# Number of strands for a string



## eagle man (Jun 7, 2011)

So what is kind of the standard number of strands of BCY 8125 for 36-38#? I have been using 16 for years. Is that an issue? Just watched a video of Jake’s and he was recommending 18 strands. What kind of changes should I expect if I go to 18? 

Ted


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

I would say if you’ve been using 16 strands for years with no issue, don’t change. That said, a heavier string, a bit slower, arrows act a bit stiffer.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

*It comes down to whether you can knock your arrow. To thin and you will need thick serving and you might still run into a issue. 15-18 for modern materials. IMO.*


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

OP: try 18 strands. I think you will find it quieter and more stable than 16 strands. More "thump" and less "thwack" if that makes any sense. 

BCY recommends 18-20 for 8125. I'm also in the 36# to 38# otf range and 16 strands of 8125 is too loud and snappy for me. 18 strands 8125 is quieter and feels more solid. My understanding is that thinner strings are louder and less stable than thicker, but may be a fps or two faster. Stability is better than one or two fps imho. Center serving thread diameters come in many thicknesses to accommodate nock size.


----------



## eagle man (Jun 7, 2011)

I’ll have to try that. Thanks!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> OP: try 18 strands. I think you will find it quieter and more stable than 16 strands. More "thump" and less "thwack" if that makes any sense.
> 
> BCY recommends 18-20 for 8125. I'm also in the 36# to 38# otf range and 16 strands of 8125 is too loud and snappy for me. 18 strands 8125 is quieter and feels more solid. My understanding is that thinner strings are louder and less stable than thicker, but may be a fps or two faster. Stability is better than one or two fps imho. Center serving thread diameters come in many thicknesses to accommodate nock size.


I agree with this. I've tried 16 strands of 8125 before, and didn't really care for it. You don't gain much in performance if you go to fewer strands because you end up having to tune a stiffer arrow anyway. 18 or 20, with the appropriate diameter serving for your nocks, is what I'd stick with. For years I've shot 18's out doors with small groove nocks, and 20's indoors with large groove nocks. But to be honest I don't think it makes enough difference to really notice on the scorecard.


----------



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

A certain limb manufacturer recommends 14 strands to 35 and 16 to 45#. Like all recommendations they are just suggestions. Strings I’m getting, from a popular string maker, are 16 8125G and use them between 32 to 44#. Small nocks are to tight and I’m forced to only use large nocks. My local guys always favored and strongly suggested thin. I tried BCYX only to find them like using wire cables, nice shooting string but to hard, to loud and not for me.
Until now I’ve mostly followed the advice of my local gurus. I never liked soft strings due to the ever changing brace height by way of stretching they bring. However, reading this conversation I can see where I’ve haven’t really thought out which string, how many strands and why I’m using what I’ve been using. 
Every limb manufacturer I’m aware of suggests buying a sting using their specific string length and not the AMO, if you’ve ever bought a new AMO string that really was to long or to short you’ll understand why.
Nick


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

Ted, I always use 18 8125 and .019 halo


----------



## waxyjaywalker (Apr 10, 2013)

As always the nock-string-serving combo list from the sticky is a good reference. Copied it below.

Quote Originally Posted by Sean.Magnusen View Post
... this is the reference that I've compiled from the forum over time:

Small-groove
14 strand 8125g with 0.019
14 strand 8125g with 0.021
16 strand 8125g with 0.014
16 strand 8125g with 0.015

Easton or Fivics small-groove nock
12 strand 8125g with 0.021
14 strand 8125g with 0.018
16 strand 8125g with 0.015

Beiter small-groove nock or Fivics large-groove nock
14 strand 8125g with 0.021
16 strand 8125g with 0.018
18 strand 8125g with 0.015

Large-groove
18 strand 8125g with 0.018
18 strand 8125g with 0.019
20 strand 8125g with 0.015

Beiter or Easton large-groove nock
16 strand 8125g with 0.021
18 strand 8125g with 0.018
20 strand 8125g with 0.015

McKinney nock
18 strand 8125g with 0.021
20 strand 8125g with 0.018
22 strand 8125g with 0.015

----------


----------



## eagle man (Jun 7, 2011)

Looks like I will be getting a couple 18 strand strings. Thanks Stan, John, and everyone else!


