# Stabilization: Is an extender of benefit or not?



## klock379 (Jun 5, 2018)

I am eager to learn more about it as well. Aside from manipulating where the CG would be, I know next to nothing about how to best setup a stab set.


----------



## mseganti (Sep 15, 2017)

Well the extender will put the mass on the end of the front bar further. This means you can get a cg further forward with the same mass. The way I set up my vbars is spread decently far but not ridiculous, and angled down. This gives the bow a lower cg, something I prefer. 

The sidebars don’t really do much to tell you the truth, an 8 oz counterbalance on the back of the riser achieves the same effect+the effect of keeping the bottom of the bow down. This helps it stay completely vertical as recurves do not have the advantage of a level like compounds. 

Stabilizers are all about your preference, some like heavier lighter balanced cg or a forward cg.

My preference is a moderately heavy setup with a somewhat aggressive roll (or pitch for the engineers out there). My bow is ~6.5 pounds, but I consider myself of above average strength and do not recommend this mass weight for everyone. 

Use what makes you feel comfortable, the reason the pros use them is because they’re paid to. Sometimes what they use isn’t what’s optimal, have fun setting up your stabs, but don’t make yourself crazy there’s no perfect setup.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

extender lets you use less weight out front for bow balance. 


Chris


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Yes, it is true that the extender allows one to use less weight out front.

It is also true that without an extension one can use less weight on the back v-bar setup.

Apologies for not being absolutely clear. 

Now that we're on the same page (I think) with the weight issue, let's keep pressing on!


----------



## waxyjaywalker (Apr 10, 2013)

I've been playing with stab setups recently. Though I won't say I've found a magic configuration (or there even is one), I've been taking the mindset that whatever gives me the best "feel" for minimal overall weight is the best way to go. That may or may not involve an extender, depending on the person.

I feel like too many people watch high level shooters and they got like 5lbs of weight on the front, and they gotta copy their heroes. That's just silly for recreational shooters such as myself; I'll likely never be able to handle that much weight.

So if extender allows overall weight to go down, while giving the desired balance/feel, than use it!


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

the question is, more accurately, *should you put an extender between your riser and v-bar* or not.



DarkLightStar said:


> It seems to make sense to balance the side-rod weights closer to the wrist, just a little behind.


in which case they are doing little to nothing, other than increase the total mass of the bow.

if you want to adjust the longitudinal balance of the bow (without adding additional long rod weight), get an adjustable v-bar. all extenders do is help pay for someone else's new Ferrari.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Ah, I think you're imagining the concept of using an adjustable v-bar and moving the "v" close together. Sort of like having one of those 12oz. weights screwed-in below the grip.

No, I'm talking about keeping the weights on the v-bar near the wrist vs. having the weights closer to the string at rest. I think I said that before but it bears repeating.

A change in the center of gravity...keeping the weight, overall, closer to the grip instead of balancing the bow forward.

Steve Ellison has some wonderful pdfs on this. They do show what changes when you move weights here and there.

I guess the reason I asked this is I remember a video Brady did on tuning where he went into the virtues of omitting the extender.

Just curious if anyone else had some experience with it. 

Having a ton of fun with the other aspects of where this discussion seems to be going! Keep at it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

omitting the extender, 

in my personal observations from shooting both setups

No extender and vbars direct on the bow had the bow sit much deeper in my hand and sit straight up during and after the shot. it took effort to have the bow jump forward ( adding weight, pushing the hand forward after the shot etc etc. You can see this in Brady and McKenzie after their shot, the bow is mostly still straight up and down and does not jump forward. They usually move the bow to the left after the shot. 

Having the extension, lets the bow become more lively after the shot, leaping out of my hand toward the target and swinging down. 

If you dont torque your hand, the no extender is a nice snug shot in your hand. If you think you might be torquing the bow hand during shot etc, the extender will help greatly moving bow forward away from the hand. 

I shot for a number of years with no extender setup and heavier weight setup. About 4 years ago at Vittorio's advice, i lightened my bow weights and stabs and went with a much lighter setup, and more forward jumping bow. 

I have not gone back to the no extender way. 

Your mileage may vary. I am not promoting one way or the other. Both work great, but with different feels and different bow reactions. 

Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Like Chris, I also find that 'no extension' gives me a nice snug shot in my hand. It feels secure. 

Maybe unlike Chris, for me, the extender can result, if there's a tremor/quiver in my 'hold' during expansion. with the stabilizer/bow trampolining (a subtle undulation running from my bowhand to the end of the stabilizer). Disconcerting. I finally (or at least "currently") decided I preferred no extension. 

