# Super curves: Uukha, Dryad, Morrsion, Border, et.al. Reviews



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

I can't imagine any limbs satisfying me more than my TradTech BlackMax Carbon Extreme's but I must admit, I'm intrigued. I'd like to learn a little more before I jump in the super curve business.

Not looking to get in to a comparison of this super curve vs. that super curve, but would be interest to hear how they compare to the more common limbs you used before. Things like feel thru the draw, how do they feel on the front and back end, speed, quietness, etc. would be most welcome.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Jim 

You know how I'm partial t SR's and particularly the Border Stuff I have been very fortunate to shoot and own most of the high end conventional limbs out there ...... From the best Korean stuff to the best that Hoyt has to offer 

I also have great classic customs from Silvertips to Fedoras to Bob Lees 

So I have a good baseline on conventional limbs 

What I can tell you is that for me it is a feel thing 

I can admire any good limb that is smooth and does not stack 

A high quality conventional limb like you are shooting now gains weight slowly and smoothly and performs incredible well 

They are quiet and quick and will do anything anyone could expect of a quality limb 

A super recurve like a Hex 7 picks up the weight quickly and than gains slowly ..... Giving the illusion of a perceived let off 

There is no let off just a silky smooth draw to anchor 

The smoothness is so dramatic it feels like let off 

This helps me to settle into my anchor and to actually....crazy as it seems draw longer 

When tuned correctly they can be as quiet as any other recurve and for me actually tune and setup very easily 

They seem to be rather spine tolerant as well 

All in all they are not for everyone but for me they are the only limb I'm really interested in shooting 

Alas since I got my Hex 6.5's I have not shot my high end conventional limbs as much and since I got 7's I don't shoot my 6.5's as much 

For someone that has been shooting conventional limbs for a lifetime they take getting used to..... But once you do they are hard at 
Least for me to like anything else 

Either way they make the world of archery just that much more interesting and they are a viable alternative to the many great style of limbs out there 

Good luck


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I still go back and forth between extreme recurves and conventional recurves. I have shot many tournaments with HEX5 and HEX6, and a few with HEX7. I also have HEX4 that are my backup limbs. There is a significant feel different between each. The key to me is that the soft back end makes expansion very easy. With HEX7 you can be pulling less than a pound/inch at release, possibly as low as 0.6 pounds/inch. That is the incremental for that needs to be overcome at release. Holding weight is just that, holding weight. You need to apply additional force at expansion. The easier that is to do, the easier it is to expand. Border extreme recurves are designed to be stable at low brace heights. That provides up to 2 inches of extra stored energy at the far end of the draw force curve where the most energy is stored. That extra stored energy results in more arrow speed. The HEX7 are really remarkable. I was doing form work with a 24 pound bow (at my draw length) and was concerned that I would not be able to pull the 40 pounds needed for the HEX7. The back end was so soft that as soon as I got used to the front end of the draw, which took very little time, I was able to easily pull the HEX7's. I found that I could execute my form with the HEX7 better than any bow I had except for my very light weight form bows and a stretch band. I think this ability to execute is the hidden secret of these limbs. We spend too much energy talking about speed, and not enough about shootablity. It's like the difference between driving a truck and a Ferrari. The Ferrari feels like it is driving itself.

I mentioned that I still go back and forth. I only go to conventional recurves for bows that are much lighter, or longer. Lighter, longer, bows will lower the resistance to expansion at full draw, giving me something closer to what some of the extreme recurves provide. I would shoot lighter weight extreme recurves if I had some, like a nice set of 30 to 32 pound HEX5 or HEX6. That would make a great FITA field bow for my 32 inch draw. Extra longs would be interesting. I have never shot a 72 inch extreme recurve.

I have shot the Uukha super recurve but the bow was short, heavy and I could not get it to full draw before it felt like exploding out of my hand. I really did not get a good feel for it. I tested it and it seem to be similar to HEX4 but it is hard to tell for sure since the bow length was different and that affects the smoothness curve. I would need to get a 68 or 70 bow to make a better comparison. I have not tested the others.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

For me as a knuckle dragger it's all about feel. All conventional limbs stack when compared to a super curve.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Comparing the bow I just bought from you (samick medium limbs on a morrison riser) to the covert hunter just 2" longer...

Shooting back and forth, I can get used to either. Coming from your bow to the covert hunter, the front end feels unusually stiff, and the last 5 or 6 inches feels like there is some kind of let off mechanism, a little uncanny. After a few dozen arrows, it normalizes, and just feels really smooth, with a relative ease at full draw.

Coming from the covert hunter to the morrison/samick, the front 2/3 of the draw feels so easy it's like a waste of power stroke, and you don't feel like you've got any energy into the bow until about the last 6 inches. At first those last six inches feel like the bow wasn't meant to go that far, but after you get used to it, it just feels like a comfortable draw, and it isn't so much that it is stacking excessively, but rather that you don't get your expansion pressure until the end, where it is easiest to apply.

Different animals. They both shoot nicely.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> For me as a knuckle dragger it's all about feel. All conventional limbs stack when compared to a super curve.


I have a 75 inch board bow you might want to try.

Fellow knuckle dragger


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Now not on my phone, I'll elaborate a little.

While qualifying that I _prefer_ the feel of the draw and the shot of my 'super' recurve, I feel compelled to mention a few details.

You get more out of an arrow than a conventional recurve with a given holding weight, because you are in fact putting more energy into the bow by the time you get to full draw. In other words, _with a given holding weight_, the draw is in fact more work.

If you really didn't care about output energy, the feel of the draw in terms of not stacking at the back end and how it may help some archers take their time, and you're really looking for XX# of holding weight primarily, on the whole, the draw of a conventional recurve is actually, objectively, easier. In comparison, it feels like you're not putting any effort into the draw until you are almost already at full draw anyway, because on a relative basis, you're not.

In other words, if you're totally happy with how you shoot your bow, and you shoot a 45# bow because that is the draw weight you shoot best, and the conventional bow has plenty of juice for whatever you want to do, there's not really much advantage functionally speaking, and if you shoot a lot, the super recurve may physically fatigue you faster, because you're putting more energy into every shot.

Now, that being said, there _are_ potential objective advantages, if you have circumstances that take advantage of the shape of the draw force curve, specifically the facet that there is more energy put in at the front end, and less variation of draw weight on the back.

For instance, if you shoot a lighter holding draw weight more accurately, but are shooting 45# because you want to make sure you have enough, you could possibly grab something like a 38-39# super recurve and get the same output into the same arrow as your 45# bow. Similarly, if you like 45# of holding weight, but would really like a little more energy without having to have it on your fingers while executing a shot, or waiting for a buck to step forward, instead of bumping up to a 51-52# bow, you can keep your 45# of holding weight.

For another instance, if you're doing long distance shooting, particularly in competition, particularly without a clicker, the nature of the relatively constant draw weight near the back end means that, ergonomically, the body is less prone to collapse. When you get tired, getting to full expansion, because of the leverage relationships of the skeleton, is actually _easier_ than drawing a couple inches short. In other words, the bow/skeletal sum is ergonomically encouraging of full, consistent expansion.

A super recurve is also more forgiving of a partial collapse. If you look at the area under the draw force curve, or run a super recurve through a chrono, you notice that changes in draw length have a less drastic effect in output energy and arrow speed. Better vertical grouping with a given amount of draw length variation.

Flip that around, though...

If you're a shooter who uses the increasing stack on the back end as a kind of clicker, or finger ripper offer, triggering the release, the relatively constant draw weight may, at least initially, be a problem for you. It isn't the kind of bow Jinks would really want to snap shoot. When I first got mine, combined with dropping draw weight, I had to focus a little more on relaxing fingers. I don't think it was that my releases were particularly bad before, and were simply being masked by the heavier weight, but rather, it took awhile to acclimate to the new environment. If you 'pull' your fingers off the string, that only really works if the string pulls back harder as a result of the pulling. This is what I had been trained to do, and with conventional recurves, it works fine. If the draw weight is constant, or darn near, the release becomes more of relaxing and allowing a slip. It took some getting used to. I still don't consistently do perfect releases, though I think most of my blunders right now are in the bow arm 

All I can think of for now.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Now, Barney your Super!
Dan


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Must be something good about the conventional recurve because 99% of the top competitive Freestyle/Barebow archers in the world use them.

Timo who won World Indoors and WA Field champs this year use the Uukha limbs, Alan and think Ben use the Hex limb but nobody else. Semandi is using Fivics now, the Spanish seem to have a thing for the Kaya K7, none of the top Swedes use super curves as far as I know.

Nothing wrong with super curves but with all the advantages on offer you have to wonder why.


----------



## marcelxl (Dec 5, 2010)

Agreed, it's all about the feel!

When you are used to stacking of some degree, it's quite something to not feel it.

When I moved in to ILF "trad" bows, 19" risers and long limbs, I felt some of my older (shorter) bows horrible to shoot so they went. Now I have some Dryad ACS and I am worried for what I thought I liked!

I guess I will see if their pros suit my shooting. Time will tell I guess, but I am excited about finding out


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

steve morley said:


> Nothing wrong with super curves but with all the advantages on offer you have to wonder why.


I think there is an easy answer...

The advantages are either of no or little use, and the disadvantages may be significant, or at least possibly significant, enough to not bother trying.

For instance, if you're a highly trained archer who shoots ___#s as a holding weight best, gets very consistent expansion anyway, either by ingrained form or a clicker, and has no use for KE, and is fine getting whatever arrow speed necessary by simply shooting a relatively lighter arrow, why bother putting more work into the front of the draw? More energy, more fatigue, possibly negative impact on scoring, especially if you're shooting zillions (or a little less) of arrows a day, multiple days in a row.

If you're a highly trained archer who is doing great with conventional limbs, even if a super recurve worked just as well, why would you even consider trying something else? The very fact that it is _different_ than everything else you've trained on is a real negative. Do a bunch of training to adjust to the differences just to get to the same place. Who would do that?

As you said, it's been doing what it does just fine, and in that realm, there's not a whole lot more you could ask of it. You pull it back the same way, let it go the same way, the arrow goes in the same place. Really, there's not a whole lot of room for improvement in performance, right?

Though, if you're not a top athlete who can easily and consistently hold enough draw weight to get the zing you want with an arrow using conventional limbs, want to use it to hunt but would rather not have the additional holding weight if you don't have to, but don't want to go to a compound bow to do it... Nice option. Just an option, but it's nice to have it


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Now, Barney your Super!
> Dan


Thanks Dan!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I've shot several brands of super curves, on paper my Field/3D scores were actually better with conventional profile limbs. I think that softness and the end of the draw is a wonderful feeling but not everybody want's/needs it.


Maybe they tried to fix something that wasn't broken 


I'm not trashing super curves but people considering them, don't be fooled into thinking you can buy you way into more points and they will somehow transform your shooting into elite level, you still have to do the work.


----------



## cubefx (May 8, 2012)

I am currently shooting Uukha Vx1000 xcurve. What about extra speed and flatter trajectories? Do not have chrono, but it might be true. Uukha's are same poundage as my previous limbs, but I needed to change my points to a lighter ones to stiffen the arrow and make bareshaft fly straight again.


----------



## Breathn (Jun 12, 2005)

I feel I can focus more and concentrate on getting better release with my Covert hunter over a couple other of my standard limb Bows..
I just picked up a set of z4 limbs from Bill at zipper,to me they feel like the love child of a hex7 and a carbon extreme..lol,really good feeling limb,and fast too


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

steve morley said:


> Must be something good about the conventional recurve because 99% of the top competitive Freestyle/Barebow archers in the world use them.
> 
> Timo who won World Indoors and WA Field champs this year use the Uukha limbs, Alan and think Ben use the Hex limb but nobody else. Semandi is using Fivics now, the Spanish seem to have a thing for the Kaya K7, none of the top Swedes use super curves as far as I know.
> 
> Nothing wrong with super curves but with all the advantages on offer you have to wonder why.


WA Gold Gents barebow in Italy was taken by a Spanish guy shooting Hex6s.
A Russian girl in instinctive class took silver with a covert hunter. and 5th place was with hex6s

3rd and 4th place gents instinctive were with hex6s.

now all in all thats quite impressive i thought for a small company that only makes a 1000 bows a year.
its only in the last 2 years have other companies been making super recurves.
its only been us. since 2004. 
so from one world event, super recurves from ONE small company took 3 medals if i recall correctly in field where sponsership isnt as influential.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think there is an easy answer...
> 
> The advantages are either of no or little use, and the disadvantages may be significant, or at least possibly significant, enough to not bother trying.
> 
> ...



i see your point.... but here goes. 
why do the top guys shoot 8-9gpp, and 48-53lbs?
because energy and mass are important for long distance.


----------



## Chris Hill (Aug 26, 2005)

I like the extra energy you get out of a big curve. I use to shoot 60# then went to 55# and then got hex6 and dropped to 50# and now a CH and down to 47# and I am still shooting the same arrows at about the same speeds more accurately. I went from having to snap shoot to being able to hold at full draw for 30 seconds and still make a controlled accurate shot. This is very helpful while hunting. Never shot paper so don't know if it would be a negative or not but my scores have gone up on the 3-D course.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Chris Hill said:


> I like the extra energy you get out of a big curve. I use to shoot 60# then went to 55# and then got hex6 and dropped to 50# and now a CH and down to 47# and I am still shooting the same arrows at about the same speeds more accurately. I went from having to snap shoot to being able to hold at full draw for 30 seconds and still make a controlled accurate shot. This is very helpful while hunting. Never shot paper so don't know if it would be a negative or not but my scores have gone up on the 3-D course.


i think that's some of your key right there Chris.
still shooting the same arrow. 60lbs conventional bow down to a 47lbs CH bow.

most reviews you get even from competent archers that use the same arrow for two bows of the same draw weight. then claim the odd rogue shot. or need a high Brace height to get a quiet tune. 
try shooting a arrow thats 20lbs underspined out of a conventional bow and watch it get noisy too. and its NOT the brace hieght thats making the noise.

as Joe said above, it is forgiving of arrow spine.

it is, but it also isnt.

you might think your on spine, as its looking accapetable, but your still on the cusp of spine.

