# Skinny Strings??



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Urban -

After you get a bunch of answers here from string "experts" go upstairs to the FITA forum and ask the same question. 
Now, some things really don't transfer well from Olympic shooting to "trad", but the Physics is pretty much the same. 

Or, if you make your own strings, you can always experiment and come to your own conclusions. 

Also you have to understand the difference between stretch and creep. 
Stretch (recoverable elongation) isn't _always_ a bad thing, creep (unrecoverable elongation) is pretty much always a PIA. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Never thought to ask the FITA guys. Thanks. But still wanna hear opinions from Trad shooters.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

One will defnitely gain speed from dropping string mass. However I had to go from 10 strands of 450+ to 6 strands of it and lose 100 grains of string weight to gain only 2 fps on average. 

One thing I noticed though is that for me the skinny string lead to a somewhat ragged release. It kinda wanted to sometimes "hang up" in the tab. It kinda "bites" into it due th esignificantly smaller diameter. As a result accuracy and consistency suffered. Its like what is going to be easier to get rid of,out of your hand? A big fat hawser or a teeny little piano wire? Oly?FITA shooters tend to avoid the super skinny strings because of this effect. They will have personal preferences as to what feel sright fo rthem and gives them a clean, consistent accurate release.

You can build up a skinny string to regain the same nock fit, even the same feel and release consistency by laying in strands of of your string material under the serving. However that begins to negate the "advantage" of the skinny string by putting mass back into the string right where you don't want it. Mass added at the nock point has the greatest effect to slow down arrow launch. 

BTW I'm sure we all appreciate Viper's implication that everybody here on the Traditional forum is an idiot. Good job Mr. Camera, can't wait to buy your book. Perhaps then I too can learn to become arrogant and condescending!


----------



## Coastalbendbows (Sep 24, 2011)

I shoot skinny strings And put them on all my bows unless the customer wants a thicker string. It makes the bows quieter is the most important pro to me. Secondly you gain a few fps.


----------



## northern boy (Aug 25, 2010)

A skinny string should fit your fingers the same as a heavy string so I can,t see the point about bad release from skinny string. you increase the serving size dia so you have same dia. You will gain very little in speed the big speed gain is going from b-50 to ff strings. I shoot 8 strands of 450 plus with loops padded to 12. Pick a ff material then decide on number of strand you like then match serving to get proper nock. Any good string maker can fix you. for serving I like halo. 8-12 strands is pretty much the norm with modern strings. 450 plus an 8190 or 8125 are very low creep strings. but even the older d-97 will make a great string. No magic strings yet.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> After you get a bunch of answers here from string "experts" go upstairs to the FITA forum and ask the same question.


Who are the 'experts'? You? Just those on the FITA forum? String makers?



Bender said:


> BTW I'm sure we all appreciate Viper's implication that everybody here on the Traditional forum is an idiot. Good job Mr. Camera, can't wait to buy your book. Perhaps then I too can learn to become arrogant and condescending!


I always appreciate it.....NOT! :wink:

Although I appreciate hearing as many opinions as I can...I think the 'experts' in the FITA forum aren't any better than the experts here. I'm quite happy with our experts here even though I would enjoy hearing from the FITA forum.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I have seen a guy with a 4 strand string, and he had special skinny nocks for it. With 18 strands, i need .026 serving for s-nocks, and double. 018 for bohning classic. I have no interest in padding to go lower. Recently compared a couple of different string materials, fast flight plus and 8125g, with 18 and 16 strands respectively, to achieve roughly the same string diameter (i could have made the 8125g in 15 strand, and that might have been closer, and the speed difference, with me shooting as unbiased as i could, yielded a difference of 1-2 fps between the averages, as far as i can tell, with a slight advantage to the fast flight plus. However, it also seems, at least to me, that the ff+ might creep a little faster too. 452x supposedly has no creep, but i haven't tried it. Might be worth trying the 18 strand 8125g to see how that compares.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I've never really seen the point of "skinny" strings. Don't get me wrong, I'll take all the arrow speed I can get but the one time I tried one I didn't notice any difference between it and "normal" strings. I don't have a chronograph but the arrows didn't seem any faster and I didn't need to change my arrow set up tune-wise...so I don't think I gained anything. The skinny string was also louder than my usual strings.

The skinny string I tried is also the only string I've ever had break on me at full draw. Might have nothing to do with strand count, but I have never had a string wear, much less break, in the loop area with that bow before. It was probably just coincidence since this sting supplier has many happy customers.

One of these days I'll start making my own strings so I can have an "expert" opinion on the matter. Until then I'll just sent $20 to Chad a couple times a year for a big fat ol' fashioned string...although I did give up on dacron a long time ago for my bows that don't need it...:wink:


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

I went from 6 strand silent bad deadly strings to angel majesty (not sure the strand count but its thicker) and im very happy with it. I just seem to get better releases with the angel string . lots of guys like the skinny strings but im happy with what I have now.


----------



## nyamazan (Jan 31, 2008)

There was a big hype about this a few or more years back on one of the other forums.

Blackwidow put out a challenge to any one who could prove their theory, I think a custom bow was the trophy, and I'm pretty sure that to date no one has taken up and won the challenge.

I reckon that pretty much rules out the claim that was thrown about then.


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

I put 6 strand D-10 on two bows , it changed both bows for the better and was very noticable. Made them quieter with less vibration shooting bare string other than nock points. I'm going to say it added performance also. Was it worth it ? absoulutly. Of course if you are replacing a 10 strand the difference wouldn't be as noticable.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Im thinking of going from 18 strand to 10 or 8 on an ILF recurve set up.Just pointing that out.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

nyamazan said:


> There was a big hype about this a few or more years back on one of the other forums.
> 
> Blackwidow put out a challenge to any one who could prove their theory, I think a custom bow was the trophy, and I'm pretty sure that to date no one has taken up and won the challenge.
> 
> I reckon that pretty much rules out the claim that was thrown about then.


interesting. I will definitely chrono and shoot my gaps to see if they are flatter once I decide. I will be shooting a significantly skinnier string from the 18 strands that is on it now.

