# High Speed Video of Clearance Problem



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

I would think too stiff as they are recovering faster than they should. Nice video by the way!


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

I have to disagree. Those arrows are weak. If you are looking for the back of the arrow to clear the rest, then you need it to bend faster. The way to do that is to stiffen the arrow.

Gary


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Doesn't it look as if the arrow bends out away from the rest very slightly before bending toward the button? Is that normal?


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

What setup are you shooting? Weight/Arrows/DL?


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

My setup is as follows.

27" Inno CXT riser
long Inno EX power limbs
draw length is 31"
draw weight on fingers is 38# measured with good scale
string is 12 strands of d97
nocking point is beiter type served in
rest is a shibuya ultimate rest with wire tip set just at edge of arrow shaft 
plunger is Beiter with weakest spring but turned in quite a bit
plunger is in second hole (toward target) 
center shot is set just outside of center (maybe half an arrow diameter)
arrows are carbon 1 660 spine
arrow length from carbon to nock groove is 30 1/4" (uncut)
90 grain point (broken off all the way)
beiter insert nock at 6.5 grains
bohning 1.5" xvanes at 3 grains each or 9 grains for all three


By the way I was able to capture this video with a fairly cheap casio ex-zr100 point and shoot camera. The snow makes a perfect background.

Matt


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Definitely too weak....

I am thinking you need to be in the area of a 550 spine or perhaps stiffer. I have a shorter DL and at the same poundage and arrow length, use the 550 X10's....

On that riser, there is not a lot of adjustment (only 3.5 turns), but if you can take it out some, that would be better.

Can your arrows be shortened any?


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

I could shorten the arrows by 5/8". Would that make a significant difference? Also I can take about 2 turns out to the limb bolts which is maybe a pound less. That is where I started, but added turns to get the bareshafts to group with the fletched.

I'll take more video with the weight turned down this afternoon and see what happens.

Thanks for the advice.

Matt


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

Also, the link below is what I'm using a reference for high speed video of how an arrow should leave the bow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MugebeCK20g

Matt


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

That would make a difference, but I wouldn't start cutting yet! Try to match the bow weight to the arrows first where you have them, then make adjustments.

If the bare shafts are grouping, that is a good starting place. I have some concern about how light the spring is set. I think a good walk back tune would help figure it out....

http://www.kpac.co.za/uploads/1/2/8/4/12843059/walk_back_tuning.pdf

Take a look at that procedure....It has really helped me dial in my centershot and plunger very quickly....


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Matt Fritz said:


> Also, the link below is what I'm using a reference for high speed video of how an arrow should leave the bow.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MugebeCK20g
> 
> Matt


Release has a lot to do with that....


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

Inno CXT does some weird things to spine reaction sometimes. Got my one, put the same limbs on but got higher poundage due to less deflex geometry, suddenly my arrows that spined quite nicely on my old riser, were STIFF at a HIGHER POUNDAGE! I got real confused by that one, and just had to go and fix the problem.

I'd say 660 are weak at that draw length and poundage. At 31 inches and 38 I'd say 550 - 500 would be right, depending on the CXTs mood. EX-Powers have a high preload, so slightly weak on less punchy limb would become quite weak on an Inno EX limb. Combine that with the geometry of a CXT and you have a high energy bow, that's going to want a stiff arrow.

If you can get singles of the Carbon Ones where you are, get a couple sets of 3 arrows of the 550 and 500 spine. Heavy weight points are unfortunately almost unavoidable at that draw length, so get the heaviest points and go with the arrows that work best with them. You shouldn't have velocity problems with that bow so the extra 20 grains won't kill your speed. Whichever clears best off the bat with moderate settings go with that, and tune from there. Buy the rest of the set when you're done fiddling! With a 31inch draw length you also get the advantage of it being easy to sell the 3 you decide against, as you won't have cut them much or possibly at all, and they'll be close enough to new to fetch a reasonable amount.