Besides, 'no extension' makes it easier to wedge my bow in the front passenger seat of my truck! :darkbeer:


----------



## vlesiv (Oct 20, 2013)

chrstphr said:


> About 4 years ago at Vittorio's advice, i lightened my bow weights and stabs and went with a much lighter setup, and more forward jumping bow.


Hi, Chris - do you still go with the "Bow Draw weight / 7.6 = Bow Mass Weight" formula as a starting point with or without an extender? Thanks 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

vlesiv said:


> Hi, Chris - do you still go with the "Bow Draw weight / 7.6 = Bow Mass Weight" formula as a starting point with or without an extender? Thanks
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


it usually works out to that, but i dont use it as a set starting or ending point. 

currently i think i am less, i have not weighed the bow in a while. 

Chris


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

I think the science behind the extender is a little convoluted and people try to explain it will too much physics terminology. In my experience, extenders help with getting a more exact placement of the weight on the v-bars. On my bow, I find it to be somewhat back-heavy, even if I put more weight on the front bar. Without an extender, the CG feels like it's just behind the grip. Shorter v-bars theoretically would help, but the shorter the bars get, the less efficient they are at stabilizing movements along the A and B axis' (horizontal and rotational movement) So rather than move the weight forward with stubby, less efficient v bars, I find getting a shorter front rod and using an extender to move the weight on the v bars forward helps a lot to get that more precise balance.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Thank you for your opinions!

As in most things, I suppose the proof is in the final scores.

I'm currently shooting a setup without an extender after starting this thread. Just to see how it reacts in aiming and post-shot-feedback.

Like most archers, I've blindly copied setups that successful archers have used in the past.

It's always interesting when a talented archer like Brady seems to pick a setup that bucks the trend.

Makes you think.


----------



## Black46 (Oct 16, 2013)

DarkLightStar said:


> It's always interesting when a talented archer like Brady seems to pick a setup that bucks the trend.
> 
> Makes you think.


And then there is Lisa Unruh...


----------



## GoldArcher403 (Jun 25, 2014)

I dont think anyone can top Jacob Wukie's double reverse unicorn stab set up lol


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Black46 said:


> And then there is Lisa Unruh...


from a longitudinal balance standpoint, that's much the same as not running the extender, coupled with some keeling.



rjbishop said:


> I dont think anyone can top Jacob Wukie's double reverse unicorn stab set up lol


hold my beer.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

What about Swing Bars?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

When discussing about stabilizing a bow, this is the starting documnt to be studied firts:

http://www.wvac.asn.au/docs/StabilisersEllison.pdf


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Hi everyone!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Vittorio said:


> When discussing about stabilizing a bow, this is the starting documnt to be studied firts:
> 
> http://www.wvac.asn.au/docs/StabilisersEllison.pdf


agree. one of the first that i really read. 


Chris


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

Vittorio said:


> When discussing about stabilizing a bow, this is the starting documnt to be studied firts:
> 
> http://www.wvac.asn.au/docs/StabilisersEllison.pdf


Nice article. And conclusion is: 
"Stabilisation offers an enormous range of methods of controlling movement. With
some thought, that range of control can be used to find and eliminate particular
unwanted movements or adjust ‘feel’ to the archer’s preferences. The result will be a
more contented archer and, if the system is properly chosen, higher scores."

What kind of thought should it be? Is there any scientific research, any hard data on stabilization of the bow?
There are four measurable characteristics: mass, centre of gravity, leverage and vibration.
How heavy is too heavy?
How far forward should be COG?
How long is too long? 
How system vibration after the shot affecting accuracy?
Any real data would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

There are some many variables along with personal preferences I can't see a one size fits all solution. There are several YouTube videos by well respected coaches & shooters that cover a variety of factors. There are also thousands of suggestions that are misleading. This is one of a couple of videos that describes "why or why not" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8FSYPWCJ68

If the link doesn't work do a YouTube search for "Bow stabilization" Jake Kaminski, Brady Ellison & Nu Sensei seem to make the most sense. 
Nick


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Nick728 said:


> There are some many variables along with personal preferences I can't see a one size fits all solution. There are several YouTube videos by well respected coaches & shooters that cover a variety of factors. There are also thousands of suggestions that are misleading. This is one of a couple of videos that describes "why or why not" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8FSYPWCJ68
> 
> If the link doesn't work do a YouTube search for "Bow stabilization" Jake Kaminski, Brady Ellison & Nu Sensei seem to make the most sense.
> Nick


