# Fir those with vision...



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

With respect to trends. Materials. Physics and limitations.

If you had no string mass. Then bow length would be less of a limiting factor in bow performance.

If you had zero limb mass. Limb length would have less effect of bow efficency.

So. With ILF glass limbs weighing in at about 200 grams. And glass free limbs weighing in at 150grams. Limb mass is changing.

If the limb mass was like lead. Limb length would be cronic.... 
so what do you think would happen to bow design is string and limb mass was half what it currently is?


----------



## Bowmania (Jan 3, 2003)

My guess is it would be the same.

Bowmania


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I think people would shoot lighter arrows.

What do you think?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Would the stored energy be any different?

I'm with Barney in that lighter arrows would likely be used, provided the bow could withstand them.

-Grant


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Well...
If limb mass were a non existant part of the equation. Then smoothness being a goal in design. Would mean limbs would be longer....
if string were also mass free. Then longer bows would be fine.


If it were that limb mass was a major obsticle then short limbs would prevail.
i think....

The need to solve smoothness vs limb mass as lead to recurves. So if mass wasnt a problem then limb length would change as a ratio of the bow...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Top end target bows have been predominantly in the 66-70" range since the 1960s and possibly before that. Regardless of wood/glass, or foam/carbon, no huge difference in the length and limb design. Comfortable draw, no stacking, good finger pressure, reasonable chest clearance. Shorter would be hard on finger pinch and string-walking, longer would be hard on chest clearance.

So I'm thinking, lighter limbs (all else being the same) = faster acceleration = stiffer arrow = heavier arrow = no net speed gain, just a denser arrow on the same trajectory but marginally better in the wind.

For shorter hunting bows, 56-62" has been the preferred range. I don't see any reason the same wouldn't hold for hunting bows as for target bows. Too short and you have finger pinch, and they aren't as stable in the X axis (top and bottom limbs vibrating right-left). Too long and they are unwieldly in tight places. So again, same speed, heavier arrows, marginally better for penetration.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

With no limb mass or string mass then the only limiting factors would be draw weight, arrow weight, and of course the technical term describing how fast the material can move from a loaded position. So...when will these be on the market or is it still in pre-order?


----------



## redribbon (Feb 19, 2015)

Longer limbs in a short bow , like the Asiatic composites, like you're doing (hats off).&,, I wonder if the arrow wouldn't gain mass (relatively) to absorb the energy .


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Well...
> If limb mass were a non existant part of the equation. Then smoothness being a goal in design. Would mean limbs would be longer....
> if string were also mass free. Then longer bows would be fine.
> 
> ...


I see what you're getting at, but...

I think there are factors other than smoothness that begin dominating.

Most people who shoot longer bows, i.e., 'Target' range, aside form those who simply have a very long draw, are shooting targets, and don't mind inefficiency. They can always drop to a lower weight arrow.

Most people who want efficiency are hunting, or at least target shooting in a 'hunting' format, one way or another, where the physical length of the bow, and the string angle, is problematic with longer limbs.

So, I suppose you could say that maybe the limbs _might_ get longer, but then the respective risers would also get shorter, but until you had no mass, the guy might still prefer the higher efficiency of the shorter limbs over the smoothness advantage.

I've got to say, what you've done with Hex7 medium limbs on a 19" riser, smoothness is not something I worry about, even with the limitations of present technology. I do not feel wanting.

Now, if you could get me even more efficiency with less mass, that'd be nice, but given what I've spent, I feel like I should use it for at least a few more years, out of conscience, if nothing else. Besides, it does just fine right now


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

First, a string weighs about 8 g which is much, much smaller than limb mass. Granted, you are moving the middle of the string more, the affect lessons as you move out to the ends. So I would ignore string mass to start and focus on limb mass.

If limb mass is zero then there is no force from acceleration (F=ma). That's okay, we are really looking at the limit as mass approaches zero. In this scenario efficiency would grow until limb length had little difference. Efficiency would probably look like 100% at the macro level.

So if efficiency is 100% then it is all about the energy you store. If you can store the same amount of energy then you could build a bow that would fit in a matchbox that tosses an arrow the same as a 70 inch bow.

So cut weight in half and you increase efficiency as long as all other factors remain the same. You need a stiffer arrow to resist over bending. That means a heavier arrow, so you lose some speed there. Then there is conservation of momentum. Momentum must be conserved so you need to offset the extra speed and mass of the arrow (think of the kick from a gun). But some folks are already used to that since they shoot heavy bows with heavy arrows. 

You can lower draw weight and that makes execution easier while getting the same performance out of the arrow. That is pretty much what I have been doing over the past few years.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I have Vision...which for me?..Includes "Hind-Sight"...and looking back well over 50 years ago?...in 1960 (when my old self was but 2 years old)...Mike Fedora introduced his...

*560 Fedora Hunter 60” Recurve*

and from that design?...latter got performance numbers of...

*60# with 540 grain arrow
211fps Endless loop dacron
*218fps Standard fast light string*

Through testing with and reported by Norb Mullaney....from a recurve model designed how long ago?...before such things as Carbon Fiber and/or Foam Cores were ever even contrived...and back then?...you could've easily bought a dozen 560 Hunter Recurves for the price of one pair of many of todays higher end limbs....and how much further have we progressed in the past 50+ years?...how much faster are these ultra expensive limbs?...and we're calling this..."innovation"?..."progress"?...well maybe a little but... 

And here's why I'm confused and don't really fully grasp this "chase" too "different" but really?....nothing anyone would term as stunningly faster "Limb Wise" and despite the fact that new and improved lighter and stronger materials are at play here...including string materials and synthetics Mike Fedora hadn't even heard about yet because they weren't even invented...yet he was pumping a 540gr arrow out of a 60# 560 Hunter at 211fps with Dacron String?...and tell me where we're at again today? LOL!


But "Currently"?....here's what I'm seeing...vastly more stable materials...namely CF...that's brought the torsional stability of recurve limbs almost on parr with that of longbow limbs and that right there?...is HUGE PROGRESS in my book...as is the boosts in limb efficiency due too the increased strength and reduced mass weight the CF offers up....and taking that into consideration?...I would think we'd be seeing much larger steps towards performance increases than we currently are because what do we currently see?...I see "FUMBLING & CONFUSION"...I see archers clipping ILF Longbow Limbs on ILF Risers because they offer up more torsional stability...but on the flip side of that coin?...we have the "Expensive Huge Hooks Crowd"...(some of whom seem as thrilled about boasting how much they paid as any performance increase they may or may not have gotten in return)......unfortunately?...I don't think, feel or believe the benefits of these newer, stronger, lighter, more stable materials available today are being quite as exploited anywhere near what they could be...with one exception...and here's where...

"My Vision and Foresight" come into play: as I believe there is but one limb company that's headed in the right direction towards fully and aggressively exploiting the benefits of today's technologically advanced material offerings...and the name of that truly innovative company is?...

*"Uuhka"*

They're not there yet but imho?...they are coming on strong and aggressively headed in the right direction...and it would be Uuhka who would get my vote as the most innovative pr4oducer of ILF limbs today and I feel even they have but knocked the tip of the iceberg off and that?...

These newer materials are extremely different...and as such?...will require some extremely radical design changes to reach anywhere near a stage where the benefits of such could be considered close too..."Fully Exploited"....and from what I'm seeing?...Uuhka is well on their way and extremely open too new concepts in limb design...and to me?...that's...."Vision"


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

If people think big hooks are the future than your theory presents geometry limitations and practical limitations. It's established that big hooks are more sensitive to draw length to limb length for good performance. If you reduce mass with the idea of shooting longer limbs than you can't continue using big hooks. Unless you keep pushing shorter risers and steeper angles on the limb pockets. But let's face it, most people appreciate the mass and shootable type of longer risers. 

And, one other question, what is the real gain in performance between 150 gram limbs and 200 gram limbs? Same design, just different materials. For all the hype I doubt it's significant.


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

If you went up to a group to a group of compound shooters and told them you just spent $1,000 for a set of limbs that boosts your arrow speed to 
211 fps with 8 grs they would probably look at you as if you shouldn't be allowed to handle your own money .
Instead of spending a lot for miniscule gains in speed an emphasis should be put on designing a bow that mitigates problems with form and helps even the really bad shots hit what their aiming at with consistency.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Str8 Shooter said:


> If people think big hooks are the future than your theory presents geometry limitations and practical limitations. It's established that big hooks are more sensitive to draw length to limb length for good performance. If you reduce mass with the idea of shooting longer limbs than you can't continue using big hooks. Unless you keep pushing shorter risers and steeper angles on the limb pockets. But let's face it, most people appreciate the mass and shootable type of longer risers.
> 
> And, one other question, what is the real gain in performance between 150 gram limbs and 200 gram limbs? Same design, just different materials. For all the hype I doubt it's significant.