Expensive-ish option I know, but you've spared no expense on the bow so the arrows deserve the same.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Move plunger back to where it belongs if arrow length allows for it and re-tune with a medium spring tension. Ditch the 12 strand speed string and trade it in for a thicker/heavier string to stiffen dynamic spine. Lower brace height a little. Back limbs off a little. Use a heavier nock system. Are x vanes the high profile blazer-type vanes designed for compounds? If so Go with a lower vane height. You could also use slightly heavier vanes along the same idea as increasing nock weight. A combination of adjustments in the above will stiffen things up. Personally I'd just put a real nice, comfortable, heavy fat string on and see what happens.


----------



## wanemann (Oct 7, 2010)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Release has a lot to do with that....


note that your last bareshaft, flipper did not move, clean shot.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Definitely too weak....
> 
> I am thinking you need to be in the area of a 550 spine or perhaps stiffer. I have a shorter DL and at the same poundage and arrow length, use the 550 X10's....
> 
> ...


Well he said his bareshaft hits with his fletched and also in the slomo it doesn't seem to be all that weak. I'de rather say it's a tad to stiff. My arrows are definitely to weak and the fletchings would hit my hand if I would move my hand that far up.


----------



## Norman2 (Aug 4, 2012)

Hi Matt, Your plunger and rest should be on the hole closest to the belly of the bow (side facing you). Regards
Norman


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

anmactire said:


> Inno CXT does some weird things to spine reaction sometimes. Got my one, put the same limbs on but got higher poundage due to less deflex geometry, suddenly my arrows that spined quite nicely on my old riser, were STIFF at a HIGHER POUNDAGE! I got real confused by that one, and just had to go and fix the problem.
> 
> I'd say 660 are weak at that draw length and poundage. At 31 inches and 38 I'd say 550 - 500 would be right, depending on the CXTs mood. EX-Powers have a high preload, so slightly weak on less punchy limb would become quite weak on an Inno EX limb. Combine that with the geometry of a CXT and you have a high energy bow, that's going to want a stiff arrow.
> 
> ...


I agree with the arrows too weak analysis. Lancaster Archery sells Carbon One singles. I'm using Carbon One 550's overall length 31 inches with 120 grain points at 37 pounds on the fingers and 30 inch draw and these are just slightly too stiff. I'll bet (nothing) that Carbon One 550s will work well for you.


----------



## Norman2 (Aug 4, 2012)

Hi Matt, Please see attached photo of where your plunger should be, Regards
Norman


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

My Dynamic Spine Calculator shows your current set up as being very close based upon your current set-up. I wish that I could figure out how to do a screen shot of the Excell based program.

I did notice in your video that as someone mentioned too weak of plunger setting possibly. Also noticed a little nock-low indication with nock hitting rest in some shots. Finger pressure may also be to blame for those shots.

Very cool to be able to use the technology that is now available to us these days with the exception that it may not matter that much. It can also drive you nuts!


----------



## gma (Aug 22, 2012)

Norman2 said:


> Hi Matt, Please see attached photo of where your plunger should be


I'm not so sure on this "should be" thing. According to several people here on AT, and my personal testing, you can use either hole. Moving to the forward hole will slightly weaken dynamic spine.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"should be" .... agree with GMA. "should be" is no more relevant to the position of the plunger than is the position of the sight extension bar in this picture. 
Not to discount what I"m sure was Norman's overarching point though - that putting the plunger into the closest-to-the-archer-side hole (is that the 'belly' side?) will make the arrows act a tad stiffer, which might solve the problem.


----------



## Norman2 (Aug 4, 2012)

gma said:


> I'm not so sure on this "should be" thing. According to several people here on AT, and my personal testing, you can use either hole. Moving to the forward hole will slightly weaken dynamic spine.