I’ll say that as far as this video is concerned, I played with my set up until I got my side rods even with my string at brace height, and I personally felt a huge difference with that change in how well my sight pin held and floated and anchor. I use a 4” extender with 15” total side rod length to get me there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2014)

Vittorio said:


> What about Swing Bars?
> 
> [video=youtube_share;GMSg6Foamg 0]https://youtu.be/GMSg6Foamg0[/video]


Although not really related to the original question, I would like to comment on this video a bit. The swing bar shown there is very poorly set up. A good swing bar offers a fine adjustment for dampening that can be used to stop the stabilizers from the flopping around at full draw that can be seen in the video. This has to be regulated carefully in regular intervalls otherwise the bow becomes unstable during aiming. A good setup can for example be seen on Sebastian Rohrberg's bow. 
(Sorry for the off-topic)


----------



## ceratops (May 17, 2017)

roman said:


> Although not really related to the original question, I would like to comment on this video a bit. The swing bar shown there is very poorly set up. A good swing bar offers a fine adjustment for dampening that can be used to stop the stabilizers from the flopping around at full draw that can be seen in the video. This has to be regulated carefully in regular intervalls otherwise the bow becomes unstable during aiming. A good setup can for example be seen on Sebastian Rohrberg's bow.
> (Sorry for the off-topic)


Thank you for commenting. I had never heard of swing bars, but in that first video it looked pretty impractical, as the archer had to hold at anchor, waiting for the oscillations to gradually die out - looked like a miserable setup. You've addressed that mystery!


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

S.B. said:


> Nice article. And conclusion is:
> "Stabilisation offers an enormous range of methods of controlling movement. With
> some thought, that range of control can be used to find and eliminate particular
> unwanted movements or adjust ‘feel’ to the archer’s preferences. The result will be a
> ...


You will NEVER find any actual scientific data other than the absolute basics of lever arms and balance. 

There's a really good reason for that. 
In the same way there is no best car, ice cream, music, artwork or fashion designer, there is no best stabiliser setup. 

There's the best one of those above FOR YOU and the fun part is that you decide which one it is. Largely you'll determine it for yourself, using judgement calls which typically don't relate to any actual scientific data at all. 

This is why there isn't one exact setup which has been determined to be THE BEST for everyone, however this doesn't stop this being the single most discussed topic you'll ever see on archery forums around the world. 

Be aware that top archers on the world cup know EXACTLY that other archers will examine photos of what gear they use, if it changes and also technique changes. 
One of them actively changes what he does on purpose, just to see how long it takes for someone to comment on it on this very forum and in this particular section of the forum. 
He'll even likely read exactly this thread and know that we've discussed this game and that my post about what he's doing for fun will make absolutely no difference.

Try what you like. It works for you.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> You will NEVER find any actual scientific data other than the absolute basics of lever arms and balance.


The reason there is no data might be pretty simple - product sales. There is no data on the difference between last year model and this year model of bows, stabilizers etc. It's all about fashion.
Just like with any mechanical system, research can be done. However nobody wants to find out.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

S.B. said:


> The reason there is no data might be pretty simple - product sales. There is no data on the difference between last year model and this year model of bows, stabilizers etc. It's all about fashion.
> Just like with any mechanical system, research can be done. However nobody wants to find out.


My answer wasn't a suggestion. It's a REASON. 

When two mechanical devices can be exchanged and the result is identical, how do you decide which one is better? 

Bows in shooting machines can achieve putting the same arrow into a single hole group out to distances in excess of 50 meters with NO stabiliser at all.

Did you think that a stabiliser has some mystical ability to improve accuracy without an archer being involved? 

Now you're going to say that you'll need to test all these stabilisers with a human involved. 

This is how we end up with athletes wearing holographic bracelets which apparently improve their balance, or titanium necklaces which make them recover faster. The list is endless. 

How about you tell me exactly how we're going to test different sticks with weights to find out which one is THE BEST stick with a weight? I mean, you're considering it a mechanical system, so there's got to be straightforward in testing. 

Maybe you'd like to figure out something simple, like what the best stabiliser will actually achieve? How would you define a successful test result?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

whiz-Oz said:


> My answer wasn't a suggestion. It's a REASON.
> 
> When two mechanical devices can be exchanged and the result is identical, how do you decide which one is better?
> 
> ...


Agree with whiz. Same thing prevails over on the compound side, where stabilization is like the choice of release aid, finding the right arrow spine and type or even the method of executing the shot. It's an individual best-compromise, never a more-is-better or less-is-better that's always true or false for everyone. And that best-compromise a) must be found by and for the individual by good old trial-and-error like everything else and b) no apologies for the finding for each individual must be issued. 