I don't make my owns strings, so who makes a good skinny string that doesn't creep?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

a lighter, skinnier string equals less mass weight therefore less felt shock at the shot and diminished oscillation yielding slight but noticable gains in arrow speed...at least that's the sorta things the folks who make and sell'em claim...me?..

While the characteristics of the material choosen play a significant role as well..as some materials will have so little stretch to them?..(usually the stuff they make skinny strings out of) that they can actually exhibit quite a bit of felt shock at the shot as they have very little if any "GIVE" to them...which is the very reason some of the old schoolers actually prefer Dacron based strings on their stickbows as they can actually "shoot softer" with such.

I know this...back before unknown yardage competitions and long before 3D speedbows and FastFlight became envogue?..my dacron strings on my competition wheelbows would become shot out in about a year...and i coud actually feel it as the string got shot out by reaching it's max stretch point?..there was no "give" left in the string and the bow would start coming home with a much harsher feel to it...then replacing it with a fresh new string (that would take upwards of 100-200 shots to stretch and settle in) felt almost like getting a new bow..as the string had some "give" to it again.

Lately?...especially with stickbows?..i think anything extreme usually winds up an extremely poor choice...as i've been shooting longbows equipped with everything from 8strand astro-flight too 12 strand angel majesty and 10strand D-10 and guess what?..the best string i think i have right now is the 14strand FastFlight Spectra that came with my 33# Falco as "The Twists" can play a role in producing "give" as well..especially with a higher strand count..and for bonus points?...somehow?..for some reason?...the string just feels more stable at the shot..with a nice cushion of give at the end..and i might also note the following...

Some complain that skinny strings yeild a dirty release and cut into their glove/tab...and they do...but then others from the "yea but dept." say..."well then just use thicker serving"...which makes me chuckle cause get this..now you have an "extremely skinny string" with?...and extremely heavy center-serving...which just added a ton of weight in the worst place possible..the middle of the string...and you just created the most extreme abortion of an extremely skinny string with a big blob of center-serving that's about as un-stable a string as you could dream up with very little give (if any) but lots of potential for stretch and creep...congratulations...

you just designed the worlds worst string...now tell me how i'm all wet and how it's really quiet cause..

the rock hard, tight, skinny loops are padded. :laugh:

I've grown to loath "skinny strings"...they make...

1. tuning a nightmare

2. bows loud and harsh at the shot.

3. and steal "forgiveness" from the general set-up.

and all for what?...a 3-5fps gain?...give the man a cigar then buy'im a compound. :laugh:

I'm going with Goldy Locks on string choice...not to big..but definantly not to small. :laugh:

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

This debate occured a few years ago in the FITA community. The question was whether going down to a skinny, 12 strand string, would make it easier to shoot 90 meters. FITA shooters considered 12 as skinny. In the end, it was concluded that the loss of control outweighed the increase in speed. Now FITA shooters take long shots, 90, 70, 50 and 30 meters. Maybe the twitchiness is not a big issue at the shorter distances that tradition archers normally shoot. FITA shooters tend to use lighter and pricier arrows to get speed, such as X10, ACE or McKinney II. The combination of a lighter arrow and standard (build to recommended spec on BCY website) string strand count seems to be the way that FITA folks are going. I personally, do not know any FITA shooters using skinny strings, and that is the crowd that I shoot with. I was thinking about it a few years ago when because I wanted to get my point on the target at 90 meters. I followed the debate and finally decided that it was best to stay with the 16 strand strings I was using. I now have Border HEX6 limbs and have enough speed to get my point on the target.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> This debate occured a few years ago in the FITA community. The question was whether going down to a skinny, 12 strand string, would make it easier to shoot 90 meters. FITA shooters considered 12 as skinny. In the end, it was concluded that the loss of control outweighed the increase in speed. Now FITA shooters take long shots, 90, 70, 50 and 30 meters. Maybe the twitchiness is not a big issue at the shorter distances that tradition archers normally shoot. FITA shooters tend to use lighter and pricier arrows to get speed, such as X10, ACE or McKinney II. The combination of a lighter arrow and standard (build to recommended spec on BCY website) string strand count seems to be the way that FITA folks are going. I personally, do not know any FITA shooters using skinny strings, and that is the crowd that I shoot with. I was thinking about it a few years ago when because I wanted to get my point on the target at 90 meters. I followed the debate and finally decided that it was best to stay with the 16 strand strings I was using. I now have Border HEX6 limbs and have enough speed to get my point on the target.


Good points Hank...and concurs with my analogy of the situation whereby just like with sportscars?..folks seem to all to easily get all tunnel visioned when it comes to "performance" to the point that they completely and utterly overlook..

"The Driveability Factor"

just like the circle of highly accomplished sportbike riders i usta hang with...where the dorky greenhorn always wants to ask..

"How fast Will It Go?"...

the seasoned vet is more concerned with...

"Hows it Handle".


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Do you really get a speed boost from the skinny string??


Depends. Normally not a huge gain--few fps.



> I've been shooting an 18 strand string on it, want to try 8 strand. I've heard also that less strands may increase string stretch. SO......


Depending on the material, 18 strands could be overkill...or it might not be. 18 strands of 450+ would be huge. 18 strands of 8190 wouldn't. Low strand count strings do stretch and creep more. I don't know of any situation where stretch is a good thing, unless you are shooting an old bow. People over-build strings--i.e. 14 strands of Dynaflight '97 on a 40# bow--to get rid of stretch.