Str8...right?...and what really blows my mind is my Bud and Bowyer friend Steve Jewett (aka "The Bushman")..."STRIVES"....to get his heavily R/D'ed hybrid custom longbow limbs tilled out to draw at an extremely consistent rate...here's the "BirthCard Numbers" from my old "American Native" model where he did his best to hit 2#'s per inch of draw...and I think he did a darn good job of it especially for "only" bamboo as a core material...










and then I see the big hook DFC#'s and they are anything but consistent....with a real harsh start of 3-4#s per inch (to get the hooks going towards..."breaking over")..and then dance into a spongy back end?...I don't think I'd like the feel of that...and for a second there?....I was headed in that direction...but it fell through and after seeing the DFC#'s of others?....I'm kind of glad it did.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I have shot extreme recurves for quite a few years now and find it amusing when folks that have never shot them (and I mean over a period of time) have strong opinions about what they can and cannot do. First, they are different, just like a longbow is different. That is especially noticeable with the later versions, HEX6 and HEX7. I am not a strong guy, yet I find no problem with the initial pull. Don't let it scare you. I would say that if you have trouble starting to pull an extreme recurve, then you will never be able to pull a compound bow which picks up draw weight much faster. The back end has a significant impact on my execution. If I was snap shooting or just pulling and launching, then it would not matter. Having a softer back end helps me with expansion, whether I am pulling through a clicker or expanding at release of a barebow. I also have to add that I have made many measurements on extreme recurves and understand what they are doing. I know of no basis for creating a bow with a linear DFC. That would limit the energy that the bow could store since the big energy pickup comes from the force deviating positive from linear. I do not see this as something to strive for in a bow design unless you just happen to want every inch to be the same. I have shot and measured many limbs and bow geometries. What you prefer is your choice, but put a season in before you reach conclusions. You have to get used to the new feel; learn how to exploit it. I did that last year with a longbow. Now I understand longbows much better. I still shoot conventional recurves when they fit the objective of what I am trying to achieve with the bow. Also, bear in mind that conventional rules of thumb do not necessarily apply to non conventional geometries. Tuning rules change. You might have to lower the brace height to quiet the bow, or to improve performance. You have to recognize the differences and apply rules that work for the bow you are trying to tune.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

p508 said:


> If you went up to a group to a group of compound shooters and told them you just spent $1,000 for a set of limbs that boosts your arrow speed to
> 211 fps with 8 grs they would probably look at you as if you shouldn't be allowed to handle your own money .
> Instead of spending a lot for miniscule gains in speed an emphasis should be put on designing a bow that mitigates problems with form and helps even the really bad shots hit what their aiming at with consistency.


Yeah, something that had an easily engineered draw force curve, holding weight that is actually less than most of the pull weight, guarantees consistent draw length, can be shot something approaching fairly accurately by pretty much anybody....

Oh, yeah, compound bow... We're all idiots if we want performance out of something, and don't shoot those.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I have shot extreme recurves for quite a few years now and find it amusing when folks that have never shot them (and I mean over a period of time) have strong opinions about what they can and cannot do. First, they are different, just like a longbow is different. That is especially noticeable with the later versions, HEX6 and HEX7. I am not a strong guy, yet I find no problem with the initial pull. Don't let it scare you. I would say that if you have trouble starting to pull an extreme recurve, then you will never be able to pull a compound bow which picks up draw weight much faster. The back end has a significant impact on my execution. If I was snap shooting or just pulling and launching, then it would not matter. Having a softer back end helps me with expansion, whether I am pulling through a clicker or expanding at release of a barebow. I also have to add that I have made many measurements on extreme recurves and understand what they are doing. I know of no basis for creating a bow with a linear DFC. That would limit the energy that the bow could store since the big energy pickup comes from the force deviating positive from linear. I do not see this as something to strive for in a bow design unless you just happen to want every inch to be the same. I have shot and measured many limbs and bow geometries. What you prefer is your choice, but put a season in before you reach conclusions. You have to get used to the new feel; learn how to exploit it. I did that last year with a longbow. Now I understand longbows much better. I still shoot conventional recurves when they fit the objective of what I am trying to achieve with the bow. Also, bear in mind that conventional rules of thumb do not necessarily apply to non conventional geometries. Tuning rules change. You might have to lower the brace height to quiet the bow, or to improve performance. You have to recognize the differences and apply rules that work for the bow you are trying to tune.



It's rather amusing Hank I agree 

I tell everyone don't buy a super recurve because you are looking for speed .... there are lots of quick limbs out there 

What I like about super recurves and why every other bow I own is gathering dust is simple this........I like the way they draw and yes they are my best performing bows and I have BF Extremes , Quattros , and yes Bill a wall full of Mike Fedoras 560's 

I love Mike and we have been friends for almost 30 years 

We have ate together......spent time in hunting camp.....etc 

In fact and this is going to blow your mind 

I have the very 560 you are quoting about 

It's a heavy bow and it pulls like a mule 

I bought it from him right after the testing 

It's got an Ebony riser and Bamboo limbs 

Yes Mike was ahead of his time and made a great bow but that you are quoting how a 560 feels and shoots compared to a Super Recurve shows you have never shot either 

Mike also in the last few years before he sold the company did put carbon in his limbs on request 

Jinks you always quote the mushy feeling of hex limbs 

Tell me when you shot them and how you quantify mushy 

I call that very smooth and for some an asset 

I think I know what Sid is getting at and I for one like it 

As a hunter the longer the working limb that he can put into a compact package works for me 

I do think it's funny that practically everyone that try's a Hex 7 limb seems to like it but there are a ton of people that have never even seen them or shot them that can't stand them ........go figure 

Jinks you say the UUkha is the limb of the future and maybe so but again you never shot them ....... I have....they are nice but if they were that nice don't ya think I'd buy a pair  


I'm off to a knife show see ya all in a few days


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Yeah, something that had an easily engineered draw force curve, holding weight that is actually less than most of the pull weight, guarantees consistent draw length, can be shot something approaching fairly accurately by pretty much anybody....
> 
> Oh, yeah, compound bow... We're all idiots if we want performance out of something, and don't shoot those.



Exactly 

Go figure 

Many experts who have not tried the subject material


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Sorry...I didn't realize I'm not allowed to express thoughts or opinions unless I drop $1,000 on a set of'em...not that they'd sell them to me anyways...but like more than one of the manufacturers stated their own selves...not everyone likes the feel...and based on published numbers?...I wouldn't...oh...sorry...see there?...did it again...forgot...only folks with nice things to say are permitted to speak...right?...L8R.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Jinx,

You have the right to state your opinion, and you do so honestly. You certainly have not hidden your lack of experience with the limbs. You have a set of Uukha's on order. You have never claimed, from what I can recall, experience with Border extreme recurves. So that is the context for your assessment. I have shot a five models of extreme recurves, four extensively in tournaments, and have done thorough quantitative testing on all five. I don't need to repost the links. Most folks here know what I have done. I have quantitatively tested two high end Uukha models, including the XCurve. Still, there is a lot yet to learn about this geometry. I find it interesting to look at the new extreme recurves that other companies are starting to come out with because it helps me to better understand the performance of the geometry. I can compare geometry and performance to the Border limbs that I have already tested. I do feel compelled, as do others, to rebut some of the things you claim based on having more (compared to none) experience with the geometry. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make claims on who makes the best horse bows, and who is the leader in the field. I have never shot a horse bow. Uukha is still a follower. They have their approach with materials, they are moving in the direction of extreme recurves, but from I have tested, they are still quite a ways behind. I still need to test more.

And by the way, I would not assume that you would not like the feel based on curves you have seen. You might be surprised. Ben and Alan are shooting HEX6 on their WF25 risers. That makes an awesome combination. Course what do they know. They are only team gold medalists, and Alan an individual silver, and Ben forth place at the World FITA field championships.

It is not a requirement that you speak nice, as long as you are speaking from a position of knowledge, and you do not have that in the area of extreme recurves.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Jinks 

Take your meds buddy your in attack mode again 

No bill you dont need to buy anything you don't want to 

Step out of the back yard and go to some shoots 

Try different limbs and than by all means voice your opinion 

But to make guesses and speculations are just that 

I wanted nothing to do with Hex limbs either........till I shot my first set 

Put it this way 

It would be like me going on a car forum and talking about how sucky the new Mclaren is even thou I've never driven one 

Again anyone that I know that has given super recurves a real chance doesn't seem to complain about the mushy as you put it feel etc 

I am shooting a pair of 44 ish pound Hex 7 limbs right now 

It's the lightest I have gone in years 

It does not feel mushy to me 

It feels silky smooth 

Ya know bill I would really like a Mclaren myself but because I don't have one doesn't mean they suck

Yes buddy I can see how archery manufactures might be hesitant to do business with you 

One day it's the best thing in the world the next it's the devil 

Even with the WF one day you love the adjustability ..... The next it is to much and they need to limit it 

When in reality people just need to learn to do some research and adjust things with in their certain design parameters 

I have a feeling if you ever tried a pair of Hex 7's you might be impressed

Everyone has the right to speak their opinion Bill but it would be nice to have some expierence with the subject matter ......no


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bill, I love your passion, but sometimes your inspiration leads you to pull things out of the oven before you've even lit the pilot light.