On my compound bows, I've found I shoot my best scores with a recurve sight and a Beiter side rod cut down to 10" with a 3oz. weight on the end being the only thing on the bow besides the sight. I tried several longrods of different lengths, plus and minus a full v-bar setup and a full side rod setup and nothing gave me better scores than the little stab on the back of the handle and that's all. In fact as I was experimenting with it, I found I shot worse the more inertia I added. So I perversely started taking stuff off the bow instead of putting more on like you're supposed to do, , until I got where I currently am. I've become aware of the reasons for that finding too, again arrived at through experimentation and an understanding of where I'm currently at as a shooter overall. 

And so on for each shooter, and for each equipment choice. 

So unfortunately, I have to agree there's no such thing as "the best" for anything in archery. Everything about a bow and arrow is a compromise and the fit to the shooter is always the best compromise you can come up with for yourself and your setup......

lee.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Over this past year I have basically used it as a testing year. So I have tried and/or tested a great deal of different things, and stabilization was one of them. The biggest issue IMO with testing stabilizer setups is the very critical variable when it comes to stabilization and that is the bow hand/grip. The bow hand/grip has the greatest affect on how a stabilization system should be setup and weighted for the archer, and IMO I don't know how you would isolate that variable out of the testings, as changing one's stabilization also affects the archer's bow hand to grip relationship. So they go hand in hand. Changing your bow hand to grip relationship affects your stabilization system, and vice versa. 

Also another variable that will affect stabilization setup and vice versa is tiller. Tiller, stabilization, and bow hand grip affects each other. 

There are though some things we can know about stabilization and how it will affect the accuracy of the archer. When I did my stabilization testing I started off with:
a) a long rod
b) added a short rod to the bottom riser hole
c) added a short rod to the top riser hole
d) removed the bottom stabilizer
e) added an adjustable v-bar mounted with no extender, removed the top stabilizer, played around with different angles and heights
f) added an extender, and repeated playing around with different angles and heights
g) removed the adjusted v-bar and extender and added a fixed 90 deg v-bar mount
h) added the extender

When I did the testing I would shoot with that setup for at least a week if not longer, maybe changing weight configurations to try and get the greatest level of stabilization. Changing the weight configurations not only included the end of the stabilizers but also the riser itself. Here is what I observed from my experience:

1) The front to rear stabilizer weighting must have some amount of balance. I'm not speaking of balance at the grip, I'm speaking of to the archer there is a ratio of weight, front to rear, that optimal and has to be determined. Imbalance to the front, some arrows will miss low, imbalance to the rear, some arrows will be missing high. So if you start noticing your group pattern is center down on your target, you ought to try removing weight from the front bar, or adding weight to the rear bar(s). Vice Versa if your pattern is center up.
2) Although having short bars in the top and/or bottom riser holes do help with side to side torque; from my experience using a v-bar system has the greater affect to minimizing torque. For example if you notice that your group pattern is center right, try adding weight to the left v-bar; and vice versa for center left. Must also understand though that having an imbalance of weight between the v-bars may affect the vertical alignment (tilt) of the bow. Also center right pattern my be a result of brace height too low or plunger too stiff; and vice versa for center left.
3) For those archers that have issues with vertically aligning their bow, one possible fix for this is add weight to the v-bar opposite the tilt; or remove weight from the v-bar on the same side as the tilt; or if you are using an adjustable v-bar move your bar in toward the riser on the side of the tilt. 
4) The weight of the riser has a impact on sight movement. If your riser is too light in comparison to your stabilization you may notice greater sight movement. You may notice that no matter how much weight you add to your stabilizers, your sight movement is still pretty bad, then you may want to try adding weight to your riser, even if it means taking weight off your stabilizers to keep a comfortable shot.

These are my observations from my testing with my equipment using my hands, so that is the reason why I say you may want to try in the comments above. What works for me may not work for you.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

erose said:


> What works for me may not work for you.


This above should be the standard first line of every reply to every single question about stabilisers on the Internet.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

whiz-Oz said:


> This above should be the standard first line of every reply to every single question about stabilisers on the Internet.