> 1. Is there a better material for skinny strings with little stretch?


Yes. 8190 is a very small diameter strand, so you can get a fairly "skinny" string without going too low in strand count.




> 2. Is there anybody who makes a good endless loop skinny string?


I don't know of anyone that specializes in skinny endless strings, but making an endless string isn't rocket science. 



> 3. What kind of serving are you using to fatten up the string so the nock fits?


I like 62XS or Halo. You can double serve, do a serving and a half (double serve the top half), or just wrap the nock point with dental floss to get the fit you want.



> 4. Does it matter if it's endless loop or flemish twist?


Not really. It's easy to pad the loops in a flemish string, but there are no big differences if both are made equally well.



> 5. What are the CONS of a skinny string?


If you go too skinny you get more stretch, more creep, less duribility, less stability.



> 6. OR... is this skinny string stuff all a bunch of hype???


IMO some of it is. I've seen claims that I haven't been able to repeat, and nobody that I know who knows their stuff has been able to repeat it. Things like having to go up two spine groups, picking up extra draw weight, etc.



> ...who makes a good skinny string that doesn't creep?


Nobody. Doesn't matter how good you are, you can't change the characteristics of the string material. Some will creep less than others, but a low strand count will creep more than a moderate or high strand count.

This is nothing new--Dan Quillian promoted "skinny" strings back when 450+ was still 450 Premium...some....18 or so years ago? I don't know of any serious tournament archers that use or advocate "skinny" strings.

Gotta' love those "preemptive strikes"--lol. I just consider the source.

You probably can learn from the FITA guys--especially if you plan to shoot FITA. I'm a hunter and 3-D shooter myself, although I have and do make strings for all types of archers, and have for close to 20 years now. I also have an excellent working relationship with the top bowstring material manufacturer in the world.

I'd never consider myself to be an "expert" though. Experts do things like copy the works of others and put it into book form and argue with people like Rick McKinney and the Hoyt owners manual. :set1_rolf2:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I use 12 to 16 strand fast flight / D97 Flemish strings and I am very pleased with the performance


----------



## 05allegiance (Sep 11, 2008)

Personally on my FITA field spot 3D indoor outdoor treestand ground stalk rig i have always gone with the flamisch perty one with poofs.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Interestingly, i added about 4 inches of. 018 serving under my arrow nock location, to'serve'  as a second nock locator and to make it fatter for my fingers, and the additional weight, with 8 gpp of arrow and silencers already installed... couldn't measure it with my chronograph.... .


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

UDS, if you don't mind I'd like to know what you hear from the FITA guys, and your own experience if you decide to do your own tinkering.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

The last time this issue came up here, Bender did pose the question over in FITA and got some good answers and explanations and considerations: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1138614&highlight=skinny+strings

As for me, I find the discussion is all over the map at times more here in Trad than there. I do know that the notion above that a 14-strand D97 is supposedly "overbuilt" for 40# is pretty off-base on the subject if we're comparing recommendations.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

I have only come across one bow that had a hard time with anything but a skinny string, every other bow I have works perfectly well with B55 and I don't see the need to change. But as I said I have one recurve that simply does not shoot well with anything but a skinny string.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

These type conversations usually turn into a brawl, and I try to stay out of them.

I'll offer the following, and then I'm out of it:

Lateral stability has always been a concern with low strand count strings, but there are ways to make the strings stable. 
Start with a suitable material, and properly construct & condition them, and they will be as stable as any other string.
There's a whole lot more to that construction & conditioning than you would normally imagine.

Different materials will require more strands. The only two materials I've seen work well below 8 strands were S4, and 450+, 
but they are both large strands, and at 6 strands are equal to about 10 strands of D10.

Bad nock fit, and finger hang due to to small serving size means the string wasn't built properly.
Adding strands back to the center serving area for size adds weight back, but there are other much more functional & lighter weight ways of doing it.

It can be done, but it has to be done right.

Rick


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Sanford said:


> The last time this issue came up here, Bender did pose the question over in FITA and got some good answers and explanations and considerations: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1138614&highlight=skinny+strings
> 
> As for me, I find the discussion is all over the map at times more here in Trad than there. I do know that the notion above that a 14-strand D97 is supposedly "overbuilt" for 40# is pretty off-base on the subject if we're comparing recommendations.


With regard to the very good thread referenced above.

I believe that JM Vargas went back to thicker strings, as he alluded he might.

As far as the main contributors to the thread,

Limbwalker is 2004 Olympian John Magera
Vittorio is Italian coach Vittorio Frangilli, father of Michele Frangilli (they co-authored the well known book "The Heretic Archer".

These guys know there stuff.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I do know that the notion above that a 14-strand D97 is supposedly "overbuilt" for 40# is pretty off-base on the subject if we're comparing recommendations.


Depends on whose recommendations you are comparing, and what the string will be used for. For hunting and 3-D, I know it's not off base at all. 

For FITA or Olympic style archery, it may be preferred by some, although it's a non-issue in my experience--the serious FITA/Olympic style shooters I've made strings for use 8125, 8190, or Angel Majesty, not Dynaflight '97.

:focus: 'Course the point was stretch, or lack thereof. I know 14 strands of Dynaflight '97 will have practically none on a 40# bow. If stretch is a good thing, 14 strands of Dynaflight on a 40# bow isn't good.