A super recurve, whoever makes it, is simply a different animal. They have potential benefits, and potential drawbacks, depending on the context. 

For some people, they just don't like how they feel. I would caution that for some people, including myself, it may simply be a matter of adjustment. But, everybody's different, and I can believe that some really do better with an increased stack at thhe back end. Fine. I would say that they probably should stick with a standard limb profile. 

I have heard stories of some finding them difficult to tune, but my own experience makes that difficult for me to understand, but that doesn't discount the experience of another. 

Others, some who i respect, find them incompatible with string walking. Others, for whom I also have great respect, have done quite well in that regard. I watched Ben Rogers clock up 11's with his string walking at a western trad IBO event. Alan Eagleton has done pretty well doing the same, but to be fair, he shoots other limbs too, way better than I can shoot just about anything.

If you don't like how they work for you, assuming you've given them a shot, by all means, say so, and elaborate. The fit with the shooter is the most important aspect of any product I can think of. It is important, I think, to point out that spending money on what somebody else finds valuable doesn't necessarily bring any value to another. 

It isn't all just subjective, but the benefits are context specific, and any value, itself, is very subjective.

But as to the nature of the original question, I really don't think lower mass would change a whole lot. Results would shift, but the advantages and disadvantages, among equally modern products, would likely remain similarly related, and people will choose based on priorities. I.e, faster longer limbs? Great, what can I get if I go back to mediums ?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Jinks,

I just wanted to add, I often think you have some great insights, and don't want you to think I devalue your perspective. In this particular case, though, I just value your perspective, on other things


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I don't know what lowering 1/2 the string and limb mass. But I think it would almost double the arrow and riser mass?
You could forego the riser mass, by increase in stiffness and dampening. 
Dan


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Correction 

The 560 I was speaking of was the one used in Dan Bertalans Book on Bowyers not the one in Bob M's test 

Mine is much heavier than 60 pounds


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I don't know what lowering 1/2 the string and limb mass. But I think it would almost double the arrow and riser mass?
> You could forego the riser mass, by increase in stiffness and dampening.
> Dan


That is the conservation of momentum issue at work. If the mass is too light, you will get a big kick.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Well, it seems that even Horace Ford was a proponent of the 66" to 70" bows for the same draw lengths that we use now.
he predates Earl Hoyt by some bit...


The length of the bow, which is calculated from nock to nock—and this length will vary a little from the actual length, according as it may be said to hold itself upright or stoop, i.e. follow the string—should be regulated by its strength and the length of the arrow to be used with it. It may be taken as a safe rule that the stronger the bow the greater its length should be; and so also the longer the arrow the longer should be the bow. For those who use arrows of the usual length of from 27 to 28 inches, with bows of the strength of from 45 lbs. to 55 lbs., a useful and safe length will be not less than 5 ft. 10 in. If this length of arrow or weight of bow be increased or diminished, the length of bow may be proportionally[10] increased or diminished, taking as the two extremes 5 ft. 8 in. and 6 feet. No bow need be much outside either of these measurements. It may be admitted that a short bow will cast somewhat farther than a longer one of the same weight, but this extra cast can only be gained by a greater risk of breakage. As bows are usually weighed and marked by the bowmakers for a 28-inch arrow fully drawn up, a greater or less pull will take more or less out of them, and the archer's calculations must be made accordingly.
quoted from here: 
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41643/41643-h/41643-h.htm

but i read that as a 70" bow for a 29" draw...


(this info predates AMO, so the draw length is arrow length which on an english longbow is a little different. )

CHAMPION ARCHER OF ENGLAND FOR THE YEARS 1850 TO 1859 AND 1867 

what has happened over time is that as limb technology gets smoother, the limbs get shorter, and the risers get longer to fit in with the bow length, but also to deliver a window length suitable for the distances shot.


Jinks, 
Uukha started as a company in 2010, while the hex program started in 2003
using cross weave carbon started in 1998. using it to stabilise a different limb profile in 1999
making a glass free limb in 2004
and as an engineer, you surely know that the middle of a beam does very little for its strenght.
the maths for a Beam is BD^3/12
http://civilengineer.webinfolist.com/str/mi.htm

so the depth is 3x more important than width.
this explains why the middle and close to middle of a limb is not important to the function of a limb. its only once you get a little distance from the middle will the cubed function start to take effect.
and since carbon is in effect carbon, the outside faces of a limb do most of the work, why have a heavy core as such of a solid limb.

here is a question for you?
one i have had to face with the nay sayers.
more stored energy = more effort put in.
if your not getting any speed benefit, why put the extra work in?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

so i suppose my next question is that if limb mass is limited to what it is... and smoothness is a topic that is "hot" for the moment, we all know now that stack is a function of limb length vs draw length, its also a limb profile thing.
its possible to say that you can increase stack, but now it is being shown that smoothness can be designed for.

so do you think that the ILF limb lengths/riser lengths can be re-addressed...

we (as in industry) are currently fitting modern materials to 1960s geometry, when infact we are fitting to accepted customer driven norms...


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Another thought with all this low mass talk... is a super low mass limb really desirable? If you have stiff and fast but no mass the limb may not actually resist torque and deflection as well as a heavier (mass weight) limb. I would imagine inertia comes into play as it pertains to limb reaction as well. 


Here's a real question... if a super long limb (think XXXXL ILF length) with the same mass as a current short limb could be made and in order to get it to work correctly at 28" a shooter had to use a 13" riser do you really think guys would abandon the longer risers? Hunters? Target shooters?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> Bill, I love your passion, but sometimes your inspiration leads you to pull things out of the oven before you've even lit the pilot light.
> 
> A super recurve, whoever makes it, is simply a different animal. They have potential benefits, and potential drawbacks, depending on the context.
> 
> ...



Therein lies the folly of comparing *anything* on subjective terms. I might prefer something because of the way *it* feels or even the way it makes *me* feel. You don't have to have a valid (to anyone else but you) reason for liking or not liking something. It will never make sense to the person who *"feels"* the opposite. 

It just is what it is. *"Feel"* is a personal perception. Not unlike looks, taste, or sound, it's not really measurable, at least in not any way that means anything to anyone other than an individual. You can measure the weight of something, or the volume of something, or even the spiciness of something, but because not everyone perceives these things in the same way, it is useless. 

I can measure a woman's weight. 210 lbs is a lot *"more"* than 110 lbs, but that doesn't mean I'm going to perceive that as better or more attractive. For the man who is attracted to larger women, it might be awesome. Another man might be repulsed by it.

I can measure the level of volume, bass and treble. However, more or less doesn't always mean better. It totally depends on the individual. I like to listen to 70's and 80's rock LOUD. Lots of volume and LOTS of treble. Nothing better in my mind than the sound of those hi-hat cymbals. For my daughter, it's like fingernails on a blackboard. Same is true for me when I pull up next to some punk at a street light with the bass so loud that it makes MY car vibrate. I'd rather run him into a phone pole than listen to that crap. 

I happen to like spicy food and hot peppers. This can be measured in "Scoville units." Habaneros are or hotter than jalapenos. It can be measured, but so what? It might be a big plus for me, and a negative for someone else.

It can go even further than that. Some opinions or perceptions are 100% visceral. That doesn't make them any less valid to the individual. No matter how good something might be, some people despise them because of where they are made, how they are marketed, or what they feel they represent. 

I would personally never own a BMW. It has nothing whatsoever to do with quality, affordability or performance, and everything to do with my *perception* of those who own them.

It reminds me of the joke:

_*What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? A porcupine has the pricks on the outside.*_

Whether you agree or not, the joke has it's roots in people's perception, and at the end of the day, a person's perception is his reality.

KPC 

PS: Before any of the BMW owners get their shorts all in a bunch, I've heard every joke there is about the *"rice burners"* I drive. :wink:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Therein lies the folly of comparing *anything* on subjective terms.


I agree. Since folly is defined a foolishness, we should stick to what we have tried and felt for ourselves. It's very hard to answer for a "Pepsi Challenge" when one hasn't even tasted a Pepsi. Like anyone else, I'm biased to what "I" like, but even liking or disliking something subjectively does require a tad bit of personal experience with the "subject".


