 pound 10 year old girl. Hint she has real good form. Your men will not be able to make her collapse by pushing inline that a bow would pull against her.
Might want to find any level 3 coach and ask them. Not that they would have a clue as to correct body mechanics.


----------



## DRock (Sep 7, 2012)

Can you explain what you are going to do to keep the peak weight at 70lbs? What kind of velocity do you expect with this 70lb peak weight?

I really hope you aren't going to try to sell a 110lb peak weight compound as a 70lb compound just because it was set at 70lbs BEFORE you added the extra pulleys.

Can you post up a new DFC with a 70lb peak to better illustrate your point?


----------



## MrSchaefMan (Jun 24, 2013)

kjwhfsd said:


> Being as the bow dispenses 100% of the energy input into it by drawing it. What we are talking about is the energy put into the arrow. The draw force curve most defiantly is interrelated to that.
> Where do I get that at full draw is the strongest biomechanical position. You bring 2 250 pound men I will bring 1 95 pound 10 year old girl. Hint she has real good form. Your men will not be able to make her collapse by pushing inline that a bow would pull against her.
> Might want to find any level 3 coach and ask them. Not that they would have a clue as to correct body mechanics.


Could you explain this better? I'm not understanding. I know with me the first inch of the draw is almost effortless and it gets progressively harder the further I pull back until just before the break. I cant imagine how much I would struggle at full draw if there was no break at my 63#. I am not trying to discredit you in anyway I just don't get what your saying?


----------



## reylamb (Feb 5, 2003)

s3x5hun8 said:


> Don't take it personal he likes to think everyone is always wrong and he is always right, and your use of the word timing was just as correct as sync. it means the same thing


Timing and synch don't mean the same thing. A bow can be out of time but in synch.

Single cams can come out of time, but they can't come out of synch.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

reylamb said:


> Timing and synch don't mean the same thing. A bow can be out of time but in synch.
> 
> Single cams can come out of time, but they can't come out of synch.


When you take it out of context yes but in the context in which it was used . . no.

Copterdoc likes to pick the fly sh*t out of pepper we all knew what he meant and was talking about when he said it so why make a fuss about it?


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

mterzo said:


> Copter - how does the idler pulley's "rob" the effeciency? Are you talking about the extra friction in the bearings? Just wondering.
> 
> Mike


 They prevent you from taking advantage of the "free" power stroke that you get from the eccentric cams adding to the power stroke.

A few years ago, I tried an experiment. 
I installed a set of cams backwards in the limbs.

This made the brace height very short. 
But, it also resulted in much less power stroke, and TERRIBLE efficiency. 

Because, the cams don't need to feed out string, in order to add the the power stroke. If the cams themselves move closer to the nock point, they themselves become a dynamic extension of the string.

Second to the string itself, the cams are the greatest energy wasters in the system. 
The bow HAS TO move them, using a portion of it's invested energy.

You can only get some of that energy payed back and transferred into the arrow, if the rotation of the cams, is adding to the power stroke.

By restraining the string with idlers, you lose that free paycheck.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> They prevent you from taking advantage of the "free" power stroke that you get from the eccentric cams adding to the power stroke.
> 
> A few years ago, I tried an experiment.
> I installed a set of cams backwards in the limbs.
> ...


http://www.huntersfriend.com/bow-review-400-fps-bow/400-fps-compound-bow.htm


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

mterzo said:


> http://www.huntersfriend.com/bow-review-400-fps-bow/400-fps-compound-bow.htm


 I have read that at least 100 times.

Getting to 400 fps by putting more energy into the bow within the "rules" of IBO specs, doesn't equate to increasing efficiency.

It's not the same thing. At all.

If we are going to significantly increase the efficiency of the compound bow, and get it into the mid to high 90's, it's going to be with new string and cam materials.

If we can make the string weigh nothing, it will get us into the mid 90's. If we can make the cams weigh nothing, that will get us into the high 90's.

If we can make the limbs weigh nothing, it will get us just shy of 100% efficiency.

*ANY* steps that force us to go the other direction, will *ONLY* cause efficiency to decline from where it is right now.

And if you are going for a 400 fps IBO bow, you have absolutely no room whatsoever, to go backwards in efficiency.

​


----------



## ATLurker (Jan 2, 2011)

Why not just build the prototype and go from there?