Rusty also stated years ago that his BD was more compitent with a mixed range of spines used for stumping. 
again another light shinging towards the spine tillerance issue.
but that spine tollerance also highlights a possible pitfall.
its easy to accept "good enough" tune. when infact its still not right, whereas a bow that sensitive to spine will clearly show you its out. BUT will also punish release issues. as tune and release are directly related.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Pretty sure the only points Jim cares about are on a whitetails head - just saying ;-)


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Pretty sure the only points Jim cares about are on a whitetails head - just saying ;-)


we have a customer reporting in who is on 5 whitetails and a pig since he got his bow in June.
Big snuffers leaving easy trails


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I like that I can shoot a 50 ish pound CH and get the same power I was getting with 60ish pound conventional bow


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Borderbows said:


> we have a customer reporting in who is on 5 whitetails and a pig since he got his bow in June.
> Big snuffers leaving easy trails


That was my point Sid - there are other advantages to a limb other than purely "can it gain me X points" I score about the same with my Winnex as I do with my Hex-6 but, I will always grab my Hex-6 when I go shoot - the feel of the limbs are night and day for me and the extra money is flat out worth it to me.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> WA Gold Gents barebow in Italy was taken by a Spanish guy shooting Hex6s.


I stand corrected Sebastian did shoot Hex limbs, he shot the K7 in previous competitions.

Don't forget Katrin also picked up 3rd place medal there with her Border L/B and 1st place in IFAA worlds in Hungary the week before :wink:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> i see your point.... but here goes.
> why do the top guys shoot 8-9gpp, and 48-53lbs?
> because energy and mass are important for long distance.


I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Please keep in mind, I'm a sucker for discussion, but my brain can't keep everything in a frame at one time. I don't always keep every angle in perspective.

I should be clear that I'm not trying to state anything as definitive. I am certainly not a top shooter, and can't speak for them, just turning ideas....

Not trying to be an advocate of the Devil, or anyone, but for the top guys, 48-53# of holding weight, in a competition, may be pretty trivial. For _them_, the aspect of more stored energy in relation to holding weight may be of little value.

Where something like a super recurve would be beneficial for a target shooter, specifically, on an objective level, is where they may shoot better with a lower holding weight (or even cannot comfortably hold 48-53#for an extended shooting session), but they still need the energy/mass for long distance shooting.

Where a super recurve may be beneficial for a hunter, on the same level, is that they can maximize the kinetic energy available to them with minimizing holding weight, without having to move into the compound realm.

Where it may benefit _some_ shooters in general, is the perceived ease at full draw. The flatness of the curve makes full draw easier to maintain than a collapse, when you sum up the biomechanical factors. I think that this is where the 'let off' sensation comes in. That feeling of relative ease, even if the holding weight is the same, is psychological. I should stress, that psychological does not mean purely imagined, unreal, or otherwise of no real benefit. The benefit, though, is dependent on the shooter. 

Me, personally, I really like it. I find the feeling of the draw, beginning to end, solid, like I'm loading up, but entirely controllable. When I get to the back of the draw, the bow feels compliant, willing to go along for whatever it is I want. 

A conventional recurve, if relatively smooth, doesn't feel stacky in a nasty sense, necessarily, once you get used to it, but it does impart pressure on the archer disproportionately near and at full draw. The biomechanical elements may actually balance out much of the stack, if the draw length and bow setup are a good match. This can work against an archer, or it can work for them.

It just depends on a lot of stuff.

Don't get me wrong. I think the potential benefits are real, and I'm a big fan, as it applies to what _I_ want.

But, at the same time, I think Steve has an excellent, valid, and very important point. At this time, super recurves are really expensive. Somebody shouldn't buy into them thinking that they're going to fix something that they're not. They have features that can be awesome, but you can also buy limbs at a fraction of the cost that, in the right hands, with good technique, will do the same job.

That being said, you can also say the same thing about premium conventional limbs and quality entry level limbs, so the same perspective isn't really specific to super recurves, but just more expensive products in general.

Keep in mind, I'm the guy who bought his mountain bike on Craig's list for $200. It's way used, was probably made in the 80's, looks like hell, and I'm perfectly happy with it


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

steve morley said:


> Don't forget Katrin also picked up 3rd place medal there with her Border L/B and 1st place in IFAA worlds in Hungary the week before :wink:


Congratulations to her!


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

Thanks fella's. Exactly the information I was looking for.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think there is an easy answer...
> 
> The advantages are either of no or little use, and the disadvantages may be significant, or at least possibly significant, enough to not bother trying.
> 
> For instance, if you're a highly trained archer who shoots ___#s as a holding weight best, gets very consistent expansion anyway, either by ingrained form or a clicker, and has no use for KE, and is fine getting whatever arrow speed necessary by simply shooting a relatively lighter arrow, why bother putting more work into the front of the draw? More energy, more fatigue, possibly negative impact on scoring, especially if you're shooting zillions (or a little less) of arrows a day, multiple days in a row.


Well leave it to me to look at things from the other end of the spectrum and toss some huge flies in your ointment here Barney! LOL!

after all...would you expect anything less of me? :laugh: 

and so it begins...just a couple of thoughts here though...but important ones. 

Thought #1: Addressing that "harsh pulling front end" which you note may become a source of fatigue?...I think like this...what's more "fatiguing"?...ripping through a heavy loaded front end with gobs of highly desirable static string tension to enjoy..."a soft, positive pull through on the back end"... (where you'll be holding a while longer) or?...having a boingy cupcake start to what will finish like hitting the end of your ripcord start lawnmower?....and holding it there a few seconds if not longer....I would think the latter might take a greater toll fatigue wise. 

Thought #2: With the ultra low back end weight gains the SR's are achieving?...doesn't this mean that the guy who creeps a 1/4" with his standard limbs changes his hold weight value by a whopping 1/2#?....while the competitor with the ".6# per inch Hex7.5's" would have to creep nearly an inch to achieve the same?...imagine what that does for...."stabilizing state-of-tune"...and?...re-defining..."Forgiveness"

That said?...you're the one that own's a set of Hex7's...I only got to draw and feel something close too them...once.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Well leave it to me to look at things from the other end of the spectrum and toss some huge flies in your ointment here Barney! LOL!
> 
> after all...would you expect anything less of me? :laugh:


Actually, it's one of my favorite things about you 



> Thought #1: Addressing that "harsh pulling front end" which you note may become a source of fatigue?...I think like this...what's more "fatiguing"?...ripping through a heavy loaded front end with gobs of highly desirable static string tension to enjoy..."a soft, positive pull through on the back end"... (where you'll be holding a while longer) or?...having a boingy cupcake start to what will finish like hitting the end of your ripcord start lawnmower?....and holding it there a few seconds if not longer....I would think the latter might take a greater toll fatigue wise.
> 
> Thought #2: With the ultra low back end weight gains the SR's are achieving?...doesn't this mean that the guy who creeps a 1/4" with his standard limbs changes his hold weight value by a whopping 1/2#?....while the competitor with the ".6# per inch Hex7.5's" would have to creep nearly an inch to achieve the same?...imagine what that does for...."stabilizing state-of-tune"...and?...re-defining..."Forgiveness"


Good points. I'd agree, at least in my own experience, qualifying that forgiveness is a very abstract term. Some people haven't had that experience, but we've all got different parameters, as far as the kind of things that we do imperfectly more often than others. I'm just throwing out possibilities as to why others might feel differently.



> That said?...you're the one that own's a set of Hex7's...I only got to draw and feel something close too them...once.


That can be fixed  Not the part of me owning them. They're most definitely staying.

If you do get a serious bug to go shoot something, for what it's worth, I wouldn't hesitate hunting deer with a medium (28" mas o menos) draw length and a 30# set of Hex 7's. My wife has an ILF setup of Hex 7's, with a mere 26" draw, about that draw weight, that whip out a GT entrada 700 with 85 gn points something nasty


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

When I went from the Carbon Extremes to Hex 6, it felt soft at first. Now I am spoiled by the set of Hex 6.5 H I am shooting.
The biggest thing I found was to match the limb length to your draw. CE limbs in longs felt good for me while with Borders I shoot mediums.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Thought #1: Addressing that "harsh pulling front end" which you note may become a source of fatigue?...I think like this...what's more "fatiguing"?...ripping through a heavy loaded front end with gobs of highly desirable static string tension to enjoy..."a soft, positive pull through on the back end"... (where you'll be holding a while longer) or?...having a boingy cupcake start to what will finish like hitting the end of your ripcord start lawnmower?....and holding it there a few seconds if not longer....I would think the latter might take a greater toll fatigue wise.


I've been trying to avoid these threads but I have to admit JINKS, the "fatigue" thing has me a little confused. 

Let me explain. Whether you have a conventional recurve or a super recurve, at any given weight (let's just stay 45# at 28") the same amount of actual work is being done to get to 44# at 28".

Whether it loads early or loads late in the draw cycle, by the time you get to anchor, if the end weight is the same, the amount of work done is the same. 

Both limb designs start at zero, and over the course of 28" they reach 45# of weight. 45# is 45# and that's all your muscles know.

That's not to say that the early load -vs- late load isn't very well liked by some people. It most certainly is, but holding 45# at your anchor is holding 45# at your anchor. 

Think of it in terms of going for a walk up a hill that is 45" tall at the 1 mile mark.









from start to finish, amount of work done is exactly the same, is it not?

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I've been trying to avoid these threads but I have to admit JINKS, the "fatigue" thing has me a little confused.
> 
> Let me explain. Whether you have a conventional recurve or a super recurve, at any given weight (let's just stay 45# at 28") the same amount of actual work is being done to get to 44# at 28".
> 
> ...



we have had many a discussion about this inhouse.
our conclusion is that if your storing the energy, you have had to put it in. you dont get something for nothing.

BUT. you spend fractions of the time at the first 3-4 inches of draw vs the last 2", as you settle into anchor.
so its not all that negative.

also the muscules used at the start are not the same as those used at full draw. so its still not the same deal.

but the ultimate answer is, for us anyhow, drop 5lbs off your holding weight, and still shoot harder than a older design glass limb.
that way you gain control, gain time at full draw. and still hit hard


----------



## Chris Hill (Aug 26, 2005)

I think you are pulling more pounds with the SR. If you add up the pounds for every inch you should end up with more pounds because they store more energy. But it is easier to pull the stacking portion in the early stage where you have more leverage.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

For me the biggest difference with having the weight early in the draw cycle is I'm in a much better position mechanically to deal with it. I'm pulling with much larger muscles groups.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> For me the biggest difference with having the weight early in the draw cycle is I'm in a much better position mechanically to deal with it. I'm pulling with much larger muscles groups.


That sounds good on the surface Matt but I think the "work" done by the muscles at the end of the draw is the same if the end weight is the same. The only thing the muscles know is that it is going to take a certain amount of work over a certain distance to get to 45#. If that's one more pound in the last inch or 3 more pounds, the weight is still 45#. Those smaller muscle groups are never pulling more than 45#, nor are you holding more or less than 45# at anchor. 

Now, if you want to say that because of performance of a certain style of limb, only 42# worth of work needs to be done to get 45# worth of performance, that could very well be, but I think that's a different discussion because you are actually drawing and holding less weight. I'm not even sure that's the case though. 

If the argument is that *"that if your storing the energy, you have had to put it in. you don't get something for nothing."* That can only mean you are doing *more* work, not *less.*

In order to get 45# worth of energy, you have to, at some point throughout the draw cycle, put in 45# worth of work. Furthermore, without the benefit of actual mechanical let-off, the amount of weight (work) is always increasing, from the first inch to the last inch. 

JMHO

KPC


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Kev

Yes and no the same amount of "work" is needed to move a stuck nut with a breaker bar as with a standard wrench - sure is easier with the breaker bar though ain't it ;-)

You are set up to lift weight much better earlier in the cycle vs late in the cycle it's pretty straightforward biomechanics


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> Kev
> 
> Yes and no the same amount of "work" is needed to move a stuck nut with a breaker bar as with a standard wrench - sure is easier with the breaker bar though ain't it ;-)


It is, but by using a breaker bar you are adding an actual mechanical advantage that is not present when the same person, using the same muscles, is drawing two recurve bows of the same weight. 

This will be my last post on this thread, for obvious reasons Matt. I don't want to turn it into anything more than a discussion about work and fatigue.

Have a great day.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Kev, is right, same work input to anchor. Were we see the let off is when we pull past anchor after we Stop at anchor to aim then hold, then pull to conclude the shot. At this point the SR has the advantage or not. If your a expansion shooter then yes. If your static then no. Pretty simple?
Dan


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> It is, but by using a breaker bar you are adding an actual mechanical advantage that is not present when the same person, using the same muscles, is drawing two recurve bows of the same weight.
> 
> This will be my last post on this thread, for obvious reasons Matt. I don't want to turn it into anything more than a discussion about work and fatigue.
> 
> ...


ok, lets quit with the old " i shoot 45lbs" deal. the reason you shoot 45lbs is because it is a simplistic way of measureing a bows ability. 
if you skip the same old same old concept and look at output energy. and get two bows of equal out up energy then you have equal ability to get work done.
this is where you cant fail to save energy. since you dont need to pull so much draw weight, where is fatigue in this question when you look at 37lbs vs 45lbs... for the same work done


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Kev, is right, same work input to anchor. Were we see the let off is when we pull past anchor after we Stop at anchor to aim then hold, then pull to conclude the shot. At this point the SR has the advantage or not. If your a expansion shooter then yes. If your static then no. Pretty simple?
> Dan


if you were to pull a bow that had a 40lbs flat line from start to finish, you would be more fatigued than one that went 0-40lbs in that last inch.
stored energy is energy stored.


