# Lets talk about Recurve bow design evolution...



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

everyone thats been about bows for loong enough will know what bows have big recurves and what bows have small recurves.

im not looking at static vs working, etc. im looking at when a big recurve was deemed too big, vs one thats deemed stable.




here you can see a series of trad turkish bows which i think we can all agree are the original "recurves"

as you can also see the distance between the limbs from Tip to Tip (red) and the bow string vaires.
i dont know the distances, for these bows, but you can see for example how to measure this.

id like to ask the population of AT to measure this distance on thier recurves, non-super recurves, please, and at the propper BH, i dont think there is a recurve out there that has this measurement at more than 2"
the higher BH make this value less, so the bow needs to be in its setup shooting position.

what id like to share, is that almost all bow designs in glass geometry are confined to the same basic needs. take it too far, and you end up with a unforgiving bow...

so what variance has bowyers the world over agreed as a bow fit for the public to be?
(what you havent seen, or cant get your hands on, is all the bows that have failed to make a robust product  )


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

One more thing to add to my list of measurements I do in my bow tests. I added effective string length for each point on the DFC. I did not think of measuring the string nock to brace distance.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> One more thing to add to my list of measurements I do in my bow tests. I added effective string length for each point on the DFC. I did not think of measuring the string nock to brace distance.


:-D

a bow is a complex dynamic eh...
your certainly getting an insight into bow design...

:-D


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

this measurement is indicator of lever length... the desire to jack knife under thrust...

if you really want to get nitpicky, you could measure this as you go through the draw cycle.

as working recurves fold back quicker, as they unfold.

statics keep that forward pointing portion longer in the draw.

the question is, what do you call a bow that is working, but still points forward MORE than a conventional static ever did.

I think the concept of static vs working is a dead duck these days, simply because statics are no longer the smoother design, nor are they limited by thier lack of TS anymore.


its not a one OR the other concept any more.

there are SEVERAL ways for the thinking bowyer to make hybrid working/static recurves these days.
infact the Hex7 is a semi static. LOL.

i love the fact that the first half of the hex7 recurve is working, while the second half is static...

its great when your recurves are 2x the string wrap of a earl hoyt design, you can get so much more tech into the "CAM"

so how do you handle a semi static limb???

LOL


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I have used what I call the lift length to approximate the lever. I measure the distance between to points where the string loses contact with the limbs. A recurve will start by lengthening the lever until the lift point is reached, then the limb tips are pulled together and the lever gets shorter. A longbow is longest at brace. This is a crude approximation since it ignores the string angle, but it does give you a good feeling for what is happening. My intent was to correlate the lift length to smoothness as measured by the first derivative of the draw force curve. I show that comparison below for a longbow, conventional recurve, and state of the art extreme recurve. The lift point of the bow can be approximated by the maximum of the lift length. If the limbs are pulling in sync, then the lift length maximum should be the lift point of each limb. You can see how the minimum of the first derivative curve corresponds to the point of maximum leverage. For smoother bows, the point of maximum leverage is close to full draw. I would really like to repeat this with a static recurve and a bow with a siyah.


----------



## PSUBowhunter (Jul 10, 2006)

It's all about that moment arm. Pretty simple, but still very complicated.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I have used what I call the lift length to approximate the lever. I measure the distance between to points where the string loses contact with the limbs. A recurve will start by lengthening the lever until the lift point is reached, then the limb tips are pulled together and the lever gets shorter. A longbow is longest at brace. This is a crude approximation since it ignores the string angle, but it does give you a good feeling for what is happening. My intent was to correlate the lift length to smoothness as measured by the first derivative of the draw force curve. I show that comparison below for a longbow, conventional recurve, and state of the art extreme recurve. The lift point of the bow can be approximated by the maximum of the lift length. If the limbs are pulling in sync, then the lift length maximum should be the lift point of each limb. You can see how the minimum of the first derivative curve corresponds to the point of maximum leverage. For smoother bows, the point of maximum leverage is close to full draw. I would really like to repeat this with a static recurve and a bow with a siyah.



the lever extension, needs to happen faster than the onset of stack, or else you wont see the smoothness.

so it doesnt matter if the recurve is static or not, its the rate of lever extension thats key to smoothenss 

small 1" tight recurve simply isnt long enough to provide anything on the DFC. its pointless.

same as compounds with 1" diam cams is also a bland non-event.

all your trying to do, is beat the onset of stack.


----------



## visionquest69 (May 17, 2015)

Probably one of the most interesting reads I have seen on this site thus far. I find it very telling that f'(x) on the DFC is at a min at 28-29 inches. I would like to see the iterations that were gone through to hit this. Although the graphic representation is shown in f'(x) at 28-29 I would like to see what the second derivative f''(x) would tell us in this region. Although we are not supposed to learn anything about the shape of the graph where the second derivative f''(x) is zero, it would initially appear to correlate to the perceived "let off" that is reported by those that have used the Hex7. And yes, it makes sense that the lever extension rate dx/dt is the key. Appears the "hooks" do more than just look cool......eh. 
It would be interesting to see what the strain gage readings would be on these limb through the draw cycle and how the readings correlate to lever extension, especially in the 28-29 region. 

Interesting? I look forward to seeing more. Could this have something to do with the CH and the ILF?. A very technical limb indeed these Hex 7.


----------



## rogbo (Jan 2, 2004)

visionquest69 said:


> Probably one of the most interesting reads I have seen on this site thus far. I find it very telling that f'(x) on the DFC is at a min at 28-29 inches. I would like to see the iterations that were gone through to hit this. Although the graphic representation is shown in f'(x) at 28-29 I would like to see what the second derivative f''(x) would tell us in this region. Although we are not supposed to learn anything about the shape of the graph where the second derivative f''(x) is zero, it would initially appear to correlate to the perceived "let off" that is reported by those that have used the Hex7. And yes, it makes sense that the lever extension rate dx/dt is the key. Appears the "hooks" do more than just look cool......eh.
> It would be interesting to see what the strain gage readings would be on these limb through the draw cycle and how the readings correlate to lever extension, especially in the 28-29 region.
> 
> Interesting? I look forward to seeing more. Could this have something to do with the CH and the ILF?. A very technical limb indeed these Hex 7.


Holy crap! I'm so lost. I'm glad someone has their heads wrapped around this, miine's exploding.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

visionquest69 said:


> Probably one of the most interesting reads I have seen on this site thus far. I find it very telling that f'(x) on the DFC is at a min at 28-29 inches. I would like to see the iterations that were gone through to hit this. Although the graphic representation is shown in f'(x) at 28-29 I would like to see what the second derivative f''(x) would tell us in this region. Although we are not supposed to learn anything about the shape of the graph where the second derivative f''(x) is zero, it would initially appear to correlate to the perceived "let off" that is reported by those that have used the Hex7. And yes, it makes sense that the lever extension rate dx/dt is the key. Appears the "hooks" do more than just look cool......eh.
> It would be interesting to see what the strain gage readings would be on these limb through the draw cycle and how the readings correlate to lever extension, especially in the 28-29 region.
> 
> Interesting? I look forward to seeing more. Could this have something to do with the CH and the ILF?. A very technical limb indeed these Hex 7.


I would venture to say that the perceived left off is related to the second derivative (the rate of change of the pounds/inch rate of change, or the change of the stack rate as a function of draw length, however you want to word it), though it is largely in comparison to more conventional draw force curves, our expectation of that rate of stack to really kick in upwards as we near anchor, and not experiencing it.

After shooting the Hex7 for awhile, and actually after not too many arrows, I don't really notice a let off sensation. If anything, it feels much closer to a constant draw weight than any decrease. I suppose that if you factor in the mechanical advantage of the angles of our arms and shoulders as we get to anchor, our muscles themselves may experience a sort of let-off, though I don't think we experience pressure that way, though the effort may come into play.

Interesting indeed.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

visionquest69 said:


> Probably one of the most interesting reads I have seen on this site thus far. I find it very telling that f'(x) on the DFC is at a min at 28-29 inches. I would like to see the iterations that were gone through to hit this. Although the graphic representation is shown in f'(x) at 28-29 I would like to see what the second derivative f''(x) would tell us in this region. Although we are not supposed to learn anything about the shape of the graph where the second derivative f''(x) is zero, it would initially appear to correlate to the perceived "let off" that is reported by those that have used the Hex7. And yes, it makes sense that the lever extension rate dx/dt is the key. Appears the "hooks" do more than just look cool......eh.
> It would be interesting to see what the strain gage readings would be on these limb through the draw cycle and how the readings correlate to lever extension, especially in the 28-29 region.
> 
> Interesting? I look forward to seeing more. Could this have something to do with the CH and the ILF?. A very technical limb indeed these Hex 7.


I have measured the second derivative before using numerical methods. The data must be much more precise since variations become more pronounced each time you take a derivative. I did very careful measurements at 1/2 inch intervals on my draw board. I can obviously do an analytic first derivative since I have the best fit equation for the DFC, but that does not mean it is any good. The errors will still be there in the raw data. After doing the second derivative, I determined that there was not really a whole lot to learn from it. One of the reasons that I plot both the analytic and numerical first derivatives on my chart is as a check to show the amount of variation in the raw data. I have had folks send me data that I could not produce an adequate first derivative chart from. It takes careful and precise measurements.

And smoothness seems to correlate with the position of the minimum of the first derivative curve. For 70 inch conventional recurves, it falls at about 20 inches. After that point the pounds/inch rises. For extreme recurves it fall near 28 inches, depending on the model. This is also near the string lift point which is what my lift length data shows. The lever gets bigger until your reach the lift point, then the lever starts getting smaller as your pull the limb tips together. The limb length is only a crude approximation since it does not factor in the string angle, but it does help demonstrate what is going on.

I really need to come up with a better name than lift length.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Visionquest69.
there has been ALOT of work involved in the hex program.
the DFC of the hex7 is like no other bow. The dfc is a pure preload bulge. From start of draw to the end.
there is no dip where the graph turns upwards.
and its not a straight line either.
for that reason it has a stored energy like no other bow.
that and a torsional resistance to make it target level accurate. Means its off the spine charts. As its pushing the arrow like no other bow.

I just wanted to see if people would measure how far forward thier recurves were. So that a idea of normal and big could be identified.
from there you can work out big in terms of a super recurve. (A bow that cant be made without the use of cross weave carbon, as the recurves would be deemed unstable)


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I am the greatest proponent of the Hex limbs out there but I don't understand all the tech stuff 

I do know quality and performance though


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

JParanee said:


> I am the greatest proponent of the Hex limbs out there but I don't understand all the tech stuff
> 
> I do know quality and performance though


Lets see if i can explain it like i do on our our factory tours.
if you have a wheel to change on your car. And when it comes to tightening up the wheel studs. And you need to get them tighter. You could extend the lever on the wrench.
well. Stack is like the wheel nut going tight.
but imagine having a wheel wrench that as the wheel stud goes tight. The wrench gets longer. And longer.
SNAP..... there goes the wheel stud and you actually didnt need any force to do so.
well.
all we are talking about here is by how much and at what point did the wrench get longer.
The size of the recurve is hidden at BH. And as you pull back. The limb and string open up stack starts coming on but the lever gets longer.
BUT the key component here is the invention and application of cross weave carbon allowing recurves to double in size. And therefor double in thier actions.

The key point is... the doors are blown off recurve bow design again.
the world has been proven to not be flat.
1.5" forward being stable 2" forward is a big recurve. So what is 5" forward...
its never been done before as a lack of TS has been the limiting factor in bow design...


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Sid,

See, it is easier to type responses than to get off our collective butt's and measure our bows. It's like herding cats to get something out of us. I will take a look post my results, once I manage to get a bow strung.


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

What I don't understand is if the super recurve design is so superior why aren't other bow makers copying it.