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Stash said:


> Top end target bows have been predominantly in the 66-70" range since the 1960s and possibly before that. Regardless of wood/glass, or foam/carbon, no huge difference in the length and limb design. Comfortable draw, no stacking, good finger pressure, reasonable chest clearance. Shorter would be hard on finger pinch and string-walking, longer would be hard on chest clearance.
> 
> So I'm thinking, lighter limbs (all else being the same) = faster acceleration = stiffer arrow = heavier arrow = no net speed gain, just a denser arrow on the same trajectory but marginally better in the wind.
> 
> For shorter hunting bows, 56-62" has been the preferred range. I don't see any reason the same wouldn't hold for hunting bows as for target bows. Too short and you have finger pinch, and they aren't as stable in the X axis (top and bottom limbs vibrating right-left). Too long and they are unwieldly in tight places. So again, same speed, heavier arrows, marginally better for penetration.


Sounds like a lot of work and expense for minimal gains............So what is the factor that current materials are holding back from the full potential of a recurve limb? Whatever that difference is would be the maximum gain.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> I agree. Since folly is defined a foolishness, we should stick to what we have tried and felt for ourselves. It's very hard to answer for a "Pepsi Challenge" when one hasn't even tasted a Pepsi. Like anyone else, I'm biased to what "I" like, but even liking or disliking something subjectively does require a tad bit of personal experience with the "subject".



That would depend completely on what it is you like or dislike about something. You can't assume that just because someone says they don't like Pepsi, they must like Coke better. It could just be that they don't like sugary soda, or carbonated beverages, or they own stock on PepsiCo.

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Kevin, certainly wouldn't argue. 

The the benefit of the feel of 'smoothness' is entirely subjective. 

The benefit, or disadvantage, in terms of how it impacts tendencies of shot execution, not subjective, but varies between individuals, and is maleable with time and training, in either direction.

The benefit of higher stored energy for a given holding weight is entirely objective, but the value of it depends on the context of the user. 

Target shooting, particularly 20 yards or less, unless you want a very light holding weight, you can always get the same speed out of a standard profile with another lighter arrow. 

Hunting, you might have enough energy with your desired holding weight anyway. If you're shooting plain old deer with a 50# holding weight and a 30" draw, extra energy is always nice, but certainly not required. Jimmy got a pass through (though the arrow did stay in the deer) with a 27" draw and 40# BF extreme limbs. So, as they say, shot placement is key, and sharp broadhead and tuning is primary when it comes to penetration.

I Guess what I would summarize is that there are aspects that are in fact entirely subjective, which are still real. There are aspects that are objective, and objective results that will vary on the user and context of that use. And, like anything else, the value of any given combination depends on the answer to the question, "To whom?"


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That would depend completely on what it is you like or dislike about something. You can't assume that just because someone says they don't like Pepsi, they must like Coke better. It could just be that they don't like sugary soda, or carbonated beverages, or they own stock on PepsiCo.
> 
> KPC


If I'm speaking for myself, that's fine. If I'm assigning more universal attributes, I need to be prepared to offer more objective measures of things if my opinion is to be more regarded. That requires I know the difference and from a perspective other than my likes. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it's not hugely popular to others. That's where I agreed with you that subjective measures can be foolish, or at least, look foolish, if used for more that what they are.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

The audio comparison has a tremendous potential for tangents, but it is a good example, in that there is certainly preference, in which case what is better is subjective, and there is actual fidelity, which is not. most audiophiles confuse the two.

sid, what you're bringing up with this horace fellow is interesting, though I think it has more to do with flexibility and working range when it comes to materials and construction.

if we didn't have limitations of flexibility and torsional stability, you could store vastly more energy per inch of limb, in which case I would think we would explore very short limbs with longer risers suited to the length appropriate for the user and task, and yes, they would have crazy hooks, maybe mostly hooks.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Lighter so far definatly doesnt mean a loss of vertical or torsional stability. 
But one thing is for sure. Take the if you think the current main stream crop of limbs are stack free. Think again.
At 2lbs per inch they are smoother than 3lbs per inch. Yes. But are stacky in comparison to 1.5lbs per inch. And even 1.5lbs feels like it stacks compaired to 1lb per inch.
so smooth is a relative term. Relative to what you have tried.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

A customer said to me a month or so back. 1lb per inch feels like your jumping on a trampline. Going back to 2lbs feels like getting off the trampoline and trying to jump.... 
thats the same feeling as 2lbs vs 3lbs per inch.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Lighter so far definatly doesnt mean a loss of vertical or torsional stability.


If somebody said that it did, I missed it.



> But one thing is for sure. Take the if you think the current main stream crop of limbs are stack free. Think again.
> At 2lbs per inch they are smoother than 3lbs per inch. Yes. But are stacky in comparison to 1.5lbs per inch. And even 1.5lbs feels like it stacks compaired to 1lb per inch.
> so smooth is a relative term. Relative to what you have tried.


True. It is also a perception that can adjust based on recent experience. When I went from a set of Hex7 limbs to a set of conventional limbs, for the purposes of comparison, that I had previously thought fairly smooth, I thought, "Holy Crap, this stacks like crazy." After shooting it for awhile, it seemed far less 'stacky.' Not as smooth as the Hex7, but not a distraction.

Similarly, when I first pulled a Hex 7s, by comparison, it felt like downright let off. After getting used to it, it just feels smooth...

But, more to the point, doesn't the 'smoothness' have more to do with limb geometry than mass?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> A customer said to me a month or so back. 1lb per inch feels like your jumping on a trampline. Going back to 2lbs feels like getting off the trampoline and trying to jump....
> thats the same feeling as 2lbs vs 3lbs per inch.


It's a good description of the sensation. But, if I might refine the analogy, I would say that it is more like the difference of a trampoline versus a spring floor.

On a trampoline (going into a foam pit, because I'm not that coordinates), if I'm good about punch and tuck, I can get 3 rotations all the way around, barely. Not even close on a spring floor. Might get one.

However, there was a Russian gymnast who, with a spring floor, could do 3 full rotations (backwards, and following a hand spring or round off I believe). He had to punch a whole lot harder, but he could do the same job with the higher equivalent of draw weight (explosive punch)


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Borderbows said:


> here is a question for you?
> one i have had to face with the nay sayers.
> more stored energy = more effort put in.
> if your not getting any speed benefit, why put the extra work in?


Because the extra effort comes via overtime at work to pay for the cutting edge limbs!

How much does 50 grams of limb weight equate in fps for similar limb designs?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> Jinks,
> 
> if your not getting any speed benefit, why put the extra work in?


Yep....that's exactly what I was thinking when I read somewhere that 10GPP is the recommended minimum for big hook Borders HEX7's or risk blowing them up.

Which means?...

I would need to be shooting a 400gr arrow for a set of 40# Hex7's.

Where most other limb designs?....only require/recommend an 8GPP minimum.

Which means I could be shooting a 320gr arrow off their 40# limbs...and I'm thinking that 80grs less arrow weight would be faster even off Earl Hoyts old profiles....even if they are Sky's Double CF/Bamboo Core TR7's at just under 2/3rds the cost of Hex7's.

Now what was the question again?


----------



## guyver (Jan 3, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Yep....that's exactly what I was thinking when I read somewhere that 10GPP is the recommended minimum for big hook Borders HEX7's or risk blowing them up.


Now where did you get that from???

They perform well above average at 10 gpp but it is not a requirement 

C'mon man. You're spreading misinformation about something you have NO experience with.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

guyver said:


> Now where did you get that from???
> 
> They perform well above average at 10 gpp but it is not a requirement
> 
> C'mon man. You're spreading misinformation about something you have NO experience with.


You may be right...but I did read and hear 10GPP min...but that may have been related as to what it takes to keep them quiet and smooth....IOW's?...where they perform their best overall....in which case?...I apologize...Chris Hill is telling me the charts state that 274gr arrow weight at 41#s for a 6.68GPP is fine...but I'm not sure I'd want to shoot any limb at that low of a GPP...whatever...for $1,000 a set?...they should make their own arrows. LOL!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

This post posed an interesting thought experiment. Let's try not to let it get side tracked. 

Jinx, if you have something against Border, please start your own thread and allow us to keep this one on point.


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> With respect to trends. Materials. Physics and limitations.
> 
> If you had no string mass. Then bow length would be less of a limiting factor in bow performance.
> 
> ...



Maybe its above all our pay grades to sipher out your riddle here but why would someone from supposedly a cutting edge bow manufacturer come into an archery forum asking the general public a question you can only give a speculative answer to? Bow "design" is dependent on the forms they are made off of. If string and limb mass gets lighter generally speaking the limbs recover back to brace faster translating that into more fps to the arrow. (Ok so what do I win?)
Do you just want some one to come right out and ask what you guys have in the works or do we have to play the game?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Maybe its above all our pay grades to sipher out your riddle here but why would someone from supposedly a cutting edge bow manufacturer come into an archery forum asking the general public a question you can only give a speculative answer to? Bow "design" is dependent on the forms they are made off of. If string and limb mass gets lighter generally speaking the limbs recover back to brace faster translating that into more fps to the arrow. (Ok so what do I win?)
> Do you just want some one to come right out and ask what you guys have in the works or do we have to play the game?