----------



## scott1952 (Feb 14, 2012)

Putting aside for the moment the discussion about "let off," I think the super curves are game changers. I have both the Uukha VX 1000 and Border Covert Hunter with Hex 7. I also have the Uukha UX 100, which was my favorite limb until I hesitantly tried a super curve. It was a risk to purchase, as I did not know if I would like the "mushy" feel at the end of the draw cycle. What I actually found was I loved it immediately. No getting used to it. Now a traditional recurve feels like stacking. And I now get the same speed pulling 45 lbs versus 50. I also found both the Uukha and Hex 7s to be very torsion stable, meaning that a poor release has less effect on missing my aim point. Another surprise: for me they are less sensitive to arrow stiffness. Tuning arrows to the bow was easy. Curious if any one else finds this.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

lets start with mental attitude. Fighting stack at full draw is depressing, so if your mentally tired, stack hurts.
imagine a compounder once they get over that cam. PHEW. Made it!


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Just look at a draw force curve for any compound bow - the little bump created by a SR is nothing. I would imagine that the archer would become accustomed to it very quickly - remember where these are loading up is in the low weight range anyway. ie 20 or 22# really does not make much difference in the way it feels to draw but adds 10% stored energy. I love the idea and science behind the SR's, just not the price tag that comes with it.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Just look at a draw force curve for any compound bow - the little bump created by a SR is nothing. I would imagine that the archer would become accustomed to it very quickly - remember where these are loading up is in the low weight range anyway. ie 20 or 22# really does not make much difference in the way it feels to draw but adds 10% stored energy.


normal recurves store 0.93se/pdf, while 7.5 Covert puts in 1.24 se/pdf, the difference in smoothness we have achieved, is the 2lbs per inch rule is 0.6lbs at full draw.
the hex6s only managed 1.5lbs per inch. The Covert feels unreal in comparison. it makes the Hex6 feel like it stacks.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

i can say, without qualification, the work done, technically and factually, is the energy put into the bow, which is, undoubtedly, the area under the draw force curve. It is a matter of physics, by the definition of work. force times distance. this is, mathematically, the area under the draw force curve. 45# conventional versus super recurve, super recurve requires more work to get to full draw. you can't store more energy without putting it in. there's nothing controversial about it.

that being said...

the human component is the confusing factor.

everybody is built differently, but from a movement standpoint, we have the most mechanical advantage at full draw, assuming good alignment, so as far as simply being able to put in energy, while our muscles will adapt with training, we would not want a flat curve, but...

this isn't purely a matter of fatigue related to actual doing work. muscle fatique under tension, even if they aren't actually actually doing work, in a physics sense. if you hold at full draw, the longer you hold, the more your muscles will fatigue, though they are not putting in additional energy.

and, it is at full draw where you execute the shot.

the potential objective accuracy advantage of the super recurve is not in the bow itself, but rather that to a achieve a given energy level, you can deposit it earlier in the draw cycle, so at anchor you can have less holding weight.

if a higher holding weight or less energy is not a negative for a given situation, then a super recurve doesn't have that advantage. similarly, if the smoothness of the draw on the back end doesn't work to the shooter's advantage in shot execution, for individual reasons, it is what it is, but some people find it advantageous, in terms of the subjective feeling of ease. even though the holding weight may be the same, perception is highly a matter of comparison. you trick your muscles into thinking that something got easier by making things harder first.

then again, you also adapt to a high degree. so while going from one design to the other feels drastic, while adaptation will never make one feel like the other, we can get relatively used to either.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> i can say, without qualification, the work done, technically and factually, is the energy put into the bow, which is, undoubtedly, the area under the draw force curve. *It is a matter of physics, by the definition of work. force times distance. this is, mathematically, the area under the draw force curve. 45# conventional versus super recurve, super recurve requires more work to get to full draw. you can't store more energy without putting it in.* there's nothing controversial about it.


Because this is on the same work -vs- fatigue subject, I'll ask you a question BarneySlayer. 

If what you are saying is factual, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, which machine would cause the most fatigue to the operator, the one that required more "work" to get to full draw or the one that would require less "work" to get to full draw?

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Because this is on the same work -vs- fatigue subject, I'll ask you a question BarneySlayer.
> 
> If what you are saying is factual, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, which machine would cause the most fatigue to the operator, the one that required more "work" to get to full draw or the one that would require less "work" to get to full draw?
> 
> KPC


all else being equal, the one that requires less work, which was my original point, addressing steve's point that most of the top shooters are still shooting conventional limbs.

my perspective was, yes, the super recurve design can have advantages, but only, or at least primarily in the context where the ratio of energy stored and available versus holding weight is an issue.

for full time olympic archers, who train and time their training such that executing with their draw weight is not an issue, maybe even ideal in a competitive standpoint, and the resulting energy, is sufficient, putting aside the economic and political forces, there is little to no advantage to a super recurve. they've got a clicker, less holding weight might actually be worse for them, and if you want a given holding weight anyway, and extra energy out is of no use, why put the extra energy in? plus, if you change things up, you've got to now invest the time to adapting your shot execution to the new feel of things.

I am not saying that somebody can't do perfectly well with an olympic setup, or using a super recurve to compete at a very high level in target competition. obviously, some do.

I am just trying to clarify that super recurves give you a different feature set, which can be advantageous if they fit into your individual priorities, but as steve pointed out, they're not some magical fix. if my bow arm flails, or drops, or I flinch, shoot before settling aim, whatever, no amount of torsional stability is going to help that.

if you want to keep within the realms of a 'traditional' bow, would like a higher amount of energy available for a given holding weight, less holding weight for a given amount of available energy (as the holding weight also impacts fatigue,) orfind that you do better with a smoother draw, or simply enjoy the feel of it, there is someting very real there for you. But, as centershot pointed out, at this time, the cost is also very, very real, and for many, prohibitive enough to even seriously consider it.

at the same time, you could argue that, purely from a functional standpoint, you can set up a compound bow to have an even smoother draw at a fraction of the price. Simply move the let off modules out of the way, far beyond your draw length, and set the stops before the let off, or at your draw length, depending on whether you want to use them. It will have even more stored energy, whatever draw force curve they wanted to engineer, because torsional stability is no longer a limitation, and will shoot a whole lot faster. But, from an experience standpoint... Speaking personally, I prefer the aesthetic of a traditional bow... 

Sorry, I'm rambling. 

point being, you have work, you have stored energy, you have holding weight, and you have the shooter. Results are the sum of the variables, and as such, it depends


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

GEREP said:


> Because this is on the same work -vs- fatigue subject, I'll ask you a question BarneySlayer.
> 
> If what you are saying is factual, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, which machine would cause the most fatigue to the operator, the one that required more "work" to get to full draw or the one that would require less "work" to get to full draw?
> 
> KPC


Kev,

From a fatigue point of argument your biomachanics matter greatly. What would fatigue you faster curls while standing on one foot or curls standing on two feet? Same work very different levels of fatigue. For me I am pulling with larger muscle groups and at a better mechanical advantage in the front of the draw cycle. Absolutely the same amount of "work" but less fatigue because of the muscles I am working and the place I am in the draw cycle. There is a reason the peak draw for a compound is in the front of the cycle, by changing the shape of the cam an engineer could put it anywhere in the cycle. Yet they choose to put it in the front of the cycle.

Matt


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Kev,
> 
> From a fatigue point of argument your biomachanics matter greatly. What would fatigue you faster curls while standing on one foot or curls standing on two feet? Same work very different levels of fatigue. For me I am pulling with larger muscle groups and at a better mechanical advantage in the front of the draw cycle. Absolutely the same amount of "work" but less fatigue because of the muscles I am working and the place I am in the draw cycle. There is a reason the peak draw for a compound is in the front of the cycle, by changing the shape of the cam an engineer could put it anywhere in the cycle. Yet they choose to put it in the front of the cycle.


Ah, I missed what you were getting at. Yes, as the upper arm approaches 90 degrees in relation to the direction of the draw force vector, torque and muscular stress will maximize. The biomechanical advantage doesn't come back until the elbow starts rotating behind, assuming again good alignment. If people are holding with their arm muscles, no amount of smoothness is going to fix that.

For me, the 'stack' at the end of a conventional limb doesn't happen until my elbow is halfway there anyway. I imagine for you, with your super long draw length, it's got to kick in exactly in the wrong place, even with long limbs


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> Kev,
> 
> From a fatigue point of argument your biomachanics matter greatly. What would fatigue you faster curls while standing on one foot or curls standing on two feet? Same work very different levels of fatigue. For me I am pulling with larger muscle groups and at a better mechanical advantage in the front of the draw cycle. Absolutely the same amount of "work" but less fatigue because of the muscles I am working and the place I am in the draw cycle. Matt


I understand what you are getting at Matt, I just respectfully disagree. In your example of doing curls while standing on one foot, you are changing the entire dynamics of the process, therefore it isn't really the same amount of work. You are adding in other tasks, such as having to keep your balance while doing the curls. When you are required to do more tasks, you will fatigue quicker.

In the compound bow analogy, you actually go from say 50# to 10# at full draw. It is indeed less work. Less work, less fatigue. With a recurve bow, whether conventional limb or SR limb, at no stage in the draw cycle are you doing less work than the stage prior. The work load is always increasing, no matter what stage you are in. Different muscle groups are going to do the same amount of work, just at different points along the way. 

I think of the draw cycle more in terms of fuel in a car. All other things being equal, if I go 20mph for 10 miles, then 40 mph for 10 miles, and then 80 mph for 10 miles, I am going to use the same amount of fuel as if I went 80 mph for 10 miles, then 40 mph for 10 miles, and then 20 mph for 10 miles. Actually a case could be made that you would use more fuel in the second scenario due to the fact that you are required to move the weight of more fuel at faster speeds.

I have to go now, I have a date with a treestand and hopefully some rutting bucks. In which case, none of this will make any difference.

:wink:

KPC




KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> if you were to pull a bow that had a 40lbs flat line from start to finish, you would be more fatigued than one that went 0-40lbs in that last inch.
> stored energy is energy stored.


This is true as far as linear and non-linear slopes. However, the statement was "holding" the same weight at the same distance. As long as you don't move the 45 pound at 28" the work involved to hold that weight is the same.
Dan


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

GEREP said:


> I understand what you are getting at Matt, I just respectfully disagree. In your example of doing curls while standing on one foot, you are changing the entire dynamics of the process, therefore it isn't really the same amount of work. You are adding in other tasks, such as having to keep your balance while doing the curls. When you are required to do more tasks, you will fatigue quicker.
> 
> In the compound bow analogy, you actually go from say 50# to 10# at full draw. It is indeed less work. Less work, less fatigue. With a recurve bow, whether conventional limb or SR limb, at no stage in the draw cycle are you doing less work than the stage prior. The work load is always increasing, no matter what stage you are in. Different muscle groups are going to do the same amount of work, just at different points along the way.
> 
> ...


LOL no none of this makes any difference at all - hope you let the air out of a good one - I'm playing with spread sheets and packing boxes 

However the draw cycle isn't like fuel in a car - you are using different muscle groups at different times and your mechanical advantage changes greatly as your progress in the cycle.

Matt


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> This is true as far as linear and non-linear slopes. However, the statement was "holding" the same weight at the same distance. As long as you don't move the 45 pound at 28" the work involved to hold that weight is the same.
> Dan


Yip


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I think of the draw cycle more in terms of fuel in a car. All other things being equal, if I go 20mph for 10 miles, then 40 mph for 10 miles, and then 80 mph for 10 miles, I am going to use the same amount of fuel as if I went 80 mph for 10 miles, then 40 mph for 10 miles, and then 20 mph for 10 miles. Actually a case could be made that you would use more fuel in the second scenario due to the fact that you are required to move the weight of more fuel at faster speeds.


Neither the car nor the climbing the mountain are good analogies. You're equating weight with the actual work done. If you do that, what you're saying makes sense, but it misunderstands what work is.

Break the draw force curve down into increments. Let's say 5, just because that's easy.

Move bags of concrete up a flight of stairs to the next floor for each increment, instead of pulling weight over distance, because that's easier to visualize.

You're going to travel up 5 times (5 increments), and on the last trip, you're going to carry 5 bags. 5 bags of concrete is our holding weight.

Linear draw force curve would be like...

First flight traveled, you're going to carry one bag of concrete.
Second, 2 bags, third, 3 bags, fourth, 4 bags, fifth, 5 bags, and you're going to hold it (because that's your holding weight).
You now have 15 bags of concrete on the top of the stairs, and you're holding 5.

super recurve analogy.

First flight up, you carry 2 bags, second time up 3 bags, third time 4 bags, fourth time 5 bags, and fifth time, 5 bags, and you're going to hold it (because that's your holding weight).
Same holding weight, but you've got 19 bags of concrete up at the top of the stairs, and you're holding 5.

In either case, you're holding 5 bags of concrete, but if you were to dump all of the concrete at once (i.e., let go of the string), the 19 bags are going to hit the floor harder than the 15 bags. 

