# What's the point of dampers if you let the bow swing?



## damiaan (Feb 17, 2014)

The shock is already passed through you hand before it really jumps and swings. And excessive vibration could break your equipment over time, so there's that. in reality it just sounds better


----------



## bukuMASSIVE (Jun 3, 2018)

That's a fair point, I suppose dampers would also aid in preventing screws coming loose as well, cheers.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

buku -

Dampeners: 
No, there isn't. 
It's marketing BS, that lends itself to people who can't tune a rig properly, or those looking for sponsorship. 

Stabilization:
Yes, there is. A properly "stabilized" bow, will sit steadily in the hand be be easier to hold on target.
After release, generating a direction for the bow to fall (in a way "forcing it), may negate minor user interference.

Viper1 out.


----------



## bukuMASSIVE (Jun 3, 2018)

Viper1 said:


> buku -
> 
> Dampeners:
> No, there isn't.
> ...


Cheers Viper1,

That's exactly what I thought was the case.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

bukuMASSIVE said:


> Cheers Viper1,
> 
> That's exactly what I thought was the case.


Unfortunately that is not the case....


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> buku -
> 
> Dampeners:
> No, there isn't.
> ...


Unfortunately this is not correct. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

damiaan said:


> The shock is already passed through you hand before it really jumps and swings. And excessive vibration could break your equipment over time, so there's that. in reality it just sounds better


this is correct. 

and this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho0u-jMWYY0

and in that video, my bow is tuned properly from the start. 


Chris


----------



## Ozz (Sep 19, 2017)

It absolutely makes a massive difference in shot feel. I can't shoot my bow without dampeners very long - it flares up tendonitis in my elbow. With dampeners there's no unwanted vibration, shots are smooth, comfortable, and quiet.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

Delusion is what sells. 
IOWs, if someone tells you something works, make sure he's not selling it or trying to convince his wife there was a reason he had to buy it... 

If you believe something works, then it does. Whether it actually does or not rarely enters the picture. 
Sorry, too many of us have been doing well before all the current "must haves" existed. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> Guys -
> 
> Sorry, too many of us have been doing well before all the current "must haves" existed.
> 
> Viper1 out.


 Back in the 70s, the bows werent as efficient and didnt have the recoil that modern bows have. Limbs are now way more efficient and store a lot more energy. That energy creates much more recoil and high frequency vibration. Also modern strings are faster and contribute to the recoil. Even beginner and intermediate limbs are much better now, store more energy and create more recoil. 

There is a reason why you have to use a dacron string on older bows like the Black widow (which you probably shot back then and still have several of). Using a modern string will shoot the limb tips off. 

Modern carbon and aluminum bows need dampers and better stabilization systems than what use to be used back in the day. Side rods do a lot to help dampen as well, but we all know where you stand on that issue. 

The high frequency vibrations can damage the elbow and shoulder. In my opinion, anyone not recommending them is doing a disservice to the sport. It has nothing to do with delusional marketing. 

Chris


----------



## KKW (Oct 20, 2015)

It doesn’t seem to me like crstphr is trying to sell anything… That video he referenced is an excellent discussion on the subject and a explanation to the original poster and contains the entire method by which one can demonstrate to oneself whether or not dampners on stabilizers make a difference. Up till now, I have just accepted the convention that the dampners actually did something to reduce vibration but have never tested it, while at the same time heard that there is a bit of a current trend away from using dampeners.

Viper, you seem a little dismissive of chrstphr’s evidence which supports the proposition that, “yes, it definitely makes a difference.” Whether or not it makes an improvement in the shot may very well be subjective. I wouldn’t disagree with you that they aren’t necessary to making a good shot, but that doesn’t mean that they are not useful or serve a function. 

I think we all agree that getting more good practice makes for better shots. And if you can’t practice as much because the bow vibration going into your arm exacerbates a physical condition, then it’s pretty clear by extension that a device which takes the vibration out of the bow and therefore out of the archer is both useful and even necessary (in those cases) to improving an individual’s shot.

Crstphr, I am wondering if perhaps not just the weight on the damper but also the length of the the weight may contribute to the overall vibration reduction? I really appreciate the demonstration, because I am going to do some experimenting myself to see what feels good to me and see if I think it makes a difference.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

KKW said:


> Crstphr, I am wondering if perhaps not just the weight on the damper but also the length of the the weight may contribute to the overall vibration reduction? I really appreciate the demonstration, because I am going to do some experimenting myself to see what feels good to me and see if I think it makes a difference.


In my video, i say to experiment with different dampers and weights to find the right combination for your bow setup. The stiffer the damper, the more weight needed to counteract the recoil and vibration. The more pliable damper, the less weight needed. 