Surprised it took you so long to find something to disagree with me on. Congrats. :clap2:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR, I long since quite agreeing or disagreeing with you on an individual basis or taking your silly bait you have been dropping lately. Also, I've long since quit to worry what your so called serious shooters do after reading so much your "all the serious shooters I know" do this stuff. Fact is, you merely make assumptions only to have to reverse at a later date. Matter of fact, seems string topics here serve you nothing more than to bring out your vintage whines. I know, you have made 10,000 strings - figured I say it for you and save you the time.  Again, if you want to call a 14 strand D97 "overbuilt", you have your reason, but that is just your opinion and nothing more.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Sanford, you are more than welcome to ignore any and all of my posts. 

Gosh, I feel like I need a restraining order. I've taken you to the woodshed so many times that it's just getting boring. No idea why you feel the constant need to attack me in third person, after I have the audacity to voice a different opinon or state actual facts that are contrary to your chosen diety. Do you get paid, or do you just take the bullets out of blind admiration and unwavering devotion?

I would dissect and correct your fallicy-laden post, but I have better things to do at the moment, like...well, pretty much anything.

You are great for comic relief, even though you come across as a bit :loco: :crazy: :set1_rolf2: :set1_applaud:

Be honest--did you steal the idea for your "character" from Lilly Tomlin? I bet you have the giant high-chair and all, don't you? :crybaby2: :binkybaby:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I like Big Strings and i can not lie,
and all you other brothers cannot deny,
when a string draws back with a itty bitty waist,
and sticks that fat serving in you face,
YOU GET STRUNG! :laugh:


sorry...i dunno why i posted that. :bolt:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> I like Big Strings and i can not lie,
> and all you other brothers cannot deny,
> when a string draws back with a itty bitty waist,
> and sticks that fat serving in you face,
> ...


LOL....Niiiiiice! I appreciated it :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> I like Big Strings and i can not lie,
> and all you other brothers cannot deny,
> when a string draws back with a itty bitty waist,
> and sticks that fat serving in you face,
> ...


Thank you Jinks.


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

JINKSTER said:


> I like Big Strings and i can not lie,
> and all you other brothers cannot deny,
> when a string draws back with a itty bitty waist,
> and sticks that fat serving in you face,
> ...


about sums it up lol


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> I like Big Strings and i can not lie,
> and all you other brothers cannot deny,
> when a string draws back with a itty bitty waist,
> and sticks that fat serving in you face,
> ...


Heh Heh Bill. 

I like thin, with a little thick thrown in at the right places. IF ya know what I mean. :wink:

Rick


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I like my strings of either FF+ or 8125G to be 16-20st depending on nock fit with .019 Halo

I've played with skinny strings and I don't like them. Never tuned as well, less consistent horizontal impact point. The skinny ones also required a stiffer spine and I'd prefer to keep my arrows as light as possible.

-Grant


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I believe that JM Vargas went back to thicker strings, as he alluded he might.
> 
> As far as the main contributors to the thread,
> 
> ...


Yeah, I do believe that if any real benefit of less than normal strand count were to be had, we would find such the norm and not the exception.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> ...less than normal strand count...


What is "normal"?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Some test norms:

CREEP TEST REPORT

This simple rest is carried out by attaching a 100 lb square weight to a finished 55 inch bowstring and hanging the string with the weight attached, from a rigid hook. Using a setsquare, a horizontal line is drawn on a paper directly behind the bottom of the weight. At regular intervals (approximately every 14 days) the position of the weight is checked and if it is lower than previously, another line is drawn below the previous ones. The distance between the two marks is the amount of creep.

Number Total Creep in Inches After:

Product - Strands	1Hr 1wk 4wks 6wks 12wks 24wks

450 Plus 14 1/16 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8

S-4 12 1/8 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4

Formula 8125 20 1/8 3/16 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4

Dyna FLIGHT 97 16 1/8 3/16 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4

D75 16 1/8 3/16 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4

Fast Flight® 20 3/16 5/16 3/8 9/16 9/16 5/8

Can't fix the scramble, but the numbers match per column. 16 strands of D97 has relatively good creep going on initially and over time (which implies some good stretch, and which really seems to be what is measured) at 100# of static force. 14-strand I'm sure is still out of the "overbuilt" category is that's your only criteria.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Interesting data Sanford! It would have been interesting if they had something that controlled for finished string diameter. I know it varies with color a bit, but in my experience, it seems like the 8125g and FF+ are significantly different in thickness when it comes to the finished string. A 16 strand 8125g string I made using black and black/grey, was still slightly tighter in the nock, with the same serving, as an 18 strand FF+ string using black and bronze. That said, I don't know if adding two strands is going to change behavior dramatically. The FF+ shoots fine, and i'm going to keep it until it's 'creeped out', but since figuring out that my strings were creeping with regular use, I've started to unstring my bow more often, so as to postpone premature string changing. Reminds me, I wanted to make an 8190 and try that out...


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I thought the question was obvious--that's why I used the quote. What is a "normal" *strand count *for a string?

That test is interesting, but is lacking in a lot of information. It doesn't differentiate between creep and stretch, which are two totally different characteristics. It doesn't say if the string was measured under AMO specs (or not), was it pre-stretched, was it endless or flemish, etc. 

Another big variable is temperature. The 100% Dyneema materials are more vunerable to higher temps vs. materials with Vectran. No biggie if you only shoot indoors, can be a factor if you shoot outside.



> 16 strands of D97 has relatively good creep going on initially and over time (*which implies some good stretch*, and which really seems to be what is measured) at 100# of static force.


How does it imply "good stretch"? What is "good stretch"? Bowstring manufacturers are constantly striving to develop materials with less stretch--why is that if stretch is good?

There's no measurement of stretch whatsoever. Stretch is elongation that recovers. Creep is elongation that is permenant. Without removing the weight and measuring the retraction, you have no idea if the elongation is stretch or creep...and without knowing if the string was pre-stretched, you don't know how much of the elongation was simply slack from making the string.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Good points LBR.... 