He is obviously starting a conversation for those of us that are interested 

If your not go read another thread 

As for the constant dribble from people that have no experience with the limbs in question .... Your showing poor manners and it's just plain odd to me 

If I have no interest in something I have better things to do than look to make half whit assumptions etc 

Sorry to be blunt like that but it's the truth

I suggest that anyone interested in this thread just keep going and ignore the ones that seem to have nothing better to do than make stupid comments


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Yep....that's exactly what I was thinking when I read somewhere that 10GPP is the recommended minimum for big hook Borders HEX7's or risk blowing them up.
> 
> Which means?...
> 
> ...


That's a nice run of text, but you might want to get your information from a reliable source first. Minimum recommended arrow weight depends on.... draw length and draw weight, and is not a fixed ratio.

The chart is actually on their website, and at your draw weight and draw length, 8 gpp would be just fine.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> You may be right...but I did read and hear 10GPP min...but that may have been related as to what it takes to keep them quiet and smooth....IOW's?...where they perform their best overall....in which case?...I apologize...Chris Hill is telling me the charts state that 274gr arrow weight at 41#s for a 6.68GPP is fine...but I'm not sure I'd want to shoot any limb at that low of a GPP...whatever...for $1,000 a set?...they should make their own arrows. LOL!


Jinks, on this particular topic, I think you're just arguing for fun, and that's okay, I guess.

I'm running my 46# about 9 gpp. I'm happy with it there. I could run it lower, but I choose not to. My 54# recurve, I ran at 8 gpp. I could run it down at 7 gpp, but I liked it better at 8 gpp.

So, the thing is, my 46# recurve is sending that 422 gn arrow about 3 fps slower than my 54# recurve was tossing my 432 gn arrow.

I think that's not too shabby.

Yeah, $1000 a set is a lot. How much did you pay for your Sky limbs, or your Max 3s? Less, I'm sure, but way more than a pair of Axioms or Tradtech Black Max's, I'd bet. Did those limbs do anything other than store energy and then put it back into an arrow? LOL all you want. Slam them all you want, but come up with some better reasons.

They're really expensive. Nobody is saying that they're a bang for the buck product. Nobody is saying that they're hands down the best limbs for everyone, for every purpose, etc. What they offer may be of little or no use to any given person. But, then again, it may. 

Imagine an self-proclaimed worn-out diabetic that had trouble with shooting high holding weight without inducing target panic or snap shooting, who actually wanted to go hunting with a traditional rig. 
Imagine he didn't want to use a compound bow to do it, or a rifle for that matter. 
Imagine he wanted to use a recurve. 
Imagine he was comfortable with a 40# of holding weight, and wanted to kill something moderately large. Hmmm...

Can't do it? Try. You might like it


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Maybe its above all our pay grades to sipher out your riddle here but why would someone from supposedly a cutting edge bow manufacturer come into an archery forum asking the general public a question you can only give a speculative answer to? Bow "design" is dependent on the forms they are made off of. If string and limb mass gets lighter generally speaking the limbs recover back to brace faster translating that into more fps to the arrow. (Ok so what do I win?)
> Do you just want some one to come right out and ask what you guys have in the works or do we have to play the game?


I don't mind the discussion, but I also wouldn't mind the short cut Sid.

Are you guys working on something, and if so, would you mind sharing what you're willing?

You don't have to sell me, I already bought my bow, and I'm not buying another for awhile


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Sid likes to pose thought provoking questions. I learn a lot from these. You do not find other bow engineers providing such insight into their thought process. I imagine Border is also using this as way of probing the voice of the customer. As a scientist, I am accustomed to this type of discussion, thought experiments are not abnormal to me, or suspicious. It is interesting to watch Border continue to push the limits. I am really curious how far the extreme recurve design can go before the next revolutionary change is required to facilitate continued performance improvements. Actually, I am not certain that the HEX7 is not revolutionary compared to the HEX6. I thought the HEX6 was a big change over the HEX5, but the HEX7 has blown that gap out of the water. Eventually, a system stores so much energy that it burns up. I am wondering at what point this will occur, which gets us back to the original question of reducing limb weight by 50%.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Sid likes to pose thought provoking questions. I learn a lot from these. You do not find other bow engineers providing such insight into their thought process. I imagine Border is also using this as way of probing the voice of the customer. As a scientist, I am accustomed to this type of discussion, thought experiments are not abnormal to me, or suspicious. It is interesting to watch Border continue to push the limits. I am really curious how far the extreme recurve design can go before the next revolutionary change is required to facilitate continued performance improvements. Actually, I am not certain that the HEX7 is not revolutionary compared to the HEX6. I thought the HEX6 was a big change over the HEX5, but the HEX7 has blown that gap out of the water. Eventually, a system stores so much energy that it burns up. I am wondering at what point this will occur, which gets us back to the original question of reducing limb weight by 50%.



;-)

Thanks hank!


how else do you show people that what impacts on the design... what can change on the design and that the status quo on limb design has been trashed. This is what folks dont seem to see.
Cross weave carbon, running at 45 degrees solves the previous limitiations in recurve design.
No other single concept has opened so many doors, on bow design, which has come about by carbon fiber.

looking at bow design, self wood bows (primative), are all long, limbed.
looking at the revolution that happened when Glass fiber came about, the insights from sinue and other primative lamination materials, gave us an clue as to where to go.
we can look at these trends, limbs get shorter as fiberglass allows the limbs to become shorter, which changes the COG of the limb. it seems to be smoothness vs limb mass driven.
short limbs are lighter in mass.
long limbs are smoother.

Cross weave carbon allows designs to change everything. since smoothness is not a limitiation in design now!

so yes... it opens doors.

what i find interesting is which way designs can go now.

since carbon provides a lighter limb, meaning its length is less of a penality to performance per inch of limb. but carbon also provides a cure to smoothness limitiations.
LOL
Carbon cures its own problem, while also removing the problem at the same time...


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Couldn't bias carbon allow you to remove limb width while maintaining a somewhat conventional profile and energy storage? I seem to recall your conventional limbs have some of the smallest tips I've seen in a recurve. Surely they could go thinner still? Or thin more aggressively out of the wedge?

Honestly unless graphene becomes commercially viable I think that limb material has likely stalled somewhat. Arrow development is likewise at a plateau state and strings have likely been there for a while.

I think that the next real evolution in bow performance will require a total rethink (or resurgence) of riser geometry. Unfortunately it seems many companies are moving away from the more barebow friendly deflex designs.

-Grant


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Grant. 110% agree.

we have invested in a CNC setup because we see a limitation in where our limbs are going on the current chassis out in the market place, and where the market is going seems to be going against our concepts..

the problem is R&D is expensive and for a small company we are limited to what we can invest.
the mill has also opened doors to us making our own tooling. which is also a cost on progress...

yes, you can go narrow.

since TS seems to be a race at the moment as to who has the most, narrow isnt going to win, from a marketting perspective.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Grant, back in 1979 I was a research chemist working on graphite epoxy composites, i.e. carbon to archers, graphite to golfers. At that time the material was so expensive that I could not imagine it being used in commercial products ($10,000 to make a simple cylinder). In addition, not many folks, certainly the general public, even knew it existed. The message is, what is prohibitive to use today, could become commercially viable in the future; and imagine the materials that are in development, that we are not even aware of. Molecular bonds are very strong. It is just a matter of lining them up in the right directions. That is what leads to carbon fibers amazing strength. Carbon loves to form chains which, like cables, can be turned into very strong fibers. With new materials it boils down to three things: material cost, manufacturing cost (including scrap) and manufacturing processes needed to effectively, and economically build the parts.


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

JParanee said:


> He is obviously starting a conversation for those of us that are interested
> 
> If your not go read another thread
> 
> ...