Hi, Look at the photos of all Olympic Shooters and show me one of the top shooters men or women that don't have the
plunger on the belly side. When they place it there it must be for a reason. Regards
Norman


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

The fact that you achieve fair-to-good clearance with the bareshaft might mean that you're right on the line of too weak (the addition of the fletchings makes the arrow weak to the point of contact). You could try moving the plunger toward you, but as Rick pointed out in this thread some use the forward plunger hole to try to achieve better clearance (which you've had no luck with). 

It looks like you have some room to play with length. Maybe try cutting down by 1/4 - 1/2 inch if you're able. Remember that cutting off 1" is about equal to making an arrow 1 spine stiffer.


----------



## DK Lieu (Apr 6, 2011)

Flight correction (i.e. bare-shaft tuning) and bow clearance are actually two separate issues, although it is difficult to change one without affecting the other. This is described in the article on arrow flight mechanics, which can be downloaded from here: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~archery/?page_id=75 . In the field, it is often assumed that by correcting the flight, bow clearance is automatically corrected. The (very nice) video shows a good example of a time when this is not the case. The bare-shaft test apparently shows that the arrow flight has been corrected, but the video shows that the clearance frequency is a bit too low. To correct the problem, I recommend that the shaft be reduced slightly in length (maybe 1/4" at a time) and that the tail weight be reduced by changing the vanes from plastic to feather or Mylar. Both changes will increase the frequency of the arrow so the tail will move out of the way faster. Shortening the shaft will make the arrow behave "stiffer" for bare-shaft tuning, but reducing the tail weight will make the arrow behave "weaker". You should be able to get the two opposing effects to offset each other.


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

Thank you to everyone. I have read through all your ideas and have tried most of your suggestions with some improvement, but I'm not satisfied yet.

I captured video to look for clearance problems through the following progressing of changes. For each change I shot 6 arrows. 3 were fletched and 3 were bareshafts.

1). Changed tiller from 3/8" to zero to move the nocking point down. I do this as a test because it is hard to move the beiter nocking point. This caused the bareshafts to fly noticeably nock high. Not much improvement was seen. 4 of 6 shots contacted the rest.

2). moved center shot out 1/2 turn. this helped as only 1 of 6 shots contacted rest.

3). changed plunger spring to medium (from light) and set to 5.0 (mid point). 3 of 6 shots contacted rest

4). set plunger to 3.0 (two turns stiffer). 4 of 6 shots contacted rest

5). moved center shot out another 1/2 turn. 2 of 6 shots contacted rest

6). turned limb bolts out 1.5 turns. 2 of 6 shots contacted rest

7). turned limb bolts another 1 turn out. video seems to show tail of arrow moving back left a little sooner but bareshafts starting to hit 6" left of fletched and still 2 of 6 shots contacted rest

8). turned plunger to 7.0 ( 2 turns weaker). this moved bares shafts closer to fletched but still 1 of 6 shots contacted the rest.

The link below is the video for change # 8.

http://youtu.be/qoJ_PCI7qo8

And this is what the groups look like from 20 yards.









The groups are not too far away, but the bare shafts are nock right in the target.

I really think Dennis is right. I seem to be able to either get good clearance or the arrow leaving the bow going straight, but not both. When I started, with the higher draw weight, my arrows were flying well and fletched and bare shafts were hitting together. With the lower weight, the arrows are not flying that well. I can see the bare shafts coming out of the bow nock right and moving left as it flies to the target. But group sizes seem better at the lower weight. 

Tomorrow I will try moving the plunger to the hole on the archer side of the riser, but it seems to me that if the tail of the arrow is late moving back left, then moving the plunger and rest back will make the clearance problem worse.

Tomorrow, as Dennis suggested, I will also try cutting 1/2" length from 4 arrows (two fletched and two bareshafts) and removing the 9 grains of electrical tape I have on the bareshafts (this weight matches my current vanes) to simulate using lighter mylar fletching.

If none of this works, I order 4 shafts of several different spines (maybe 550's and 600's) and try them all.