I know when I do a Flemish, from the point of the last splice to the end of the initial 'pre-stretch', (and I '' it because some say that you can't pre-stretch it because that has to be done untwisted, but you probably know what I mean,) I can see as much as 2" of initial 'creep', most of which is actually simply letting the fibers squeeze together and settle in through the wax. The material itself isn't stretching that much. Most of that happens simply by me hanging on it.

It would be more interesting if the strings actually became more elastic in the technical definition of stretch vs. creep.

This is actually proving to be interesting, even if you guys have some flirting to work through....


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Barney, it is a very simplistic test for sure. Not sure if you could tease out the initial stretch (assuming, as you say, some is not just settling) from the elongation over time. The cumulative values shown are I assume in both. I think the only real value in the test is with outliers. Those that don't act relatively similar to the others. What some of this tells us is that for relatively "normal" (suggested strand counts give or take a few) strand count, the addition in math of all the beans doesn't make to high a hill of beans - unless, the numbers grow more with time and usage for a given strand count.

The test in question was from BCY Fibers from way back. I have it in Word format only and the meat of it didn't copy over very good. Here's a cut and paste of whole enchilada: 

BCY, Inc.

Fibers Division
50 McDermott Road, No. Haven. CT 06473 January 2000
e-mail [email protected]
web site: www.bcyfibers.com

CREEP TEST REPORT

This simple rest is carried out by attaching a 100 lb square weight to a finished 55 inch bowstring and hanging the string with the weight attached, from a rigid hook. Using a setsquare, a horizontal line is drawn on a paper directly behind the bottom of the weight. At regular intervals (approximately every 14 days) the position of the weight is checked and if it is lower than previously, another line is drawn below the previous ones. The distance between the two marks is the amount of creep.

Number Total Creep in Inches After:
Product of Strands	1Hr 1wk 4wks 6wks 12wks 24wks

450 Plus 14 1/16 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8

S-4 12 1/8 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4

Formula 8125 20 1/8 3/16 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4

Dyna FLIGHT 97 16 1/8 3/16 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4

D75 16 1/8 3/16 3/16 1/4 1/4 1/4

Fast Flight® 20 3/16 5/16 3/8 9/16 9/16 5/8


Notes:	1) All tests are carried out at inside temperatures varying from 45 degree F to 85 degree F. It is known that the amount of creep will increase at higher temperature levels.
2) The paper behind the weight is permanently attached to the wall behind the weight to eliminate any possibility of errors which could occur if it was removed and replaced.
3) The 100 lb weight is lowered into position slowly and once the string is holding the total weight, a starting mark is immediately made.


CYCLE DRAW BOW TEST

Breaking
Number Strength Cycles
Pruduct of Strands Per Strand to Failure
Test Conditions
450 Plus 14 155 lbs 648,000 Hoyt Super Slam Fast Flite 
#2 E Wheels 28” Draw
S-4 12 160 lbs 220,000 57 lb. Draw weight
32 draw cycles/min.
DynaFLIGHT 97 16 125 lbs 850,000

Formula 8125 20 120 lbs 800,300

Fast Flight® 20 95 lbs 755,000

D75 – Not tested but results will be similar to DynaFlight 97




® Registered trademark of Brownell & Co.


I don't worry about the flirt, much. Not long ago, "stability" was just a figment of our imagination too, cuz someone had done seen it was just hogwash per a video he had seen. Then, we didn't know squat about strings, either. Now, it's part of everyone's vocabulary it seems. Funny how that works  Just the way of the Internet it seems to be at times.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I can see as much as 2" of initial 'creep', most of which is actually simply letting the fibers squeeze together and settle in through the wax. The material itself isn't stretching that much.


Exactly, which brings up yet another variable--the amount of wax on the material. For a true test, the wax would have to be stripped from it.



> It would be more interesting if the strings actually became more elastic in the technical definition of stretch vs. creep.


Not sure what you mean here? The materials don't gain elasticity as far as I can tell. 



> even if you guys have some flirting to work through....


Lol--there's definately a man-crush going on  :hug:, but it has nothing to do with me.......ukey: :yuck:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Being fairly new to recurves/longbows after switching to wheelbows in 1976, I have a question regarding strings…….

Are traditional bows easier or harder on strings? Obviously, this question would only pertain to materials that could be intelligently used on both types of bows.

I automatically "supposed" that compound were much harder on strings than trad bows, but my lack of experience with strings for trad bows has me wondering after reading posts on the subject.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> The test in question was from BCY Fibers from way back.


Thought so... WAY back, and it was done in relation to compound bows, so the "normal" strand count displayed in the test is for compounds...which generally get a higher strand count due to the amount of stress and shock incurred. 

At least this time the author gets the credit...eventually. Quite unlike when someone tried to "educate" me about Chek-Mate bows using information copied from my own site...with some embellishments thrown in for good measure...that was hilarious...


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Thought so... WAY back, and it was done in relation to compound bows, so the "normal" strand count displayed in the test is for compounds...which generally get a higher strand count due to the amount of stress and shock incurred.
> 
> At least this time the author gets the credit...eventually. Quite unlike when someone tried to "educate" me about Chek-Mate bows using information copied from my own site...with some embellishments thrown in for good measure...that was hilarious...


It was done with a little old 100# weight. Physics is physics, whether you shoot a compound, shoot in the woods, or shoot 3D, or shoot Oly. If that fact that "compound" was mentioned in test somewhere negates it all for you, so so....  Fact will always remain. A 14-strand D97 for a 40# bow is about as generic as one can get. Not my definition of "overbuilt". Sorry, you can get off the floor now.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Are traditional bows easier or harder on strings?