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Seattlepop said:


> OP: try 18 strands. I think you will find it quieter and more stable than 16 strands. [...] My understanding is that thinner strings are louder and less stable than thicker, but may be a fps or two faster. Stability is better than one or two fps imho. Center serving thread diameters come in many thicknesses to accommodate nock size.


Is a difference in stability observed during the draw, on release, or in the arrow group? It seems rather nebulous, like forgiveness. How would you define string stability in this case? It's always brought up as the reason to not use a faster string, but in all the forum threads about it I've yet to find a concrete description or anything empirical about group sizes or any other manifestation of "stability".
Most of the time, people seem to imply that it's one or more of
1) smaller initial deflection caused by the fingers
2) same deflection, but the deflection is less affected by a stiffer or more relaxed release than usual
3) same initial deflection, but the amplitude in the second bend in the string+arrow is damped so the arrow is straighter when it leaves, but also has less clearance.
4) (less common) dimensional stability, as in resistance to creep over several weeks/years of use.



In terms of 16 vs 18 strands for 8125 (or any other material) - Jake Kaminski's personal preference may or may not be yours. In older threads here, some have preferred 14 strands for a similar weight. If you have spare material, there's no harm in making an otherwise identical string with 18 (and 20 strands if you can get a good nock fit) and mix them up so you don't know which you're shooting, give each a go for a few days (check and adjust if you notice a tuning difference) and check which was which at the end, you'll be able to tell if the difference in sound or accuracy is noticeable for you and your bow, and which if any you prefer. At the end of the day, most of the current materials remain virtually unchanged from 15 years ago and if the differences were universal and significant, there would be a consensus by now.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

I get that you find nebulous the years of experience accumulated by people like limbwalker and Kaminski. Yes I used both in the same sentence. There is consensus; you just fail to see it. 

I do in fact make strings from various strands and material and can tell immediately which is quieter and which make tuning easier which definitely improves grouping. I could care less about deflection and amplitude. I judge the results only. 

If you look at the descriptions of 8125 from the 2008 and 2019 LAS catalogs you will find that BCY has changed its recommendation from 16-18 strands to 18-20 while stating that the thread material and diameter remains the same. Ask your inquisitive self why that might be?

You are right about Jake’s personal preference may not be mine. I don’t find 652 Spectra to be all that and I don’t think he mentions Angel Majesty which is. For price and overall performance, 8125 or old faithful D-97 are still hard to beat. Imho.

Now if I could just make a string as good as OCDStrings.


----------



## camperjim (Oct 22, 2016)

I have been making my own strings for years and years. Early on I experimented with different strand counts. I had hoped to find the minimum number of strands that would be durable and would not lead to stretching. When it comes to strength and durability, strand count really makes no difference. Modern materials are really strong and even a handful of strands are all that is needed to avoid breaking. I also found as has been stated by others, a low strand count does almost nothing to improve speed. A low strand count can lead to string stretch, even for low stretch materials such as 8125. A low strand count means a small diameter string which can really dig into the fingers potentially causing pain and nerve damage.

With time I have learned the number of strands for different string materials that will work with the center serving and nock width that I use. I generally use 2 less strands than will be needed for a proper nock fit. Then when I center service I can fine tune the fit by adding additional strands and/or dental floss under the serving. If you are going to use commerically made strings you will need to initially rely on recommendations from the string maker. Even then getting a proper nock fit can be difficult. 

I highly recommend spending the little time and money it takes and make your own strings. That is the best way to fine tune nock fit, string length and the number of twists needed for the optimum brace height. I have never seen any reason to upgrade from the simple wooden jig I made years ago from scrap wood and a piece of 1/4" steel dowel.