Yes, but one should understand why though, and I think it has to do with primarily the bow hand/grip relationship. I think most of my observations are valid IF you are an archer that has a relaxed bow grip. But if you are applying torque to your bow before the shot, or if you do not have a relaxed bow grip, they aren't going to help at all or as much. For example if your bow grip is FORCING the bow to cant to one side, then no matter how much weight you add to your v-bar opposite the cant it isn't going to help. But if your bow naturally cants to one side due to an imbalance of weight then adding weight to the opposite side of the cant is going to help.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Canting caused by weight imbalance is a myth.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

You have no idea how much it bothers me to completely agree with Wizzy ... lol

That fact that this is the 36th post in a thread that really means nothing, except how much BS we're willing to swallow.
Most of the time stab selection is more psychological than physical. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

erose said:


> Yes, but one should understand why though, and I think it has to do with primarily the bow hand/grip relationship. I think most of my observations are valid IF you are an archer that has a relaxed bow grip.
> 
> 
> > Honestly, you need to stop. Every observation that you've made likely DOES apply to you, but the instant someone makes an alternate observation, everything that you've done is worthless to them. This is why "What works for me may not work for you" is THE most valid observation, because it covers all outcomes.
> ...


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

I have no earthly idea why such a simple question would elicit such passion! 

Thank you, Vittorio, for posting that link. 

theminoritydude, I disagree and happily subscribe to that myth. A balanced bow is a great place to start, and not all risers with their equipment loaded on balance the same. An imbalanced bow necessitates form change to correct, so, your statement seems odd. 

whiz-Oz, it'd be great to get a copy (copies) of the knowledge you seem to have. I realize on a different thread, you posted a link to some of it. Perhaps you could make a sticky (like dchan!) that would help all of us?

I realize that some of you are old souls that have seen these topics over and over again, but try to remember that new archers can benefit from a little discussion now and then. 

Archers like to play with equipment. It's what we do. I don't see how a topic like this should cause any strife, really.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

DarkLightStar said:


> I have no earthly idea why such a simple question would elicit such passion! .


Because so many people have got it wrong in the past and more inevitably will in future. Everything written here will be totally ignored, refuted and regurgitated. If you're still on an archery forum in a decade, you'll know exactly how sick of stabiliser threads asking the same question most long timers are. You'll also be sick of Lars Anderson if you're not already. If you aren't, you should be. 



DarkLightStar said:


> whiz-Oz, it'd be great to get a copy (copies) of the knowledge you seem to have. I realize on a different thread, you posted a link to some of it. Perhaps you could make a sticky (like dchan!) that would help all of us?.


If you want to find actual articles of any type written, start googling with say " archery Stabiliser basics" or " archery stabilisers 101" 
Look for links that don't point to forums, but to obviously archery related websites. 

If you ask me, every single archery forum should have a sticky that starts "How to find the best stabiliser" 
It should be locked so it can't be added to and it should say "Google for the basics and then decide which one you like because YOU ARE GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY. Every single thread on the internet about stabilisers will tell you the same thing unless someone is trying to sell you something. The correct stabiliser choice is not standing between you and archery success, just like your choice of shoes. Deal with it. Accept it. 

Nothing but sheer bloody minded hard work and dedication stops you from reaching your archery potential. 
Archery is much harder than the impossible things shown in the movies and on TV and it's not a soft way to get to the Olympics. 
Go find a coach and do what you're damn well told because they'll tell you what you're crap at and you won't want to work on that because it's hard. 
If you buy the wrong arrows for your recurve, give up and just go buy the right ones and you'll never be consistently accurate if you don't use a clicker.
Cheap arrows don't work as well as expensive ones and straight arrows matter. 
Only people who don't care about accuracy use straight fletching. 

I think that about covers it. If you're going to give people the cold hard reality of archery, you may as well give it to them in one lump.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

DarkLightStar said:


> theminoritydude, I disagree and happily subscribe to that myth. A balanced bow is a great place to start, and not all risers with their equipment loaded on balance the same. An imbalanced bow necessitates form change to correct.....



So it’s the archer, right? 
That’s kinda my point. Saying a weight imbalance causes canting is like saying you can’t hit 10 because it’s 45m instead of 50m, because the distance is wrong. Canting is largely self-induced. Especially so with finger release bows. In fact, if the canting is really bad, it takes a large imbalance to counter.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

theminoritydude,

It must have been a misunderstanding in translation.  An improperly balanced bow is going to force the archer to have to compensate. The bow will also not react well, post-shot. 

whiz,

I'm sure you're right. I was here when Bee Stinger first hit this forum and remember how interesting things were at the time.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Let me put this discussion to bed once and for all.

Watch the video of the Roma indoor event (link posted on another thread in this forum). Men’s gold medal final is at the end of the video. Duenas vs Ellison. Commentator notes both archers using the same model bow. Duenas, 30-30-30, with an extender. Ellison 28-29-29 without an extender.

Clearly, the extender is the only reason why Duenas won the event. 