I do a lot of flyfishing and I recall that several years ago one of the quality fly rod makers came out with a rod design they called the "Compound Taper" and within a few years a slew of fly rod companies were advertising their compound tapers. Why isn't this happening with Borders limb design.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

imho 

It's coming  

Small cutting edge companies alot of times push the limit first 

Look at where Ukkha is taking their limbs 

As high tech materials progress so will what is available in designs 

I don't have crystal ball but I know the interest for Border limbs is at an all time high 

In the last week I have personally spoke with at least 4 people ordering them and I have read many happy delivery posts


----------



## visionquest69 (May 17, 2015)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I have measured the second derivative before using numerical methods. The data must be much more precise since variations become more pronounced each time you take a derivative. I did very careful measurements at 1/2 inch intervals on my draw board. I can obviously do an analytic first derivative since I have the best fit equation for the DFC, but that does not mean it is any good. The errors will still be there in the raw data. After doing the second derivative, I determined that there was not really a whole lot to learn from it. One of the reasons that I plot both the analytic and numerical first derivatives on my chart is as a check to show the amount of variation in the raw data. I have had folks send me data that I could not produce an adequate first derivative chart from. It takes careful and precise measurements.
> 
> And smoothness seems to correlate with the position of the minimum of the first derivative curve. For 70 inch conventional recurves, it falls at about 20 inches. After that point the pounds/inch rises. For extreme recurves it fall near 28 inches, depending on the model. This is also near the string lift point which is what my lift length data shows. The lever gets bigger until your reach the lift point, then the lever starts getting smaller as your pull the limb tips together. The limb length is only a crude approximation since it does not factor in the string angle, but it does help demonstrate what is going on.
> 
> I really need to come up with a better name than lift length.


Hank, 
From looking at your plots I see a best fit. Of course there are errors in all data. We try to minimize them, but they are inherent in the data collection process. But with that said, to me, your plots speak volumes. Also, I think your lift length, from your second plot does show a correlation. IMO your analysis is as they say "on target". I will stop there and say thanks for the great work.

Border Bows,
Obviously it was not my intention to get this thread side tracked (or was it?:wink). I think your request for measurements was the first page, Hanks plot was like ok lets skip the next several chapters, and I (with my phenomenal 36 posts on this site thus far) jumped to the back of the book and checked to see what the answer was. Hopefully it is understood that this only done in the interest of the understanding of the "evolution of recurve bow design" and my own personal attempts to understand how these limbs work (mathematically). I often try to justify why I sat through 4 semesters of calculus.

and JParanee. I am most appreciative of the time and effort you have put into your reviews of the border products. I have learned a tremendous amount just from watching your videos. It is apparent from your videos your enthusiasm for the borders. And like you said in one of your posts, some just like there stuff all jacked up. And there is a mathematical reason why it "feels" so smooth.

As far as other companies doing this. Let the big dogs roll. Most companies just do what they have always been doing.........not Border...

I look forward to more data....


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

JParanee said:


> imho
> 
> It's coming
> 
> ...


Hope your right-a little competition plus cheaper labor costs elsewhere might bring the price down to where I can afford one.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

p508 said:


> What I don't understand is if the super recurve design is so superior why aren't other bow makers copying it.


Uukha and Dryad are copying it. I recently tested the Uukha. It appears to be in the HEX4 class, though due to weight differences, I cannot tell for certain. I have not tested a Dryad version. Morrison may have one as well.

From what I understand, big manufacturers are not tooled for limbs that bend back on themselves.

All are many years behind Border.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

What i like to see is. On the line 2 archers. 2 bow with the same poundage. Same arrows. And witch arrow is first on target normal recurve limbs or border limbs bows?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

p508 said:


> What I don't understand is if the super recurve design is so superior why aren't other bow makers copying it.
> 
> I do a lot of flyfishing and I recall that several years ago one of the quality fly rod makers came out with a rod design they called the "Compound Taper" and within a few years a slew of fly rod companies were advertising their compound tapers. Why isn't this happening with Borders limb design.


Why is no one really copying it. Here is my question. Where do you get decent cross weave carbon to make a super recurve?

We cure our own laminates. We lay them up to our own spec. We learnt how to. And what carbons work best because we dont yse the same materials from the same suppliers as everyone else.... this means we are free to change our specs in ways others cant. And this gives us freedom in our construction.
a one man band bow maker would struggle to get the marerials we do. As well as struggle to get the experience we have to put this together.... its not as simple as sticking glass to a core.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

ismo131 said:


> What i like to see is. On the line 2 archers. 2 bow with the same poundage. Same arrows. And witch arrow is first on target normal recurve limbs or border limbs bows?


Well. There have been plenty of reviews. But most are in agreement. That our limbs dont use the same arrows.
we have just had an archer pull his chrono out with the same arrow on 3 bows in total.
the results were the super recurve was [email protected] And it shot 23fps faster than a very well known bow at [email protected] And 6fps faster than another well known bow at [email protected]
Both these other bows are glass bows.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

JParanee said:


> imho
> 
> It's coming
> 
> ...


Joe. Uukha only started as a company in 2010.
if you were to start a company would you start with old shaoe limbs or new shape limbs. They havent started with a old product line. If you were to buy a company its cost effective to use its old tooling. And there for old shapes.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

What is realy wisible trueth. Is when two arrows are in the air at same time and that hiting first is winner. Like from 90meters or so. 
Sorry my English. I'm from Finland and it seems like i write like 5years old


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

The covert hunter has decimated the black douglas. Close to 15:1 in sales.
And i dont think the Black douglas with hex6.5s a mid pack bow either.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

Little confuced after looking to YouTube and there are many Joe Paranee's videos about hex7. But on border archery homepage no that model, just hex 6,5. And there is little on no videos from that at all.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

ismo131 said:


> Little confuced after looking to YouTube and there are many Joe Paranee's videos about hex7. But on border archery homepage no that model, just hex 6,5. And there is little on no videos from that at all.


Ismo

The 6.5 is a Hex 6 limb that has the BB 2 option 

They changed the name to 6.5 only recently 

Here is a video with 6.5 limbs


----------



## Chris Hill (Aug 26, 2005)

Big curve limbs are great. They are smooth and fast and can be stable if built correctly. But I think riser design can help tame a limb also. Put enough weight and deflex in it and you will get more consistent shooting. That is where the Covert Hunter shines. I would give up a few fps from any limb to have good deflex in a bow. I am not a good enough shot to shoot an inline riser.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

p508 said:


> What I don't understand is if the super recurve design is so superior why aren't other bow makers copying it.
> 
> I do a lot of flyfishing and I recall that several years ago one of the quality fly rod makers came out with a rod design they called the "Compound Taper" and within a few years a slew of fly rod companies were advertising their compound tapers. Why isn't this happening with Borders limb design.


*This is just my opinion*, but I think the reason is two-fold.

1. Cost-benefit. 

2. Target market

It was stated earlier that special materials are needed to make certain designs workable. This is true. But in my opinion, that's only half of the equation. Just because certain materials make certain designs *possible,* that doesn't mean they are always *preferable.* 

It all depends on what your target market is, what they are trying to accomplish, and what they are willing to spend to accomplish it.

There is always going to be a segment of the market that is impressed by, and attracted to new technology, and a segment of the market that is impressed by, and attracted to utility. For the *"utility"* folks, the only *"technology"* that matters is that which contributes to functionality. Companies that cater to the former, produce products that meet those needs. Companies that cater to the latter produce products that meet those needs.

Casio owners and Rolex owners have different mindsets and are looking for different things. The folks that build each understand what those things are, and they build accordingly.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> *This is just my opinion*, but I think the reason is two-fold.
> 
> 1. Cost-benefit.
> 
> ...



this is not the topic I want to discuss, please don't continue with this!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Okay everyone. We are all shooting this weekend. Let's measure our bows as Sid suggests and post the data here.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

so lets get back on track. 

if you have a longer bow string, hook it round from nock tip to Nock tip to create a parallel line to your bow string and measure the difference bwteen the two strings...

that should tell you the depth of recurve, the lever that acts upon the torsional stability of the limb...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> this is not the topic I want to discuss, please don't continue with this!


I'm sorry but was responding directly to a question asked by another poster, as did 4 other posters...including yourself.

Is there a reason you singled me out?

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I'm sorry but was responding directly to a question asked by another poster, as did 4 other posters...including yourself.
> 
> Is there a reason you singled me out?
> 
> KPC


I don't want a marketing strategy debate as that is off topic. I want a recurve size debate. don't want a market placement debate. 

some people have never seen or approached the topic of recurve size.
im showing them how to assess it, and asking for feedback on what they see in the market place.

I simply don't want the thread derailed.

I know what your like


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Conversations evolve I guess. They go in the direction that the posters want to go in. Always have, always will. That's the nature of this beast. 

Doesn't matter who starts them, the subject matter is fluid and dictated by the posters. 

I know how you are too, and that kind of editorial control just isn't possible here 

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Thanks for respecting my wishes kevin.


----------



## fentiger (Oct 22, 2013)

ILF Dorado riser 7.5" BH Hex 6 BB2 limbs gap is apx 2.75"

ILF Dorado riser 7" BH Black Max limbs gap is apx 2"

Will look for string to fit W&W Black 17" riser to give similar BH for Uukha Natures


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

fentiger said:


> ILF Dorado riser 7.5" BH Hex 6 BB2 limbs gap is apx 2.75"
> 
> ILF Dorado riser 7" BH Black Max limbs gap is apx 2"
> 
> Will look for string to fit W&W Black 17" riser to give similar BH for Uukha Natures


whats the bolt positions... 
as wound in pulls the recurves round a bit, makes them smaller..


----------



## fentiger (Oct 22, 2013)

Out .5 turns Hex6. Out apx 1.5 turn on BM [thicker limb butt]


----------



## fentiger (Oct 22, 2013)

W&W 17" 6.5"BH out .5 turn Uukha Nature limbs 2.25" gap


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> that and a torsional resistance to make it target level accurate.


Is this torsional resistance why I can shoot without an arm guard with a 6 3/4" (or even 6 5/8") brace height?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

There are several issues at stake.
When at brace height. There is less unsupported string length. 
Like a ruler when you ping it off a desk edge. It osscilates when you shorten the over hanging edge the occsilations get smaller.
that mixed with the torsiinal stability of the limb at the tip is weakest. The TS at the middle of the limb is higher.
the string is closest to the middle of the limb with the big recurves. While small recurves leave the string supported at the tip. Where movement is highest


----------



## rogbo (Jan 2, 2004)

The measure on my self made elk riser and Max2 limbs, as per Sids examples, is 3" at brace, on the nose.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Why is no one really copying it. Here is my question. Where do you get decent cross weave carbon to make a super recurve?
> 
> We cure our own laminates. We lay them up to our own spec. We learnt how to. And what carbons work best because we dont yse the same materials from the same suppliers as everyone else.... this means we are free to change our specs in ways others cant. And this gives us freedom in our construction.
> a one man band bow maker would struggle to get the marerials we do. As well as struggle to get the experience we have to put this together.... its not as simple as sticking glass to a core.


While it may have something to do with marketing strategy, I think it also has something to do with evolution of bow design, in terms of the market catching up, so my question is...

If other companies don't have access to carbon laminates that allow greater torsional stability, and that holds back what they can do with design, is there a path for them to get there that doesn't involve reinvention? I.e., is there licensing potential, are there other materials that will be made available, though other paths, or what not, that will allow the rest of the industry to support an evolution involving deeper hooks?

I realize that business motivations cannot be divorced, but it would seem that if you could actually combine the technology with the efficiency of a large manufacturer, and as such a lower cost to get into the market, the status quo could move forward to catch up to, or at least approach, the leading edge.

Is this, in some degree, what is already happening with other products that aren't quite as radical?


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

It's easy to see where a small one man operation would have problems producing a super recurve but what about Win & Win , Hoyt and some of the other large bow makers. I have a hard time believing that they couldn't produce any bow design they wanted to if it was truly superior and to their advantage to do so.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

p508 said:


> It's easy to see where a small one man operation would have problems producing a super recurve but what about Win & Win , Hoyt and some of the other large bow makers. I have a hard time believing that they couldn't produce any bow design they wanted to if it was truly superior and to their advantage to do so.