I wonder is tapered shafts would work better for me.

Thanks again for reading,
Matt


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

Thanks for a fresh and thorough look at clearance. 
Being an old newbie of several years, I hesitate to weigh in.
I have had more clearance issues with a too stiff arrow. Looking at your last photo, I'd characterize the bareshaft/ fletched behavior as caused by a too stiff arrow.
Be nice to see it at 25-30 yards.
Thanks for sharing, all of you!
Butch


----------



## Basilios (Nov 24, 2012)

This really is a great thread. Lots of great information. 

My only question is why the tape on the bare shafts? I thought the point of them was to see how they flew without the vanes? 

This stupid question is coming from a pretty new archery though so please excuse me if the answer is obvious.


----------



## DK Lieu (Apr 6, 2011)

Matt Fritz said:


> Tomorrow, as Dennis suggested, I will also try cutting 1/2" length from 4 arrows (two fletched and two bareshafts) and removing the 9 grains of electrical tape I have on the bareshafts (this weight matches my current vanes) to simulate using lighter mylar fletching.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt


You should probably start with the lighter vanes before you start cutting (which is an irreversible process), and see if you can adjust other variables (like plunger tension) to achieve both good flight and clearance. You're already pretty close. If you decide you need to cut, remove 1/4" or less at a time.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Basilios,

The tape on the bare shaft is to mimic the weight of the absent vanes. So you get the same weight as the fletched arrows, allowing equivalent spine performance of both bare and fletched shafts, and still get the bare-shaft-scrutiny of arrow flight without the corrective interference of the vanes.


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

Basilios,

I don't think everyone adds weight to the back of their bare shafts, but I do so that it will be the same weight and weight distribution as the fletched. Adding weight to the back of the arrow changes the way the it behaves coming out of the bow. It will vibrate at a slower rate (affecting clearance) and come out of the bow more nock right. When I shoot bare shafts, I want them to behave just like the fletched arrows except for the stabilizing effect of the vanes.

I think I first read of doing this on a post from Limbwalker.

Matt


----------



## Basilios (Nov 24, 2012)

Ah thanks for the clarification guys. I haven't done much tuning with my bow yet but I hope soon to be able to.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

With bare shaft Some archers back weight their arrows some archers don't - both groups are equally happy with the result. The inevitable conclusion is that whether you back weight arrows or not is irrelevant at any practical level.

Say you have a group tuned setup shooting at 70 meters. The bare shafts hit vertically about 18 cm say above the fletched arrows. Around 5 cm of that 18 cm is down to the mass difference (the rest relates to the aerodynamic difference). So if your bare shaft tuning at 70 meters the result is marginally better if you back weight the bare shaft. At 30 meters you don't have a clue where the bare shaft should be relative to the fletched so back weighting is irrelevant to the result.

In the horizontal plane it is suggested from experience that with the same 70m tuned situation that the (non back weighted) bare shaft will hit to the left (RH archer) i.e. stiff. But as is well known adding weight to the back of an arrow makes it act stiffer - so the bare shafts, if the fletching weight has any significant effect on arrow on-bow behaviour, should act weaker than the fletched. If the fletchings have any significant effect to the on bow behavior then the bare shaft arrows should hit to the right of the fletched arrows - the opposite of what actually happens. So the suggestion that back weight is some form of on bow behaviour compensation is a bit colanderish. Again at 30 meters you don't have a clue where the bare shaft should be relative to the fletched so back weighting is irrelevant to the result.

Why at 70m the bare shaft hits left of the fletched shaft is still a mystery but the reason IMO is more likely to be a flight effect than a bow effect e.g. different vibration damping characteristics between bare and fletched shafts.


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

I would set the plunger tension to something reasonably stiff and then make the bare and fletched shafts group by adjusting only the draw weight of the bow. I have always ended up with good clearance using this method.


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

Yesterday I tried the following changes.