The current trend to not have dampers is more of a compound setup that is being used on a recurve. Compound archers found that having a lot of weight helped with their shot holding steady. The problem is recurve archers followed suit, so if you pile on a lot of weight, you cant overpower the damper, so they removed it from the system. Recurve archers hold a lot more poundage at full draw, and the recoil is completely different. Also having the high weights makes holding recurve poundages at full draw much harder to do and be still. 

Lastly, even compounds come with limbsavers and dampers built into the riser or attached to the ultra short ultra stiff limbs.They can get by without a damper on the rods. The recurve bow needs more dampening from the stabs as the limbs are not as stable as a compound bow limb. The recurve limb is much more unstable than a compound limb. Try to flex a compound limb in your hands, then flex a recurve limb. 


Why would you not err on the side of giving advice that would help prevent injury, instead of recommending the opposite? When there are clear cases of archers who have issues with their elbows/ shoulders from vibrations of different bows. I had a range / shop owner than couldnt shoot some compounds because it hurt his elbow. He was very picky about the compounds he shot. All of this was from the vibration of the bow shot translating directly into his bow arm. 

Marketing didnt invent those injuries from those archers. 

Chris


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Chris - 

You are correct in comparing more vintage bows to some current issue rigs. But you're not telling the whole story. And the fact is, it just doesn't play out. Remember, I said have been and not used to. 

Too many people are shooting what would be considered "shocky" rigs, without any problems or felt vibrations. 
That includes myself and a number of my students and we're in our 60's and 70's. 



> Back in the 70s, the bows werent as efficient and didnt have the recoil that modern bows have. Limbs are now way more efficient and store a lot more energy. That energy creates much more recoil and high frequency vibration. Also modern strings are faster and contribute to the recoil. Even beginner and intermediate limbs are much better now, store more energy and create more recoil.


Yes, they are, but less than you think, and that's not the real reason for vibration. Efficiency, is work in vs. work out. Vibration, sound, etc is lost energy. Keep reading. And BTW, bows don't have recoil. 



> There is a reason why you have to use a dacron string on older bows like the Black widow (which you probably shot back then and still have several of). Using a modern string will shoot the limb tips off.


Dacron has stretch, so it does absorb energy on shock, that's true. Modern strings stretch less, and can transmit more vibration, but not all "modern" strings are created equal. I never recommend anything harsher than D97. It's just not worth it on the bow or on the shooter. That's a bigger factor and yes, part of setting up a bow.



> Modern carbon and aluminum bows need dampers and better stabilization systems than what use to be used back in the day. Side rods do a lot to help dampen as well, but we all know where you stand on that issue.


Don't conflate dampening with stabilization. Two different things. Any rod with a weight on its end can absorb energy (vibration) and sure, the more the better. But the trick is to know how much is really necessary and how much is just window dressing. It's that darn set up thing again.

I may have recounted this, and yes, it's anecdotal, but drives the point home. 

A few years ago, I was working with a former Olympian getting back into the sport after a 20+ year hiatus. After about a year working with her old GM, she bit the bullet and bought a brand new $2K rig, with v-bars. She said that, she needed them (the v-bars) or the vibrations where too great. And that would back up your claims. However, I asked her to shoot my rig (Aerotec/WinEx, no side bars) with same native weight as hers. After two shots, I get a deer in the head light stare. "This feels dead on the shot", she said. I said "really"?



> The high frequency vibrations can damage the elbow and shoulder. In my opinion, anyone not recommending them is doing a disservice to the sport. It has nothing to do with delusional marketing.


I keep hearing that! But, I'm still shooting my Aerotec riser with WinEx limbs, a front stab and small counter balance. So are a bunch of my students. I always warn them about the vibration and elbow thing, but after a decade, no one has required surgery or let up on their shooting.

So Chris, who's doing more of a disservice to the sport, some one recommending or selling a potentially harmful rig, that requires additional sales to make it tolerable, or some one who know how to set up a perfectly safe rig without the add-ons, at the cost of a few fps? Delusional marketing? Maybe not, it's creating a problem and then supplying the fix for it. 

We're not going to agree on this, happily we don't have to. 

Viper1 out. .


----------



## bukuMASSIVE (Jun 3, 2018)

chrstphr said:


> this is correct.
> 
> and this....
> 
> ...


Thanks Chris,

That was a great demonstration.

I never doubted the validity of dampers or stabilisation systems to reduce vibration, my main grievance was with how useful they were with if you weren't gripping the bow after the shot, but it makes sense that some of the energy would be transmitted to your arm before the bow has a chance to shoot forward out of your grip.