All in time 

I have heard rumor that Hoyt is looking at super recurve design but it could be only rumor 

I got news for ya Hoyt's latest and greatest isn't that much better than their mid priced limbs in my opinion 

I have Qutttos and while a nice limb they are nothing insane 

I had F 7's and when I sold them to a prominate Bowyer for a test limb he said they were marginally better than the stock Buff limb 

there are a lot of great limbs out there but when I think of great limbs I don't think large manufacture conventional limbs are tops 

Just my opinion and I own them all

Also don't forget the reasons why I like these style limbs 

It's not the speed

It's the portable package and way they draw (feel) 

As I demonstrated in the first shot thread 

I can shoot a CH kneeling and sitting on my heels practically with an upright bow 

As a hunter I dig this 

From the first shot thread


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> Well. There have been plenty of reviews. But most are in agreement. That our limbs dont use the same arrows.
> we have just had an archer pull his chrono out with the same arrow on 3 bows in total.
> the results were the super recurve was [email protected] And it shot 23fps faster than a very well known bow at [email protected] And 6fps faster than another well known bow at [email protected]
> Both these other bows are glass bows.


At time of testing are all 3 bows set at same brace height, same AMO length and when unstrung what's the measurement of pre-load in all three?


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

p508 said:


> It's easy to see where a small one man operation would have problems producing a super recurve but what about Win & Win , Hoyt and some of the other large bow makers. I have a hard time believing that they couldn't produce any bow design they wanted to if it was truly superior and to their advantage to do so.


They can, but maybe there is good reason they are avoiding it. And even if they did "copy" it, it's likely they are going to spend a few years testing the reliability of a design like that. 
And as far as carbon laminates go there are a number of high end manufacturers that have access to high modulous 45/45 carbon or 0/90 layered carbon that have incredible torsional stability.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

overbo said:


> At time of testing are all 3 bows set at same brace height, same AMO length and when unstrung what's the measurement of pre-load in all three?


All bows are designed to preform with in their set parameters 

Example 

If I take my Buff with Quattro Limbs or my silver tip an brace them at 6 3/4 they will sound awful and smack my are 

So for me when I'm comparing bows I set them up as for how I would hunt with them and than compare them pound for pound


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

JParanee said:


> All bows are designed to preform with in their set parameters
> 
> Example
> 
> ...


Makes a lot of sense-set them up to perform their best for the intended usage then compare with same GPP arrows-


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

overbo said:


> At time of testing are all 3 bows set at same brace height, same AMO length and when unstrung what's the measurement of pre-load in all three?


I always thought preload referred to the amount of energy required to pull the string back during the initial phase of the draw. How do you measure that with the bow unstrung?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

p508 said:


> It's easy to see where a small one man operation would have problems producing a super recurve but what about Win & Win , Hoyt and some of the other large bow makers. I have a hard time believing that they couldn't produce any bow design they wanted to if it was truly superior and to their advantage to do so.


Not only can they, but they do. 

They produce what *they* feel is superior and advantageous to the specific needs of *their* target demographic. 

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

p508 said:


> Makes a lot of sense-set them up to perform their best for the intended usage then compare with same GPP arrows-


That's my opinion anyway 

Many will argue that if they lower their conventional recurve bows brace height down that they will also pick up speed but they fail to mention that they will be loud and wrist slapping monsters 

I run my Hex 7 bows at 6 7/8 

That is where they are the most quiet 

But again this is about many other nuisances other than good speed 

I really like the way they draw and their ability to give me all the features that I desire in a compact quiet hunting bow 

This allows me to make shots like this with an upright bow utilizing a 59 inch string sitting on my heels 



A 59 inch string is what a conventional 62 inch bow normally utilizes 

Show me a 62 inch bow that you can shoot vertical sitting on your heels


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JParanee said:


> A 59 inch string is what a conventional 62 inch bow normally utilizes
> 
> Show me a 62 inch bow that you can shoot vertical sitting on your heels


Or a bow that uses a 61" string (which determines the vertical height of the bow at full draw, most often associated with 64" bow), that accomplishes the same.

Same advantage applies to shooting from blinds or anything with height limitations, or nearby branches, et.c


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Not only can they, but they do.
> 
> They produce what *they* feel is superior and advantageous to the specific needs of *their* target demographic.
> 
> KPC


I don't want to derail Sid's thread, but I have considered starting a thread simply on the topic, "Is a Super Recurve for You?"

While I believe there are very real potential advantages, the value of every objective potential positive trait of a given design will depend on the subjective preference, and contextual needs of the user. In the end, it becomes a balancing act and an individual choice.

In terms of large companies, they are heavily invested in what they've established in the market place. It isn't just a matter of addressing the specific needs of their target consumer, but maintaining consistency. Whether or not their target demographic needs this or that, if one year, you change your story, you lose credibility.

That being said, on the topic of hand, it is interesting how technology gives options. Push the envelope, and you can decide whether or not you want to use larger stationary. At the same time, not everybody wants a larger envelope. Thank you notes look cuter in the small ones


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> In the end, it becomes a balancing act and an individual choice.


So true. It's always a balancing act between performance, behavior, forgiveness, profitability, commercial viability and public acceptance.

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Super recurves are certainly not for everyone but ........ Everyone that has Really tried the Hex limbs seem to really enjoy them 

alone this week I know of three people that received CH's and all are very pleased 

In fact I've never had a bow that more people enjoyed shooting


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

JParanee said:


> Super recurves are certainly not for everyone but ........ Everyone that has Really tried the Hex limbs seem to really enjoy them


I would say that might apply to shorter hunting recurves, people looking for competitive levels of consistency gravitate away from them.

Quantitative things are by their nature easy to measure, qualitative is hard. All you can really measure are scores which have a human factor to them. Scores seem to favor a much more conventional approach. If we could isolate which quantitative aspects of the human/bow interface lead to the highest scores then we could really start pushing recurve design.

-Grant


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Grant 

All I care about is hunting bows so that is all I can speak of 

I would not and did not suggest that anyone should set up a CH to shoot Olympic of Bare bow competition just like I would not suggest a 17 inch Titan with medium conventional limbs 

I know nothing of the latter ..... I only know hunting bows


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

JParanee said:


> *All bows are designed to preform with in their set parameters *Example
> 
> If I take my Buff with Quattro Limbs or my silver tip an brace them at 6 3/4 they will sound awful and smack my are
> 
> So for me when I'm comparing bows I set them up as for how I would hunt with them and than compare them pound for pound


I'm very aware of this but to compare a bow w/ a lot more pre-load and a brace that's under 7'' to a bow w/ more moderate design and a brace of 8'' or even 9'' is like comparing a hatched cam to a round wheel compound. If one can shoot these hotrods well? one would think a bow of more moderate design would be a tack driver to shoot. I feel to take a bow w/ modest design qualities and have them shoot speed wise w/in 5% of it's counterpart that has a more critical design to shoot as well w/, is a better tradeoff than a 10fps gain.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

overbo said:


> I'm very aware of this but to compare a bow w/ a lot more pre-load and a brace that's under 7'' to a bow w/ more moderate design and a brace of 8'' or even 9'' is like comparing a hatched cam to a round wheel compound. If one can shoot these hotrods well? one would think a bow of more moderate design would be a tack driver to shoot. I feel to take a bow w/ modest design qualities and have them shoot speed wise w/in 5% of it's counterpart that has a more critical design to shoot as well w/, is a better tradeoff than a 10fps gain.


I'm not even counting speed 

I'm considering feel and size 

I am someone who will pay the price for the way something feels 

I prefer the draw stroke of a Hex 7 limb very much to a conventional limb 

I prefer the compact nature of the CH as a stand and ambush Hunter 

They are not for everyone but for me every other bow on my rack that has a lot of good bows on it is gathering dust 

I also shoot my CH as well as any other bow I've shot 

Super recurves are not for everyone but they are for me


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

overbo said:


> I feel to take a bow w/ modest design qualities and have them shoot speed wise w/in 5% of it's counterpart that has a more critical design to shoot as well w/, is a better tradeoff than a 10fps gain.


I think you make a very good point, In my opinion this is one of the reasons other manufacturers might not be moving in the SR direction. At this point, it's more a matter or won't than can't. 

KPC


----------



## Breathn (Jun 12, 2005)

I shot my new ch a lot this weekend,and can say I'm a hex7 fan..I immediately fell in love with the feel of these limbs and the overall bow..speed is a huge plus for me,I'm all about getting the most KE as I can get personally for hunting ..
I still love all types of recurves and long Bows but the hex 7 limbs on the ch are where its at for me..my groups show it..really can focus much better with them ..


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Breathn said:


> I shot my new ch a lot this weekend,and can say I'm a hex7 fan..I immediately fell in love with the feel of these limbs and the overall bow..speed is a huge plus for me,I'm all about getting the most KE as I can get personally for hunting ..
> I still love all types of recurves and long Bows but the hex 7 limbs on the ch are where its at for me..my groups show it..really can focus much better with them ..


Awesome buddy .....

I'm glad you are digging your new bow 

I think you will find a lot of people who have never tried the bows being the biggest doubters 

They are not for everyone ...... But the way the forums all have CH threads always running and the amount of people buying them they must be for some


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> people looking for competitive levels of consistency gravitate away from them.
> -Grant


I certainly know that some very good shooters have found them difficult to play nicely with them, but then I know some outstanding shooters that do really well with them too.

I don't dispute the experiences of the first group, but then I wouldn't discount the other either.

I like shooting hunting tackle in target competitions, so I can't claim that I'm a good reference for what a dedicated (and I mean more dedicated than me, not exclusively) target shooter might feel, but in the 3 years since going to the NFAA 3d nationals, while I couldn't keep up with Patrick, I scored better than my prior two years with my conventional limbs, and I feel like I'm just starting to really know the bow. So, while I do believe that some people have difficulty making them work for them in certain scenarios, it seems to me, at least in some cases, that they can work quite well, and don't seem to hurt accuracy, certainly not to the extent that is often implied. Again, I'm not a reference for a Top Shooter, but as somebody that I think qualifies for reasonably decent, in the context of what I'm doing, they seem just fine. Considering that some people can shoot incredibly well with a compound bow and fingers, which has a far more radical design than really deep hooks, I don't see any reason why the approach should be inherently inaccurate.

Still, I wonder if there might, in fact, be some technical reason, or combination, for the problems that some people have with them. You mentioned that you had found some difficulty with them string walking. I wonder if, because they are closer in nature to a cam, in that they change leverage fairly quickly, if some combination of crawls, tiller, grip position, finger position, whatever, put the timing out of whack, even if the bow would seem to 'tune' correctly, because the arrow still ends up leaving the bow straight.

I think exploring the problems that some people have with them would be a very interesting technical exercise, if not to just develop technology that works, but to help people make technology work for them, which is equally as valuable.

I see a lot of the same thing in integration and control systems. A product does exactly what whoever designed it thinks it should do. Another product does the same. A 'designer' puts them together, not knowing the specifics of how they best work, and the end user gets frustrated because the end product doesn't work the way they think it should, and so they consider it defective.

You put a big engine in a little car, the car isn't set up for it, the driver isn't used to having that kind of horse power, the driver can't keep the wheels from spinning, the driver claims that the engine handles poorly. Well, yes, the setup (including the driver), does handle poorly, but that doesn't mean that it can't be made to handle exquisitely too...

Dunno, but it is interesting, if I were a zillionaire, I'd start an institute to investigate this....


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I certainly know that some very good shooters have found them difficult to play nicely with them, but then I know some outstanding shooters that do really well with them too.
> 
> I don't dispute the experiences of the first group, but then I wouldn't discount the other either.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

If some people can. And some people cant. What and where is the difference?
That has always been my question.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> I certainly know that some very good shooters have found them difficult to play nicely with them, but then I know some outstanding shooters that do really well with them too.
> 
> I don't dispute the experiences of the first group, but then I wouldn't discount the other either.
> 
> ...