There is probably a university near you with some eager ME or MET students and a machine shop willing, ready and able so cost could stay low.

I was at Purdue a couple months ago and they pretty much have all the tooling there to make your riser. Get limbs and cams off whatever existing bow(s) you choose. I expect other engineering schools are similarly equipped. Heck, even our local community college has mills, lathes, CNC's etc. and eager students if you can't get a "real" company to give it a go.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

ATLurker said:


> Why not just build the prototype and go from there?
> 
> There is probably a university near you with some eager ME or MET students and a machine shop willing, ready and able so cost could stay low.
> 
> I was at Purdue a couple months ago and they pretty much have all the tooling there to make your riser. Get limbs and cams off whatever existing bow(s) you choose. I expect other engineering schools are similarly equipped. Heck, even our local community college has mills, lathes, CNC's etc. and eager students if you can't get a "real" company to give it a go.


His using the school system is actually not a bad idea it is usually cheaper than going and getting it done elsewhere. My grandpa had the local Career Center (Vocational School) mill him some custom pieces for a restoration he was doing.


----------



## UKNick (Apr 20, 2012)

If ive understood, its meant to be made of carbon composite. not ordinary carbon composite either. it must be rigid enough for the riser, flexible enough for the limbs (that make 70pound dw exactly and match/sync,time correctly). sounds like a specialist job, to say the least.

actually, if i read correctly, hes making it from short fibre (recycled) CFRP which is cheaper and weaker.


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

UKNick said:


> actually, if i read correctly, hes making it from short fibre (recycled) CFRP which is cheaper and weaker.


He is using a new process that was originally developed for aerospace tech it's not weaker. (at least that's what I had gathered I'm sure he will clarify)


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

UKNick said:


> If ive understood, its meant to be made of carbon composite. not ordinary carbon composite either. it must be rigid enough for the riser, flexible enough for the limbs (that make 70pound dw exactly and match/sync,time correctly). sounds like a specialist job, to say the least.
> 
> actually, if i read correctly, hes making it from short fibre (recycled) CFRP which is cheaper and weaker.


CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) is not nearly strong enough for a riser. It needs at least 40ksi yield strength (min.) for a riser and most thermoplastic composites do not produce that strength until you get into uni and 60+ % FC. I would tell you guys what it is,..... but then I would have to shoot you.

Mike


----------



## DRock (Sep 7, 2012)

DRock said:


> Can you explain what you are going to do to keep the peak weight at 70lbs? What kind of velocity do you expect with this 70lb peak weight?
> 
> I really hope you aren't going to try to sell a 110lb peak weight compound as a 70lb compound just because it was set at 70lbs BEFORE you added the extra pulleys.
> 
> Can you post up a new DFC with a 70lb peak to better illustrate your point?


mterzo can you answer these for me?


----------



## white.greg (Mar 15, 2007)

DRock said:


> mterzo can you answer these for me?


He has answered this several times, the peak weight is much higher, but because it happens at the very start of the draw cycle (where we are at our best leverage / strength point) it is no harder to pull than a 70 pound bow. I have no idea if the overall concept will work or be practical, but on paper it sounds interesting.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

DRock said:


> mterzo can you answer these for me?


The peak weight wouldn't have to be higher. It could be whatever you want it to be. All you would need is a lighter limb deflection and the poundage will max out at a lower weight. If you want to keep it at 70 max, you could just as easily as any bow in production today.


----------



## UKNick (Apr 20, 2012)

mterzo said:


> I would tell you guys what it is,..... but then I would have to shoot you.
> 
> Mike


so all that stuff bout Aliens is true!!!!


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

Huntinsker said:


> The peak weight wouldn't have to be higher. It could be whatever you want it to be. All you would need is a lighter limb deflection and the poundage will max out at a lower weight. If you want to keep it at 70 max, you could just as easily as any bow in production today.


Yes with the potential energy of a 40# bow that we already have. 
Don't you get that. See that drop after the peak. That's potential energy lost. A that has been shown is a 110 pound bow with a little more potential energy than a 70 pound bow and far less than a 110 pound bow has. With the loss of potential energy the speed will drop not increase. 
Then lets look at what it would be like to let down. With bows today you can be relaxed at the end of a let down. Not with this bow. You still have another jerk coming to your arm.