1). removed 9 grains of tape from the back of the bare shafts. This made a big difference. It helped both clearance as the tail of the arrow is moving back left sooner and it also helped my bare shaft tuning. This moved the bare shafts right of the fletched in the target and allowed me to increase the plunger tension the get them right together. I can also see that the bare shafts are flying straight from the bow to the target. I have some eli vanes on the way. I think for my setup that having as little weight in the back of the arrow is the best.

2). changed the plunger from 7.0 to 5.0 (two turns stiffer) to get bare shafts grouping with fletched.

3). changed till 1/2 turn positive to get bare shafts flying level and not nock high.

For me, adding tape to the back of the bareshafts definitely makes a difference. See the groups below.









The two shafts with tape (9 grains) group left and are nock right. The one bare shaft without tape groups right and straight in the target just like the fletched. If I were using mylar gains and only adding 1-2 grains, the tape probably would not make any difference.

Below is the high speed video after these changes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf2BI_FQn9g&list=UUV0dxJWpHLZsSuZR6YtzyRg&index=1

I am now happy with the vibration frequency of the arrow and the fact that the tail is moving left well be for getting to the plunger, but on about 1 in 3 shots I still have the rear node of the arrow hitting the rest wire. Maybe this is just me or maybe I have some kind of nock height problem. I did go back and look at the video of Park Sung Hyun (link below) and see that her the rear node of her arrow shaft is very close to her rest wire, but does not hit it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIMpLv6U67w

Does everyone agree that the arrow shaft should not touch the rest wire?

Thanks,
Matt


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Looks much better!

Are you shooting the Inno CXT? They always advertise that there is less left to right string movement, but your videos still show a lot....wonder if their claims are true!

Congrats on getting it tuned!


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Matt, here is a screen shot of your setup that you listed. I know that riser is listed as a Hoyt, but should be reasonably close. I also listed your limbs as 32# based upon measured draw weight at longer draw.








So many variables for finger shooting. I will be trying to set up my 2311 shafts next week for 38# limbs, we will see how that goes!


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Too small to read try again!


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

Scott,

Yes it is an Inno CXT. I like the riser because I like the grip and I like carbon fiber. About left / right string movement, I don't know. Maybe the camera location or maybe the shooter.

W8lon,

Thanks for screen shot of the analysis. Could you put in 3 grains / feather and see what it shows. Below is a picture showing a comparison of clearance at the start and after all my changes. The three things that made the most difference were moving the center shot out, removing 9 grains of weight from the tail of the arrow and turning down the draw weight.









You can see how much more clearance I have in the latest one (the one on the right).

Matt


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

"Does everyone agree that the arrow shaft should not touch the rest wire?"
I agree.
How to keep it away, there's the dilemma.

"1). removed 9 grains of tape from the back of the bare shafts. This made a big difference. It helped both clearance as the tail of the arrow is moving back left sooner and it also helped my bare shaft tuning. This moved the bare shafts right of the fletched in the target and allowed me to increase the plunger tension the get them right together. I can also see that the bare shafts are flying straight from the bow to the target"

Removing the tape makes the bareshaft behave weaker. Which could mean that the arrows were just a bit stiff, since they moved to the weaker side of the fletched.
Light vanes seem like the perfect solution. Please update on the clearance.

Reducing the draw weight is the fly in the ointment. That should make your arrows act stiffer. 
So, remove tape, make arrows behave weaker, reduce weight, make arrows behave stiffer. 
Perhaps reducing variables to just one would help with the analysis!
Great work here. Butch


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Matt, here are effects of spine based upon no fletching.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Vs. 3gr per fletch for a total of 9gr nock end.


----------



## Basilios (Nov 24, 2012)

where did you download that program from? when i look it up it looks nothing like yours!


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

I received this directly from the engineer that wrote program 'Stu Miller'. It is work in progress he works full time and tests as many bows as he can get his hands on in his spare time. Very unique as you can set up personal form factor and test string strand numbers and tweak any variable other than a particular riser/limb combination.