Some of us are in fact interested but would rather cut to the chase. Discuss limbs and designs, materials etc without the patronizing making people feel included in something they will ultimately have no say in anyway. (Thats all I meant)

*As for the constant dribble from people that have no experience with the limbs in question .... Your showing poor manners and it's just plain odd to me* 
Sorry I didnt disclose that ahead of time. I did in fact recently have a CH with the new Hex7s on it. Tested it pretty thoroughly and shot it a bunch. Good bow in many ways IMO. I will even go so far as to say they have the best carbon in the business right now. 
But if you wish to eliminate all the people that dont own or have ever owned one of the bows in question I think the participation number will be pretty small.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

The issue is not participation, rather it is about making baseless claims, either good or bad, but in this case it has been on the bad side. Miss information does nobody any good. It is not necessary to be in send mode all the time. Sometimes it is better to be in receive mode. Read, learn, ask questions. Learn from the dialog. Test ideas. It is good to probe, but it not good to make assertions that you cannot back up or that are clearly not factual. And if you do, acknowledge it and move on. Don't dig in. When you have something to add, good or bad, add it, but know when to stop when it is clear your facts are incorrect, or your sources unreliable. There are folks with a lot of experience with extreme recurves and that have done quite well with them. Then there are others who have no experience but strong opinions. I have taken over 100,000 shots with various extreme recurve models, many in competition. I have shot HEX4 through HEX7 and even shot the Uukha XWeave. I have performed static and dynamic tests on all of them. There are others with similar experience minus the testing. So why then do we have to constantly have the conversation redirected by hearsay from folks with no experience with the geometry (not you since you have shot the CH). Like I mentioned before, if this was a conversation about horsebows I may ask questions and try to learn. I would not making claims on what is good, not good, and who is the leader in the market. I really like these threads and hate to see them disintegrate.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Sid, materials might change what we shoot now, but will we not always have a geometry issue at the fingers, e.g., release aids for compounds? That creates a design dependent variable that has nothing to do with materials. Understandably, super-hooks solve some of this in opening to longer.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> yes, you can go narrow.
> 
> since TS seems to be a race at the moment as to who has the most, narrow isnt going to win, from a marketting perspective.


So, is your point, or one of them, that with better torsional stability in the materials, you can go narrower, resulting in less mass required for a given amount of energy storage, or design for smoother draw force curve, or both?

What about the bending limitations (thicker limbs for higher draw weights can't bend as much before failure), and how do different materials/methods play into that?


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> The issue is not participation, rather it is about making baseless claims, either good or bad, but in this case it has been on the bad side. Miss information does nobody any good. It is not necessary to be in send mode all the time. Sometimes it is better to be in receive mode. Read, learn, ask questions. Learn from the dialog. Test ideas. It is good to probe, but it not good to make assertions that you cannot back up or that are clearly not factual. And if you do, acknowledge it and move on. Don't dig in. When you have something to add, good or bad, add it, but know when to stop when it is clear your facts are incorrect, or your sources unreliable. There are folks with a lot of experience with extreme recurves and that have done quite well with them. Then there are others who have no experience but strong opinions. I have taken over 100,000 shots with various extreme recurve models, many in competition. I have shot HEX4 through HEX7 and even shot the Uukha XWeave. I have performed static and dynamic tests on all of them. There are others with similar experience minus the testing. So why then do we have to constantly have the conversation redirected by hearsay from folks with no experience with the geometry (not you since you have shot the CH). Like I mentioned before, if this was a conversation about horsebows I may ask questions and try to learn. I would not making claims on what is good, not good, and who is the leader in the market. I really like these threads and hate to see them disintegrate.


Trust me when I say I base nothing I say on hearsay or faith! I for one hate all the downright false advertising and marketing hype that goes on within the industry just to turn a sale. Many buyers dont have the knowledge base to understand all the technical terms and misdirection that can and does happen, and to some degree have to bear a little of that fault for not researching more. Like you, I ask questions as well. And If my BS meter red lines, I go out, get whatever product we're speaking of and see for myself. 
I get that asking questions in a certain manner or pointing out fluff sometimes comes off as "abrasive", but sometimes we need to just get to the point to not lose sight of what it is we're talking about.

Ok so moving on-----What was the question again?


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> Grant. 110% agree.
> 
> we have invested in a CNC setup because we see a limitation in where our limbs are going on the current chassis out in the market place, and where the market is going seems to be going against our concepts..
> 
> ...


*we have invested in a CNC setup because we see a limitation in where our limbs are going on the current chassis out in the market place*
Sid, can you clarify what "limitation" you are referring to exactly? And how the CNC will eliminate this limitation?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Trust me when I say I base nothing I say on hearsay or faith! I for one hate all the downright false advertising and marketing hype that goes on within the industry just to turn a sale. Many buyers dont have the knowledge base to understand all the technical terms and misdirection that can and does happen, and to some degree have to bear a little of that fault for not researching more. Like you, I ask questions as well. And If my BS meter red lines, I go out, get whatever product we're speaking of and see for myself.
> I get that asking questions in a certain manner or pointing out fluff sometimes comes off as "abrasive", but sometimes we need to just get to the point to not lose sight of what it is we're talking about.
> 
> Ok so moving on-----What was the question again?


I don't think anybody was referring to you, and I have no problem with somebody asking for a couple presses of the 'Fast Forward' button  When it comes to vision, I know that I can be a little near-sighted, and am happy to have somebody lend me some spectacles.

As far as false advertising and marketing hype, I think most of us are on the same page about that. Sid in particular, I don't remember doing any such thing. I do think that he tends to point out potential benefits of the products they make promoting a very positive perspective of their design approach. I don't have a problem with that. 

At the same time, as with anything, we who are enthusiastic about the results of that design need to understand, respect, and even point out that even if they are the most expensive limbs on the market (there may be more expensive, but I don't shop much, and these are the most expensive I've seen), you can't say that they are the best in any unqualified objective sense. They offer particular features versus other limbs, which I personally prefer. But, even if cost is no object, somebody else might prefer something else, not because they've bought into hype, or are ignorant or whatever, but simply because something else might actually work better for them, when it comes to how it feels, how it fits how they shoot, and what they're doing with it.

All of that on the sidewalk...

The question being mass...

I think, really, aside from subtleties with which I am not well versed, I think lighter mass, in itself, primarily means better efficiency. I don't think there are HUGE gains to be had, but it seems that gains made on the leading edge are usually incremental.

The torsional stability aspect of materials, to me, seems far more relevant, not only for 'stability' in the shot (and I single quote it, because watching 'paradox' videos shows that the whole system is a beautiful mess, and stability of the shot really just means consistency of that mess), but more for the geometry it allows in the limb profile, which if you like additional energy for holding weight, and a smoother draw without resorting to cams, has been a pretty big jump.

While lighter weight materials would obviously decrease mass, the increased torsional stability of the material allows a narrower limb for the same torsional stability of the limb itself, which also decreases mass. I don't know if Sid was alluding to this or not.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> *we have invested in a CNC setup because we see a limitation in where our limbs are going on the current chassis out in the market place*
> Sid, can you clarify what "limitation" you are referring to exactly? And how the CNC will eliminate this limitation?


You debate very much like stringwalker jack did on tradtalk.
It wasnt a great experience for me.... so please ride above my sarcasim...

But having tried to rasp out a riser out of Ali.
ive decided that for the sake of both speed and repeatability. If you want to make risers to your own spec out of ali. Cnc definatly wins hands down....

As for the limitiations.
imagine if you had to make cars to henry Fords original model T chassis. Thats your remit.

Or design your own chassis so that you can explore your own concepts....

The model T has its limitations. Same as any fixed geometry limits options.
explore 2" of deflex on a standard ILF riser.... simply put. You cant!

Well. There you have your answer...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> So, is your point, or one of them, that with better torsional stability in the materials, you can go narrower, resulting in less mass required for a given amount of energy storage, or design for smoother draw force curve, or both?
> 
> What about the bending limitations (thicker limbs for higher draw weights can't bend as much before failure), and how do different materials/methods play into that?


See.... look at the open doors doubling ts opens. We are exploring our ideas. If you see one that looks like ours ask yourself if its new... 
doors are open... pick a path. Choose a design. Explore it. Cos its garenteed... youll be the first.... super recurves are a new area of design. Its an exiting time for bow design.
:-D


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Sid, materials might change what we shoot now, but will we not always have a geometry issue at the fingers, e.g., release aids for compounds? That creates a design dependent variable that has nothing to do with materials. Understandably, super-hooks solve some of this in opening to longer.


Imagine a bow that is 60" long. But opens to deliver 70" string angles at full draw.

For example its possible to have a bow that grows in length as you pull it back.


Remember. Standards such as AMO bow length is more about string length.
Remove the limitations of conventional measurements.
and you get to see what you really have.
take for example the ch is about 2 bow lengths shorter than expected at BH. Yet still gives the full bow length at full draw.

Remember rules are changing.
hard lines are being softened.
bow lengths are up for grabs. Smoothness redefined.
so riser length to limb length norms can be turned on thier heads.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Imagine a bow that is 60" long. But opens to deliver 70" string angles at full draw.
> 
> For example its possible to have a bow that grows in length as you pull it back.


Sure, JP has mentioned this benefit before! I was inquiring as to along the lines of the discussion on mass - where the parameter of string angle fits? You still have 70" worth of bow mass but in a changing length. The limiting parameter would be that you at some point have to get to 70" of length (or near about) or lose the string angle benefit the archer needs.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> yes, you can go narrow.
> 
> since TS seems to be a race at the moment as to who has the most, narrow isnt going to win, from a marketting perspective.



