# Falco Trophy Carbon Review



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Below are pictures of the bow. You can see the semi pistol style grip. The last picture shows me with the bow which will give you an idea of how long it is compared to me at 6'4" (also notice the impressive results of dieting and daily workouts). Don't ask me what the wood is. I let Falco choose since I like to let artisans do what they do best. I asked what they made it out of but they did not tell me. I need to send them another email. If any of you wood guys recognize the wood, let me know.




























My immediate impression of the bow is that it shoots straight, in fact, the arrows go where they are suppose to go. I struggled for years with my Samick, having to execute my best form to get the arrows to go straight. I had also gone through three sets of arrows to try to find something that worked. This bow worked out of the box. The only thing stopping me from shooting better was some target acquisition panic issues that I am working through. When I executed my form, the arrow went where it is suppose to go. I am convinced that the Samick was holding me back. Any mistakes with Falco are on me. I am also able to shoot the bow vertically. I had finally conceded that I needed to cant the Samick.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Now, I am going to review quantitative measures including:

Draw force curve
Stored energy
First derivative of the draw force curve
Energy stored per weight on the fingers (a measure of the bows ability to store energy)
Speed
Efficiency

I am then going to compare the bow to the performance of my Samick SLB. That will show the improvement that I got in acquiring the new bow. Here is the basic performance data.



















Here are the charts showing the comparison to the SLB. It is easier to understand the performance charts above, by comparing to the lower performing Samick bow.



















The two bows turn out to be fairly comparable in size and weight. The Falco is a bit heavier at normal draw lengths. The Falco stores considerably more energy. 

The second set of curves are the key indicators of the performance differences between the two bows. The Samick required a 30 pound bow to get 40 pounds at my draw length. The Falco required at 35 pound bow to get 41 1/2 at my draw length. The reason why is seem on the smoothness curve where you can see significant stacking with the Samick. The Falco maintains a fairly steady pull, even to longer draw lengths. You can also see where the Falco stores considerably more weight per pounds on the finger, hitting 1.0 at 31 inches.

I will cover speed and efficiency in the next post.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

The follow is my chrono data.

Falco
493 gr average arrows
153 fps average
72% efficiency

Samick
503 gr average arrows
143 fps average.
54% efficiency

These are both D shaped longbows and my arrows are heavy. I did not get the speed that Falco thought, but I got more than the Samick. I am currently looking for lighter arrows. I have a couple of companies looking into what they can do at my draw length. Falco provide specs for sub 400 gr arrows that would work with my bow, but I do not want my arrow maker to be overseas where replacements could take awhile.

The Falco comes out why ahead in efficiency, in fact, it is in the upper echelon of bows that I have tested. My efficiency numbers will run lower by several percent from results using Hooter Shooters (like Blacky). 72% is a big number for anything I have measured. 

So, I am getting arrows that go where my execution dictates. The bow is faster and more efficient that what I was using, but, not quite as fast as I would like it to be. The speed is right on for IBO where I get about 27 yards point on with my high anchor. My lighter, faster arrows will be for NFAA distances. I am very pleased that now I feel I can move forward without questioning whether my equipment is holding me back. 
__________________


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Cool bow, congrats. And on the same day space/time inflation advancement is in the press?!

You and that rig look ready for some good shooting.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Glad you pleased with the Falco Hank...congrats! Bill.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

HDT,

It appears you have shot and measured state on many bows. What do you think of the 2 layers of carbon as applied?

Really nice data review!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

wseward said:


> HDT,
> 
> It appears you have shot and measured state on many bows. What do you think of the 2 layers of carbon as applied?
> 
> Really nice data review!


I really cannot tell because I have not shot, or tested, a similar bow without carbon. I know that carbon will give me a lighter limb which will increase efficiency. 72% is high for bows I have measured, and that is comparing to high end ILF bows.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

JINKSTER said:


> Glad you pleased with the Falco Hank...congrats! Bill.


Your experience with Falco had a positive influence on my choice.


----------



## JBowdelta (Jan 14, 2014)

Beautiful bow. Congrats!


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

Nice bow and a great job on analysis. Thinking I want one too, not sure I should say thanks. Lol. Gar


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Beautiful bow - but they cut the window on the wrong side......... I enjoy your reviews, thanks.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Nice thorough review. Efficiency differences are startling! Looks like a nice bow.

What are you looking for in arrows, and how fast do you go through them?


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Hey, Deer Crossing Archery "Hunter" arrows Full Length are 31 5/16" back of insert to throat of nock. They shoot great and seem to be durable.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Nice write up Hank, nice looking bow too...:thumbs_up

Can you please fill me in on the potential energy and the energy/weight on the fingers graphs? I'm fine with the draw force and first derivative graphs but not familiar with the other two, how are they calculated?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Easykeeper,

Potential energy is the proper term for what is typically called stored energy in archery. It is the energy that is stored in the bow when you draw it. The percent of the total potential energy that is converted into translational kinetic energy (yes, there is more than one kind of kinetic energy) is the efficiency of the bow. 

Energy per weight on the fingers tells you how much energy you are storing for the number of pounds you are holding, at every point in the draw cycle. I think of it as the bow's ability to store energy. State of the art is about 1.17. Above 1.0 is pretty good.

So you want two things: you want the bow to store the most energy possible for the weight you have to hold -- high energy per weight on the fingers; and, you want as much of that energy as possible sending the arrow down field -- high bow efficiency.

These factors are much more important than draw weight. Draw weight is used in the industry because it is easy to measure and can be used as an indicator of how much energy you are storing, i.e. a 40 pound bow probably stores more energy than a 35 pound bow.

Your body has to put energy into the bow to draw it. Therefore, a higher energy storing bow is harder to pull than a lower energy storing bow, even if the lower energy storing bow has a higher draw weight.

The most complicated chart is the smoothness curve. Was that one easier to understand? I did a post on a few forums explaining it. I may dig it up and link to it here.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Here are a couple of posts on the first derivative (Smoothness) curve. This was before I wrote my latest program so the curves are not as clean. I will have to redo it with better charts some day.

http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f127/first-derivative-dfc-what-does-mean-185456/

http://tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39233


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

A goof was discovered in my efficiency calculations by a poster over on Tradtalk. I had not entered potential energy numbers correctly. Here is the errata.

Response:

I rechecked and you are correct. Unfortunately, updating the potential energy is one of the tasks that I have not automated. I did not update the Samick data correctly when I redid the chrono numbers and I read potential energy from the adjoining column on the Falco. The actual efficiencies are:

Falco 61%
Samick 56%

This is using the raw data, rather than reading from the graph, for the potential energy.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Thanks Hank.


----------