You're also going to be more pissed when you find out there's nothing upstairs that needs concrete 





If you have

I have to go now, I have a date with a treestand and hopefully some rutting bucks. In which case, none of this will make any difference.

:wink:

KPC




KPC[/QUOTE]


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Barney 

I'm not exactly sure of what you said but I really like it  

I think the biggest part of this equation is that you can in my experience shoot less weight and get as much power 

So in the end the reality is you are working less and getting as much or more 

If theHex 7.5 is a few percent more efficient than the 7 which was a few percent more than the 6.5 what will the Hex 10 be ? 

The answer is and may be someday you will be able to pull a 30 pound bow that hits like a conventional 60 pound bow 

It might take them years to get it that far but the point is they are heading in the right direction and I dig that they are relentless in their search 

I respect that 


My 55 pound Hex 7 limbs are very impressive 

I would not hesitate the big bovine of Africa and Asia and Australia with them 

That is something I would have wanted a 65 + pound bow for in prior years 

Now if the set of 55 # Hex 7.5's hit harder and feel smoother than I'm in for a treat  

My point theoretically we can all shoot better with a bow we can control better and if we can get more power with less weight I'm sold


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sorry for the poor edit above. Just put some paper over the extra stuff


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> I've been trying to avoid these threads but I have to admit JINKS, the "fatigue" thing has me a little confused.
> 
> Let me explain. Whether you have a conventional recurve or a super recurve, at any given weight (let's just stay 45# at 28") the same amount of actual work is being done to get to 44# at 28".
> 
> ...


Well then you would be proud of me Kev...I just ordered a set of Hoyt F7's because they were on clearance at LAS for $399...I figure between the savings and knowing exactly what to expect?....that's a lot better than spending nearly a grand on limbs I may not like cause yes...you are correct....and to contradict the very points I made earlier?...here's another "Fatigue Difference" but in a different light this time...as follows...


"I'm Stronger when I'm at or near Full Draw"...IOW's?...the way the SR's are front loaded?...initially?...the one I drew felt like a low BH longbow of waaaay to much weight for me...mainly because my muscles just don't have the same physical leverage at the beginning of the draw as they do when my string hand crosses the mid point of my chest and (key point here) I sensed a lot of "STRAIN" in my draw arm shoulder getting things started (so to speak)...and I'm not certain my draw arm shoulder would appreciate a steady diet of that.

Another "Con Point" of the SR's for me is the uncertainty of dealing with a "Soft Back End" especially where "A Clean Release" is concerned....I want my string to STOP as I expand through the shot (and not travel with my string hand) and I'm just not sure my shooting would appreciate a low PPI back end that I might decide "Feels Gummy" to me...and all for what?...the low cost of about a grand? :laugh:

I know what to expect with the far more conventional F7's...and while folks love to speak highly of that "Wonderful Feel" they get?...I know exactly how I'd feel if I spent $800-$1,200 on a set of limbs...I'd feel "Broke"...closely followed by "Stupid". :laugh:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Jinks don't knock um till ya try them  

There is nothing spongy about a hex limb 

Of all the Super Recurve limbs out there nothing feels like a Hex 7 

I've shot the Morrisons and the Uhukas and I liked them but they did not feel like a hex 7 

I hope some day you run into someone that has a set and that you can try them 

Congrats on the F7's. I sold my set awhile back to a well known bowyer that tested them and said they were not that far above the base limb that comes with the Buffalo 

He was not impressed ....nor was I 

They were smooth but not to punchy 

They were low fiftys, mediums on a 19 inch riser 

The Quattros are very nice limbs 

I must be a real dumb ass with 7 sets of Hex limbs  

Only teasing 

I am sure you will be more than pleased


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Well then you would be proud of me Kev...I just ordered a set of Hoyt F7's because they were on clearance at LAS for $399...


Kevin would be proud of me too. I ordered some 24# Axiom plus limbs that were also on clearance!



> I know what to expect with the far more conventional F7's...and while folks love to speak highly of that "Wonderful Feel" they get?...I know exactly how I'd feel if I spent $800-$1,200 on a set of limbs...I'd feel "Broke"...closely followed by "Stupid". :laugh:


Well, as a broke stupid guy, I can only say that I don't feel it  I don't buy bows often, and I don't buy very much stuff in general, I don't think, aside from food. I don't regret spending what I did on the Covert Hunter, I can still eat more than I should, as well as tie my shoes in the morning, if I really have to. 

I like it, and while I could have gotten, say, 85% of what I like about it for about half the price... I'm glad I spent the difference and got what I wanted instead 

Then again, I don't tell people they should like what I like, or feel that they need spend a lot to get a great bow that will let them do whatever they want to do.

If you're ever in the area, or I'm deported to Florida, you can try mine. Also, as far as Border, I believe they allow you to return whatever you don't like, though I'd verify that before actually giving them a check


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

JParanee said:


> Jinks don't knock um till ya try them
> 
> There is nothing spongy about a hex limb
> 
> ...


I'm not knocking them Joe...I'm openly discussing my own sense of personal reasoning of why I'm hesitant to drop what is "A Bundle" too me on a product I may not like and for reasons stated as while many claim to "Like The Feel"?...it's not like there haven't been a few folks who didn't feel the same...and well?...that and it's a great cover for why I wussed out and went with the F7's instead! :laugh: 

And BTW...I don't know who this bowyer is you speak of (and you're a gentlemen for not saying) but?...Hank D & Gary McCain seem to have a totally different opinion (and lots of test results) of the F7's here...

http://tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46558

where Hank made statements like these that got my attention...

*"There is a clear difference between the limbs. The F7 are smooth at the end of the draw,"*

*"The F7 do not stack all the way out to 33 inches"* (Take into consideration here I'm going with "Shorts")

I'm looking forward too working with the wood core F7's on the Gillo G1 and if they don't work out as I'd like?...maybe Santa will bring me a set of used Hex7's from the classifieds as I'm certain a few sets will be popping up for sale from those wanting to taste the 7.5's.

Good luck on your Hunt Joe! 



BarneySlayer said:


> Kevin would be proud of me too. I ordered some 24# Axiom plus limbs that were also on clearance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Barney...I was going to go for the Uuhka Xcurves but got a big old knot in my gut thinking..."For that kind of money?...I don't want to have to HOPE I'm going to like them."...so I wussed out and just stuck with what I pretty much know what I can expect...and for 1/2 the cash...it's getting close too Christmas and I have a lot of other folks to buy for besides myself...Thank God!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

One other thing I'd like to add...(and this is where I drop my testosterone levels)...because at the end of the day?...I have to ask myself...

*"Do my skills and abilities merit spending $800-$1,000 on limbs?"*

I think...(especially when engaging in "Gear Banter" on these forums)...that we often times lose sight of the big picture here where it shows us just how quickly and badly we can lose sight of the fact of just how small the significance of "Top Shelf gear" truly is...for example...you can deck me out with the best and most expensive of everything...even run it through all sorts of testing and tuning to perfection....and somebody like Matt Potter or Dewayne Martin or Calvin or Ben Rodgers could hand me my tookus with a samick sage they drug out of the box 5 minutes ago and slapped together with a quiver full of jazz arrows. LOL!

One of my biggest pet peeves of recent is seeing all the harvested deer pictures posted up with statements like...

"Brand &*^% Bow Does It Again!!!"

or?....

"Brand *&&% Bow Makes Meat!"

and I just want to grab them and shake them to let them know....."It wasn't The Bow!"

so they can reap the credit due them!!!...the archers!...the operators of that strung stick!...That's "WHO" killed the deer...not "What" killed the deer...as so much more went into creating and taking that successful shot than the inadament object they seem to bless 100% of the credit too! That's Just Crazy! LOL!

and you know what it is?..."Pride"...bragging rights...of what they own...and not..."THE SKILL" they spent years if not decades developing and honing that's actually the true reason responsible for that successful hunt...not the Bow.

Sorry...this is where things get grimey for me...it was "The Speedbow Wars" back in the day that turned me off...where every year you had to have the newest, latest and greatest just to keep up with the jonses...I hate to see it in the single string end of thins as after all?...how much advancement has really been made?....how fast are recurves and longbows supposed to be?...and at the end of the day?...how much of a "Limiting Factor" will there be between the cheapest worst and the most expensive best?...I say it will all depend on who's archers hands it's in. 

nite folks! :cool2:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> *"Do my skills and abilities merit spending $800-$1,000 on limbs?"*


I don't think that's the question. If that was the question, pretty much nobody would answer yes.

The real question is, is spending that money on those limbs going to make you happier than spending it on something else (or saving it, which is never a bad idea).

It's a very personal answer, and not something that needs to be justified to anybody (except maybe your wife).



Enjoy your journey!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BarneySlayer said:


> I don't think that's the question. If that was the question, pretty much nobody would answer yes.
> 
> The real question is, is spending that money on those limbs going to make you happier than spending it on something else (or saving it, which is never a bad idea).
> 
> ...


And then there's that. LOL!

You're right Barney...like Sheryl Crow sings....if it makes you happy? 

and I'm cool with high quality "Conventional"


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> Linear draw force curve would be like...
> 
> First flight traveled, you're going to carry one bag of concrete.
> Second, 2 bags, third, 3 bags, fourth, 4 bags, fifth, 5 bags, and you're going to hold it (because that's your holding weight).
> ...


Thanks Barney. I get what you are saying, but I'm still not sure I agree. 

In your carrying bags of cement analogy, I see it a little different. I see it as though you are going up five flights of stairs carrying a specified amount of concrete. 
So, in terms of actual work performed by the archer... 

*With a conventional recurve:* 

For the first flight you will carry 1/2 of a bag. For the second flight, someone adds another 3/4 bag. For the third flight adds another 1 bag. For the fourth flight add 1.25 bags. For the fifth and final flight, add 1.5 bags When you get to the top, you will have a total of 5 bags and that is what you will be holding.

*With a SR:*

For the first flight, you will carry 1.25 bags. For the second flight someone will add another 1.25 bags. For the third flight someone adds another 1.25 bags for the 4th flight, someone adds .75 bags and for last flight, someone adds .5 bags. When you get to the top, you are still holding the weight of 5 bags.

In terms of work (archer), it's not a matter of carrying and holding 15 bags vs 19 bags, it's still only a matter of carrying and holding a *total* of 5 bags to the top of the stairs. The only difference is how much weight is being added at each particular stage. 

Now, in terms of how each particular limb actually *handles and transfers* the work that the archer put into them, that's a different discussion. 

However, when you get to the top of the stairs, or the end of your draw, 5 bags is 5 bags, just as 50 pounds is 50 pounds...having been carried and held.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Thanks Barney. I get what you are saying, but I'm still not sure I agree.
> 
> In your carrying bags of cement analogy, I see it a little different. I see it as though you are going up five flights of stairs carrying a specified amount of concrete.
> So, in terms of actual work performed by the archer...
> ...


cut to the chase here. 
on each inch. your pulling the following
conventional bow
5
8
10
12
15

Total: 50

CH
8
12
13
14
15

total 62



which one involves you pulling more total weight.

so if you were lifting bags of sand up to a roof top. yes the last bag was 15lbs. but which one has more sand on the roof.

and which one did that in the same number of lifts.

stored energy = sand. 
you cant get more sand up there without putting in work.

but as Matt said. full draw has nice big back muscles working. first few inches, your leverage is all wrong. so its not so fun.

as i said. but you spend fractions of a second in the first few inches.

and as i also said.

reduce that final bag of sand at full draw to equal 50 stored and you have an easy life all round.

whats wrong with that concept that it needs debating


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> cut to the chase here.
> on each inch. your pulling the following
> conventional bow
> 5
> ...


In my opinion, that's not really what you are doing. In your scenario, you are adding the total weight of each stage to the total weight of each previous stage. I don't think that's how it works. When you are drawing a bow, you are only adding the incremental increase to the previous stage.

In other words, if you have 35# conventional recurve limbs, over a 20" power stroke (9" brace, 28" draw) it would look something like this:

5.5# + 2.5# + 2.5# + 2# + 2# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1.25# + 1.25# + 1.5# + 1# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 2# = 35#

Whereas a 35# SR over the same power stroke might look something like this:

4.75# + 4.5# + 3# + 2.8# + 2.2# + 2.5# + 2# + 2# + 1.5# + 1.5# + 1# + 1# + 1# + 1# + 1# + 1# + .75# + .75# + .75# = 35#

Same aggregate poundage, same amount of work, just a different amount *added* at each stage.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> In my opinion, that's not really what you are doing. In your scenario, you are adding the total weight of each stage to the total weight of each previous stage. I don't think that's how it works. When you are drawing a bow, you are only adding the incremental increase to the previous stage.
> 
> In other words, if you have 35# conventional recurve limbs, over a 20" power stroke (9" brace, 28" draw) it would look something like this:
> 
> ...


simple experiemnt then.

get a tape measure. take a long limbed recurve, bolts out, and an equal BH to the compound of say 6", and a high power aggressive cam's compound.
this will give an example of low preload and high preload in extreme versions.

now pull each to the first inch, and hold for the count of 5. then the second inch for the count of 5. then the next inch for the count of 5.

watch fatigue eat your muscles alive on the high preload. (compound)

i dont think you could hold the compound for too many inches of draw.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> In my opinion, that's not really what you are doing. In your scenario, you are adding the total weight of each stage to the total weight of each previous stage. I don't think that's how it works. When you are drawing a bow, you are only adding the incremental increase to the previous stage.
> 
> In other words, if you have 35# conventional recurve limbs, over a 20" power stroke (9" brace, 28" draw) it would look something like this:
> 
> ...


the other way to look at it, is that if the poinds gained per inch was an indicator of power in the system, as a means of measureing work done, then the closure of the bow would also be a mirror of that work done. in that the SR would be pushing more softly. run those numbers you posted in return scenario....

it doesnt work....
the pounds gained between inches, doesnt tell you the starting weight is...
for example, a 150lbs bow +5.5+2.5 etc...
or 25lbs bow plus 5.5lbs


its a bit like saying how old am i if im 2 years older than i was 2 years ago?