Case closed.


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> I think that about covers it. If you're going to give people the cold hard reality of archery, you may as well give it to them in one lump.


We are presented with the ultimate truth here. Some time ago an ultimate truth was that the Earth is flat, until some inquiring minds started asking questions.

Maybe somebody smarter than me can do a research and answer this questions:
How heavy is too heavy?
How far forward should be COG?
How long is too long? 
How system vibration after the shot affecting accuracy?

Saying that it can't be done is not an answer.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

S.B. said:


> We are presented with the ultimate truth here. Some time ago an ultimate truth was that the Earth is flat, until some inquiring minds started asking questions.
> 
> Maybe somebody smarter than me can do a research and answer this questions:
> How heavy is too heavy?
> ...


Well, they eventually discovered that the ultimate truth is that the earth is NOT flat and some people won't accept that there IS a correct answer, even if you don't like it. 

We're now in exactly the same situation. 

Someone smarter than you has given you the answer about why there is only a correct answer for you. You're now insisting that the earth IS flat. If you don't have the capacity to understand what is explained, nobody can do it for you. 

Vibration after the shot can't possibly affect accuracy, unless you're heavily into crystals and other such "science" 

When I said that you should stop, I meant it. 
Now everyone knows that you won't be convinced because you CAN'T be convinced and that's why people eventually give up on flat earthers and just giggle at them. 

Anyone who wants to keep going, knock yourselves out.


----------



## MrPhil (Aug 14, 2017)

Regarding the common extender - Vbar - longrod setup, I do not understand the following:
I could achieve the same distribution of end weights by using a Vbar with approx. 80 degrees right at the riser, put the Extender *behind* the Vbar and then add the longrod. The siderods have to be shorter, though, so it saves some weight (probably negligble for light siderods). 
Are there any issues with this setup or why isn't it used? Only reasons I can think of are mechanical stress on the VBar, interference with the bowhand/arm and the look of the bow. Any further insights in this?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

This is the reason why Skynet decided to terminate humans.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Where is an extinction level event when you want one?


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> Vibration after the shot can't possibly affect accuracy, unless you're heavily into crystals and other such "science"


This is a good start. Vibration DOES NOT MATTER. I will take your word for this, but it would be nice to have some data.
Too many archers are obsessed with vibration and sound of the bow. If they know that it does not matter, maybe they will spend less time and money on fighting vibrations and practice more.

There might be similar answers to other questions, those are just mine hypothesis:
-Overall bow mass should be as heavy as archers can hold without distortion in the form.
-COG as far forward as practical before distorting dynamic tiller.
-Stab length as short as possible, provided it has a max weight and max COG.

If those hypothesis can be proven, then all an archer needs is one short and heavy stab, and inexpensive one too. 

Of course it will not go well with the industry, as well as with archers thinking more spending equals more points.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

S.B. said:


> This is a good start. Vibration DOES NOT MATTER. I will take your word for this, but it would be nice to have some data.


You could perform a simple test. 
Establish a simple baseline where you throw a ball at a garbage bin. Ensure that the bin is at the limit of where you can reliably get it in. 
You are simulating an accuracy baseline. 

Once you've done that, get someone to simulate vibration after you let go of the ball by punching you as hard as possible in the face. 
This will show you exactly how vibration affects the flight of the arrow once it has left the acceleration of the bow string contact. 

Remember to not anticipate the punch. You may have to alternate between no punch and full on punch to the face so as to maintain your accuracy baseline. 
It would be better if you were blindfolded to give some scientific rigour to the test. You flinching will mess up your baseline. 

Don't limit your sample size either as this will affect the result. Several hundred to a thousand face punches should give you an accurate feel for what a totally disassociated action does to something else.


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> You could perform a simple test.


Well, that's a science! Thank you for the laugh. Although, since it is your test, I would pass to you the honour to throw the ball.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

Vibration is more of a concern, post-shot. It's a symptom of a poorly tuned bow and has more of an effect in shaking the bow apart and wearing out the archer.

Softer TFCs (torque flight compensators...doinkers, etc...) can dampen the body's natural frequency (shaking) somewhat.

The sound of the bow is important because excess noise is wasted energy. It's also a sign of a poor shot, with a properly tuned bow.

Before we get too far into the rabbit hole, the original intent of this thread was to get additional perspective on some of the claims that were made in the Ellison video. In the end, I'm sure I'll have to test everything myself and document my own findings. In essence, omitting the extender moves the COG closer to the grip. 

In my experience, so far, it seems to give a more "dead" reaction on release. I think this is much like what Chris had stated. 