I have a wood/glass R/D longbow with tips thin enough to stab someone. It doesn't suffer from any stability problems.

With all the work done on stabilizing materials why are we still see all limbs looking basically the same as wood/glass when viewed from the front? I don't think we really NEED much more TS then a wood/glass limb, but I'd be happy to have similar TS and a whole lot less mass.

Reduced mass should reduce GPP requirements and increase speed with lighter arrows. Both things which are worth the pursuit in my mind.



Borderbows said:


> Or design your own chassis so that you can explore your own concepts....
> 
> The model T has its limitations. Same as any fixed geometry limits options.
> explore 2" of deflex on a standard ILF riser.... simply put. You cant!


Sure you can. There are more than a few risers with that level of deflex when shot without the grip and a few which have it when shot with. Not to mention the Olsen Variable....

-Grant


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> I have a wood/glass R/D longbow with tips thin enough to stab someone. It doesn't suffer from any stability problems.
> 
> With all the work done on stabilizing materials why are we still see all limbs looking basically the same as wood/glass when viewed from the front? I don't think we really NEED much more TS then a wood/glass limb, but I'd be happy to have similar TS and a whole lot less mass.
> 
> ...


Limb mass doesnt not equal low gpp.
low energy for the same equal construction = low gpp

For example babies bounce when the fall over and lightly graze there knees. You and i draw blood.... thats cos we have the same skin as a material but hit it harder when we fall.
a set construction has a set resistance to shock. (For the sake of a word)
Reducing limb mass increases bow speed. Which increases the impact of closure.
so all in all. You need low energy levels to reduce the impact. Be that with short draws. Low poundages. Or low energy designa.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Sure, JP has mentioned this benefit before! I was inquiring as to along the lines of the discussion on mass - where the parameter of string angle fits? You still have 70" worth of bow mass but in a changing length. The limiting parameter would be that you at some point have to get to 70" of length (or near about) or lose the string angle benefit the archer needs.


Lets take a 70 " bow. But give it 10" limbs at each end. This means you have a 50" riser.
you still have a 67" string for example.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

OK, Sid. Now I follow - effective length.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Limb mass doesnt not equal low gpp.
> low energy for the same equal construction = low gpp
> 
> For example babies bounce when the fall over and lightly graze there knees. You and i draw blood.... thats cos we have the same skin as a material but hit it harder when we fall.
> ...


I think I see what you're saying... If you decreased the mass of the limb, and retained the strength, you could probably go faster and still have the limb hold up, as the limb absorbs less energy, but has the same structural ability to dissipate it. If the limb is simply narrower, you have less mass, less energy, but less structure to dissipate that energy, so it evens out.

But, narrower limb would still reap higher efficiency advantage, as it would gain energy storage exponentially with increased thickness, as opposed to a linear fashion in proportion to width.

Does that more or less jive?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I am still working through scenarios to better understand efficiency. We believe lighter limbs are more efficient, but why. Conservation of momentum states that mass times velocity must be constant. Therefore, heavier and slower can be just as good as lighter and faster. The question is understanding the mechanism for energy loss. Eliminate the energy loss and you increase efficiency. Does the bow act as a tuning fork, transitioning stored energy into vibrational energy? Can we change the fundemental frequency of the bow so that we inhibit the energy transfer? Maybe it has to do with the fundemental vibrational frequency of the archer. We tend to focus our vibration energy questions on how to trap it and isolate it in a dampener so the archer does not feel it. That does not get rid of it. Adding weight can change the vibrational frequency and make it more difficult to transfer into the bow. They make weights that attach to bass guitars that change the fundemental frequency of the guitar to get rid of, or at least change the position of, dead notes. Add weight to the head stock and you move the dead note to a lower frequency.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I am still working through scenarios to better understand efficiency. We believe lighter limbs are more efficient, but why. Conservation of momentum states that mass times velocity must be constant. Therefore, heavier and slower can be just as good as lighter and faster. The question is understanding the mechanism for energy loss. Eliminate the energy loss and you increase efficiency. Does the bow act as a tuning fork, transitioning stored energy into vibrational energy? Can we change the fundemental frequency of the bow so that we inhibit the energy transfer? Maybe it has to do with the fundemental vibrational frequency of the archer.


think about a car and driver.

Now think about a motor cycle and a rider.

Rider and driver have the same mass, BTW.

You have XXX ft/lbs of energy to put into accelerating the respective combinations, same for each, and today is a special day, because it's friction free.

When you're done putting in your energy, both combinations will have the same Kinetic energy, though obviously the motorcycle combination is going to be going faster...

Now, both of those pilots of our fantasy vehicles bail out. When they leave their vehicle, which pilot has more KE, and which vehicle has more KE.

TADA!

Same with arrows and bows, but arrows are drivers/riders, and the limbs and strings are cars/motorcycle.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Sid, I have envision of a riser were I removed the ILF bushing and used a pin and molded plate. The reason this works was because the Limb pocket is adjustable. Floating limb bolt and rocker pin. shifting the pocket would correct some riser machining issues. Too mechanical? Your thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid View Post 
http://www.archery-forum.com/attachm...1&d=1354667188

win&win put the pivot forward of the dowel for some reason...
note the location of the shims on a CXT riser, or the new T bar design... 

Same old idea. Correction for the Limb, not system?
Sid this is were you shine. love to peek at your new riser. From what Joe has posted on the Hex7's. I think a metal riser should push that RAM look further with bolt down limbs and separate limb pockets.
Dan


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> See.... look at the open doors doubling ts opens. We are exploring our ideas. If you see one that looks like ours ask yourself if its new...
> doors are open... pick a path. Choose a design. Explore it. Cos its garenteed... youll be the first.... super recurves are a new area of design. Its an exiting time for bow design.
> :-D


I can agree the "super recurves" are a new area of design. But heres a few points of concern. And dont take this the wrong way- They are just concerns and you can address them following.
I am very skeptical of long term reliability with such a design and what you are in fact asking it to do. Heres why-, I noticed the outer one third (my perception of) does nearly all the work in opening to achieve ones full draw. My concern is that this limb is doing most of the work in a relatively small area. An area that has an extreme curve glued into it already. Also the area that is doing the most work is at a point that has a quickly narrowing cross section heading out towards the tips. A limbs overall strength is only as good as what bonds the sheer forces together. The narrower it gets, the less bonding cross surface you have. Narrower is NOT always better! At least not in terms of sheer line strength. Now add in carbon and the compression factors it places on these sheer lines and on the limbs cores. 

How long has the "extreme recurve" design been on the market? Is the above a valid concern?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

So with a major change to longer riser geometry and limb attachment, plus shorter stiffer faster limb that rest past parallel?
Dan


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> I can agree the "super recurves" are a new area of design. But heres a few points of concern. And dont take this the wrong way- They are just concerns and you can address them following.
> I am very skeptical of long term reliability with such a design and what you are in fact asking it to do. Heres why-, I noticed the outer one third (my perception of) does nearly all the work in opening to achieve ones full draw. My concern is that this limb is doing most of the work in a relatively small area. An area that has an extreme curve glued into it already. Also the area that is doing the most work is at a point that has a quickly narrowing cross section heading out towards the tips. A limbs overall strength is only as good as what bonds the sheer forces together. The narrower it gets, the less bonding cross surface you have. Narrower is NOT always better! At least not in terms of sheer line strength. Now add in carbon and the compression factors it places on these sheer lines and on the limbs cores.
> 
> How long has the "extreme recurve" design been on the market? Is the above a valid concern?


Since late 2003. Thats when the first hex4 came out.
135,000 shots is the highest estimate (an archers diary entry) that we have had reported to us.
this is real world. So i can only assume its had a few bad knockings. Etc.
we have a set of hex6s that have shot to both Fita and flight archery. Infact they even set a flight world record here in the UK. 

We have a set of short limbs here. 66" bow. So far its on 26 pulls to 42". I just did it again this afternoon. 7 irish visitors watched me.
HEX6 bb2 limbs.
im content with thier longevity.
infact so much so. 2007-2011 saw the hex5. So we made the hex6. That prooved usefull that we made an even bigger jump to the hex7.

Lets not include the recall of the xq1 as a testiment to conventional geometry being "too stressed"


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> think about a car and driver.
> 
> Now think about a motor cycle and a rider.
> 
> ...


That analogy does not apply to my statement. Mass times velocity is equal to a constant. I can create motion by hitting something slowly with a heavy mass, or hitting quickly with a light mass. A golf club with a heavy head does not have to be swung as hard as one with a light head. So what is the efficiency tradeoff? Overall energy is conserved, which is potential plus kinetic, but we already know a bunch is not going into translational kinetic energy in the arrow. 100% efficiency indicates that all does. Also bear in mind that efficiency and speed are different. We want more speed, but we also want high efficiency, especially if you want quiet, non vibrating bows, with no hand shock. I have done tests that show efficiency staying constant, while speed changes, when I change arrow mass. When I keep arrow weight over stored energy constant, I find that both speed and efficiency remain constant over a very wide range of draw lengths and arrow weights.