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

I think this is being overcomplicated with the examples given 

Look, if you plot the drawforce curve of a normal recurve, and then a super recurve of the same length and marked weight, there is more area under the curve. That area represents more energy.

So the bow is storing more energy. 

It's the same reason why a 50lb compound stores more energy than a 50lb recurve.

It's that simple.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> Same aggregate poundage, same amount of work, just a different amount *added* at each stage.
> 
> KPC


But Kev...you forgot to mention the most important part...

"It creates an ILLUSION that tricks the mind into thinking it feels LET-OFF"

when in actuality there really isn't any.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

John_K said:


> I think this is being overcomplicated with the examples given
> 
> Look, if you plot the drawforce curve of a normal recurve, and then a super recurve of the same length and marked weight, there is more area under the curve. That area represents more energy.
> 
> ...


But John...how does that extra stored energy translate into enhanced accuracy?

Another aspect I question is....the difference between HEX7.5 and the HEX7'S they are a supposed upgrade too is....

.3#s per inch of draw with the HEX7'S @ a claimed .9# increase per inch and the HEX7.5 at a claimed .6# increase per inch...am I to believe there's any archer out there that could actually discern the difference of .3#s over the course of one inch of draw while holding upwards of 40#s on their fingers?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't thing anyone said stored energy relates to accuracy other than you can shoot a lighter bow that you can control better which for many would make them more accurate 

As for increments in #'s 

Advancements come slow and it you look at were they started and were they are going there is a means to an end 

Imagine taking a hex 4 and comparing it to a Hex 7 ........ Very different bow


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

JParanee said:


> I don't thing anyone said stored energy relates to accuracy other than you can shoot a lighter bow that you can control better which for many would make them more accurate
> 
> As for increments in #'s
> 
> ...


Thanks Joe...I can accept that as sound reasoning and good answer man...thank you.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> But John...how does that extra stored energy translate into enhanced accuracy?
> 
> Another aspect I question is....the difference between HEX7.5 and the HEX7'S they are a supposed upgrade too is....
> 
> .3#s per inch of draw with the HEX7'S @ a claimed .9# increase per inch and the HEX7.5 at a claimed .6# increase per inch...am I to believe there's any archer out there that could actually discern the difference of .3#s over the course of one inch of draw while holding upwards of 40#s on their fingers?


Most bows on the market untill SRs came out were within 0.3lbs of each other. And folks feel that as smooth or stack.
Infact people can feel 0.1lbs difference in that is all that dicerns some ILF limb models from another.

If you want to get fussy. People can hear doplar shift. In that the stereotypical train passing and the tone of the horn changes as it passes is doplar shift.
I can feel 5mm difference in my pedal arm lengths when cycling. So yes. Humans are sensitive.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> *With a conventional recurve:*
> 
> For the first flight you will carry 1/2 of a bag. For the second flight, someone adds another 3/4 bag. For the third flight adds another 1 bag. For the fourth flight add 1.25 bags. For the fifth and final flight, add 1.5 bags When you get to the top, you will have a total of 5 bags and that is what you will be holding.
> 
> ...


I'm not doing a good job conveying this.

Go back to your mountain analogy. I'm going to make this extreme to yank it out of the abstract, but it is the same principle.

You can carry 1 bag of concrete from the bottom to the top and hold it. 
Or...
You can just pick up 1 bag at the top and hold it.

Which is less work. If you think they're the same, we should try it in person some day, and I get to be the guy doing the second, okay? 


In either case, the _effort_ to _hold_ the bag at the top is the same. By the way, _holding_ without motion is not doing _work_.

The _work_ required in either scenario is very different.


Now, if you look at your version of the concrete scenario, the example is in fact relevant, if you understand how to calculate the work, and you understand that each bag, in giving back the energy by returning to a lowered state (shooting the bow), cannot return to a level lower than it started. I.e., since the conventional recurve example stacked the bags up on the poor laborer later, they cannot fall as far, because they are mechanically limited. After all, you can't get more out of it than you put in 

Not yet anyway. Fusion. Next limbs of the future


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks Joe...I can accept that as sound reasoning and good answer man...thank you.


Thanks Bill


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> the other way to look at it, is that if the poinds gained per inch was an indicator of power in the system, as a means of measureing work done...




That is not what I and a few others were discussing. We were discussing work done by the archer, and archer fatigue, not bow efficiency and work done by the bow.

At the end of the day, no matter how we want to word it, if the maximum weight (which for a recurve regardless of the limb design, is going to be the holding weight at whatever a given archer's full draw happens to be) happens to be 50 lbs, there is never any *more* than 50 lbs of energy loaded into the limbs. It simply cannot be any other way, at least that I can comprehend. Now some limbs might well be more efficient at transferring that 50# of stored energy into an arrow, but that doesn't mean it has *more* than 50# of stored energy, it just means it's more efficient.

Unlike a recurve, a compound is different in that the holding weight is much less than the peak weight. All the weight is loaded prior to the letoff, but it is still never more than the maximum amount actually drawn. It also has the benefit of a compound pulley system and extremely stiff, efficient limbs. 

A recurve's next inch of draw, whether it be a CR or SR is NEVER less weight than the previous inch. There is always an incremental increase...until something breaks.

Therefore, if a CR and a SR both have exactly the same draw weight at anchor, regardless of the incremental order, that is the weight loaded into the limbs.

Apparently, someone wants to take this discussion and make it a debate over limb design and efficiency. I don't, nor will I. So unless that's what the conversation will be about, this will be the end of my participation.

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> You can carry 1 bag of concrete from the bottom to the top and hold it.
> Or...
> You can just pick up 1 bag at the top and hold it.
> 
> Which is less work. If you think they're the same, we should try it in person some day, and I get to be the guy doing the second, okay?


It is an extreme example, but I can understand that Barney. If that is indeed the case, then then it can only stand to reason that the bow that loads more weight earlier is more fatiguing to the archer. Yes?

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That is not what I and a few others were discussing. We were discussing work done by the archer, and archer fatigue, not bow efficiency and work done by the bow.


But work done by the archer is directly related to work done by the bow. 

Fatigue is a more complex subject. Work done by the archer is relevant, as it holding weight (and they may be related, but they are different things), as is the shooting process and body of the individual.



> At the end of the day, no matter how we want to word it, if the maximum weight (which for a recurve regardless of the limb design, is going to be the holding weight at whatever a given archer's full draw happens to be) happens to be 50 lbs, there is never any *more* than 50 lbs of energy loaded into the limbs. It simply cannot be any other way, at least that I can comprehend.


Think about this...

Draw weight is measured in pounds. Pounds is a unit of force.

Energy is rated in foot-pounds.

One is not the other.



> Apparently, someone wants to take this discussion and make it a debate over limb design and efficiency. I don't, nor will I. So unless that's what the conversation will be about, this will be the end of my participation.
> 
> KPC


Little premature to pick up your marbles, isn't it? We were getting so close!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> It is an extreme example, but I can understand that Barney. If that is indeed the case, then then it can only stand to reason that the bow that loads more weight earlier is more fatiguing to the archer. Yes?
> 
> KPC


_*EXACTLY!*_

I was kind of surprised that you didn't jump on that earlier I originally brought it up as a reason that some archers who wanted a target holding weight because it was optimal for their shot execution, didn't have any value associated with more energy output, might not want to put the energy _into_ the bow.

But, as you pointed out, the holding weight itself is also a major source of fatigue, so that's not to say that storing more energy at a given holding weight is necessarily more fatiguing, because you can also store the same energy and have lower holding weight, which even if the _work_ done is the same, the effort, due to the fact that our muscles are very inefficient doing nothing if it's under tension, is less 

What is more, fatigue is also psychological, which doesn't make it imaginary. If a particular archer feels less fatigue with a certain draw force curve, be it with a super recurve, a conventional recurve, or a long bow, or whatever, and it benefits their shot execution, that's very real.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

So can we safely presume that we could drop draw weight down 5% on a bow who's limbs store 5% more energy and obtain the same performance?...cause if so?...that would mean we could shoot 47.5#s instead of 50#s. LOL


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> Most bows on the market untill SRs came out were within 0.3lbs of each other. And folks feel that as smooth or stack.
> Infact people can feel 0.1lbs difference in that is all that dicerns some ILF limb models from another.
> 
> If you want to get fussy. People can hear doplar shift. In that the stereotypical train passing and the tone of the horn changes as it passes is doplar shift.
> I can feel 5mm difference in my pedal arm lengths when cycling. So yes. Humans are sensitive.


Is the human body really that sensitive?....cause some days my 42# DAS feels like a 32# bow...other days?...it feels like a 52# bow. LOL


----------



## gbeauvin (Sep 16, 2015)

I'm no expert archer, but I do know a little bit about physics. It seems to me that you expend more energy in the draw of one of these super-recurves (since you're drawing more of the weight for longer), and in return you get higher velocity at a given draw weight. More energy in, More energy out. Or if you prefer, take a lower draw-weight super-recurve that adds up to the same amount of energy in, the same amount of energy out (same velocity), but a lower holding weight.

I'm too lazy (and don't have time) to draw graphs of the physics, and I've never shot one so I can't discuss the esoteric "feel" or the pro's and cons of shooting one, but there is clearly a misconception on the part of some as to the physics at work here. Applying more force sooner in the draw (and conversely applying more force to the arrow for longer after release) should result in a higher velocity arrow (or the ability to accelerate a heavier arrow to the same velocity), all things being equal. (I forget who it was already saying this, but "yeah, what he said!")

As happens I like one-piece wooden bows and I can't afford a border so I don't have a dog in the fight, other cringing at some of the analogies lol.

-GB


----------



## regas (Oct 24, 2013)

i think you guys are missing the real benefit of these limbs. when these limbs unwind they have a different kind of power stroke compared to a regular recurve,
think big cam compound vs. round wheel compound.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

gbeauvin said:


> I'm no expert archer, but I do know a little bit about physics. It seems to me that you expend more energy in the draw of one of these super-recurves (since you're drawing more of the weight for longer), and in return you get higher velocity at a given draw weight. More energy in, More energy out. Or if you prefer, take a lower draw-weight super-recurve that adds up to the same amount of energy in, the same amount of energy out (same velocity), but a lower holding weight.
> 
> I'm too lazy (and don't have time) to draw graphs of the physics, and I've never shot one so I can't discuss the esoteric "feel" or the pro's and cons of shooting one, but there is clearly a misconception on the part of some as to the physics at work here. Applying more force sooner in the draw (and conversely applying more force to the arrow for longer after release) should result in a higher velocity arrow (or the ability to accelerate a heavier arrow to the same velocity), all things being equal. (I forget who it was already saying this, but "yeah, what he said!")
> 
> ...


LOL!!!.... GREAT ANSWERS!!! :thumbs_up


----------



## rembrandt (Jan 17, 2004)

Did anybody mention the actual cost factor between the traditional limbs and the super recurve limbs....Is the difference worth the chance your taking?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> But work done by the archer is directly related to work done by the bow.
> 
> Fatigue is a more complex subject. Work done by the archer is relevant, as it holding weight (and they may be related, but they are different things), as is the shooting process and body of the individual.
> 
> ...


Thank you.... i never mentioned efficency.
To get energy into the bow. You HAD to put it there.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

rembrandt said:


> Did anybody mention the actual cost factor between the traditional limbs and the super recurve limbs....Is the difference worth the chance your taking?


Thats a individual question only each individual can answer.


Ive just spent the evening stood like a fish out of water in an Austin Martin show room. Looking 230,000 dollar cars. They had the james bond 007 DB 10 in there. One from the actual film.
Most of the guys in there had watches worth more than a covert hunter.

Kinda makes the world turn upside down when zeros dont matter to you.

Im not here to judge the position of others. Up or down from the shoes im in


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

rembrandt said:


> Did anybody mention the actual cost factor between the traditional limbs and the super recurve limbs....Is the difference worth the chance your taking?


For what you do, no.

-Grant


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

GEREP said:


> It is an extreme example, but I can understand that Barney. If that is indeed the case, then then it can only stand to reason that the bow that loads more weight earlier is more fatiguing to the archer. Yes?
> 
> KPC


Not for me. I really like the early load of the Borders. Perhaps it is the many years of shooting heavy poundage compounds with radical cams.
Like everything else, it is not for everyone.


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

rembrandt said:


> Did anybody mention the actual cost factor between the traditional limbs and the super recurve limbs....Is the difference worth the chance your taking?


I started with TT carbon/woods and have owned the TT woods, carbon/woods, Carbon Extremes, and Border Hex 6 and 6.5 limbs.
As much as I love the Hex 6.5 H limbs I now shoot, there does come a point as which the additional cost does not match the gain in performance or feel, depending upon your needs. I really like the reduced # per inch draw weight at the end of the draw of the Borders, so I spend the extra $$$.
I was fortunate and found my first set of Borders used so the cost increase was not as dramatic as buying new. Not so much when I went from longs to mediums and had to buy a set of new Hex 6.5 H directly from Border as mediums in my poundage were not to be found.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bill 2311 said:


> Not for me. I really like the early load of the Borders. Perhaps it is the many years of shooting heavy poundage compounds with radical cams.
> Like everything else, it is not for everyone.