After alternating back and forth a few times, I'm enjoying the more aggressive "lively" response that the extender brings to my setup. I suppose that the same sensation could be achieved by simply adding more weight to the front of the system.

Lastly, and probably the most important reason v-bars seem to be used as they are now, is because with a complete rollover of the bow from a good release...with the short rods close to the riser the archer is often bumped by them unless you have an extender.

It's a good discussion. Thanks for taking the time to read and post your thoughts.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

S.B. said:


> Well, that's a science! Thank you for the laugh. Although, since it is your test, I would pass to you the honour to throw the ball.


I'd much rather simulate the vibration. I expect at this point there might be a queue.


----------



## Farfletched (Mar 6, 2018)

whiz-Oz said:


> You could perform a simple test.
> Establish a simple baseline where you throw a ball at a garbage bin. Ensure that the bin is at the limit of where you can reliably get it in.
> You are simulating an accuracy baseline.
> 
> ...


Your test is flawed. Everyone knows both archery and ball in the bin chucking are 90% a mental process once you get to a reasonable level. The anticipation of getting punched in the face would have a similar effect on your shot to anticipating your bow rattling out your fillings. Hence, vibration dampening does matter.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Farfletched said:


> Your test is flawed. Everyone knows both archery and ball in the bin chucking are 90% a mental process once you get to a reasonable level. The anticipation of getting punched in the face would have a similar effect on your shot to anticipating your bow rattling out your fillings. Hence, vibration dampening does matter.


The statement is about vibration affecting accuracy AFTER the shot. Not anticipation of the vibration. However, the blindfolded toss could be controlled for and used as anticipation BEFORE the shot vs After the shot. 
You could also accelerate the vibration to before the shot which would involved the face being punched BEFORE the ball left the hand. 
As long as it involves S.B receiving some educational face punching um, vibration simulation, I'm down for whatever can be gleaned from the experience. Remember. It's not what you test, it's HOW you test it.


----------



## Farfletched (Mar 6, 2018)

whiz-Oz said:


> The statement is about vibration affecting accuracy AFTER the shot. Not anticipation of the vibration. However, the blindfolded toss could be controlled for and used as anticipation BEFORE the shot vs After the shot.
> You could also accelerate the vibration to before the shot which would involved the face being punched BEFORE the ball left the hand.
> As long as it involves S.B receiving some educational face punching um, vibration simulation, I'm down for whatever can be gleaned from the experience. Remember. It's not what you test, it's HOW you test it.


Hmm..OK I still think it needs improvement. To eliminate anticipation as a variable, our subject ideally would need to be completely unaware he is in the test. He would be observed over a longer period of time, shots being recorded. Then someone should randomly leap out and punch him in the face when he least expects it. Only then would the findings have any credibility.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Farfletched said:


> Hmm..OK I still think it needs improvement. To eliminate anticipation as a variable, our subject ideally would need to be completely unaware he is in the test. He would be observed over a longer period of time, shots being recorded. Then someone should randomly leap out and punch him in the face when he least expects it. Only then would the findings have any credibility.


I think you are the kind of man that I could work out a suitable test regimen with. One that would take into account and control for anticipation, and lots of face punching. 
As long as you're happy with a lot of face punching, I'm sure that we could get a large enough data set to eliminate regression to the mean and small results skewing things. 
Might I suggest that we consult the ethics committee after we collect data?
Them not agreeing with it would be a total bummer.


----------



## Farfletched (Mar 6, 2018)

On a more serious note, while I agree that in pure mechanical terms differences between different weighted sticks are minimal, in archery there is a “feel” element that is equally important. That is a very subjective individual thing. But when looking at purchasing new gear I still find it useful to read other people’s opinions as part of the process of making up my own mind. Personally I see shooting either with or without an extender divides archers into 2 distinct groups. With an extender are those who enjoy shooting a very dynamic bow. Usually accompanied by less weight on the stabilisers and a distinct wrist snap to help the bow rotate after the shot. Particularly evident in the techniques of the Korean women. The other group prefer a dead shot with less bow movement. V bars are often mounted on the bow. Huge amounts of weight on stabilisers. Sometimes side bars are longer and angled down to lower the COG and slow the rotation of the bow. All designed to deaden the shot and provide a stable platform for the release. Very slow rotation of the bow after the shot. Brady Ellison being a good example. So I think in the end it depends on which technique you use.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Vibration DOES matter. Not for any particular shot, but for the long term. 