Generally speaking, easier--for a few reasons. Compounds put a lot more shock and stress on a string; the draw weights are generally heavier, and the arrow weights are generally a lot lighter. 

That's why compound bows get much higher strand count strings.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

So, again...what's a "normal" strand count, per your position of authority on the matter?


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

LBR said:


> Generally speaking, easier--for a few reasons. Compounds put a lot more shock and stress on a string; the draw weights are generally heavier, and the arrow weights are generally a lot lighter.
> 
> That's why compound bows get much higher strand count strings.


This is what I had in mind, but wanted to make sure prior to my next set of questions, which I will bring up in a new thread as to not detour this thread too much. 

Thanks…..


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> ...as to not detour this thread too much.


Nahh--that got taken care of a while back.

Still waiting on to hear what is "normal" for a traditional bow string.


----------



## Eldermike (Mar 24, 2009)

I build my own strings and also for some others including a couple of local shops. I don't actually promote that as I sort of agreed to do this without understanding the time factor involved . I have issues with saying the word no.
However, I do build light strings for my bows, I pad loops and double serve for nock fit. But it's more of an economic thing to me. When I build for other people I use the suggested materials and follow the suggested strand counts. For my part that covers my backside.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

LBR said:


> Not sure what you mean here? The materials don't gain elasticity as far as I can tell.


I wouldn't have thought so, maybe I misunderstood your comment.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

You may have to remind me--was this concerning the difference in stretch and creep? If so, this may help.

Strech is elongation that recovers, like a rubber band. Creep is elongation that doesn't recover--like pulling taffy or chewing gum.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I wouldn't have thought so, maybe I misunderstood your comment.


Barney, elasticity will diminish. At what rate and how much is more the question??? Same as set in a bow decreases draw weight.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Barney, elasticity will diminish.


What is this based on?



> the damage of creep in the string is permanently lost elasticity


That is incorrect. A lot of creep, especially initial creep, is simply slack in the material or manufacture of the string being reduced.

Still curious to hear your definition of "normal" when it comes to strand count. You seemed very sure of yourself earlier, so I figured you would be ready with an answer.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> What is this based on?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll entertain you for one today. It's high school physics. Sorry, no other answer to be had.

On the definition of normal. Well, we all know that is just a ploy of yours to get into the old "custom" string debate. You know, why one can buy as good a string off e-bay for $12, shipping included, pick my colors and all, but to get a "real custom", one needs to pay you $18? If you have been building strings as long as you have and need me or anyone else to explain the parameters between normal, abnormal, extremes... etc.... well, again, you are more than like just baiting for an argument over a few strands here or there difference, which we all know what that's worth.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

LBR said:


> You may have to remind me--was this concerning the difference in stretch and creep? If so, this may help.
> 
> Strech is elongation that recovers, like a rubber band. Creep is elongation that doesn't recover--like pulling taffy or chewing gum.


Yes, and yes. 

In reference to that test, I think the 100 pound weight might be a valid load, particularly for heavy bows (I was recently reminded that if the bow is heavy, you can't make a string for it based on the finished length without tension when you're using Dacron) though if we really wanted to make it more comprehensive, we would either have variables in weight, or variables in strand count. However, add a dimension, and the test samples increase exponentially. What that test did was show what we most likely would call creep, I would think. We don't have any control for wax settling, but a 300 # pre-stretch would likely squeeze out most of that, wouldn't it?

Hypothetically, what would be a better test?

I guess that would require the question, testing for what? Assuming we're talking actual fiber creep, I would suggest...

A variety of endless loop strings (without additional wax, or stripped of wax as you suggested)....

made to a closest 'reference' diameter possible (say whatever lets you put a .021 serving on an Easton S-nock with whatever is considered an 'ideal' nock tightness, defined by how much weight is required to pull the nock off the string). This at least gives us an Apples to Apples comparison between different types of strings, since, it seems, that the recommended strand counts seem to result in a highly varying string diameter (at least in my experience between 8125g, Fast Flight Plus, and B-50, though much of that may be on Brownell, since 8125g's 18 strand and 8190's 24 strand recommendations seem pretty consistent, so far as I could tell.
Made to the 'recommended' strand count, just to have a sanctioned reference. I say 'recommended' in '' because from what I can recall on the string material manufacturer's websites is that they're talking primarily about nock fit. They state that the fibers can handle more stress than any bow will likely ever produce (at least BCY does), but kind of wiggle out of getting into using less fibers to try to speed things up. I'm guessing that they don't want to get into it, and sure don't want the liability if a mishap occurs when somebody tries to push the envelope, but that's only my speculation.
Made in 2 strand increments (or simply as many strand count increments that give us, say 6 samples) between 25% of the reference diameter to the 'reference' diameter. For example, if the reference diameter on FF+ is 20 strands, have sample strings from 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 strands. We could scale that back to 8,12,16...
on all strings, have a fixed rate of twist, or perhaps even no twist, to minimize effects due to lateral compression between the fibers.

Thoughts?

This test sounds interesting, but side from building the strings, it would take a really long time to collect the data...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Barney, elasticity will diminish. At what rate and how much is more the question???


Really? That is interesting. If so, it would beg a question of, does this compensate for the extra twists put into the string to compensate for the string creep? Maybe we could make a petition for BCY to do that experiment!



> Same as set in a bow decreases draw weight.


Can you explain this? I don't understand.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> It's high school physics. Sorry, no other answer to be had.


Of course it is. I remember now--it was in my "Bow Strings 101" class. How silly of me to forget.



> On the definition of normal.


Sure was a long drawn out way of saying "I don't know". Amazing that it took you that long to come up with nothing. Couldn't find a site to "borrow" from huh?



> Well, we all know that is just a ploy of yours to get into the old "custom" string debate.