Me too. I get satisfaction and a little happy feeling just pulling the darn thing.

The input energy is only one component of fatigue. There are many variables, including the individual, but holding weight may arguably be far more relevant, particularly if an archer takes the time for a deliberate, controlled shot sequence...

For instance, my 46# Covert Hunter feels like a whole lot more _work_ to get it to full draw than the 45# black max equivalents on a Morrison, which in terms of draw weight, is near the same. That being said, that work I put in means I have more energy available to get back out, and it doesn't feel _difficult_, and in terms of time spent applying pressure, I spend far more time holding at full draw than pulling the bow. In terms of perceived fatigue, I might end up with more with the higher energy input, but because the holding weight is about the same, during the whole process I don't really notice a difference, and if I did, it might be _slight_.

If you wanted to make a most relevant comparison, you'd compare equal energy input. 
My 54# predator slings an arrow 14 grains heavier about 2 fps faster than my 46# Covert Hunter. If you were to talk about energy based on output, they are pretty close, and as such, the _work_ put in to load the bows is probably kind of similar. But, since I spend far more time holding, the 8# increase in draw weight feels _substantial_, particularly if you're shooting a lot of arrows, attempting to shoot precisely, and as such taking time.

While I don't shoot standardized targets very often (even if I mean to eventually do so... some day), my scores since transitioning to this bow have gone up. I don't believe that it helps me because it is a more accurate bow, (though the smooth draw may contribute to better vertical consistency to a point since variation in draw length tends to have less of an impact on arrow speed), but because for _me_, the lower holding weight causes less fatigue over sequential days of shooting, an the psychological aspect of the smooth draw, which tricks my mind into thinking that the draw _feels_ easy, helps me take my time with the shot.

From a purely target standpoint, functionally speaking, it can validly be argued that you could also spend a whole lot less getting an extra set of light limbs. Absolutely. The feel won't be there, but if the bow is light enough, and output energy is of minor concern, maybe that becomes irrelevant.

Actually, for practice, I just received my 24# (on a 25" riser) limbs, which should land at about 36# on a 17" riser, I think, so that I can hopefully get some more effective (even if limited) practice even when I'm sore or spent from who knows what else I might be doing. It will be interesting to find out how much I miss that feel. But, even if I vastly prefer the Hex7 draw curve, it's only $80 for an experiment with the conventional. Should I be inclined to replace them, they'll find a use for guests


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Barney, it's not that the Hex has a high or lower holding weight and it's true you work more to get there. The advantage is once your there you have "U" valley that enables movement without extraordinary effort. Like stop and go movements. With conventional limb your more than Likely to, as Joel Turner said, bracing for impact. I see alittle of the valley in the Uukha limbs. If I had the money I would order the Hex.
Dan
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> But work done by the archer is directly related to work done by the bow.
> 
> Fatigue is a more complex subject. Work done by the archer is relevant, as it holding weight (and they may be related, but they are different things), as is the shooting process and body of the individual.
> 
> ...



I agree Barney, it *is* a little premature, I just have no desire to take what has been an interesting an informative discussion into another pissing match about limb design.

I have to admit, I've probably been thinking about this energy in -vs- energy out thing more than I should, but it intrigues me and there is still some things that I just don't get.

The statement was made:

_*"To get energy into the bow. You HAD to put it there."* _

I might be misinterpreting this, but I take it to also mean that if your are getting more energy out of a bow, more energy had to be put in there. I'm still not sure I agree with this, let me offer up another analogy. (I KNOW, I KNOW...but that's the way my brain works :wink

I still maintain that two recurve bows that scale exactly 50# at 28" will have the exact same amount of energy put into the bow. Regardless of how it stacks up over the draw cycle, what you have at anchor is what you have at anchor. 

Lets say you have two automobiles and you put exactly 10 gallons of gas (energy) in each.

However, because of the way each automobile is designed, which vehicle is carrying more weight, tire pressure, aerodynamics, even the way each car is driven, one gets 200 miles out of those ten gallons, and the other gets 220 miles out of the ten gallons over the exact same stretch of road under the exact same conditions. The same amount of "energy" was put in, but because one is more efficient with that energy, it gets more out of it. It's not a case of having to put more in to get more out.

Where am I going wrong?

KPC


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

GEREP said:


> The statement was made:
> 
> _*"To get energy into the bow. You HAD to put it there."* _
> 
> ...


That would be true if all recurves had a perfectly linear draw force curve, or at least had an identical draw force curve. The _holding weight_ at full draw may be the same, but the amount of energy stored in the limbs may be quite different between two different limb designs. 

The energy stored by the bow had to come from somewhere, the person drawing it. You are converting chemical energy from your muscles to mechanical potential energy in the limbs, which is then converted to kinetic energy upon release (look up impulse momentum theorem). 

The limbs of a bow are just an energy storing device and are not necessarily linear as can be seen from looking at any draw force curve. As has been stated several times in this thread, _the energy stored in the limbs is the area under the draw force curve_, from brace to full draw.


----------



## gbeauvin (Sep 16, 2015)

GEREP said:


> I still maintain that two recurve bows that scale exactly 50# at 28" will have the exact same amount of energy put into the bow. Regardless of how it stacks up over the draw cycle, what you have at anchor is what you have at anchor.
> 
> ....
> 
> Where am I going wrong?


Ok, I'm going to use an extreme example here. I'm also going to reword a little to be sure we're talking about the same thing. Instead of looking at "energy" stored in the bow, I'm going to look at the eventual energy imparted to the arrow. I'll also assume 100% efficiency in both 28" 50# bows, and an 8" brace height (20" power stroke) on both.

Bow#1 : super low at the beginning, and then up to 50# at the end. The first 18" are 1 pounds pull, and the last 2" are 50 pound pull. Is that considered stacking? lol

Bow#2 : the first 2" are 1 pound pull, and the last 18" are 50 pound pull.

So when you fire bow#1, for the first 2 inches of the string travel it's putting those 50 pounds of force onto the arrow accelerating well for a fairly short time, then the force drops to 1 pound and it accelerates hardly at all for the rest of the power stroke.

When you fire bow#2, the first 18 inches of the string travel it's putting the 50 pounds of force onto the arrow, accelerating it for a lot longer, then the last 2" contribute very little to the arrow acceleration.

I would expect bow #2 to cast an arrow with a FAR higher velocity (and therefor energy) than bow#1, even though they both have a 50# pull at 28". Yes that's a ridiculous example, but it shows that the force curve matters.

-GB


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Easykeeper said:


> The limbs of a bow are just an energy storing device and are not necessarily linear as can be seen from looking at any draw force curve. As has been stated several times in this thread, _the energy stored in the limbs is the area under the draw force curve_, from brace to full draw.


Thanks Easy, and I get that. What I'm not grasping is the notion that that you can somehow put more into a limb than what shows up on a scale. 

If the scale never goes over 50# anywhere along the DFC, that is the max that was put into the limbs. Regardless of the shape of the curve, if the last reading (say at 28") is the max weight, that is the energy stored in the limb. How efficiently the limb *delivers* the energy is a different discussion. 









If you look at a sample DFC for a compound and a recurve, the maximum weight reading along the curve is the amount of energy stored, is it not?- For the compound, that happens midway through the DFC (prior to let-off). For a recurve it happens at the very end of the draw, because there is no let-off, only a change in the rate of gain. (I realize that a recurve DFC isn't a straight line like the one iillustrated but even so, the weight is constantly increasing as the bow is drawn further. 

I just don't see where you can get any more than 50 if you only put 50 in. Some designs might well use *more* of the 50 than others, but you still aren't getting out more than what you put in, you just getting out more *OF *what you put in. 

Hell, maybe we're saying the same thing. :wink:

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

grantmac said:


> For what you do, no.
> 
> -Grant


I think that statement fits me also - but I sure would like to find out for myself some day. At this point it does look like a very expensive experiment.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

GB:

Your description makes perfect sense, but you are still talking about efficiency of design, not the amount of energy stored. 

In your example, one design just utilizes the energy stored differently, yes?

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

GEREP said:


> Thanks Easy, and I get that. What I'm not grasping is the notion that that you can somehow put more into a limb than what shows up on a scale.
> 
> If the scale never goes over 50# anywhere along the DFC, that is the max that was put into the limbs. Regardless of the shape of the curve, if the last reading (say at 28") is the max weight, that is the energy stored in the limb. How efficiently the limb *delivers* the energy is a different discussion.
> 
> ...


The peak weight will not change but the line from brace to full draw is not straight either. Just like the compound shows a hump (more stored energy) before peak, so can an recurve limb. Not as extreme but it does store more energy (as shown in chart) than a straight line. More stored energy = more potential for kinetic energy.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

just to be clear.

the stored energy is not the peak holding weight. 
its the area under the graph.

to compair two bows for stored energy where the bows have different draw weights, you devide the stored energy by the holding weight. to give a single compairable number.

its the SE/PDF value. StoredEnergy/PoundsDrawForce.

almost all ILF limbs store about 0.91SE/PDF

our hex4 stored 0.94
we are now over 1.15

in english that means for the different bow types. all 100lbs at 28" the differences in design will store the following
91ft/lbs of energy for the ILF limbs.
Hex4 would be 94 Ft/Lbs
and now we store 115ft/lbs
and all these bows all pull 100lbs at 28"
so right now your ILF conventional limbs store 91ft/lbs of energy for the 100lbs on your fingers.
you could be storing 115ft/lbs of energy for the same 100lbs held.


so how do you end up with more energy in the system, if they both have the same holding weight?

http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/tf/lw/thread2.cfm?threadid=180510&CATEGORY=3

for an old thread to show you this isnt something i made up on the day...


----------



## gbeauvin (Sep 16, 2015)

GEREP said:


> GB:
> 
> Your description makes perfect sense, but you are still talking about efficiency of design, not the amount of energy stored.
> 
> ...


I think the problem is in what you mean by "energy". There are two flavors of energy generally discussed, potential and kinetic. If you take a 50 pound rock, and haul it up 5 feet and hold it there, you have imparted potential energy into that rock. When you release the rock, it accelerates (due to gravity) and the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. If you take that 50 pound rock and haul it up 50 feet, you have imparted far more potential energy into the rock, and when you drop it that larger potential energy converts into more kinetic energy. In both cases at the end you are only "holding" 50 pounds, yet the 50 pounds you are holding at 50 feet high has far more potential energy than the 50 pounds you are holding at 5 feet high.

Now do the same thing on the moon. That 50 pound rock still masses the same, but it "weighs" 1/6 of what it did on earth, and the potential energy is correspondingly lower. Raising the rock 5 feet stores far less potential energy on the moon than it does on the earth, because the force of gravity is far less.

Now you have to twist your thinking a touch... with an object and gravity, the "force" is constant, and the only thing that changes is the height to which you hauled it. In the case of the bow, the force of gravity is represented by the weight of the bow at any given moment, and the height to which you hauled the rock is now instead the distance you pull the arrow back. Imagine Bow #1 is like raising the rock on the moon for 90% of the pull, and then raising it on earth for the last 10%. Bow #2 was like raising the rock on the moon for the first 10% and then on the earth for the last 90%. It's not a great analogy, but maybe it will help make it clear? The "energy" stored in the limbs is different from the final force applied by the limbs. That's why people talk about the area "under the curve". Pulling the arrow back 1" when the force required to do so is only 1 pounds stores very little energy in the bow compared to pulling the arrow back 1" when the force required to do so is 50 pounds.

Hope that helps.

-GB (archery noob that has trouble keeping the arrows on his target at 10 yards, but reasonably good at physics)


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> _*"To get energy into the bow. You HAD to put it there."* _
> 
> I might be misinterpreting this, but I take it to also mean that if your are getting more energy out of a bow, more energy had to be put in there. I'm still not sure I agree with this, let me offer up another analogy. (I KNOW, I KNOW...but that's the way my brain works :wink
> 
> I still maintain that two recurve bows that scale exactly 50# at 28" will have the exact same amount of energy put into the bow. Regardless of how it stacks up over the draw cycle, what you have at anchor is what you have at anchor.


Think of it operating backwards (the bow actually shooting, which will be roughly the same thing backwards, with some losses related to efficiency)... from a car analogy standpoint.

If you're drag racing (and let's assume we have no tires spinning), which is going to be going faster at 1/4 mile (when the arrow leaves the bow)? 

The car the floored it for the first 100 yards, and then shifted to half throttle, or the one that kept the pedal down all the way to the end?


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

my head hurts after reading all this


----------



## Zarrow (Sep 8, 2010)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> my head hurts after reading all this


Lol. Yeah, I am not so sure if I am going to buy the CH now. Early preload may not be the best thing for me. Plus i have a short draw. I'll stick with their CV series limbs


----------



## scott1952 (Feb 14, 2012)

For me this discussion has gotten too deep into one topic related to stored energy efficiency. Good points are made though. 50# is 50# at anchor regardless of limb design. So yes, beyond this it comes down to bow efficiency transferring power. More importantly for me, what I love about the draw cycle of the super curve is the smooth feel and confidence at anchor provided. 

I am curios about how the super curve may have on flatter trajectory at distance though. Much like a compound providing greater snapping thrust just before the arrow leaves the bow. Anyone know of any data/research on this?