Nobody wants to shoot a bow that is unpleasant to shoot, and you will tend to shorten your training sessions if you don't enjoy your shooting. Also, there is considerable anecdotal evidence to suggest a bow with excessive vibration can lead to joint damage, especially to the bow arm elbow. 

Any discussion as to the physics of bow stabilization is a discussion about the tiniest fraction of the actual purpose of stabilizers. The importance of steadiness during aiming, and of comfort upon release and follow through, massively outweighs the actual stabilization of the bow for those few milliseconds during the actual shot. The latter only requires some weights to be distributed away from the center of mass of the bow.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> Canting caused by weight imbalance is a myth.


So when you hang a recurve bow from the tip of the upper limb, it won't lean? I've tried a couple and they all lean showing the riser bow is heaviest to the side of the sight. So without including the archer you already have a weight imbalance in the bow that will cause it to cant by itself.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

whiz-Oz said:


> Honestly, you need to stop. Every observation that you've made likely DOES apply to you, but the instant someone makes an alternate observation, everything that you've done is worthless to them. This is why "What works for me may not work for you" is THE most valid observation, because it covers all outcomes.


 Whiz here is a given fact, in Olympic Recurve archery we seem to be stuck with primarily anecdotal evidence are we not? Every single thread on this forum, on every single topic, usually ends up with something related to "...whatever works for you." So the way I see it, this forum is a medium of sharing EXPERIENCES that may or may not help another archer, so that is what I am sharing EXPERIENCES. They may not work for you, but they may work for Joe Blow.



whiz-Oz said:


> It's why you'll waste every bit of your life that's involved with forum threads discussing the best stabiliser setup after you've read a factual article discussing moment levers.


 So in your opinion it is not rational to make the claim that if one's front bar's weights are too heavy in relation to the rest of the bow, that archers may start getting errant shots low on the target? Just as an example?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

DarkLightStar said:


> I have no earthly idea why such a simple question would elicit such passion!
> 
> Thank you, Vittorio, for posting that link.
> 
> ...


Amen brother!


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

S.B. said:


> This is a good start. Vibration DOES NOT MATTER. I will take your word for this, but it would be nice to have some data.
> Too many archers are obsessed with vibration and sound of the bow. If they know that it does not matter, maybe they will spend less time and money on fighting vibrations and practice more.


 Vibration and the reduction of vibration IMO DOES MATTER. Yes as Whiz-Oz says it doesn't directly affect accuracy as vibration doesn't hit until after the arrow has left the bow. But it can indirectly affect accuracy, when let's say your sight rattles loose and you don't notice it, and then you start shooting off because your sight is no longer where it needs to be for you to hit center. Even having a stabilizer or weight rattle loose can affect accuracy as well.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

erose said:


> Whiz here is a given fact, in Olympic Recurve archery we seem to be stuck with primarily anecdotal evidence are we not? Every single thread on this forum, on every single topic, usually ends up with something related to "...whatever works for you." So the way I see it, this forum is a medium of sharing EXPERIENCES that may or may not help another archer, so that is what I am sharing EXPERIENCES. They may not work for you, but they may work for Joe Blow.
> 
> So in your opinion it is not rational to make the claim that if one's front bar's weights are too heavy in relation to the rest of the bow, that archers may start getting errant shots low on the target? Just as an example?


It's absolutely not a given fact. Olympic archery even on this forum discusses actual science. There are ideas that have come up which are incredibly bad, like the guy who wanted to have a riser made out of titanium because titanium!
No concept of material properties or manufacturing costs combining to give him a riser which would cost maybe 3000 dollars at least and be flexible. That stuff isn't opinion. 

Basic scientific relationships are still discussed here, despite people not wanting to believe them. Physics doesn't change. The relationship of arrow drag to wind drift is a direct scientifically proven relationship. Nock size and shape does actually make a difference. 


One's front bar weights being too heavy would exactly be a case of "whatever works for you" because people have different levels of strength, endurance AND form flaws. Not only do we not know if someone isn't bow fit, we don't know what else is going on. When it's something plain like people asking why their arrows aren't hitting all the same on the target and they're using different brands, lengths and spines, that's NOT a case of opinion. There are reasons.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

I like you guys. Buuuuut, I think this thread is going in a direction that might cause some hardship. Thanks erose, and everyone who participated! 

This topic will come up again, I'm sure. And when it does, let's see how it goes.

Personally, I've dealt with this issue a few times and switched back and forth between with and without. Both feel nice.

Buuut...what seems to be my little issue is that I get hit by the v-bars on the swing if I don't use an extender. So, maybe that's my answer.

Again, thank you all for participating. We'll do it again.


----------