----------



## Basilios (Nov 24, 2012)

willing to share? or do i have to wait for the public release?


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Here is the same effect with your typical vane weight of 7gr for each 2" vane. All other factors remaining the same.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Not wishing to be a thread Hogg but tuning via laptop is fun!
Someone mentioned a thicker string. On the contrary thicker string results in less forgiving spine tolerance; therefore, a touchy set up.
I personally use a 9 strand Ultra Cam string. Using the same arrow specs note spine tolerance as strand number increases.


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

I didn't have time to fully pursue this because I ran out of daylight and it is 18 degrees outside, but below is a video of the side view of the arrow leaving the bow looking for up and down problems. The video is a little dark, but I think you can basically see what the arrow is doing. I don't think the it should buckle up and down so much. Maybe this is why the arrow shaft at the rear node is hitting the rest wire instead of going over it. I'll play with nocking point height tomorrow.

http://youtu.be/Y4sC8PMy0DU

Matt


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Norman,

Here is a picture from Rick McKinney's book (illustrated by Rick McKinney), page 65 - 








The target side plunger hole is just another 'fine tuning' variable to help give the archer more flexibility in achieving the best possible tune within the parameters of that particular archer's scenario (knowledge, time available, finances). That the elite of the elite are all mostly shooting the string side plunger hole doesn't make it the best choice for EVERY scenario. I don't disagree that the string side hole should be the 'default' choice, but there _are_ certain sets of variables that dictate that the target side plunger hole is the best choice. I think what the other poster and I objected to was the word "should". I don't know about him, but I wouldn't have commented at all if "should" had instead been "ideally" or "generally".

Here's a specific example - an archer has a big competition fast approaching. He's spent a lot of time nudging his 'tune', and is 'close but not quite there'. His arrows are still just a tad stiff, and he's out of time and money - he can't afford to spend another $350 on a dozen arrows of a weaker spine, and even if he did, he doesn't have enough time before the competition to tune up a new set of arrows. So putting the plunger in the target side hole may give him just that slight extra iota of 'weaker dynamic spine' to put his rig 'on the money'. 

The target side plunger hole is just another 'fine tuning' tool to use in the 'mix', like a few extra twists in the string to increase brace height 1/4", or twisting the limb bolts in another 1/4 turn. 

Nit picky I guess, but I don't want new archers to walk away thinking "no matter what, I MUST use the string side plunger hole.


----------



## Norman2 (Aug 4, 2012)

Hi, Nit picky for sure, I was just suggesting to the guy some possible solution to his problem. He can place his plunger
wherever he decides. Regards
Norman


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

Matt Fritz said:


> I didn't have time to fully pursue this because I ran out of daylight and it is 18 degrees outside, but below is a video of the side view of the arrow leaving the bow looking for up and down problems. The video is a little dark, but I think you can basically see what the arrow is doing. I don't think the it should buckle up and down so much. Maybe this is why the arrow shaft at the rear node is hitting the rest wire instead of going over it. I'll play with nocking point height tomorrow.
> 
> http://youtu.be/Y4sC8PMy0DU
> 
> Matt


Might be a silly question as I don't generally have access to high-speed video (i.e. if I really wanted to I could get a hold of a camera for an hour or two, but it'd be at the annoyance of my coach, who already goes miles out of his way for me) but at the start of every shot cycle there appeared to be a slow creep forward of your arrow.
Is this down to you creeping forward after the clicker has dropped or is this your fingers moving out of the way at the start of your loose? Maybe something to have a look at too, if you're creeping forward you could be causing the off shot that's hitting the rest wire.


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

Anmactire,

That's an interesting observation. I think that is just my fingers uncoiling to release the string. I have a very deep hook. But I look into it. Maybe see if there is a correlation between more creep and arrow contact.