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Seattlepop said:


> I get that you find nebulous the years of experience accumulated by people like limbwalker and Kaminski. Yes I used both in the same sentence. There is consensus; you just fail to see it.
> I do in fact make strings from various strands and material and can tell immediately which is quieter and which make tuning easier which definitely improves grouping. I could care less about deflection and amplitude. I judge the results only.


The suggestion to try a wider range of strand counts was aimed at the original poster. I wasn't negating anyone else's long-term experience or tests - but that doesn't mean the term "stability" isn't used quite differently by different posters here and elsewhere, all of whom have long histories and strong reputations. In their posts, books, and website/videos, there are areas of consensus (more strands = usually better if the nock still fits, unless draw weight is very low) and some disagreement (ok or not to pad the centre serving to improve feel, small or large groove nocks on higher poundage recurves, ideal nock tightness). 
As you've related stability to group size and not an aspect of shot feel or arrow flight, it sounds like you see it more similarly to forgiveness. Most others make a distinction between the two terms - if they don't make it clear what exactly the difference is, they indicate words aren't interchangeable.
I too have done a similar test many years with varying strand count while keeping nock fit constant and just looking at noise, and couldn't tell the difference. Maybe with a few hundred arrows per setting, I too would be able to notice a difference in grouping. But I know my limits - at a standard deviation of 1 indoors, 60 arrows per condition is enough for a difference in the average score (and therefore group size) of 0.3 to be meaningful, but I'd need 130 or 520 arrows per condition respectively for a difference of 0.2 or 0.1 between the averages to stand out from the noise.



Seattlepop said:


> If you look at the descriptions of 8125 from the 2008 and 2019 LAS catalogs you will find that BCY has changed its recommendation from 16-18 strands to 18-20 while stating that the thread material and diameter remains the same. Ask your inquisitive self why that might be?


It's probably because the thread material didn't actually stay the same. It took a while to collect and process the information, but hopefully worth it. 2008 is long before I knew about archery, and I couldn't locate that catalog online. 8125 was missing from 2012/3 to 2017/8 in the the subset of Lancaster catalogs online. In 2010/11 (earliest online), it was 92% SK75 and 8% SK65 Dyneema with 18 strands recommended (with a note that you can vary by 2 for all materials). In 2008, the Lancaster website's page for 8125 didn't list the composition, but BCY's catalog from that year had those compositions. In 2019 it's 100% SK75, the breaking strength has increased by 25 lbs, and you now get 2050 ft/0.25lbs instead of 2000. In the same time period, the recommended number of strands for Dynaflight 97, which is also 100% SK75, has decreased from 16 to 14-16, and B55 has gone from 14-16 to 12-16 strands. BCY's website recommends 18-22 strands for 8125, and back in 2006/7 recommended 18. Prior to 2005, when 8125 and Dynaflight 97 were both described as the same unspecified material (probably SK75 but it's not explicit), the recommended strands were still 18 and 16 +-2 on BCY's website. 
Why the average recommended number of strands would increase for a thin strand diameter but decrease for a thick one of the same grade of dyneema is beyond me. It could be a result of tests by BCY on group size, or fraying sensitivity being worse for thinner strands, or something else. It could be a way of reassuring people who contact them about using more or fewer strands. It could be a typo or the website not being updated to reflect changes in the materials - now and in 2011 the BCY FAQ stated Dynaflight 97 was 23% stronger than 8125, despite the change in strength of the latter when the composition changed.



Seattlepop said:


> You are right about Jake’s personal preference may not be mine. I don’t find 652 Spectra to be all that and I don’t think he mentions Angel Majesty which is. For price and overall performance, 8125 or old faithful D-97 are still hard to beat. Imho.
> Now if I could just make a string as good as OCDStrings.