I would also like to thank you for your video on how to tune your recurve as it was invaluable to me as a beginner in the sport learning to tune my own bow, so thanks for that.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

I'll jump in on Viper's side here. Dampeners are ultimately about chasing a feeling, but I have seen no formal evidence that they reduce injury by any measure. It's more about wanting a "dead reaction", which can largely be attained by proper tuning, and has not been proven to actually provide any significant performance benefit.

From a straight physics standpoint, dampeners are detrimental to performance. The fact that you attach extra mass that absorbs more of the shot's energy means there can only be less energy to go into the arrow. Furthermore, most stabilizers today already have some dampening material built into them, making further rubber somewhat redundant in reducing vibrations.

On the topic of older bows, have you actually tried one recently? I actually shot a late 70's Yamaha for a few months at the beginning of the year for fun, instead of my Nano Max with Inno Ex Power limbs. And I can tell you that the Yamaha definitely had a lot more vibration, despite my Nano having more poundage, higher performance limbs with modern materials, and an 8125 string instead of Dacron on the Yamaha. So I can't really agree that modern bows require more dampening than older bows. I'd argue the exact opposite, in fact, because modern bows can actually be tuned way more accurately than older bows. Furthermore, modern materials actively dampen by themselves; carbon fiber is known to be vibration absorbent, for example.


----------



## bukuMASSIVE (Jun 3, 2018)

PregnantGuppy said:


> From a straight physics standpoint, dampeners are detrimental to performance. The fact that you attach extra mass that absorbs more of the shot's energy means there can only be less energy to go into the arrow. Furthermore, most stabilizers today already have some dampening material built into them, making further rubber somewhat redundant in reducing vibrations.


Wouldn't the force imparted on the arrow be consistent regardless of what accoutrements you have on the bow? Surely it's just the dissipation and distribution of the energy after the arrow has left the string?


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

bukuMASSIVE said:


> Wouldn't the force imparted on the arrow be consistent regardless of what accoutrements you have on the bow? Surely it's just the dissipation and distribution of the energy after the arrow has left the string?


No. Increase the moment of inertia of the bow system, and then, you have more energy transfer to the arrow. Think of a cannon that has a lot of recoil. Make the cannon as heavy as possible, increase the moment of inertia with "accoutrements", massive as in lots of mass accoutrements, then, you will get more energy transferred to the arrow. If you have zero accoutrement, then, the moment of inertia for the bow system is lower moment of inertia, and then, you waste energy cuz your bow system is vibrating like a tuning fork (natural frequency is higher oscillation). So, just adding dampeners will not increase moment of inertia. Add enough mass to the ends of your stabilizers (within your stamina limits) and you will lose less arrow speed (more efficient launching system).


----------



## HC Stones (Apr 19, 2018)

TLDR: it keeps screws in place and reduces equipment stress. 


As a straight reply, modern dampening on the ends are there to keep your screws and weights from loosening. When allowing swing there isn't much that dampening does as the energy the dampeners absorb is at the terminus of the rods. But from an equipment view and Newtonian mechanics, the dampening prevents potential bounce of the vibration waves at the end of the stabilizer back towards your riser which stresses certain components. You could make your own dampening with rubber washers and all thread/ set screws.


----------



## monterey (Feb 16, 2015)

A big difference between the 70s bows and current ones is not the bows but the arrows. Modern carbon arrows being around 25% lighter than aluminum ones. 

The combination of arrow weight going in the direction towards dry fire, lighter mass weight carbon limbs and non stretch strings means more left over energy to get rid of after the shot. 

Bad solutions to create a critically damped bow would be:
-shooting arrows that are really heavy - two pound arrows?
-a really stretchy non-elastic string that would stay stretched after the jerk strain of the shot. 
-limbs with very bad hysteresis - much less energy going to the arrow.

The excess energy has to go somewhere so rubber dampers are a good solution rather than gradually damaging the limbs or loosening screws.

As far as injury/discomfort from vibration, I'm suprised nobody has done slow motion or vibration measurements to find out how much of it travels back to the archer. 
I would think the bow would be mostly jumping out of the hand before vibration made it back to the bow arm. Friction from the fingers on the side of the grip might keep it coupled long enough for some energy to get through though. 

During the shot, the sideways movement of the string coming off the draw fingers would cause some vibration/force while the bow is still attached to the archer. Maybe this has a large enough effect and that dampers help reduce it. Sounds like a good school project.


----------



## Dolphinlover (Mar 27, 2021)

Viper1 said:


> buku -
> 
> Dampeners:
> No, there isn't.
> ...


actually this is wrong


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

If you take a perfectly tuned bow that is soft and quiet and beautiful without dampeners and then add them, it will get softer, quieter, and beautifuler. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Dolphinlover said:


> actually this is wrong


Why? And, heck of a first post.


----------