Again, I think it boils down to target market, and the size of the "window" in which certain performance gains can and will be recognized.

Often, the more "high performance" a product gets, the smaller the window becomes where that particular product will perform up to its potential.

In your "big engine/little car" scenario, in order for everything to work up to it's potential, everything has to be perfect...including the driver. When the combination is right, it can be pretty tough to beat. However, if a particular driver can't keep the tires from spinning, or can't keep the car under control, or conditions on the track change, they will often lose in a race to cars and drivers who's peak performance isn't as good, but can keep things under control from start to finish.

As overbo mentioned earlier if a bow manufacturer can achieve 95% performance and have a larger window where that performance can be utilized, they might consider that a superior design over a design that reaches 100% performance but has a smaller window of in which that performance can be appreciated. 

I'm a pretty basic guy but I see it kind of like this.









If you (your particular draw length, riser length, brace height, release, etc.) happen to fall within the 100% performance window, that particular product will perform as good if not slightly better than anything else out there. If however you fall outside the 100% performance window, your overall results might actually be less than what you would have achieved in the 95% performance window.

Therefore, some manufacturers might feel that 95% performance over a broader spectrum is actually a better design (for them and their target demographic) than 100% performance over a shorter spectrum.

KPC


----------



## Chris Hill (Aug 26, 2005)

What I have noticed since I started shooting big curve limbs is my scores jumping up almost a full point per target. This is on unmarked 3D. I don't know if it came from dropping down in weight? I think some of it comes from the limbs not losing as much speed if you short draw a little which I tend to do under pressure. They really shine in a hunting bow. I don't shoot paper but I might start once I can a riser built to my liking.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> In your "big engine/little car" scenario, in order for everything to work up to it's potential, everything has to be perfect...including the driver. When the combination is right, it can be pretty tough to beat. However, if a particular driver can't keep the tires from spinning, or can't keep the car under control, or conditions on the track change, they will often lose in a race to cars and drivers who's peak performance isn't as good, but can keep things under control from start to finish.
> 
> As overbo mentioned earlier if a bow manufacturer can achieve 95% performance and have a larger window where that performance can be utilized, they might consider that a superior design over a design that reaches 100% performance but has a smaller window of in which that performance can be appreciated.
> KPC


You've got two different arguments going at the same time. Yes, many top tier products are made and for which many will not realize the full potential of an improvement or design. That's one issue.

Second, you are implying a "forgiveness" factor, e.g., that some items might be better, just more finicky to shoot and "require" more talent to use. That's partly true of some items, as in different types of bows require different training and talent, but as in Brady Ellison must also outshoot the best longbow shooter??? Could happen, could not. Apple-shooter/Orange-shooter, though.

Interesting notion that a bowyer would design a bow that is harder to shoot consistently specifically for someone with greater talent than the masses. That would be counter-productive in this business, large or small bowyer.


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

Sanford said:


> You've got two different arguments going at the same time. Yes, many top tier products are made and for which many will not realize the full potential of an improvement or design. That's one issue.
> 
> Second, you are implying a "forgiveness" factor, e.g., that some items might be better, just more finicky to shoot and "require" more talent to use. That's partly true of some items, as in different types of bows require different training and talent, but as in Brady Ellison must also outshoot the best longbow shooter??? Could happen, could not. Apple-shooter/Orange-shooter, though.
> 
> *Interesting notion that a bowyer would design a bow that is harder to shoot consistently specifically for someone with greater talent than the masses. That would be counter-productive in this business, large or small bowyer.*




IMO, This happens a lot. I've personally owned several bowyer's bows of different design that aren't as forgiven to shoot as their older or original designs. IMO it's the chase for speed that causes the change and it's usually a give and take relationship.


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

overbo said:


> [/B]
> 
> IMO, This happens a lot. I've personally owned several bowyer's bows of different design that aren't as forgiven to shoot as their older or original designs. IMO it's the chase for speed that causes the change and it's usually a give and take relationship.


A big equalizer in the speed race is carbon arrows. When I first started shooting a bow the choices were either wood or aluminum- both heavy especially if you needed a stiffer spine because of a long draw. Now if you feel the need for a faster arrow you can easily get it without changing bows by dropping down in arrow weight.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

overbo said:


> [/B]
> 
> IMO, This happens a lot. I've personally owned several bowyer's bows of different design that aren't as forgiven to shoot as their older or original designs. IMO it's the chase for speed that causes the change and it's usually a give and take relationship.


Sure, I can follow that! My point being that someone with better talent would be able to tell a less forgiving bow the best and probably the first to kick it to the curb, or, keep it and live with or work around the difference where can. We all do that with bows. The bow that's built and designed with "only" expert usage rights in mind is the missing link bow/bowyer from GEREP'S analogy that I responded to.


----------



## visionquest69 (May 17, 2015)

Oh remember sids request.,..just for reference a couple lower priced bows a Bear Sonoma 7 1/4 bh, 1 1/4 , differential, sammick sage 7 1/2 bh 1 inch differential. Oh by the way I have never shot a super recurve but would like too. All the talk about target markets is a little confusing to me. I don't have a PH.d in economics. But what makes sense to me is how many people out there are willing to pay $139 for a sammick sage or $2000 for a super recurve? Target market and getting people on your products in the early stages. Anyone?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> The bow that's built and designed with "only" expert usage rights in mind is the missing link bow/bowyer from GEREP'S analogy that I responded to.


You must have misunderstood what I was getting at Sanford. I wasn't referring to bows *"built and designed with only expert usage rights in mind."* 

What I was referring to are designs that, in order to achieve what they were designed to do (for the sake of this discussion, we'll call that performance level "100"), have a smaller window (in terms of tune, BH, DL, riser length, etc., *not* archer ability) in which performance level "A" will be realized. 

On a scale where ultimate performance is 100, some manufacturers design their products to achieve 100, knowing that the "window" is smaller, whereas some manufactures design their products achieve 95 in order to make that "window" larger.

Ironically (and on a side note), the true "experts" in any field, not just archery, are often drawn to attributes other than simply raw performance. Using another car analogy, there is a reason they don't use top fuel dragsters on an oval track. They would certainly beat all stock cars to turn one, but that's where it would end.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> You must have misunderstood what I was getting at Sanford. I wasn't referring to bows *"built and designed with only expert usage rights in mind."*
> 
> What I was referring to are designs that, in order to achieve what they were designed to do (for the sake of this discussion, we'll call that performance level "100"), have a smaller window (in terms of tune, BH, DL, riser length, etc., *not* archer ability) in which performance level "A" will be realized. KPC


GEREP, sorry, must have misinterpreted that you were referring to people as being a target market, since bows cannot be. I was just going off this: 



> In your "big engine/little car" scenario, in order for everything to work up to it's potential, everything has to be perfect...*including the driver*. When the combination is right, it can be pretty tough to beat. However, if a particular driver can't keep the tires from spinning, or can't keep the car under control, or conditions on the track change, they will often lose in a race to cars and *drivers who's peak performance isn't as good*, but can keep things under control from start to finish.


So, yes, agree, as we all know some bowyers have to give up some attributes to gain others in a bow. We always call that the natural tradeoff of things in archery. And, yes, a better shooter might be able to get around some of the tradeoff. I'm just not sure what company targets the "perfect driver" in their design, though, if we are talking target markets.

I think that's the whole genesis of this thread, though, on bow evolution. With newer materials and revisited designs, the status quo in thinking of the tradeoff does not have to be just because it is what it has been. That's what Sid is working at and doing.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

I usually simplify things and in this case when little more power and speed comes from limbs. I think that less curve in arrow flight is allways better in trad style.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> GEREP, sorry, must have misinterpreted that you were referring to people as being a target market, since bows cannot be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, archers (who are people) are the target market, but I meant it in a generic sense.

Let me explain. When WW designs a limb for example, they do so knowing that they might, and likely will be used by archers that have draw lengths from 26 to 31 inches, use risers from 17" to 27", at a variety of brace heights, arrow weights, tiller adjustments, etc.. That is their "target market." Therefore they design a limb that while it might only achieve a 95 on the performance scale, it can reach that 95 over a broader spectrum of archers, setups, and states of tune. As opposed to a setup that can achieve 100 on the performance scale but in order to do so, the spectrum of archers setups, and states of tune becomes much smaller.

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

That is the nature of anything custom built 

From a suit to a gun to a knife 

It fits the purchaser not everybody


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> As opposed to a setup that can achieve 100 on the performance scale but in order to do so, the spectrum of archers setups, and states of tune becomes much smaller.
> 
> KPC


I would hope to shoot with one, the best state of tune for my rig, no matter the bow. Are you sure you are not just trying to imply that some bows labeled performance bows are hard to tune and finicky to shoot? That seems to be more your buried intent than it is in describing market preferences.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Sanford 

Some people have such a hard on for Border Archery it causes them physical pain to see the company thriving with orders and threads daily on how much people are enjoying their new Covert Hunters and Border Prouducts 

very sad indeed


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JParanee said:


> Sanford
> 
> Some people have such a hard on for Border Archery it causes them physical pain to see the company thriving with orders and threads daily on how much people are enjoying their new Covert Hunters and Border Prouducts
> 
> very sad indeed


Yeah, I can't imagine anyone who knows the player didn't pick up on the buried little slam(s). If I don't like something about something, I just man up and say it. If it doesn't float, it doesn't float, and I take the hit. At least I didn't hide behind my words. Been more than one on this thread who covertly (no pun) buried their bias within their conversational posting.


----------



## Hoyt (Jul 22, 2003)

I'm very pleased with my Covert Hunter/7. I find it like my other bows..sometimes you have to twist the string a little and shoot arrows that fly good. Other than that it just strings and un-strings much easier with those big hooks and the bow stringer that came with it. It draws much, much, smoother, shoots much faster, arrows fly flatter farther and is easier to hold at full draw...than any other bow I have ever shot.

To cut to the chase I just think Border built a better mouse trap and if I didn't think I could come up with the money to buy one I would stay a long ways away from one. Because if you don't and end up shooting it and absolutely can't come up with the asking price and or can't do the time. The odds are very high whatever bow or bows you now own won't ever shoot as good as they did.

Just my opinion from shooting mine for about 3 months now.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

grantmac said:


> I would say that might apply to shorter hunting recurves, people looking for competitive levels of consistency gravitate away from them.
> 
> Quantitative things are by their nature easy to measure, qualitative is hard. All you can really measure are scores which have a human factor to them. Scores seem to favor a much more conventional approach. If we could isolate which quantitative aspects of the human/bow interface lead to the highest scores then we could really start pushing recurve design.
> 
> -Grant


Grant, I think you scored a bullseye with that post. I think all you really have to do is look at what the Olympic shooter are using to see what is the most accurate in human hands. I do believe the top shooters and companies have a combination that will be difficult to beat. I like the idea of Border, Dryad, Sky and others exploring new areas and boundaries of archery. As new materials become available, the boundaries can and likely will change. I would like to some day try some super recurve limbs and see for myself if they provide an advantage. But with Covert Hunters running ~$1700 I doubt it will be any time soon.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Hoyt 

I agree 

I'm not a competitive archer but like you a simple bowhunter that has seen and shot almost everything out there 

I am so taken by the design I have three CH's and 4 sets of Hex 7 limbs 

A very large investment in a design


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JParanee said:


> Grant
> 
> All I care about is hunting bows so that is all I can speak of
> 
> ...


I also know my hunting bows and that I can shoot 270+ with them. When I get a new rig or change something I always shoot a score or two or three over a few weeks to see if the change helps or hurts. Hard to tell if the change made a difference stump shooting or hunting. Point is that shooting a quantifiable/repeatable round - score - target - whatever gives you a base line that can be compared even after the honeymoon period of a new toy wears off. Interesting how saying "I just hunt" makes it ok to toss quantifiable gains/losses out the window.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Are you sure you are not just trying to imply that some bows labeled performance bows are hard to tune and finicky to shoot? That seems to be more your buried intent than it is in describing market preferences.