I do find it interesting how dynaflight has survived, apparently unchanged, since its introduction in 1997, while so many others have been introduced and subsequently discontinued after a few years. I chose it when I started to make strings as I could afford to make a few duds or "experimental" strings, but I've felt no need to switch yet. I haven't found anything about the original introduction of 8125 though - you wouldn't happen to know when/why it was introduced?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Interesting research, thank you for that. This from BCY's web site has some history on the changes in strand material:

"...Both products (Spectra and Dyneema) are HMPE (high modulus polyethylene) materials. This product was originally developed by DSM in Europe and licensed to Allied Chemicals for production in the United States. BCY introduced Dyneema® to the archery market in 1995 with its DynaFLIGHT bowstring material which was made from SK65 Dyneema®. In 1997, DSM began manufacturing SK75, a higher strength Dyneema® with less creep, and BCY introduced this with DynaFLIGHT 97 bowstring material in 1997."

D97 is stronger than 8125 because the individual strands are thicker. Nothing more to read into that. I don't remember where I read this, but my understanding is that 8125 got it's name from the fact that it is .8125 the thickness of D97 which preceded it. 

" Both DynaFLIGHT 97 and 8125 are made from the highest quality Dyneema® yarn. 97 with its larger diameter is about 23% stronger than 8125, so 18 strands of 8125 would give you similar strength to 16 of 97. Both materials have excellent durability."

Regarding using too few strands, these from BCY are probably as close as you will get to empirical data. Certainly good enough for me. 

" Note also that at a certain point not too far below the manufacturer"s recommended number of strands, it is quite likely that the archer will notice an increase in vibration directly after release because there is not enough mass in the string to absorb the "elastic energy" that occurs when the arrow is released."

"Note that HMPE products like Dyneema® and Spectra are prone to creep more if fewer strands are used. "Elevated temperatures and higher draw weights increase this problem."

"It is generally accepted that small diameter string materials of 100% Spectra or Dyneema®, such as 8125, will shoot faster, but of course stability also has to be considered."


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ksarcher said:


> Ted, I always use 18 8125 and .019 halo


I've made over 2000 strings with that combination-works well for .98 Easton G nocks, Beiter #2 and Bohning LG pin nocks. For light bows I go 16 strands but for those who want to use thin nocks, I just use .14 Halo or PowerGrip.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Seattlepop said:


> Interesting research, thank you for that. This from BCY's web site has some history on the changes in strand material:
> 
> "...Both products (Spectra and Dyneema) are HMPE (high modulus polyethylene) materials. This product was originally developed by DSM in Europe and licensed to Allied Chemicals for production in the United States. BCY introduced Dyneema® to the archery market in 1995 with its DynaFLIGHT bowstring material which was made from SK65 Dyneema®. In 1997, DSM began manufacturing SK75, a higher strength Dyneema® with less creep, and BCY introduced this with DynaFLIGHT 97 bowstring material in 1997."
> 
> ...


D97 is stronger than 8125 but the issue is this-is a 14 strand D97 string stronger than the same thickness (18 Strand) 8125 given its the same material? Generally, given a choice I like More Thin strands than less thick strands but the advantage of less strands with thicker material is getting even tensions on each loop. Some claim an advantage of more loops with thinner material is a "rounder" string. I shot 14 strands of D97 or 18 strands of 8125 for years and didn't see any real difference.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

BCY statement addresses the issue regarding strength: "...97 with its larger diameter is about 23% stronger than 8125, so 18 strands of 8125 would give you similar strength to 16 of 97." I've had the same results as you using them interchangeably finding no difference in performance. 

Admittedly, I'm one of those who has fallen to the claim that more (thinner) strands makes nicer string, otherwise no difference in performance. My apologies to Mr. Kaminski - I stole this graph from one of his series (this one on string material) which provides a visual aid suggesting why more, thinner strands makes a nicer string as in smoother, rounder:


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

"I don't remember where I read this, but my understanding is that 8125 got it's name from the fact that it is .8125 the thickness of D97 which preceded it."
Now that you've written it, it seems incredibly obvious but I never would've guessed such a literal name. 81.25% of the d97 diameter matches perfectly with the 123% strength (breaking load, not yield stress) which is of course 1/0.8125 and the ratio of the number of ft/lb for the two materials is within a rounding error of 0.8125, so I think you're spot on. 
Individual strands aren't particularly round for most materials though - they're much more like squishy ribbons, and even the ones that initially feel a bit more like a cord, flatten down as soon as the string gets rubbed, and once the centre serving's on even a 12-strand d97 string is indistinguishable from round using calipers. Roundness is definitely important for group size - I once made a test string from five strands of braided Kevlar kite string (nearly silent but slow) and tight serving wasn't enough to make it round, so any finger tension rotated the string and changed the nock fit significantly. Is roundness important for any part of the string besides at the nocking point though?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

"Is roundness important for any part of the string besides at the nocking point though?"