I did try moving the plunger to the hole closest the string. I didn't see much change in bareshaft tune, and if anything the clearance is a little worse. About 1 of two shots have a problem. Below is a video of 8 shots with this change.

http://youtu.be/VrPTAsNvPDU

I really think that my problem has to do with vertical movement of the arrow after release before it clears the bow. Below is a a link to a Beiter video describing a similar situation.

http://www.wernerbeiter.com/en/informations/videoclips.php

It's the top video on the right hand column. The description for the video is below.

Bow Window Clearance with Beiter Recurve Rest - Wrong work of the Bow Limbs causes bad clearance
First scenes: The Beiter Rest is cut to the correct length to give optimal Clearance- Second scenes: The arrow comes by far too low, touches the arrow rest. Reason: the Limbs did not work progressive and in line: no chance to bring the arrow to the correct height.! - WMV file, approx. 2,9 MB

I think maybe my tuning nocking point height using tiller adjustment is wrong. I'm going to add a movable tie on nocking point and play around with tiller and nocking point height.

Also, my eli vanes should be here today, so I'll try some of those too.

Matt


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Frankly I have never tuned a bow in that condition, that means both rest and plunger on front (out) side of the riser. Usually the rest remains on the tradiional position (back hole) even if the pluger goes to the front hole to weaken the arrow a bit. 

Situation will dramatically change if everything (both plunger and rest) is back to "normal solution" on back hole, so trying to solve this problem in this configuration is just an extreme exercise with not so much practical use ... IMHO


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

I guess I was not clear. In the last video, both the rest and plunger are in the "normal" hole (closest to the archer).

Matt


----------



## AngelRa (Nov 15, 2010)

Matt Fritz said:


> I thought my bow and arrows were pretty well tuned until I captured the following high speed videos. The link below shows 9 shots. The first three are with the nock indexed such that a vane is pointing straight left. The next three are with the nock indexed such that a vane is pointing straight down. The last three are bare shafts. On some, but not all of the shots, I can see the arrow hitting the wire rest. I originally thought the vane was hitting it, but now it appears to be the shaft as it happens with the bare shafts as well.
> 
> When bare shaft tuning, the fletched and bareshafts hit right together at both 20 and 30 yards and the groups seem good.
> 
> ...


What do you use to capture the slow motion video?


----------



## wmt3rd (Oct 20, 2004)

> By the way I was able to capture this video with a fairly cheap casio ex-zr100 point and shoot camera. The snow makes a perfect background.


Point and shoot camera


----------



## Matt Fritz (Dec 3, 2008)

I received my eli vanes today and fletched up two arrows. I used the beiter triliner and applied the vanes by hand and it was really easy.

With the eli vanes, my bare shaft test are really good. All group together and are in the target straight. Also I can see both bare and fletched flying straight through the air. See the picture below.









While this is nice, the high speed video still shows the shaft at the rear node hitting the rest wire. Not sure I can figure this out. I'm running out of ideas.

Matt


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Matt, tiller, uneven finger pressure, nocking point too low as well as nock pinch can all contribute to nock hitting rest. I switched over to shooting lefty a few months ago after 35 years of shooting right handed. My release never felt right and follow through has never felt as good as right hand. I video taped my self and used Kinovea to grab a few releases and frame by frame turn them into a two and a half minute shot sequence. This has helped me dramatically improve my release.


----------



## gma (Aug 22, 2012)

This was a fantastic thread, and I learned several key things:
1. The tape on the bare shafts is brilliant. One of those "why the he** didn't I think of that" things.
2. Never assume you're really getting clearance just by the powder test. The lipstick test might add additional information.
3. High speed video is finally reasonably priced and 1000 fps is sufficient for this analysis.

In fact, I just found one of these cameras on Ebay for $150. I snatched it up. If any archers in North Texas (DFW area) would like to borrow or be videod - just let me know. I'll be happy to lend/help where I can.

Thanks Matt - this was great stuff. 

Gene


----------