Lol--"Karnack" died with Johnny Carson. The hat isn't working for you at all. Dead wrong as usual. Just who is "we"?

I'm plenty busy, thanks--unlike some folks, I have no need to shill my wares on sites I don't sponsor.




> If you have been building strings as long as you have and need me or anyone else to explain the parameters between normal, abnormal, extremes...


I have much more honest and reliable sources who don't plagerize web site information and pretend it's their own...but thanks anyway. Love the "IF"--lol. Learned the pre-emptive strike as well as the plagerizing and condescending attitude very well. I bet you are the teacher's pet. 

I was just curious to know if you knew the answer--obviously you don't, so I'll answer it for you.

"Normal" depends on several variables. If you are an Olympic or FITA shooter, then 18-22 strands of 8125 on a 30# bow is "normal". If you are a 3-D shooter or hunter, then 12-16 strands of the same material on a 55# bow is "normal". If you are a flight shooter, then 6-8 strands of 8125 could be considered "normal". None of these are extreme or outside common parameters. You or I don't define "normal"--the situation and circumstances do. It's really quite simple--much easier than High School Physics.



> I'll entertain you for one today.


You certainly are entertaining--just not the way you want to be.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Really? That is interesting. If so, it would beg a question of, does this compensate for the extra twists put into the string to compensate for the string creep? Maybe we could make a petition for BCY to do that experiment!
> 
> 
> Can you explain this? I don't understand.


Barney, all the settle in the string, wax, or twist withstanding, the creep, from the standpoint of the fiber, is permanent elongation in the bonds. If a piece of elastic rubber has 200% stretch, static length v. full elongation, but after a few pulls the static length is now longer (creep), the elongation won't necessarily become more, it will stay the same, but the stretch, the distance between static and full elongation will be less. Try it with a rubber band that is new and one that is worn out - it's static length gets longer but it loses elastic power.

In a bow, set is permanent crush of the wood fibers. Same principle. They can no longer contribute to elastic power and the static shape of the bow changes.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> What that test did was show what we most likely would call creep, I would think.


Yes, to a point--but, as I noted, without removing the weight and measuring the amount of contraction, you don't know how much of the elongation was creep and how much was stretch.



> Hypothetically, what would be a better test?


Depends on what you are checking for. Generally speaking though, actually shooting the string on a bow and keeping a record. Just removing the weight and measureing the retraction would have told us more in the test noted.



> ...what I can recall on the string material manufacturer's websites is that they're talking primarily about nock fit.


I think it's more "cya". BCY offers several different sizes and types of serving so you can get a good nock fit with a variety of materials and strand counts.



> Thoughts?


It would be interesting, but would it matter? Not likely. You'd still have people who can't be stand to be proven wrong who will argue with any amount of data and experience--I've seen arguments with Olympian Rick McKinney and the Hoyt Owner's Manual (that was hilarious). Rather than thank you for sharing the information, your credentials will be called into question (while in other cases saying credentials don't matter) and/or the information will be used and no credit given to the author. Believe me, I've experienced all this and more.

I know several folks who have done tons of research and they won't bother posting about it for the very reasons I stated. Guess they are smarter than me--I keep trying to put out honest and accurate information for those who are interested.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> I'll entertain you for one today. It's high school physics. Sorry, no other answer to be had.


I'm not familiar with that behavior. Or maybe I just forgot it. I have to say, I don't remember it in high school physics.... little bit of web surfing hasn't shown me anything resembling common english. Closest thing I found is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_(physics)

If I'm getting what I think you're implying, are you saying that the microscopic structure is deformed, and as such, can no longer accommodate as much recoverable elongation? Can you point me to the technical part which says as much, or was what I found actually saying that? I have to admit, this leaves me feeling intellectually inadequate 


> On the definition of normal. Well, we all know that is just a ploy of yours to get into the old "custom" string debate. You know, why one can buy as good a string off e-bay for $12, shipping included, pick my colors and all, but to get a "real custom", one needs to pay you $18? If you have been building strings as long as you have and need me or anyone else to explain the parameters between normal, abnormal, extremes... etc.... well, again, you are more than like just baiting for an argument over a few strands here or there difference, which we all know what that's worth.


I would offer that your definition of normal is that which allows you to get a good nock fit without taking extensive effort to build up the string beyond it's constructed diameter, pretty much what the string manufacturers put forth, and I'm good with that.

To entertain the tangent of a $12 string vs. an $18 string, I can't say that I'd begrudge the extra $6. Maybe i'm excessively slow, or stupidly anal, but I can't build a string that i am happy with, if only from a workmanship standpoint, in less than an hour. I know many people build them faster, and supposedly I've read that it shouldn't take much more than 20 minutes. I guess if you have one of those big machines with winders, that possible. If I can get a $12 string that really is as good or better, I'd like to try it. Seriously, let me know. i'll buy one just to see. But, as somebody who provides custom strings to a local shop, I have to say that after you cover the cost of materials (I think it works out to be about $4 or so with the faster materials and serving, and an 11% excise tax, and pricing them so that the shop can mark them up enough to make it worth their time to deal with the customer, I think I make close to minimum wage as _gross_ profit. It's work I like doing, on a limited basis, but even at $20 a string, or even $25, I don't consider it priced excessively, particularly if you've got somebody backing up the product with additional service or recommendations. Heck, the shop sells them for $35, and the customers are actually happy about it. The $12 strings you're referencing might be great, but I've seen lots of $20 strings that are mass produced, and I can't say that _I_ would want them, and considering that I would buy a string for a bow maybe once every two years, would certainly pay a little more for something that I simply appreciated. Whether there's a performance gain, entirely different issue.

Maybe I took that too personally, in which case, sorry for the derail .