----------



## OU812BUCKHUNTER (Apr 14, 2013)

I am not an expert, but I would think that the current arrow technology...or lack of, is what is really limiting the speed (5 grains/lb.) The way I see it, it doesn't matter how hard you fling an arrow, if you cannot reduce the weight of the arrow safely (below 5 grains/lb.), you will never pull ahead in speed, its all relative. Of course KE will go up with heavier arrows, but speed is what you want...right??
Maybe if you fill the arrow with solid fuel rocket propellant and turn the luminock into an drop away "ignitor" you could see 4000 fps with a 20# bow! :teeth:
Good luck with your project, you are working hard and I would love to see you succeed!!!


----------



## bcycle (Feb 22, 2006)

Indians


----------



## mccoppinb (Aug 14, 2012)

Any update?


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

mccoppinb said:


> Any update?


I was contacted by a bow company and we are working on a prototype right now.

Mike


----------



## Rock Steady (Dec 26, 2009)

Good to hear Mike, best of luck with the project.

Michael


----------



## Caliphil1 (Oct 7, 2013)

So i just read through everything and think you will have a hit (hopefully for you). Also saw you are in the process of talking with a company and wanted to wish you luck. Hope all goes well.

Keep us all updated


----------



## MBT-IT (Oct 5, 2013)

I'll stay tuned! Very interesting... 
if the concept works, it would be interesting to try it.
May be I know some people that would be interested to sell it in Italy or in Europe


----------



## wisesteve (Jan 29, 2005)

way to go Mike. Hope all works out. Keep us posted.


----------



## flinginairos (Jan 3, 2006)

Tagged. I want to see where this goes. Very interesting!


----------



## NCTribute (Jan 28, 2007)

kjwhfsd said:


> Yes with the potential energy of a 40# bow that we already have.
> Don't you get that. See that drop after the peak. That's potential energy lost. A that has been shown is a 110 pound bow with a little more potential energy than a 70 pound bow and far less than a 110 pound bow has. With the loss of potential energy the speed will drop not increase.
> Then lets look at what it would be like to let down. With bows today you can be relaxed at the end of a let down. Not with this bow. You still have another jerk coming to your arm.


Partially correct. Force is mass times acceleration and acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. So with the force going up near the end of the draw stroke, the rate of change in velocity must increase since the mass is constant, hence speed of the arrow increases. Potential energy is not 'lost' as the draw stroke increases, by design it decreases the rate of building potential energy to make the draw stroke manageable both to the person and the arrow.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

So what has the most potential energy 110# applied over 10 inches of travel or 110# applied over 1 inch?


----------



## NCTribute (Jan 28, 2007)

kjwhfsd said:


> So what has the most potential energy 110# applied over 10 inches of travel or 110# applied over 1 inch?


Over ten inches, but the reduction is not "lost". The potential energy continues to increase, just at a lower rate.


----------



## kjwhfsd (Sep 10, 2005)

How can the potential energy of 1" of travel equal that of 10"? It can't unless the force applied is greater. If you can solve that issue you just solved the worlds energy problem.


----------



## NCTribute (Jan 28, 2007)

Never said that. All that is happening is that he has designed the draw so that the greatest increase in potential energy per unit length happens at the beginning of the draw stroke. He purposely does not want 110 lbs of draw over the entire stroke. You indicated that this would slow the arrow down, not true, it speeds the arrow up relative to the beginning part of the release stroke. So yes, it is not as fast as a 110 lbs over the entire draw stroke, but that is not his intention.


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

nctribute said:


> never said that. All that is happening is that he has designed the draw so that the greatest increase in potential energy per unit length happens at the beginning of the draw stroke. He purposely does not want 110 lbs of draw over the entire stroke. You indicated that this would slow the arrow down, not true, it speeds the arrow up relative to the beginning part of the release stroke. So yes, it is not as fast as a 110 lbs over the entire draw stroke, but that is not his intention.


bingo


----------



## mursedan111 (Apr 1, 2012)

I really enjoyed your research. If I could make a suggestion, make the riser a slight deflex at the grip to generate a more forgiving bow. When you deal with speeds as high as you're getting, we will need all the forgiveness we can get. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## chirohunter73 (Nov 29, 2008)

tagged


----------



## mterzo (Apr 14, 2013)

mursedan111 said:


> I really enjoyed your research. If I could make a suggestion, make the riser a slight deflex at the grip to generate a more forgiving bow. When you deal with speeds as high as you're getting, we will need all the forgiveness we can get. Thanks for sharing!