I've always assumed so, but you will have to talk to someone in aerodynamics for a definitive answer. BCY makes it clear that given their respective strand counts, they are similar in strength, but does their strand counts/roundness make a difference in performance? If Jim C doesn't find a difference I assure you neither will we.


----------



## camperjim (Oct 22, 2016)

If the roundness made that much difference, I would also expect the diameter to be an issue. That certainly does not seem to be important. Strings with different numbers of strands all seem to shoot about the same at least initially.


----------



## andyman1970 (Apr 2, 2008)

I just made an 18 strand of 8125 for my recurve. 32# on the fingers - using 62XS for center serving and it's working great for me. I made a string for another guy at the range with similar specs and he preferred the 8125 over the D97 I made him. Trial and error I suppose...


----------



## alithearcher (Sep 18, 2017)

It depends on the color, too. I need 20 strands of 8125g of one color, to match 18 strands of 8215g with another color. I think there's a thread about it.


----------



## camperjim (Oct 22, 2016)

alithearcher said:


> It depends on the color, too. I need 20 strands of 8125g of one color, to match 18 strands of 8215g with another color. I think there's a thread about it.


No doubt about it, black strings shoot the fastest. Multicolor barber pole strings are often unstable and wonky. White strings are slow and noisy.


----------



## jmcmurchie1 (Aug 9, 2017)

18 strands as long as you get the proper diameter service material for a good nock fit


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

I have experimented with 12-20 strands and once I get to 16 I can't tell any difference in performance. Below that the bow is noisier and I might get more unexplainable fliers, but not sure about the latter. For me brace height makes much more difference in performance. For me it is totally about the right nock fit and I find 16 strands with a fine braided nylon serving double served at the nock and under my fingers gives me the right nock fit and feel on my fingers.


----------



## skipro (Sep 11, 2015)

Len,
Why double serving with a thin thread instead of single serving with a thicker thread? Is it for weight/speed by minimizing serving weight where diameter is not a factor? If so, would this be meaningful?


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Good question. I happen to have had a case of old Brownell #3-1/2 braided nylon that I always like and I found that the BCY version is a little thinner and just about right. Double and thinner is easier to make more stable and something like the BCY powergrip .018 is a bit too much. The smaller diameter makes a smoother better looking serving IMO. Just preference and fit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

camperjim said:


> A low strand count means a small diameter string which can really dig into the fingers potentially causing pain and nerve damage.


Only if you don't serve the part where you grip. Otherwise the diameter of where you grip matches your nock size.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

I add serving above and below the arrow, doubled back that serves as my nocking points and go far enough to increase the diameter under my middle and index fingers. This makes a very stable nock point and a thicker string under the fingers that carry more of the load. As I have aged I have developed neuralgia in my hands and shooting makes it worse in the string fingers so I like a little more diameter.


----------



## skipro (Sep 11, 2015)

Len,
Do you double back as you serve the 1st layer, or do you complete the serving and then serve over this?
What is your technique?


----------



## BLPrarie (Jul 24, 2020)

Good informative thread.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

skipro said:


> Len,
> Do you double back as you serve the 1st layer, or do you complete the serving and then serve over this?
> What is your technique?


I only double serve the part that is under the middle and index fingers so it is a new pass. When I serve around the nock point I double back.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## txarcher5 (Jan 8, 2018)

BLPrarie said:


> Good informative thread.


I'm disappointed, after reading this thread I had decided to try 18 strands for better stability ... and discovered that all my strings are 18 strands already


----------