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Zarrow said:


> Lol. Yeah, I am not so sure if I am going to buy the CH now. Early preload may not be the best thing for me. Plus i have a short draw. I'll stick with their CV series limbs


Yeah I'm sure they are great bows, but you can get a nice ilf bow for under 300$ and shoot just as good


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

gbeauvin said:


> Now you have to twist your thinking a touch... with an object and gravity, the "force" is constant, and the only thing that changes is the height to which you hauled it. In the case of the bow, the force of gravity is represented by the weight of the bow at any given moment, and the height to which you hauled the rock is now instead the distance you pull the arrow back. Imagine Bow #1 is like raising the rock on the moon for 90% of the pull, and then raising it on earth for the last 10%. Bow #2 was like raising the rock on the moon for the first 10% and then on the earth for the last 90%. It's not a great analogy, but maybe it will help make it clear? The "energy" stored in the limbs is different from the final force applied by the limbs. That's why people talk about the area "under the curve". Pulling the arrow back 1" when the force required to do so is only 1 pounds stores very little energy in the bow compared to pulling the arrow back 1" when the force required to do so is 50 pounds.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> -GB (archery noob that has trouble keeping the arrows on his target at 10 yards, but reasonably good at physics)


Ok, I'm with you. 

However, when you let the rock go, it is still a 50lb rock, and it has to travel back by whence it came. The "whence it came" part being the power stroke and the design and efficiency of the limb. The 50lb rock never becomes a 60 lb rock.

Am I making any sense?



KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

scott1952 said:


> For me this discussion has gotten too deep into one topic related to stored energy efficiency. Good points are made though. 50# is 50# at anchor regardless of limb design. So yes, beyond this it comes down to bow efficiency transferring power. More importantly for me, what I love about the draw cycle of the super curve is the smooth feel and confidence at anchor provided.
> 
> I am curios about how the super curve may have on flatter trajectory at distance though. Much like a compound providing greater snapping thrust just before the arrow leaves the bow. Anyone know of any data/research on this?


Scott, think of it as "just less loses".
Dan


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

scott1952 said:


> For me this discussion has gotten too deep into one topic related to stored energy efficiency. Good points are made though. 50# is 50# at anchor regardless of limb design. So yes, beyond this it comes down to bow efficiency transferring power. More importantly for me, what I love about the draw cycle of the super curve is the smooth feel and confidence at anchor provided.
> 
> I am curios about how the super curve may have on flatter trajectory at distance though. Much like a compound providing greater snapping thrust just before the arrow leaves the bow. Anyone know of any data/research on this?


Sorry for the stored energy spin out, but it is kind of important when it comes to design aspects of a Super Recurve versus a Conventional recurve.

50# is 50#, as far as holding weight, but in terms of energy available to put into an arrow, with _equal_ efficiency, it isn't necessarily. That's like saying, in a more extreme example, that a 50# compound bow (you can set it to have no let off if you want) is the same as a 50# longbow, in terms of KE you're going to get out of it. Totally not the case. It's not even close. But, you can set them up so that they're both pulling 50# at anchor.

Efficiency is a related, but different issue. It has most to do with how much the limbs have to move to accelerate the arrow, and how heavy the moving parts are (bleeding away stored energy from the arrow to get themselves moving, and after the arrow has left, absorbing that energy through transferrring it to vibration, and ultimately sound and heat). Some bows are more efficient than others, due to materials and how the limbs are designed to move, but it isn't an issue related directly to the Super Recurve vs. Conventional Recurve. Hank has done a lot of testing and found that there isn't a whole lot of variation in efficiency.

As far as speed, that is entirely another issue. The speed limitation on a bow is primarily a matter of how fast you can let those limbs move before the residual energy left in them becomes problematic, either with excessive noise, unpleasant vibration, or significantly reducing the working life of the limb. Stored energy and efficiency will be related in terms of how fast a given arrow will move, but you can always find a lighter arrow, to a point.

Speaking personally, my 70#and 54# conventional recurves, as well as my 46# covert hunter shoot comfortably at about the same speed. They are all within, on average, about 2 fps. I could get them all to clock faster, if I wanted, to marginally flatten the trajectory, and have for the sake of experimentation, but choose not to for regular shooting, because of the aforementioned limiting factors. What the Super Recurve allows, though, is a heavier arrow in relation to holding weight, without sacrificing speed.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

GEREP said:


> Thanks Easy, and I get that. What I'm not grasping is the notion that that you can somehow put more into a limb than what shows up on a scale.
> 
> If the scale never goes over 50# anywhere along the DFC, that is the max that was put into the limbs. Regardless of the shape of the curve, if the last reading (say at 28") is the max weight, that is the energy stored in the limb. How efficiently the limb *delivers* the energy is a different discussion.
> 
> ...


No, the maximum or peak weight is _not_ the energy stored in the limbs, it is simply the force at a particular instant along the draw force curve. The energy stored is a function of the force and the _distance_ over which it is applied. The _stored_ (potential) energy is represented by the area under the curve from brace to full draw. 

You're right, the maximum _instantaneous_ force applied to the arrow at release is the draw weight at full draw (or peak for a compound). However, the force applied to the arrow from the bow is _not_ instantaneous.

It is easily seen with your diagrams showing a comparison between a recurve and a compound draw force curve. Even thought the peak force is the same, the applied force over distance is significantly higher for the compound (area under the curve).

To confuse things a little more, the acceleration felt by the arrow from the bow is actually a function of force over time (impulse momentum theorem) and likely not exactly what is shown on a draw force curve chart. Getting the stored potential energy as represented by the area under the curve efficiently transferred to the arrow is going to be influenced by design and material properties.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

And imho?....at the end of the day?...all of this equates to < 1% of the overall event of getting an arrow to it's mark when compared to the archers skill and ability.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> If you're drag racing (and let's assume we have no tires spinning), which is going to be going faster at 1/4 mile (when the arrow leaves the bow)?
> 
> The car the floored it for the first 100 yards, and then shifted to half throttle, or the one that kept the pedal down all the way to the end?


I'm not sure that's a good analogy Barney. You're not really making an even comparison.

If a CR is like a car flooring it for the first eighth of a mile , and then shifting to half throttle for the second eighth of a mile, a SR would be like going at half throttle for the first eighth of a mile and then flooring it for second eight of a mile. All other things being equal, and no tire spin, I think they would arrive at the finish line at the same time. 

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> And imho?....at the end of the day?...all of this equates to < 1% of the overall event of getting an arrow to it's mark when compared to the archers skill and ability.


Inherently, yes.

There may be relevance in terms of how the individual archer reacts to the bow itself, but that's not a clear one versus the other comparison, because that depends on the individual as much as the bow.

I sure wouldn't go selling one or the other telling them that it's going to make them more accurate.

I would say the same thing about cheapie limbs versus top of the line conventional limbs too 

In fact if accuracy inherent to the shooting device was of primary importance to somebody, I would ask them why they were even messing around with archery. Get a good rifle, or better yet a laser, and you're done  Even then, the limitations are _still_ primarily with the shooter.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BarneySlayer said:


> Inherently, yes.
> 
> There may be relevance in terms of how the individual archer reacts to the bow itself, but that's not a clear one versus the other comparison, because that depends on the individual as much as the bow.
> 
> ...


Okay BarneySlayer...since there isn't much of a point to debate accuracy as it relates too skill and ability then let's stick with the stronger argument of greater efficiency as it relates too stored energy with the SR's...after all... (besides a different dfc)...that is their strong selling point correct?

So now....there's classes where recurve archers are regularly pitted against compound archers.... (whose wheel bows undoubtedly have gobs more stored energy)....okay....ready?...here it comes....

Do the recurve archers ever best the compound archers?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Okay BarneySlayer...since there isn't much of a point to debate accuracy as it relates too skill and ability then let's stick with the stronger argument of greater efficiency as it relates too stored energy with the SR's...after all... (besides a different dfc)...that is their strong selling point correct?
> 
> So now....there's classes where recurve archers are regularly pitted against compound archers.... (whose wheel bows undoubtedly have gobs more stored energy)....okay....ready?...here it comes....
> 
> Do the recurve archers ever best the compound archers?


I already gave you the answer. LOL.
Dan


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Scott. 50lbs is NOT 50lbs in terms of stored energy.
This is why people get there spines wrong on our bows.
A 50lbs bow can shoot like a 60lbs bow.
Because it stores energy like a 60lbs bow of lower stored energy.

The tesla electric sports car is amaizing because it has constant torque. While petrol cars need to spin up the revs.
So the similarity is that you have 300newtons of torque from the moment you touch the accelerator.
A conventional engine only has 300 newtons of torque at say 4000 revs.
If you took average torque. Then you would be looking at say 180 netwons for the petrol and 300 newtons for the electric. Now whats faster.... both have a peak torque of 300.

So back to bows.
If you looked at average poundage. Through the draw. No two designs would be the same.

Ill look this one up for you


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

right... here goes.
two 60lbs bows. both within 0.2lbs of each other at 28".

both measured at 28"

a hex6 BB2 and a Covert hunter.
the average draw weight of every inch would be the average return thrust (give or take a little efficacy)
the BB2 pushed the arrow with an average thrust of 37.41lbs of draw weight.
the Covert pushed with 40.24


so How can two bows of equal draw weight and equal draw length have different average poundages through the draw length...

there is simply no way to ignore stored energy, and that final holding weight is only final holding weight, it explains why spine charts on holding weight are simplistic generalisations AT BEST.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> right... here goes.
> two 60lbs bows. both within 0.2lbs of each other at 28".
> 
> both measured at 28"
> ...


Because the HEX6 BB2's were ILF limbs and the CH was Bolt Down limbs.

The loss of efficient energy with ILF HEX7'S vs Bolt Down HEX7'S has already been documented.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Zarrow said:


> Lol. Yeah, I am not so sure if I am going to buy the CH now. Early preload may not be the best thing for me. Plus i have a short draw. I'll stick with their CV series limbs


drop draw weight, still get the same output energy. just hold less on your fingers. gain control of the bow. or holding time on the bow, and reduce the front end preload with less draw weight, but still hit as hard.

how would you like to hold say 50lbs on your fingers. and hit with the power of a 60lbs bow...

or stick to older designs and hold 60lbs and hit with 60lbs.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> Scott. 50lbs is NOT 50lbs in terms of stored energy.
> This is why people get there spines wrong on our bows.
> A 50lbs bow can shoot like a 60lbs bow.
> Because it stores energy like a 60lbs bow of lower stored energy.
> ...


This is why I turned my CR long limbs 40# into a Semi-SR Med 32# limbs. Talks I had with Steve, aka hank, really made sense.
Dan


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> This is why I turned my CR long limbs 40# into a Semi-SR Med 32# limbs. Talks I had with Steve, aka hank, really made sense.
> Dan


you also have to look at limb mass. its a bit like having 350horse power. 
if you have a heavy chassis, your going to be slow. making that 400HP will make you faster, but if you have a light chassis, then the 350HP will beat your heavy 400hp.
now if you have 450HP in a light chassis, nothing can keep up... all the same engine size.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Because the HEX6 BB2's were ILF limbs and the CH was Bolt Down limbs.
> 
> The loss of efficient energy with ILF HEX7'S vs Bolt Down HEX7'S has already been documented.


no. its not efficiency.

efficiency is the difference in stored energy vs output energy.

the ILFS don't store the same energy as the bolt down. that's not efficiency. same as a conventional recurve cant store the same energy as a SR.
I haven't mentioned efficiency. that's just stored energy.


----------



## gbeauvin (Sep 16, 2015)

GEREP said:


> Ok, I'm with you.
> 
> However, when you let the rock go, it is still a 50lb rock, and it has to travel back by whence it came. The "whence it came" part being the power stroke and the design and efficiency of the limb. The 50lb rock never becomes a 60 lb rock.
> 
> ...


Lol, I think that last emoticon sums it up. As several other folks have stated, Force does NOT equal Energy. Draw weight is a force, sampled at one point (full draw). The draw curve shows you the draw weight over the entire draw, which equates roughly to the amount of potential energy you are storing in the bow as you draw it, and the amount of kinetic energy that potential turns into when you release. In the bow#1/bow#2 example, you could instead think of bow#1 having a 2" effective power stroke at 50lb, and bow#2 having an 18" effective power stroke at 50lb. Clearly the 18" power stroke stored and releases far more energy than the 2" power stroke.

Going back to the bow#1/bow#2 example, lets change it a bit. Bow#1 has ZERO pull (floppy string, whatever) for the first 18" and 50 pounds for the last 2. Bow #2 has 50 pounds for the entire draw. Shooting Bow#1 is roughly the same as drawing back bow#2 for only 2". Does that make more sense than the rock? It's not about any one instantaneous measurement of force, it's about the area under the force curve.

Without delving into a physics course, I'm not sure what to say other than reinforce what others have said that "energy" stored in a bow's limbs is not proportional to "draw weight", but rather to the area under the force curve.

sorry!

-GB


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I'm not sure that's a good analogy Barney. You're not really making an even comparison.
> 
> If a CR is like a car flooring it for the first eighth of a mile , and then shifting to half throttle for the second eighth of a mile, a SR would be like going at half throttle for the first eighth of a mile and then flooring it for second eight of a mile. All other things being equal, and no tire spin, I think they would arrive at the finish line at the same time.
> 
> KPC


I was trying to make it obvious for clarity, but if you want to make it more accurate.

Ignoring losses due to issues of efficiency, because that would complicate things even more...

A bow is a spring. If you ignore efficiency issue and deal with theoretical 'ideals', which means ignoring stuff like moving mass of the limbs, frictional losses, etc, the draw force curve that shows resistance as a function of distance on the draw, will be the same curve applied when the string moves back the other way. In reality, not exactly, but it will be related.

In other words, when accelerating the arrow, the maximum theoretical force applied at any given portion of the power stroke will be the draw force curve, simplistically speaking.