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Barney, I have ordered many strings from this guy on ebay, and as far as I know and can tell, he builds the old fashion way, one at a time: stilldub
It is $8 and he ships within a day or two FREE SHIPPING - never had a length or build issue that had to be redone. I remember ordering one on a Friday and still having it by Monday morning. He was recommended here a few years back, and I have always referred folks to him - all excellent build stings. He's only Dacron, but just one example of what's out there, though.

P.S.: I updated his ebay link to his store.

I think your Wikipedia link is more on plasticity. Not out of the ballpark, but maybe try "elasticity". There is a bit of merit to your thought on gaining some elasticity as the bonds are broken or damaged - the material becomes weaker, though any extra give due to that is then much weaker. It's all relative to the material in question, though.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Barny, when you see your string getting fuzzy, that is the fibers breaking down. That's material damage. 



> Maybe I took that too personally, in which case, sorry for the derail


Don't take it personally. It was meant for me and me alone--just a sad attempt at an insult. Nevermind the insult to other string makers--collateral damage is of no concern to some. 

You can buy mass-produced machine-made strings in bulk for cheap--I haven't checked lately, but not too many years ago I could get them for less than $5 each. Amazing how anyone who makes custom strings stays in business, since there's really no difference....lol. 

Some people may shoot just as well with the $5 string as with a $35 string (I've seen "custom" endless strings sell for that price). Some people think "Mad Dog 20/20" is as good as any wine on the market too--lol. Just have to consider the source.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Maybe I took that too personally, in which case, sorry for the derail .


No derail. Don't take it personal. I am in the same boat. I build longbows and sell through a local shop on consignment. When trying to set my price-point, initially, the owner didn't think I would ever get to sell any at 3x the price of the Ragims and other mass produced bows he can bring in. To the contrary. I don't sell as many as he sell $100 bows, but I sell what I make and hang on the shelf, no problem. There are just different markets, some are smaller and more captive and some are larger and more competitive. Any seller worth their salt and consideration for their time and effort is going to try to capitalize the best he can given the market. Consumers are going to be just the same. My point is that the product doesn't have to change or to be different no matter any hype to the contrary.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> My point is that the product doesn't change no matter any hype to the contrary.


So, you are admitting your bows are no better than the Ragims or Samicks at 1/3 the price of yours? Wow...and I was getting chastised over a few bucks!

Strings are strings, bows are bows, arrows are arrows...who woulda' thunk it?

:set1_thinking:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Thanks sanford. Ordered one. Looking forward to seeing what comes 

I do, though, think you two shoud get a room :teeth:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Like I said earlier...there's a definate man-crush going on, but it has nothing to do with me.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Thanks sanford. Ordered one. Looking forward to seeing what comes
> 
> I do, though, think you two shoud get a room :teeth:


Great! They are good strings.

Room for us? No, I'm not the one he really wants an audience with  You would have to have been here a few years back to be able to read into his bait he's been dropping lately to understand the depth of that. I don't really have a problem with him. I recently checked his website and was honored to find he now makes suggestions and explains things he learned here and from those he liked to ague with on string bundle - even pays homage to one with an old gripe he had about strings and toasters. There's a fixation going on, but it ain't with me  Sometimes in arguing, folks just learn things.

Sorry to derail, just some explanation on all the nonesense.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Strings are strings, bows are bows, arrows are arrows...who woulda' thunk it?
> 
> :set1_thinking:


Sure, there are some well constructed strings and there are some poorly constructed strings, but a spool of BCY is the same no matter which hands it's in. Two well constructed strings are identical.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I don't really have a problem with him.


Wow--really? Seems you have had a "problem" with me for quite a while, but it really got bad when I called you out for plagerizing information from my web site--to me! That was fodder for an episode of "World's Dumbest".



> ...he now makes suggestions and explains things he learned here and from those he liked to ague with on string bundle


Like I said, you are no mind reader. Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Don't have a clue? No problem--just make it up as you go along! 

What I've learned--and I have learned a lot from others--was from people I know and trust to know what they are talking about. Not someone who can't even plagerize the definition of "Fast Flight" correctly.



> ...just some explanation on all the nonesense.


Just making it up as you go along. Funny how you don't mention when you tried to "school" me on Chek-Mate bows using information pretty much copied and pasted from my site when I was a dealer...with your own "embellishments" that were as lacking in fact as your posts here.




> Sure, there are some well constructed strings and there are some poorly constructed strings, but a spool of BCY is the same no matter which hands it's in. Two well constructed strings are identical.


Lol--crawfish much? Bows are made with the same basic materials--glass, wood, glue. Nobody said anything about the material changing--more making it up as you go along. Where's that "hype" you were talking about? Same place as your definition of "normal"?



> even pays homage to one with an old gripe he had about strings and toasters


You sure have a twisted definition of "paying homage"--but again, just make it up as you go along. That is the same basic statement you are trying to crawfish out of now. 

"Strings are like toasters"--meant to mean that one string is like the next--you get the same thing regardless of where you get it. Just shows the ignorance of whoever believes such tripe. It's the same as saying "bows are like toasters" or "arrows are like toasters" or "broadheads are like toasters", etc.

So, which is it? Your bows are no better than a Ragim at 1/3 the price, or? Just keep on digging--I'm happy to keep handing you a bigger shovel.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Come to think of it, if we could get this in person, we could have a really good reality show...

Otherwise, I've got something useful out of this thread, so now I leave it


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Come to think of it, if we could get this in person, we could have a really good reality show...
> 
> Otherwise, I've got something useful out of this thread, so now I leave it


Not sure it would make a whole season. Pretty soon, the mods are going to boot us both from the show  I am back to archery for the remainder.


----------