I'm positive. I intended to say exactly what I said. 

If that was my intent, I guess others have the same intent seeing that they agreed with my premise.

_*"That is the nature of anything custom built 

From a suit to a gun to a knife 

It fits the purchaser not everybody." *_

Now, your intent seems to be to draw me into some sort of pissing match, which I am not interested in. If you want to discuss the evolution of bow design, or how different designs serve different target markets, I'm game. Otherwise, no thanks.

What's sad is the apparent paranoia by some, which makes them think that every discussion or every question is an affront to them personally.

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

centershot said:


> I also know my hunting bows and that I can shoot 270+ with them. When I get a new rig or change something I always shoot a score or two or three over a few weeks to see if the change helps or hurts. Hard to tell if the change made a difference stump shooting or hunting. Point is that shooting a quantifiable/repeatable round - score - target - whatever gives you a base line that can be compared even after the honeymoon period of a new toy wears off. Interesting how saying "I just hunt" makes it ok to toss quantifiable gains/losses out the window.


Not at all 

*** are you talking about 

I never said "I just hunt" the way you are paraphrasing it 

I take my hunting very serious. I said I can not speak of formal competition because I have not done so ......that's just being honest 

I can shoot my CH as well or better than any bow on my wall 

My hunting speaks for it self


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Hoyt said:


> I'm very pleased with my Covert Hunter/7. I find it like my other bows..sometimes you have to twist the string a little and shoot arrows that fly good. Other than that it just strings and un-strings much easier with those big hooks and the bow stringer that came with it. It draws much, much, smoother, shoots much faster, arrows fly flatter farther and is easier to hold at full draw...than any other bow I have ever shot.
> 
> To cut to the chase I just think Border built a better mouse trap and if I didn't think I could come up with the money to buy one I would stay a long ways away from one. Because if you don't and end up shooting it and absolutely can't come up with the asking price and or can't do the time. The odds are very high whatever bow or bows you now own won't ever shoot as good as they did.
> 
> Just my opinion from shooting mine for about 3 months now.


Bamo - in the end this is all that matters, a happy owner/shooter.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

centershot said:


> I also know my hunting bows and that I can shoot 270+ with them. When I get a new rig or change something I always shoot a score or two or three over a few weeks to see if the change helps or hurts. Hard to tell if the change made a difference stump shooting or hunting. Point is that shooting a quantifiable/repeatable round - score - target - whatever gives you a base line that can be compared even after the honeymoon period of a new toy wears off. Interesting how saying "I just hunt" makes it ok to toss quantifiable gains/losses out the window.


Center, I don't think your scores would change one IOTA for the worse, maybe better, maybe not. I've shot some Hex limbs though don't own any. They are a very different animal in feel - very smooth and you immediately notice you are shooting higher performance. Score-wise, target shooters that I've known on shooting them don't complain about score drops post-honeymoon. 

Why don't I shoot them, then? I am married to my old "feel", plain and simple. Hard to divorce from your main-squeeze  That's the real difference in marketing to at least these SR's.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> I think that's the whole genesis of this thread, though, on bow evolution. With newer materials and revisited designs, the status quo in thinking of the tradeoff does not have to be just because it is what it has been. That's what Sid is working at and doing.


While the thread may have been started as a technical discussion, I think that the status quo in thinking of the tradeoff is in fact an aspect that needs to be addressed. The realities of R&D is that it must be supported financially, and that requires sales, and that requires market acceptance.

In this aspect, I believe that it requires a proactive efforts to address that thinking. This goes beyond refutation, but rather nailing down specifics, and once that has been achieved, education/marketing. You might make a better engine, but if you don't help people figure out why their wheels are spinning and they're finding the car more difficult to control, it doesn't matter if it isn't the engine's fault, they're going to go with what they know works, and whether it's fair or not, the engine may get the blame anyway, which may discourage others from trying it, even if they might have had a different scenario more suitable for that engine.

Maybe it is timely that the iPod6 (and other relatively affordable electronic devices) can do high speed video. If there are context-specific issues that need to be addressed regarding deeper hooks, even if it does mean that there are scenarios, such as intentionally de-tuning a bow for some other effect, make the design less optimal, it would be better for all to know, and acknowledge it.

It wouldn't mean that there is something 'wrong' with the product, but rather that particular parameters need addressing. There is no 'Best for everything' product, and there is no need to try to live up to that.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

ismo131 said:


> I usually simplify things and in this case when little more power and speed comes from limbs. I think that less curve in arrow flight is allways better in trad style.


I can only think of one exception, when you're shooting at a target behind a hill/log/branch, where a flat line will prove prohibitive 

I suppose there is the case of bringing your point on distance down too...

I gave up on the second one entirely.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Barney, here's how I would sum up the marketing conundrum. Why is it that someone would look at the Hex limb and assume it will perform less accurately than what they are shooting? 

Is it because super hooks of the past have that reputation?

Is it because they have heard other folks are suffering less accuracy with the Hex limbs?

Is it because the pair of Hex's they tried before failed them in accuracy?

Is it because it doesn't look like what they are used to seeing as the "standard"?

In other words, which of the above reasons proves out in the market? What's the consensus of the standing market?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

centershot said:


> I also know my hunting bows and that I can shoot 270+ with them. When I get a new rig or change something I always shoot a score or two or three over a few weeks to see if the change helps or hurts. Hard to tell if the change made a difference stump shooting or hunting. Point is that shooting a quantifiable/repeatable round - score - target - whatever gives you a base line that can be compared even after the honeymoon period of a new toy wears off. Interesting how saying "I just hunt" makes it ok to toss quantifiable gains/losses out the window.


In my only quantifiable comparisons, 3D tournaments, between a similar bow in terms of brace height and length, my scores went up with my CH.

Still, i'm not convinced that the bow shoots more accurately because of higher torsional stability. I think other factors, mostly to do with the fit to the archer, have a much higher impact, and how the archer relates to these factors, swap the precision of the device itself.

Honestly, while it may be different for those competing on an olympic level, unless something is downright unstable and broken by design, or out of tune, I don't believe that limbs themselves play a large degree in accuracy/precision for most of us. Mass, balance, rotational inertia, fit of the grip, a draw weight low enough to dominate but high enough to pull the string from your fingers despite sometimes non-optimal form, heck yes.

There are specific instances where a super recurve could be of great value from an accuracy standpoint, primarily in terms of holding weight for energy stored and available (for archers who can't get arrows light enough that still have enough momentum as a ratio of drag, shooting longer distances), the smoothness of the draw (which is shooter specific in terms of possible advantage), and consistency of arrow speed given sometimes inconsistent draw length due to incomplete/inconsistent expansion, etc. None of these apply to actual Olympic shooters...


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

When some new product is in winners hand, then there are believers, makers and market explouds.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JParanee said:


> Not at all
> 
> *** are you talking about
> 
> ...


When you state "All I care about is hunting bows" one kind of gets the feeling that your leaning that direction........

I don't think formal competition is really necessary to tell what you can do with a certain bow. I do think that a common target, common range, etc do help. Hunting is probably the worst way to compare bows there is, 3D a close second. The shots are never the same, environment is always different and when your trying to compare two things, consitency is necessary. You say you shoot your CH better than any bow on your wall. I'm just curious how you make that comparision. I don't shoot my hunting bow as well as my target rig (if I did I'd switch), I doubt many do. There are always compromises involve to get the bow maneuverable and powerful enough to hunt with.

FWIW: I have nothing against Borders or any other bow mfg for that matter. I like what they are doing pushing the envelope of what is or was normal. I just am not willing to spend the money for the technology at this point. What I would like to see instead of graphs is average scores. How this technology is actually improving average Joe's accuracy. Then the decision about add'l. speed, feel, etc. could be analyzed with perspective.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

ismo131 said:


> When some new product is in winners hand, then there are believers, makers and market explouds.


Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday. An old mantra from the automobile industry - still holds true.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

centershot said:


> When you state "All I care about is hunting bows" one kind of gets the feeling that your leaning that direction........
> 
> I don't think formal competition is really necessary to tell what you can do with a certain bow. I do think that a common target, common range, etc do help. Hunting is probably the worst way to compare bows there is, 3D a close second. The shots are never the same, environment is always different and when your trying to compare two things, consitency is necessary. You say you shoot your CH better than any bow on your wall. I'm just curious how you make that comparision. I don't shoot my hunting bow as well as my target rig (if I did I'd switch), I doubt many do. There are always compromises involve to get the bow maneuverable and powerful enough to hunt with.
> 
> FWIW: I have nothing against Borders or any other bow mfg for that matter. I like what they are doing pushing the envelope of what is or was normal. I just am not willing to spend the money for the technology at this point. What I would like to see instead of graphs is average scores. How this technology is actually improving average Joe's accuracy. Then the decision about add'l. speed, feel, etc. could be analyzed with perspective.


Center 

I know you are not being negative 

My bows are all in that 60 inch range 

I have some 58 which I do not care for and some that are 62 but most are 60 

For me a bow that I can shoot and hit what I'm aiming at more consistently is a bow that works for me 

Admittedly I shoot my CH a lot more than any other so naturally I will be more familiar with it therefore more accurate 

When I say my only interest at this time is a hunting bow and I am getting more interested in 3 D means that I really like a fast compact quiet bow for my hunting 

I am primarily a stand and ambush Hunter off the ground and have shot a ton of deer on the ground on my knees at less than ten yards so a bow that is compact helps me .....but I hate shooting conventional bows below 60 inches 

The 60 inch CH is effectively a much shorter bow with a compact envelope that feels and shoots for me like a much longer bow 

I do not like to cant if I can shoot a vertical bow so this feature is very important to me 

I can cant but I prefer not to 

So if you wrap all of this bows features into the equation you can see why and ho a bow like this makes very good sense 

Fast , ungodly smooth , compact and in my eye beautiful 

At my stage off the game it's a very good investment in 

I might hunt a whole year passing many deer trying for a scorable Buck 

They come hard


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Yes, archers (who are people) are the target market, but I meant it in a generic sense.
> 
> Let me explain. When WW designs a limb for example, they do so knowing that they might, and likely will be used by archers that have draw lengths from 26 to 31 inches, use risers from 17" to 27", at a variety of brace heights, arrow weights, tiller adjustments, etc.. That is their "target market." Therefore they design a limb that while it might only achieve a 95 on the performance scale, it can reach that 95 over a broader spectrum of archers, setups, and states of tune. As opposed to a setup that can achieve 100 on the performance scale but in order to do so, the spectrum of archers setups, and states of tune becomes much smaller.
> 
> KPC


While I agree about optimizing for draw length, to a degree, I would point out that the windows are not as narrow as you may think. While mediums may be _optimal_ for my preference on a 21" riser, short limbs work just fine, they don't stack, in any sense of the word, compared to conventional limbs, will still stack less than a conventional medium limb, and will work fine, delivering more of what the limbs were designed to do over a conventional limb profile, namely, offering more energy at a given holding weight, than a conventional limb profile of any other construction of which I aware.

If somebody is putting a short limb on a 17" riser, drawing to 32", well, that is indeed a problem.

I would also point out that designing a limb optimized for a given draw length does not necessarily mean that the window of tune becomes smaller, let alone much smaller.

The parameters I suspect, in terms of tuning issues, may have much to do with what barebow archers do specifically to optimize their setup to aiming.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

overbo said:


> I'm very aware of this but to compare a bow w/ a lot more pre-load and a brace that's under 7'' to a bow w/ more moderate design and a brace of 8'' or even 9'' is like comparing a hatched cam to a round wheel compound. If one can shoot these hotrods well? one would think a bow of more moderate design would be a tack driver to shoot. I feel to take a bow w/ modest design qualities and have them shoot speed wise w/in 5% of it's counterpart that has a more critical design to shoot as well w/, is a better tradeoff than a 10fps gain.


And this is the crux of the question i wanted to ask.