Good idea, thanks for the comment!


----------



## s3x5hun8 (Jul 20, 2013)

Any new updates?


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

I like your thinking. If you make these bows try to incorporate some way to tune the bow. Many archers grip bows differently and if there is no way to adjust the bow for the human element then many will not be able to tune the bow to their form.


----------



## bullybbq (Feb 16, 2010)

I recommend making a prototype and get a booth at next year's ata show.Have a complete bow ready for archer's to shoot.You see every year videos all over the web about new products at ata show.When you get positive feedback at ata show,it opens up all the big company's eyes.Then you well get the support your looking for. GOOD LUCK.


----------



## ReezMan (Sep 11, 2010)

Ya with a 200 gr arrow...lol


----------



## ReezMan (Sep 11, 2010)

ReezMan said:


> Ya with a 200 gr arrow...lol


This post was ment a comment left way earlier in the thread and total irrelevant to the last 30 plus pages....im not really diggin this new forum format.....


----------



## TRUE HUNT (Nov 8, 2006)

Tagged AWESOME


----------



## JRexA (Sep 25, 2015)

mterzo said:


> I was contacted by a bow company and we are working on a prototype right now.
> 
> Mike


More than 2 years has now passed....

How are the prototype doing?


----------



## 7thgenmt (Sep 13, 2013)

Tagged


----------



## ikarus189 (Jan 2, 2014)

Looks good. I would definitely consider buying if I could shoot one first.


----------



## antler addict (Dec 21, 2015)

How are you going to compensate for the creep in the carbon riser/limb combo? Your bow might start out at 70 lbs but after 2 months it wont be anymore... I am an engineer as well and in my R&D with carbon composites I have found it to be unreliable in terms of strength and how it reacts when force is applied. For example if you make 3 parts that are exactly the same dimensions, when put under load all 3 will react and flex differently which would cause major tuning issues with your bows. I am guessing that is what was going on with Hoyt's carbon risers this year causing the production delay. Also the string angle would be horrible, how would you not have nock pinch?


----------



## DoWorkSon (Aug 5, 2010)

How much are you going to pay to the companies that own the technology you are going to have to use in your bow?


----------



## wildfire75 (Jan 11, 2016)

no doubt new technology will sell, it does every year


----------



## JRexA (Sep 25, 2015)

I do hope that there will be news soon.
But I don't think so.

OP(mterzo) haven't posted in more than 2 years(January 13th 2014), and haven't been online since June 22'nd 2015.


----------



## corey006 (Mar 7, 2003)

Whatever happened to this project?....

Looks like Mike must be busy with his company....

http://terzopower.com


----------



## Hama Yumi (Nov 2, 2017)

I don't think the science was there. There's a few graphs but he didn't 'show his work' explaining how he reached those conclusions. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a string with 100+ pounds of tension to my face...


----------



## johnno (Apr 11, 2006)

Hama Yumi said:


> I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a string with 100+ pounds of tension to my face...


Why ...many shoot 80# and have no problem....but it seems this project has died...shame...


----------



## Hama Yumi (Nov 2, 2017)

johnno said:


> Why ...many shoot 80# and have no problem....but it seems this project has died...shame...


Assuming 80% let-off with modern compound bows, the 80# that others may shoot would be 16# when fully drawn. The graph in the OP's original post showed his pulley system building poundage with no let off - just like a recurve. So his "data" seems to imply that all that energy will be right next to the shooter's face. I already hear horror stories of people getting fingers sliced open while mis-handling crossbows; I don't want to think what this would do. I'm all for innovation and would've liked to see this make it to market though.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

The main problem I can see with this design is that it would effectively cause the bow to shoot like it had a very short axle to axle measurement. Like VERY short. 

Seems to me that this would cause the bow to be extremely sensitive to heeling or high wristing the grip, or similar types of vertical torque. 

I think it would be simpler to just build a bow with a 20" axle to axle measurement and allow the cams to rotate more than a complete 360° to get the draw length to go out to a normal range. This should still provide the effect of lengthening the power stroke and make the bow faster, in the same way that a 30" bow tends to be faster than a 40" bow.