In other words, flip the draw force curves backwards. You start with the holding weight at full draw, you end with nothing.

So...

Since the throttle is our analogy to force, which is directly proportional to acceleration F=MA (It's a newton thing)...

First 1/5th of that 1/4 mile
CR is pushing 100% (Holding weight)
SR is pushing 100% (Holding weight)

Initially both have the same gain in speed and energy (being zero)


second 1/5th of that 1/4 Mile
CR backs off to 80%
SR backs off to 90%

SR is ahead, and moving faster, but not a whole lot.

third 1/5 of 1/4 Mile
CR backs off to 60%
SR backs off to 70%

fourth 1/5 of 1/4 mile
CR backs off to 30%
SR backs off to SR40%

Fifth 1/5 of 1/4 Mile
CR backs off to 10%
SR backs off to 15%

End of 1/4 Mile, both drop to zero.

If you want more accurate ratios, you can simply plug the numbers in from Hank's spreadsheets.

But, the point is, aside from the initial _instant_ of release (and maybe not even that, if you don't consider the string slip from the fingers as being 'released'), with the same starting weight and removing factors of efficiency of energy transfer, the Super Recurve is _always_ pushing that arrow with more force, at any given distance, accelerating it more quickly, and _given the same arrow mass_, moving it faster, with more kinetic energy into the arrow, _always_. There is never an increment of distance where the conventional recurve even _begins_ to take a stab at catching up, either in speed or position.

If you insist on maintaining a position that undermines the potential value of a super recurve, change the context. Say that, in our analogy, we remove kinetic energy as an intended goal, allow a different chassis for the CR (lighter arrow), and keep shaving weight until the speeds are equal. That is, in fact, a viable approach, one that costs almost nothing. If speed is the only parameter, a Super Recurve is entirely wasting your money. Then again, so is a heavier draw weight 

You want a fast heavy arrow with a conventional recurve? no problem. Just up the draw weight, and get stronger. Problem solved


----------



## Zarrow (Sep 8, 2010)

Borderbows said:


> drop draw weight, still get the same output energy. just hold less on your fingers. gain control of the bow. or holding time on the bow, and reduce the front end preload with less draw weight, but still hit as hard.
> 
> how would you like to hold say 50lbs on your fingers. and hit with the power of a 60lbs bow...
> 
> or stick to older designs and hold 60lbs and hit with 60lbs.


I am not in disagreement with you about the efficiency of Hex's/CH. I have no experience shooting any of your hex series limbs. I am just not sure if I will like the way they feel on the draw. I love shooting your CV-H limbs. They are definitely faster than another brand I am a big fan of. For me, it is not so much about speed but how The draw feels pulling the bow to anchor. I know you have 28 day return policy but I don't want to order something thinking that I will very likely be returning it.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

ok. poundage held = engine size.
stored energy is BHP.
Chassis mass = efficiency. (converting that BHP into acceleration)

you can have 2 engines of the same cubic size. but deliver VERY different BHPs.

if the chassis is the same, BHP wins.
if the chassis is heavy, then BHP will struggle.

now, chances are engine size is related to BHP. but not always.
it used to be a well tuned engine delivers about 100bhp per liter.
older engines delivered 60bhp per liter.
now you can get 100BHP in a production engine.
tuners are getting 250BHP per liter.

so what im saying is that conventional recurves deliver say (0.92 se/pdf) 92 BHP per liter.
im saying a hex7 can deliver 120bhp per liter of engine size.

but now you need to look at chassis, to see if you can get this BHP out the system well enough to take advantage of it.

we are saying its possible to do that energy level in a very light chassis. as light as conventional recurves.
such as 150grams per limb. some glass limbs are 220 grams per limb.
measure your limb and see how it compairs. then look at the BHP.
so if you are close to 150 grams in mass, then the reason the SR is faster is because it has more BHP.
if limb mass is more than 150 grams then the mass will be holding it back a little.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> let's stick with the stronger argument of greater efficiency as it relates too stored energy with the SR's...after all... (besides a different dfc)...that is their strong selling point correct?


No. It is _actual_ energy available with a given holding weight. So far as I know, actual efficiency is not that different, if at all.



> So now....there's classes where recurve archers are regularly pitted against compound archers.... (whose wheel bows undoubtedly have gobs more stored energy)....okay....ready?...here it comes....
> 
> Do the recurve archers ever best the compound archers?


Ever? Of course. I assume that we're talking scoring targets. Does it happen often? not generally. But that's an accuracy debate. I don't think anybody is having that, are they?

If you're talking about arrow speed or kinetic energy, almost never. Might be able to beat out a Genesis or something similar, but that's not saying a whole lot


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Zarrow said:


> I am not in disagreement with you about the efficiency of Hex's/CH. I have no experience shooting any of your hex series limbs. I am just not sure if I will like the way they feel on the draw. I love shooting your CV-H limbs. They are definitely faster than another brand I am a big fan of. For me, it is not so much about speed but how The draw feels pulling the bow to anchor. I know you have 28 day return policy but I don't want to order something thinking that I will very likely be returning it.


I respect that.

smoothness at full draw is addictive. but as others have said, you get used to it. Just don't go back... they stack in comparison. (but you get used to it again)


----------



## gbeauvin (Sep 16, 2015)

Ok, I couldn't resist one more comment. If we're looking at the energy put into the bow (or taken back out of the bow onto the arrow)... obviously both draw weight and draw length are factors... but I think what we are overlooking is that it's not draw length * PEAK draw weight, but draw length * AVERAGE draw weight (which is the same thing as saying area under the curve, but with different words and no graph involved). A 50 pound bow with a linear force curve has an AVERAGE draw weight of 25 pounds over the entire draw (rising smoothly from 0 to 50 along the 28" draw). A 50 pound bow with an "early rise" force curve has an average draw weight of more than 25 pounds, and if you had one with a "late rise" force curve then it would average less than 25 pounds.

Peak draw weight is important for determining what you can pull and what you will have to hold, but average draw weight is a far bigger impact on "energy" (both stored and imparted).

Don't know if that helps the confused at all, but I hope it does!

-GB


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Zarrow said:


> For me, it is not so much about speed but how The draw feels pulling the bow to anchor. I know you have 28 day return policy but I don't want to order something thinking that I will very likely be returning it.


To me, that seems pretty sensible, since the speed itself, given the leeway to use a lighter arrow, may be about the same. There comes a point, where if an arrow is too light, it doesn't have enough momentum in relation to drag to keep moving sufficiently at longer distances (trajectories like the shape of a parabolic cut feather), but otherwise, a conventional limb can zip a fast arrow just fine.

If you're happy with what you've got, it's not a bad idea to simply stick with it. 

That being said, I would say that you shouldn't feel bad returning something that turns out to be not what you want, should it come to that. I can't speak specifically for Border, but typically, the cost of actual manufacturing and materials is 20-25% of the selling price, which is only what they would _lose_ if the limbs were worthless upon return. Obviously, they're not. It's not that you're getting ripped off, but a real business has overhead, R&D, distribution, marketing, whatever, that need to be spread out and included in the sales price of the items, because we're only willing to pay for items, not R&D, or sales support, or whatever, directly. 

That's true of _everything_ you pay for, even if the percentages vary slightly. Product returns are a part of sales. It's no different than if they had a dealer in the states, the dealer let you take home a set of limbs to try with a deposit, and you decided to keep your money instead. The dealer now has a set of demo limbs that he sells at a discount (and still makes money, albeit less). There was a cost to the dealer, but it is a cost of making sales. If he keeps doing this, eventually _somebody_ is going to want to keep the limbs. If the cost of the failures exceeds the sales gains, the dealer will (or should) change their policy, and maybe rethink the product lines they carry.

In other words, you let them sit on your money and shipping costs for an opportunity to try their product, and they risk the possibility of return in exchange for the possibility of making a sale. If you want to keep it, great. If you don't want to keep it, great, because you now know what you're not missing, and it only cost you shipping and the interest you could have earned/avoided with that principal.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

gbeauvin said:


> Ok, I couldn't resist one more comment. If we're looking at the energy put into the bow (or taken back out of the bow onto the arrow)... obviously both draw weight and draw length are factors... but I think what we are overlooking is that it's not draw length * PEAK draw weight, but draw length * AVERAGE draw weight (which is the same thing as saying area under the curve, but with different words and no graph involved). A 50 pound bow with a linear force curve has an AVERAGE draw weight of 25 pounds over the entire draw (rising smoothly from 0 to 50 along the 28" draw). A 50 pound bow with an "early rise" force curve has an average draw weight of more than 25 pounds, and if you had one with a "late rise" force curve then it would average less than 25 pounds.
> 
> Peak draw weight is important for determining what you can pull and what you will have to hold, but average draw weight is a far bigger impact on "energy" (both stored and imparted).
> 
> ...


I think you've said it better than I ever have. I hope it's enough. I'm out of ideas


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think you've said it better than I ever have. I hope it's enough. I'm out of ideas


Maybe not. I can always go to the good old standbys, taking offence to imagined personal attacks, turning things into an Instinctive versus True Instinctive debate, or applying the G.A.P. system 

Don't tell Ray, though. He might draw a graph of a draw force curve applied by the back of my head by his hand, and I don't think it'd look all the smooth


----------



## regas (Oct 24, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Because the HEX6 BB2's were ILF limbs and the CH was Bolt Down limbs.
> 
> The loss of efficient energy with ILF HEX7'S vs Bolt Down HEX7'S has already been documented.


if we bolt down our ilf's , will they more efficient?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> you also have to look at limb mass. its a bit like having 350horse power.
> if you have a heavy chassis, your going to be slow. making that 400HP will make you faster, but if you have a light chassis, then the 350HP will beat your heavy 400hp.
> now if you have 450HP in a light chassis, nothing can keep up... all the same engine size.


Thanks we did that. http://tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52287&highlight=Uukha&page=2
Dan


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

regas said:


> if we bolt down our ilf's , will they more efficient?


yeah i want to know this answer as well, i doubt it though


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> yeah i want to know this answer as well, i doubt it though


I don't think efficiency was the issue, but rather being able to optimize geometry given that the limbs had to accommodate a range of limb pad angles, but Sid could give a more specific answer.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

BarneySlayer said:


> I don't think efficiency was the issue, but rather being able to optimize geometry given that the limbs had to accommodate a range of limb pad angles, but Sid could give a more specific answer.


I see what you're saying , thanks


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

bow design is a compromise of smoothness, limb lengths, speed, and bow balance. as well as stability.

if you can solve smoothness you change the balance of the juggling act.

the advantage to ILF is that its ILF. its interchangeable.

so what makes it an advantage also makes it a disadvantage.
ILF needs to account for the a limited smoothness design as well as try and accommodate newer designs. so the juggling act is still limited with ILF. while on a non interoperable system, its possible to bias the juggling towards the problems faced.

if that makes sense...

the priorities change...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> If you insist on maintaining a position that undermines the potential value of a super recurve...


This is where these conversations go sideways Barney, and where I will back out of this one for good.

If you go to my very first post on this thread:



GEREP said:


> I've been trying to avoid these threads but I have to admit XXXXX, the "fatigue" thing has me a little confused.
> 
> Let me explain. Whether you have a conventional recurve or a super recurve, at any given weight (let's just stay 45# at 28") the same amount of actual work is being done to get to 45# at 28".
> 
> ...


...you will clearly see that I was no in any way, shape, or form trying to "undermine the potential value of the SR." If anything, I was suggesting that an attempt find fault with the design was actually misguided. 

If you, or anyone else, thinks that by me suggesting that some designs actually transfer stored energy better than others is "trying to undermine the potential value" of a design, I'm not sure what to say about that.

If someone needs to make me the boogeyman in order to keep this thread at the top, be my guest...but they'll have to do it without me.

KPC


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> And imho?....at the end of the day?...all of this equates to < 1% of the overall event of getting an arrow to it's mark when compared to the archers skill and ability.


Probably true, and something to keep everything in perspective. 

Still, if you enjoy the science behind the way our bows work it's fun to talk about the technical issues. At this point in the development of stickbows the improvements will be incremental at best. The easiest way to quantify the improvements that Border is putting into their bows and limbs is with details of the science behind it.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

i love what border archery is doing, i love modern tradtional archery(if their is such a thing)...i hope this trend keeps rising with trad. equipment, because i think it will help bring more folks into traditional archery/bowhunting instead of just Olympic archery/competition/spots


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Easykeeper said:


> Probably true, and something to keep everything in perspective.
> 
> Still, if you enjoy the science behind the way our bows work it's fun to talk about the technical issues. At this point in the development of stickbows the improvements will be incremental at best. The easiest way to quantify the improvements that Border is putting into their bows and limbs is with details of the science behind it.


Easy, a great point! When my oldest Son got into BMX racing. We first bought him a Basic BMX bike. Well that lasted half way thru beginner class. Next step up was $1000.00 and I had to build it. After that is was $100.00 for every once I saved. Still have the Expert #1 Redline bike in the garage. Not any good for anything other a 9 year old on a clean BMX track. LOL.
Dan


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Kevin, sorry I misunderstood you. Apologies. I must have some baggage


----------



## Zarrow (Sep 8, 2010)

Borderbows said:


> I respect that.
> 
> smoothness at full draw is addictive. but as others have said, you get used to it. Just don't go back... they stack in comparison. (but you get used to it again)


Ok. I am willing to give it a try then .


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I think we have just begun to see what the future of the SR is 

I for one commend Border for leading this genre 

While I sat today watching this little funnel that was made up of a split in a fence I couldn't help but admire the CH 





I can only imagine where these designs will go in the future


----------