Please discribe a moderate recurve. This is the bit i love.
A hex6 design with 3" forward was considered radical. Well only compaired to a 2" design when 1" was moderate.
it used to be the negatives we thrown at the hex limb by nay sayers. But now they focus on the covert hunter.
the question was the hex6s... were they tooo far.... were they too much.

Well they are very moderate considering the covert hunter is 5" infront.

So if 2.25" infront with a glass limb was too much.
and a 1.75 was considered ample. What would you say if 6.75" is possible but we conservativly designed it back to 5" for the sake of the nay sayers.
that makes the nay sayers at 3" look like they dont understand what they are addressing.
simply saying 3" with the hex 6 is too much. When they dont know how far is possible.

So what was considered big by old standards. And what was considered acceptable.
if the boundaries have moved. Then whats the next question....


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> If I don't like something about something, I just man up and say it. If it doesn't float, it doesn't float, and I take the hit. At least I didn't hide behind my words.


Nor do I, unless of course you are talking about something you or someone else think I said or meant, rather that what I actually said or meant.

I'm willing to man up and say/discuss anything. The problem is, whenever someone asks a legitimate question about certain products, people come out of the woodwork to attempt discredit them personally.

In regard to SR's, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. I honestly don't get it. Other than a different feel, what are you actually getting? If it's the feel you are buying, wonderful. However, the only independent testing I have seen has the CH performing on a par with other top end setups.

http://peteward.com/2014%20reviews/Test%20CovertHunter.html 

http://peteward.com/test.cx.3pc.html

Maybe I've missed them but if there are other independent comparative tests, I'd love to see them...I just haven't. It's just all been word of mouth.

So, I think the questions are quite legitimate. 

If the SR's are on a par with other top end setups in terms of speed (not me saying that, but an independent tester saying that), or if they aren't any more or any less accurate in an "expert" archers hands (not me saying that, but others here saying that), if they require a smaller operational window to get everything out of them, (not me saying that, but others here saying that), if they aren't any more torsionally stable than other designs (I understand that certain materials and a certain amount of torsional stability is required to make the big hook workable, but that doesn't make them *more* torsionally stable than a number of other traditional recurve designs), what *"envelope"* other than the *"feel"* envelope is being pushed? 

In your terminology, either it floats or it doesn't float. However, simply asking the questions isn't taking pot shots or veiled swipes. I can see where it might seem that way to someone who is either unable or unwilling to answer the questions, but that doesn't make it so. 

So I'll ask the question again. *Other* than subjective traits like the way they look and feel, what "envelope" is being pushed by the SR design? What "design evolution" is there in terms of what SRs bring to the table regarding objective traits like speed, accuracy, torsional stability, etc.?

Simply asking the question doesn't in any way mean that *"feel"* isn't enough for some people. It most certainly can be. I (as well as others) are just curious if there is more than that. If there is, please cite the independent, comparative testing that would show what it is.

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

For anyone wanting some background to current recurve design, this is a fantastic review of how we have got to the designs of today. 

http://archery.berkeley.edu/wp-cont...als-of-the-Design-of-Olympic-Recurve-Bows.pdf 

If I remember correctly, I think someone from border was involved in this document also.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Peteward is sure impressed. Great review.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP, why does it even need to test to anything you want tested. Who the heck are you but a guy that goes around making up screen names to put things down. Look, the market speaks well of it, and favorable reviews have always been the norm for Borders stuff. If you don't like that most everyone who shoots it likes it, then, take it up with them. You are acting as if Borders even needs to prove to you or anyone, anything. They sell the bows and sell more than they can make. Someone ain't getting your memo?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

centershot said:


> Grant, I think you scored a bullseye with that post. I think all you really have to do is look at what the Olympic shooter are using to see what is the most accurate in human hands. I do believe the top shooters and companies have a combination that will be difficult to beat. I like the idea of Border, Dryad, Sky and others exploring new areas and boundaries of archery. As new materials become available, the boundaries can and likely will change. I would like to some day try some super recurve limbs and see for myself if they provide an advantage. But with Covert Hunters running ~$1700 I doubt it will be any time soon.


I don't know th e range of what you do, but if olympic archery (with a clicker and enough speed available given comfortable holding weight) or 20 yard or 18m is the game, unless you just reacted more favorably to the draw force curve, I would not expect any benefit at all.

Then again, I wouldn't expect it to hurt either.

If you want to target shoot with the same bow that you hunt with, want to do it with a 35# draw weight and arrow speeds on the fast side, entirely different story.

Everything else in between, less clear


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Center, I don't think your scores would change one IOTA for the worse, maybe better, maybe not. I've shot some Hex limbs though don't own any. They are a very different animal in feel - very smooth and you immediately notice you are shooting higher performance. Score-wise, target shooters that I've known on shooting them don't complain about score drops post-honeymoon.
> 
> Why don't I shoot them, then? I am married to my old "feel", plain and simple. Hard to divorce from your main-squeeze  That's the real difference in marketing to at least these SR's.


To be fair, the investment in the old feel is a valid concern. It took me awhile to adjust my release. The advantage to a faster stack is that an expansion will more aggressively prompt the slip of the string, and the opening of the fingers.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

BarneySlayer said:


> To be fair, the investment in the old feel is a valid concern. It took me awhile to adjust my release. The advantage to a faster stack is that an expansion will more aggressively prompt the slip of the string, and the opening of the fingers.


Interesting point. Do you think they could engineer a point in the curve to increase stack at a desired point? A recurve with a wall?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> GEREP, why does it even need to test to anything you want tested. Who the heck are you but a guy that goes around making up screen names to put things down. Look, the market speaks well of it, and favorable reviews have always been the norm for Borders stuff. If you don't like that most everyone who shoots it likes it, then, take it up with them. You are acting as if Borders even needs to prove to you or anyone, anything. They sell the bows and sell more than they can make. Someone ain't getting your memo?




Who am I? Just another archer sharing experiences, asking questions. and taking part in discussions. Just like everyone else here.

I'll take your non-answer and personal attack as either your unwillingness or inability to answer a few rather simple questions.

These types of discussions are not unique.

Interestingly enough, this is what I said when another poster, a sponsor no less, was making claims about pushing the envelope in terms of the next best thing in limb design:

_*"I'm all for precise, independent testing under consistent parameters.
I just hope the next time anyone posts their performance claims, especially those who stand to gain from them, are scrutinized as thoroughly and extensively as Nick's have been.
Let's hope we are setting a new standard for such claims."*_

And this is what you said about his claims:

_*"Look, I have laid out of this, but this is ridiculous. Snake Oil shows of the turn of century couldn't get as misleading as what's going on here. If it was just you mulling around in it, OK. BS is now feeding this made up crap through you as a paid sponsor."*_ 

and...

_*"Yes, and to some folks this type of misleading data and reporting, whoever is doing it, is part of the game. Why? Big companies walk that same line daily - it's expected marketing. To me, that's fine, but at some point, we can cross that line. Then, to me, there's not a nickels worth of difference between a pick-pocket and a snake oil sale. Both are theft."*_

and...

_*"It should be about the truth and not faked graphs, but, that's not how things get sold, I guess."*_

and...

_*"All I'm saying is that chains have two ends. When someone is pulling your chain, pulling back is not something one even needs to apologize for."*_

I could go on and on but there is no need. 

It's obvious that you agree when it comes to offering up proof to support one's claims. (Well, at least for *some* claims, from *some* people.) 

At least I can say I'm consistent in what I ask for. 

I don't demand proof from one person, and then say another person doesn't need to prove anything to anyone.

But hey, I guess being consistent is *"not how things get sold,"* right?

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Yeah, Gerep, we were talking about a 300 pfs recurve bow back then. You still defending it


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> You still defending it



Never did. I said it was bunk from my first post on that thread and proceeded to ask for accurate testing. Just like you did. 

Same as I always do, and same as you, well...*sometimes* do, depending on who's making the claims. 

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. 

KPC


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

centershot said:


> Grant, I think you scored a bullseye with that post. I think all you really have to do is look at what the Olympic shooter are using to see what is the most accurate in human hands. I do believe the top shooters and companies have a combination that will be difficult to beat. I like the idea of Border, Dryad, Sky and others exploring new areas and boundaries of archery. As new materials become available, the boundaries can and likely will change. I would like to some day try some super recurve limbs and see for myself if they provide an advantage. But with Covert Hunters running ~$1700 I doubt it will be any time soon.


Precisely.
I think we are at a point now where we need to realize that what works for Olympic isn't what works for Barebow and isn't what works for a shorter hunting bow. Different tasks have different design specifications for maximum performance. I personally see riser design as being the most important step forward in Barebow, however what we get is Olympic with some weight on the bottom. 
I could care less about minimizing length and little about maximizing stored energy. My priority is accuracy, ease of use and ease of tune. I've shot SR limbs long enough (only limb I used for over 16 months) to know that they do not meet those goals as well as a more standard geometry limb with equal materials technology. Tune them however you want, set them up however you want they just aren't as consistent. That was the finding of several world-class shooters. Others shoot them well but generally outside the manufacturers recommended set-up. I want to know WHY some people don't shoot them as well as others. Clearly it's not based solely on ability since any one of them could win a world Field championship any given day. 
Want a test a pair yourself? Fire me off a PM, they just gather dust.



JParanee said:


> I can shoot my CH as well or better than any bow on my wall


You changed a lot about your shot in order to shoot like. Also the CH doesn't accept anything but SR limbs, so a direct comparison which rules out riser design as it relates to accuracy isn't available.

Personally I think the accuracy you are seeing is down to the size of the sight window and the deflex more than the limbs.

-Grant


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Sid s a stand-up guy and ultrasmart cookie. He's never brought bunk to the table. He's got a market base to back it up, too. Kinda hard to compare that with false marketing without calling a lot of good folks dumb in the process. Lone wolf cranks will be what they are.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Precisely.
> I think we are at a point now where we need to realize that what works for Olympic isn't what works for Barebow and isn't what works for a shorter hunting bow. Different tasks have different design specifications for maximum performance. I personally see riser design as being the most important step forward in Barebow, however what we get is Olympic with some weight on the bottom.
> I could care less about minimizing length and little about maximizing stored energy. My priority is accuracy, ease of use and ease of tune. I've shot SR limbs long enough (only limb I used for over 16 months) to know that they do not meet those goals as well as a more standard geometry limb with equal materials technology. Tune them however you want, set them up however you want they just aren't as consistent. That was the finding of several world-class shooters. Others shoot them well but generally outside the manufacturers recommended set-up. I want to know WHY some people don't shoot them as well as others. Clearly it's not based solely on ability since any one of them could win a world Field championship any given day.
> Want a test a pair yourself? Fire me off a PM, they just gather dust.
> ...


Grant you might be right 

Hell you probable are 

I have reworked my shot thanks to Rod 

I have dropped weight 

I do kinda like the small sight window also  

You of all people will understand this 

For me it comes down to many factors 

Due to my hunting style which I've spoke of a lot on here 

Tree stands hard angles and crouched down ambush style I really like a short bow 

Problem is I do not like shooting them  

I can remember buying a very expensive custom 58 inch Silver Tip 

It's beautiful...... I waited months for it 

I don't like shooting it 

I had given up on shooting anything else but a minimum 60 inch bow 

Along comes a very compact 55- inch bow that feels like a 62 inch bow 

I can drop weight and get the same power I used to get 

They are very well done 

I'm sold 

Grant this is not directed at you because you never mentioned it but let's talk about feel 

Again you will appreciate this 

I'm 47 years old 

I work my ass off 

I buy what I like 

I buy on feel and quality 

I will spend 1000 bucks on a knife because I like it ..... I know it won't cut much better than a 100 dollar knife but I like the way it feels and looks 

When I wanted an Enduro 

I could of snagged a KLX 650 and had a blast but I was willing to spend double on a KTM ...... Why ? Because I like the way they feel 

I'm not telling anyone to buy something that they don't want ...... I'm just trying to tell people (and again this is not directed at Grant) to tell people not to buy something because they can't quantify the choice. The choice is up to the individual 

Many say man, Id like to try one but hell they are too expensive and the technology isn't the main stream 

That's fine but with thinking like that Ferraris wouldn't prance and Porsche wouldn't of just won Lemans again


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

That's the whole point Sanford. There are a number of very good archers on these boards that say they are everything they are purported to be. There are also a number of very good archers on these boards that say they don't live up to the press. Are those good folks dumb?