----------



## RGV hunter (Sep 20, 2014)

I didn't read all the replies but I say 'GO FOR IT". Don't know if it will be affordable but we will see. One thing I am pretty sure of though, many critics of speed bows that cannot draw high poundage bows will jump all over this so they too can shoot at the current 80# bow speeds or higher.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Hama Yumi said:


> I don't think the science was there. There's a few graphs but he didn't 'show his work' explaining how he reached those conclusions. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a string with 100+ pounds of tension to my face...


With letoff, the string isn't anywhere near 100lbs. Even if it was, I've shot compounds over 100lbs with out issue with standard string diameters and builds. I've stretched strings/cables to 500+ pounds on my stretcher and they can hold more than double that. The string material isn't the limitation here.


----------



## gutpileraider (Jul 27, 2016)

mterzo said:


> Good points! Here's the cool thing about energy storage. You can translate that either into speed or forgiveness. That means you can either make a bow that shoots fast, or you only need to draw back 40# to get the 300fps, or maybe somewhere inbetween.
> 
> The other cool thing is that you can have limbs that are barely prestressed. One of the prototypes was a 290 fps bow that I could remove the string by hand.
> 
> ...


Mike, good stuff, don't listen to the archers that say more speed isn't needed or important to them. For me this potential innovation is not about approaching 400 fps, it's faster speeds for shorter draw length shooters & upgrading to heavier arrows without loss of speed.
If a 27/28" DL archer could add arrow weight and hit 350 fps, it would be the best thing since sliced bread & they would sell like hotcakes. Let's be realistic about the engineering and physics though, X-bows only reach 400 from ultra high poundage and you are correct in that compounds have reached a hard ceiling without a such a ground breaking design change. Personally I am skeptical that your numbers translate into reality, but very interesting. As someone being involved in archery for 30 years and who will not spend $1000 for a flagship bow, I would however shell out double that for a 28 DL, lifetime warranty bow that shot a 500 grain arrow at 350 fps. 
Make one and send it to me, thanks in advance.


----------



## copterdoc (Oct 9, 2005)

The problem is that the idea is/was based in Science Fiction.

If you really want a 400 FPS bow, all you need is a zero inch brace height.


----------



## Dewboy (Apr 19, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> The problem is that the idea is/was based in Science Fiction.
> 
> If you really want a 400 FPS bow, all you need is a zero inch brace height.


Yep, that's what I was thinking as well.....almost. I was thinking more along the lines of a 2" to 2.5" brace height though. Just enough to allow for your hand to fit between a string stop and built in arm guard and the grip. It would probably require a string stop just above and one just below the rest to keep the string from contacting the rest. Hey, who knew people would be shooting accurately with bows like the Full Throttle with it's 5.25" brace height? I think the key is the string stop(s) and highly pre-loaded limbs that limit the movement of the string beyond brace height. Just thinking out loud.......


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Huntinsker said:


> With letoff, the string isn't anywhere near 100lbs. Even if it was, I've shot compounds over 100lbs with out issue with standard string diameters and builds. I've stretched strings/cables to 500+ pounds on my stretcher and they can hold more than double that. The string material isn't the limitation here.


Thanks, Huntinsker, hoping some one would chime in on the strength of strings and string materials.


----------



## Nevada-Smith (Jan 12, 2017)

As of April 3, 2017, his patent expired (lapsed) due to non-payment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362


----------



## Luvin archery (Dec 4, 2017)

Nevada-Smith said:


> As of April 3, 2017, his patent expired (lapsed) due to non-payment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362


So what does that mean now. Someone else can take his tech and apply it?


----------



## Nevada-Smith (Jan 12, 2017)

Luvin archery said:


> So what does that mean now. Someone else can take his tech and apply it?


I am not a patent agent, nor an attorney, so I can't answer your question other than to comment, "It's complicated."


----------



## Hoythunter01 (Oct 23, 2005)

Maybe that is Mike's strategy. Let it lapse and hope the vultures pick it to death then all the "Clauses" surface and Cha-Ching !!!

I remember this thread years ago. Now look at the carbon risers that we have today and compare them to this bow(S). I would bet money that these would fold over pretty quick. Carbon fiber is tough, but not that tough.


----------