Therein lies the reason that accurate, comparative testing is so important. 

If we were to believe every "best bow I ever shot" claim, or "my groups have never been better" post, the classifieds would be empty. 

Instead, we have a whole bunch of "best bow I ever shot, but the grip just doesn't agree with me" ads. 



KPC


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I would absolutely hunt a set of SR limbs. Nothing throws a heavy arrow like them plus for that purpose a little extra FOC and fletch isn't an issue.
They just aren't competitively consistent for me and many (most?) other archers.

When someone talks about design evolution I tend to focus on the results end of the equation, the feel/looks/package size is entirely secondary. A design can certainly evolve in a direction that makes it less useful for my purposes while becoming more useful for someone else. That is because we value qualities differently. I'd shoot a bow that sounded like a gun going off if it bought me points (although ironically my SR limbs are my loundest at any BH), whereas I know you would sacrifice a small amount of speed for a reduction in noise.

The issue is when something is billed as being better at everything without any negatives, then when negatives are spoken of the response is blaming the user.

I love to see recurve bows evolve. I love that I just spent <$300 for a set of glassless limbs.
What I'd really love to see if an evolution of design centered on the archer and how then interact with the bow.

-Grant


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I honestly don't get it. Other than a different feel, what are you actually getting? If it's the feel you are buying, wonderful. However, the only independent testing I have seen has the CH performing on a par with other top end setups.
> KPC


More energy for holding weight (same arrow speed, with a heavier arrow, same arrow speed with lower holding weight, more arrow speed with same arrow weight).

More consistent arrow speed with draw length variations. If you look at draw force curve differences, and see the stored energy as it relates to draw length, it makes a lot of sense.

I haven't said it a thousand times yet, but it seems strange that you're obviously a very intelligent guy, yet keep missing this.

Are these features imperative? No. Are they important to everybody? Of course not. Are they going to be of benefit in all contexts? Absolutely not. Can you work just fine without them? Sure.

But to keep implying that the plainly objective is purely a matter of feel, it seems intentionally obtuse, and verges on insulting.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> More energy for holding weight (same arrow speed, with a heavier arrow, same arrow speed with lower holding weight, more arrow speed with same arrow weight).
> 
> More consistent arrow speed with draw length variations. If you look at draw force curve differences, and see the stored energy as it relates to draw length, it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> ...


Bingo


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> And this is the crux of the question i wanted to ask.
> 
> 
> *Please discribe a moderate recurve*. This is the bit i love.
> ...


Bob Thompson(Zipper) told me to take a unstrung recurve and place face down on a flat surface and measure how much the limb tips elevate the riser off the flat surface. This is how he measured pre-load in a limb design. To date, the largest measurement I've seen is 3 1/2''. These are designs which incorporate little to no deflex w/in the riser and a sweeping or lever like curve into the design. Then again I've seen recurves that the riser hits that flat surface w/out the limbs touching. Recurves of this design had huge limb wedges w/ thicker core and narrower limb tips. Unlike the fore mentioned design, these short working limbs have fantastic torsional limb tip stability and very true string follow. Most all the aggressive pre-load limb designs have thinner core and wide limb tips in comparison to the later. They do suffer a bit in torsional stability w/ there limb tips in comparison as well. Now, I've seen a few exceptions. The Great Northern Ghost is a great example of a thick core, narrow tipped, somewhat aggressive pre-load w/ excellent limb tip torsional stability.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> More energy for holding weight (same arrow speed, with a heavier arrow, same arrow speed with lower holding weight, more arrow speed with same arrow weight).
> 
> More consistent arrow speed with draw length variations. If you look at draw force curve differences, and see the stored energy as it relates to draw length, it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> ...




I understand and appreciate what you are saying BarneySlayer, and yes, I've seen those things said quite often. I've never said that they are or they aren't what they are purported to be. All I've ever asked for is an independent comparative test using consistent testing parameters. That's how we will actually know if indeed the envelope is being pushed, and by how much. 

Unfortunately anyone who asks that question is immediately labeled a hater. It's the same type of tactic used by some that say that anyone who disagrees with our President must be a racist. It's simply an attempt to shut down any opposing discussion. In my opinion, that's what verges on insulting.

As it pertains to this discussion, I'll leave it at that.

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grantmac said:


> *"I think we are at a point now where we need to realize that what works for Olympic isn't what works for Barebow and isn't what works for a shorter hunting bow. Different tasks have different design specifications for maximum performance."*
> 
> -Grant


Man?...you said a mouthful there.

I hate the CH because not a day goes by that I don't have to talk myself out of attempting to buy one...then again?....I would love to shoot one just to feel this "Feeling" folks are touting....and then I have to remind myself (in keeping with what grant so eloquently stated above) of just how "single purpose" the CH is...sure it's top of breed where short powerful hunting bows that throw a lot of arrow fast is concerned and yes...no doubt it has an extremely different feel DFC wise with it's SR limbs but?...the party ends there...however I can fully understand and appreciate where JP is coming from...as the CH is a God Send too him and his wants and desires...which BTW are extremely "specific" in nature.

I love my WF19/TR7 rig...and while it's no CH?...it's definitely super smooth and extremely stable...and thanks too the 3lb WF19 riser?...it has a very soft finish and oddly enough?...emits a tone very reminiscent of my old Black Widow PSAII...sweet shooter...I love it and am very accurate with it...and for some reason feel as though I'd be more accurate with it on longer shots than I would be with a CH even though I've never shot one but I do know that shorter bows seem to have their limitations distance wise...the sids were brilliant there by compensating with a small sight window and gobs of deflex.

But again?...I can absolutely relate too "The Feel" thing...as I never dreamed I'd like shooting a non-silenced 68" high end BB rig...until I lucked into the fateful acquisition of a real nice high end one...my W&W Inno Max w/ Ex Power limbs....and I'm still in the process of getting used to shooting a non-silenced 68" target rig that sounds like someone teeing off on a baby stroller with a baseball bat but guess what?...I love the dang thing and smile every time I reach for it....not just with pride that I own such a fine state of the art rig but because of..."The Way It Feels"...when I'm holding on the mark?...that 4 1/4lb weighted riser "Feels Like" it sits in my bow hand as steady as MT. Everest...and when I loose with a completely open bow hand with all fingers tucked behind the grip?...it lurches straight forward an inch or two and then drops straight down finishing with a pendulum affect...and I love..."That Feeling"....






13 days from now?...I'll be 57 years old and I have a coworker who is a great friend and a life long bicyclist...he's only a couple years younger than me but has given folks (who disbelieve him) demonstrations that he can in fact jump off the roof of his house with a mountain bike he built...piece by piece himself....but with the high end suspension parts he has on it?...he has well over $10K in that fully suspended mountain bike he built himself...the younger guys are far faster than him and can pedal longer but?...he loves "That Feel"...and the confidence that comes with it...knowing that he can hammer the rougher trails with the best of them.

So when we're talking about reaching a level of performance related satisfaction in a product that exceeds elation with a primary life long activity you love and enjoy so much that it "completes you"?...how much is "too much" and is there such a thing as too high of a price to pay if it makes you smile inside?

Final question....

What Violinist would mock or heckle a fellow violinist for owning an ultra expensive Stradivarius?

no matter how poorly they play.


----------



## Chris Hill (Aug 26, 2005)

I am hoping to have mine tested by Kirk from Bigfoot using a hooter shooter the first week of August.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I kinda baled from this post awhile back. Did anyone ever submit any data?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Final question....
> 
> *What Violinist would mock or heckle a fellow violinist for owning an ultra expensive Stradivarius?*
> 
> no matter how poorly they play.


That's actually an interesting question JINKS.

I don't think any of them would. Unless of course they thought he purchased a Stradivarius thinking it alone would make him play like Vivaldi...then they *ALL* would.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> That's actually an interesting question JINKS.
> 
> I don't think any of them would. Unless of course they thought he purchased a Stradivarius thinking it alone would make him play like Vivaldi...then they *ALL* would.
> 
> ...


Great Answer!!! :lol:


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

When gear is top its you that are missing the shots.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

ismo131 said:


> When gear is top its you that are missing the shots.


If you look back through the history of archery, many examples of more being done with less - considering what we have now, that's a testament to it having more to do with the archer than anything.

The whole notion of putting bows to the independent testing as if there's some Grand Pobaah of bow testers is silly if not asinine. Such is old internet bow-battle silliness as if there's some Indy to win or bragging rights as being dominant. The "real" and "independent" testers of bows is the conglomerate of bow users - the market buying and using them.

If you look at inquisitive testers like Hank above, taking analytical tests are more about comparing what makes bows what they are and what attributes are different, improved, new - as different as we are shooters. Just as there's not a singular attribute about us as a conglomerate of archers, there's not a singular attribute about a bow that can be shown to "best" out the others. Studying bows through testing, bow evolution in materials and design, is an honorable study more than some competitive race to win.

Now, can bows evolve to help bring the multitude of attributes closer together, more homogenous, and more to points where more shooters benefit? That's where I see design and testing going best.

In this regard, one may not see top shooters doing better, or bad shooters getting an easy reprieve, but, the subject bow might make the mean-bow field a little larger and open new curves.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

ismo131 said:


> When gear is top its you that are missing the shots.


Amen...for me?...it's a major process of elimination....it's also served as proof positive that it ISN'T ALWAYS JUST...

a matter of the Indian behind the string and that stellar level gear does in fact make a difference.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> The whole notion of putting bows to the independent testing as if there's some Grand Pobaah of bow testers is silly if not asinine. Such is old internet bow-battle silliness as if there's some Indy to win or bragging rights as being dominant. The "real" and "independent" testers of bows is the conglomerate of bow users - the market buying and using them.


That might well be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, especially coming from someone that should know better. Bow tests are not designed to show what bows are "best" but to show potential customers what claims are "real."

It would be different if bows weren't purchased until long term testing has been competed by each archer, but for the most part bows are purchased sight unseen, and often based on claims made by manufacturers and "happy customers." The marketplace (and the classifieds) is literally littered with products that were supposed to be the end all to end all, but unfortunately it wasn't until a whole bunch of them were purchased they were found to be more of the same. 

Initial Popularity is often the worst predictor of such things. 

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That might well be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, especially coming from someone that should know better. Bow tests are not designed to show what bows are "best" but to show potential customers what claims are "real."
> KPC


Learn to shoot a bow and like the rest of the shooting community, you won't need independent testing to know what claims are real or not. 

Independent testing is for the benefit of the ignorant (politely meant).


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Learn to shoot a bow and like the rest of the shooting community, you won't need independent testing to know what claims are real or not.
> 
> Independent testing is for the benefit of the ignorant (politely meant).



This doesn't happen very often Sanford but I totally agree. People that know how to shoot a bow know exactly what a bow is capable of bringing to the table, what is real, what is wishful thinking, what is hype, what are half-truths, and what are outright lies.

Where we disagree is that apparently you belong to a club which thinks that unless you are already *in the know*, you don't *deserve to know*. And therefore it should cost you a lot of time, effort, and money to figure it out. It must be some kind of hazing process or something. That's rather unfortunate.

You're right, independent testing *IS* for the benefit of the ignorant (although personally, I would choose *"uneducated"* over *"ignorant"*). It dramatically shortens the learning curve, and makes it substantially less expensive...which is precisely why some people avoid it like the plague (not intended to be in reference to anyone specific).


KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Gerep, there's tons of folks, good shooters and good folks, giving their take on bows in question, if we have one in question. That's the best pool of testing one can get outside of trying for yourself. This "submit to independent" red herring you have been clamoring about forever is a non-existent thing. We test bows to understand them, but until a bow is in the hands of a certain shooter, it has not been "fully tested" and "independently". Some folks may not find any claims worthy, and some folks may find more worth than the claims.

If someone claimed their bow shoots 300fps, and there's no one to verify it that we trust, maybe then, we ask before we cash up. Otherwise, if JP and few others say it is what it is, it is. Now, I would be to the point of making a decision to cash up or not, even in light of someone saying it ain't. That's the process on the usefulness of word of mouth.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> .......what are half-truths, and what are outright lies.
> 
> KPC


And, in this regard, I don't think JP, Sid, or quite a few others are guilty of this. Maybe you should stop calling people bad stuff without proof, and no, that's not proof they need to make available to you, as you might have already insulted them to the point of not caring a twit what you think.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Gerep, there's tons of folks, good shooters and good folks, giving their take on the bow in question...


Again, we agree. Just as we can agree that there are a number of folks, good shooters and good folks, that have diametrically opposed opinions about the bow in question...*any* bow in question. The only difference is that in this case one side is met with praise and adulation, the other with condemnation and vilification.

This thread (including your last few posts) is a rather fine example of just that phenomenon. What I like about independent testing is that it takes things out of the realm of internet personalities and the hyperbolic tactics some of them employ.

Case in point:



Sanford said:


> Maybe you should stop calling people bad stuff without proof...


I don't remember *"calling people bad stuff without proof."* Unfortunately, I'm not sure the same thing can be said for others on this thread. But hey, it is what it is right?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the benefits of such testing. Something that I'm very comfortable with.

Have a nice day.

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Precisely.
> I think we are at a point now where we need to realize that what works for Olympic isn't what works for Barebow and isn't what works for a shorter hunting bow. Different tasks have different design specifications for maximum performance. I personally see riser design as being the most important step forward in Barebow, however what we get is Olympic with some weight on the bottom.
> I could care less about minimizing length and little about maximizing stored energy. My priority is accuracy, ease of use and ease of tune. I've shot SR limbs long enough (only limb I used for over 16 months) to know that they do not meet those goals as well as a more standard geometry limb with equal materials technology. Tune them however you want, set them up however you want they just aren't as consistent. That was the finding of several world-class shooters. Others shoot them well but generally outside the manufacturers recommended set-up. I want to know WHY some people don't shoot them as well as others. Clearly it's not based solely on ability since any one of them could win a world Field championship any given day.
> Want a test a pair yourself? Fire me off a PM, they just gather dust.
> ...


^^^This is a totally excellent post!

I believe that while you can in fact push a design forward purely with technology, if you want to push it forward most completely, more quickly, you need to also identify the possible pitfalls, and acknowledge situations where it can either use improvement to fit the situation, or decide to pursue different design options for specialization.

While there is always the potential of one guy having a bad experience due to nothing to do with the product, blaming the product, and then growing that perception among a clique of elite shooters who value each other's opinions, that bad experience had a reason. The fact that another person can have a good experience means that the product _can_ work well with another shooter and setup, but it doesn't mean that prior problem was as simple as shooter error. There may be riser/rest/craw/tiller/grip/brace position combinations that simply become problematic, and expecting the end user to simply figure out the new magic recipe isn't realistic.

Grant, I remember you saying (and forgive me if I'm giving credit falsely), that you had the most problem with deep hooks when it came to string walking. That seems quite reasonable. 

As you crawl, not only do you change the dynamic spine, but you change tiller and limb timing. Same thing happens with hand pressure. If a shooter has a grip that either is not conducive to consistent vertical pressure (like a high grip, but they tend to collapse, or low grip, but they tend to tense up, or a medium grip with a tendency towards either), it will change the tiller and limb timing. What is more, some of us will require a whole lot more crawl than others to get a point on at 10 or 20 yards, depending on our face dimensions and anchors, regardless of arrow speed. With my face, and my anchor, my most recent attempt at exploring string walking, thanks to a great guy who let me borrow a 25" riser, led me to the conclusion that it might be something I could figure out eventually, but it would take a whole lot more time and effort than I have at the moment, and for the time being, I'm going to stick with the application I am most familiar, hunting style bow, fixed anchor, 3 under, and gap shooting, primarily using the shape and location of target within a deliberately small sight window.

I say this makes sense, because in adjusting tiller on my the bow that belongs to no one, a 21" Hoyt Excel with Hex7 35# limbs, I followed Sid's advice in finding tiller. My wife was test shooting it for a short session of a very drawn out tuning process, and it smoked an arrow, and finding the right spine arrow was a relatively quick and easy process, but the bow was still sounded a little 'loud', not so much in absolute amplitude, but in character of harmonics. Sid had said that a good indication of correct tiller is when the bow gets drawn, the riser does not have any vertical forward/back rotation. With tiller set to even, if I pulled it back, with my usual high grip, it seemed fine. When I put my hand low, as she does, and I draw, I could feel a very distinct forward/back rock through the draw, more pronounced than I have felt with a conventional recurve. Adjusted limb bolts 1/2 turn each towards a positive tiller, vastly improved. Sound went from a 'Thwack' to a 'Whoom'. Absolutely gorgeous, subjectively speaking 

The two best string walkers I know, Alan Eagleton and Ben Rogers, have both done well with Border Limbs (Alan shoots at least a few different brands, BTW). Interestingly, they have both told me particular things that they needed to do to get string walking to work well for them, though I'm sure there are things that I either can't remember, or they didn't divulge during the short conversations. 

Alan said that he needed a very springy, forgiving arrow rest, because so much shooting was done outside of the ideal tuning range. He had also commented on past occasions that he didn't have much success with string walking until he found a particular arrow. Theoretically, this would widen the range of 'tune'.

Ben had mentioned that he liked his plunger setup in actual center shot position, as well as ran his brace height a little high. Theoretically, this would do two things. First, it would slightly soften the 'Super' in the curve. Secondly, it would make the dynamic spine effects less critical.

While I would emphasis that this is their personal experience, and possibly specific to _them_, it makes logical sense, and is certainly worth noting.

There was also a comment on the Border page by a Facebook user, I think her name was Cherry Lynne, in which she advocated for keeping Hex 5's available, because she had found that the curve in Hex 6's became difficult to integrate well with certain riser combinations. I think the Hex 5 went away anyway because the realities of inventory management for the low level of sales proved impractical, but anyway...

If, we figure out the details of what doesn't work, not only can we get a more accurate picture of what works and what doesn't, but we can also give more people a better chance of finding the magical combination of what works for them, using whatever combination that is.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Sanford said:


> And, in this regard, I don't think JP, Sid, or quite a few others are guilty of this. Maybe you should stop calling people bad stuff without proof, and no, that's not proof they need to make available to you, as you might have already insulted them to the point of not caring a twit what you think.


Ignore him 

It works for me  

soon he will get bored of having a conversation with himself


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Yeah, JP, need to work on that for myself. Thanks!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

centershot said:


> Interesting point. Do you think they could engineer a point in the curve to increase stack at a desired point? A recurve with a wall?


Actually, yes, and I wouldn't be difficult. It'd look a lot like a clicker with the string that attaches from the top of the sight window to the top of the nocking point.

If you wanted to be more exotic, you could build rings or straps attached a small distance away from the tips, so that they caught the string, and kept it from pulling farther away from the limb, making the leverage advantage suddenly decrease at a certain draw length, and the stack would rocket.

The first is most certainly a disqualifier in most 'Trad' kind of classes. The second, probably would be made illegal shortly after people adopted it with any regularity.

Anybody a Patent Attorney who'd want to work on a profit-sharing basis? We could call them 'Limb Loops.'


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> In regard to SR's, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. I honestly don't get it. Other than a different feel, what are you actually getting? If it's the feel you are buying, wonderful. However, the only independent testing I have seen has the CH performing on a par with other top end setups.
> 
> http://peteward.com/2014%20reviews/Test%20CovertHunter.html
> 
> ...


I haven't seen any tests where everything was totally equalized...

But... in the above tests, compared to the Adcock bow, which seems like a great performer...

In the tests that Pete did, he said that his draw length was 27", and beyond that, he had little confidence in the quality of his release.

In those tests, Adcock bow with 54# of holding weight flung a 460 gn arrow 193 fps.
Covert hunter with 48.86# of holding weight flung a 394 gn arrow 202 fps.

In a KE output per draw weight, they're both at .73 foot-pounds per pound of draw weight, but the CH can do it with an arrow moving 9 fps faster. Considering that you're comparing top of the line stuff, that doesn't seem inconsequential. Is it worth caring about? To you, probably not. To anybody else, maybe. Either way, it's more than just feel. What is more, the Covert Hunters, from all data I've seen, including my own, seem to do better at the draw weight goes up, in terms of efficiency, so that if he compared a Covert Hunter of equal draw weight, we'd expect it to do a little better as well.

In my own testing, I have my Predator Velocity, 54#, a design with pretty conventional but I'd say pretty fast limbs, on a slightly reflexed riser, with identical brace height, putting out a 432 gn arrow at 201 fps. Covert Hunter, 46# draw weight, 418 gn arrows sitting about 198 fps. Slightly slower arrow, grant you, but slightly more than 10% more energy _output_ for a given holding weight, and if it were an equal draw weight, I would expect that difference to again move in favor of the Covert Hunter.

If anybody wants to lend me some medium 54# Hex7 limbs to play with, I'm happy to try something even more equal 

Now, I wouldn't jump up and down and call this decisive proof that this makes the Covert Hunter the 'Best Bow Ever.' I believe I try to be clear in all cases that whatever it might do for you, or not do, requires a personal judgment.

My point, though, is that all data I've seen on it, seems that in this parameter at least, there is something real, beyond the subjective reaction to 'feel'.

Now, if your point would be, "Well, those differences aren't worth the money to me" or "There are other things I don't like about it that outweigh an advantage of that magnitude" fine. I understand that.

If you argued that, from a performance/dollar standpoint, compared to a 21" Excel with Entry level limbs, or a Samick Sage, it's a clear loser, I'd downright agree, but you could say that about most every bow over $300, with maybe Kegan's stuff as an exception.

That's all.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I can't think of any independent test which could be used to validate claims of accuracy or ease of tune since any bow will stack arrows from a shooting machine.

So from there what you have is a product which is tested for durability and objectively measured qualities but is otherwise a hypotheses as to those qualities which cannot be measured. 

Those unmeasurable qualities are the most important but also least usefully tested by an independent third party. They are also the ones best developed by numerous and talented staff of professional archers. Which is really where the smaller developers struggle. They can build a product which is objectively better, but without the input of exceptional shooters capable of near perfect consistency they are left without that subjective input at the pre-release stage of development.

This is especially true when the product operates well outside the envelope of what has been proven to work.

Grant


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> I can't think of any independent test which could be used to validate claims of accuracy or ease of tune since any bow will stack arrows from a shooting machine.
> 
> So from there what you have is a product which is tested for durability and objectively measured qualities but is otherwise a hypotheses as to those qualities which cannot be measured.
> 
> ...


In this aspect, I think it is unfortunate that distance as much as anything is a barrier to doing so. While I am sure that there are some absolutely great Archers in Scotland, I don't believe it has the sheer numbers to generate a wide selection of top end competitive barebow shooters, which seems to be the direction that most of the dissatisfaction comes from. There aren't a whole lot of them to begin with 

Plus, it sure would be convenient for the rest of us if we could simply stop by, or cross paths at least, and get face to face communication. I'd love to plague them with a weekly beer visit. "Oh, that guy again... Oh well, guys, better knock off. Don't want to lose any more fingers in the CNC machine."

When travel budget allows, I'd certainly like to stop by, pressure them into a metal riser that is entirely the same as what I've got, in terms of all customizable dimensions, but with an interchangeable grip, and a balance that holds after the shot without the assistance of external weights... I'm happy with what I've got until then...


----------