I am still thinking about this. Physics can be both confoundingly simple and complex at the same time. That is why we have to constantly challenge our understanding, interpretation and models. I may be completely wrong, but by the time I am done thinking about it, I will probably get to the right answer. Just not sure how long that will take. I used to be a much better physicist when I was younger. Bummer what age and lack of practice does. Good thing we have Sid to keep us on our toes.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> That analogy does not apply to my statement. Mass times velocity is equal to a constant. I can create motion by hitting something slowly with a heavy mass, or hitting softly quickly with a light mass. A golf club with a heavy head does not have to be swung as hard as one with a light head. So what is the efficiency tradeoff? Overall energy is conserved, which is potential plus kinetic, but we already know a bunch is not going into translational kinetic energy in the arrow. 100% efficiency indicates that all does. Also bear in mind that efficiency and speed are different. We want more speed, but we also want high efficiency, especially is you want quiet, non vibrating bows, with no hand shock. I have done tests that show efficiency staying constant, while speed changes, when I change arrow mass. When I keep arrow weight over stored energy constant, I find that both speed and efficiency remain constant over a very wide range of draw lengths and arrow weights.


But, you see, the momentum scenario would only apply if you had the limbs getting moving, hitting the arrow, and getting a launch from the impact. While there is some flexure of the arrow, surely, that is not the main mechanism for acceleration. I'm not saying that there's none of that going on here, but it's on the level where people get small improvements by selectively adding mass to certain portions of the string with speed nocks, etc. You can massage the subtleties to potentially beneficial effects, but that's not the dominant mechanism.

Still, I would point out that a freight train moving at 1 mph, while having far more momentum and KE than a golf player hitting a ball off a tee, isn't going to send that golf ball very far. But, besides the point.

My analogy isn't perfect, because for a given amount of arrow movement, only a small portion of the string moves as much as the as the arrow, the closer the string to the bow limbs, the less it moves. The closer to the riser a section of the bow limb, the less that section moves.

But, if you want to move the arrow, you have to move the moving mass of the bow. The faster the arrow goes, the faster the bow has to move, and when the string leaves the arrow, the bow doesn't throw it's movement into the arrow, it simply stops because the string has gone as far as it will let the limbs go. All of that energy turns into vibration, and then dissipates into heat and sound, or transfers into the hand of the person holding it (hand shock). The more the moving mass, the greater proportion of the energy that went into moving the bow to move the arrow. The greater the proportion of the total moving mass (bow and the arrow combined), the higher proportion of the energy absorbed. That's why lighter arrows tend to make the bow less efficient. Arrows get too light, hand shock goes up quickly, as does noise.

If you simplified the machine for the sake of the example, build an imaginary sling shot. Let's say that the spring tubing, which is the energy storage mechanism, has no mass, for the sake of easy.

You load a rock into the part that holds the rock, whatever that part is called. Let's call it a cup.

Let us also say that this spring tubing stores 20 ft-lbs of KE, and is 100% efficient, as well as having no mass.

If you have a rock that is 750gn, and the cup is also 750 gn, however fast it ends up hurling the combination, at the end of acceleration, the cup and the rock are going the same speed, and have the same mass, and have 20 ft-lbs of KE between them, or 10 ft-lbs each.

If you measure the rock exclusively, you'll say that the system has 50% efficiency.

If you do the same thing, with a different cup that only has 250 gn of mass, and same 750 gn rock, you will have a combination that goes a little faster, and between them has.... 20 ft-lbs of KE. However, the rock will now have 15 ft-lbs of KE, and the cup will be left with 5 ft-lbs.

If you measure the rock exclusively, you'll say that the system has 75% efficiency.

Now, if you want to get 100% efficiency out of this hypothetical awesome sling shot that has a 100% efficient tube spring with no mass, is immune to air resistance, etc. you have two options.

One, get a launching cup with no mass.

Two, Launch the cup with the rock, and give it credit for the mass and velocity of the cup.

You heard it here first. I predict somebody will make a bow with sharpened, one-time use limbs, that launch at the target with the arrrow.


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> Since late 2003. Thats when the first hex4 came out.
> 135,000 shots is the highest estimate (an archers diary entry) that we have had reported to us.
> this is real world. So i can only assume its had a few bad knockings. Etc.
> we have a set of hex6s that have shot to both Fita and flight archery. Infact they even set a flight world record here in the UK.
> ...


To be fair on the xq1 limbs, that could have also been a flaw in the manufacturing process. Unless you have heard otherwise from the actual makers of these limbs? 

Just curious though, are you suggesting that the hex7 limbs are less stressed than a more "conventional" limb design? Also curious as to how you actually test stress levels within a limb between the conventional design to the super recurve design?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm sure my name is mudd on this topic by now (over one slight oversight of my "Vision" LOL!) but here's what I see as what currently is..."slight exploitation"...of today's advanced materials within the design of the recent crop of what's now being referred too as..."Super Curves"...and it has nothing to do with folks jumping off moving motorcycles or out of cars in that to me?...the big material advantage is...less mass weight AND increased strength which allows for this...

Materials that allow for limb profile designs which at static?....place the limb tips themselves well forward of the grips throat instead of the limb tips being located slightly behind the grips throat as found in more conventional limb profiles.

This in effect has the similar affect playing the same role as "A Heavily Reflexed Riser" might...where again the limb tips of even standard profile limbs could wind up positioned well ahead of the grip throat but instead of reflexing the riser?....here we left the riser configuration "Heavily Deflexed" to act as a V-Block for the bow hand to get control over the extreme forward, huge hook, limb tip positions owhich then resulted in superior stability and point-ability as those "reaching far forward limb tips" passed the plane of the grips throat.

How could we make it faster and more efficient?...push those limb tips out forward even further yet...as this is in effect increasing the DFC distance which starts out and ends off well forward of the archers bow hand.  

God I'd love to buy one...but my OCD/AADD self would probably pick it apart somehow and I'd get mad at myself for spending so much! :laugh:

Hows that for "Vision"? 

Did I make up for my many sins? :laugh:


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Barney,

I will need to go through your post carefully later but first, you don't need contact for conservation of momentum to apply. The momentum that is conserved is the moving parts of the bow, the arrow, and the archer once the arrow is released. The limbs and the arrow move forward, and there is an opposite action on the archer. Presumably, lighter limbs move faster than heavier limbs. Think of a rocket in the dark vacuum of space. Rocket engines work by shooting high speed particles out their back end. There is nothing to push against. It is purely a matter of conservation of momentum. Honestly, I have tried to come up with a better understanding of efficiency than just lighter limbs, which is why I am pursuing this discussion. Hopefully, this will lead to a deeper understanding of the issue. Go to go. Be back later, hopefully after I have read and absorbed your post.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Steve bow design has to change in order to achieve the wanted high efficiency. Take a look at compounds over the last 20 years. It a working system. 
Dan


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Steve bow design has to change in order to achieve the wanted high efficiency. Take a look at compounds over the last 20 years. It a working system.
> Dan


You may be right about the higher efficiency but I have yet to see numbers, mainly because I do not follow compound data and have only taken one through my test process (an old wheel bow). There is a remarkable amount of stored energy since the DFC is more like a rectangle rather than a triangle. A compound bow does not have to be as efficient to generate more speed. So are they efficient, fast, or both?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Bill, take a look a Martin Jaguar, Saber or better yet buy one.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Oddly some do and some don't. I have shot some that liked light arrows and some that liked heavy? Once we started to use string and cable stopper the trend was you could shoot less draw weight & heavier arrow at or above the speed of the previous model. I will add that this is what you really strive for. Increase in a very little arrow will lead to a very unforgiving setup. Trads have a long way there. 280-290 fps was were I was happy on a conventional compound. Parallel 290-300 was tops. after that 320 was not my cup of tea with finger.
Dan

BTW you have to make a light arrow act stiff to make this work.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Bill, take a look a Martin Jaguar, Saber or better yet buy one.
> Dan


No thanks...I'm very familiar with just how unstable a reflexed riser is...which is where Borders was brilliant in that they heavily deflexed the riser of their HEX7 CH...which effectively reverses the ill effects if a reflexed riser...yet when coupled with the super hooks results in a dead stable speed demon of a bow....but maybe you're just alluding to me being an el cheapo bottom feeder type?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Barney,
> 
> I will need to go through your post carefully later but first, you don't need contact for conservation of momentum to apply. The momentum that is conserved is the moving parts of the bow, the arrow, and the archer once the arrow is released. The limbs and the arrow move forward, and there is an opposite action on the archer. Presumably, lighter limbs move faster than heavier limbs. Think of a rocket in the dark vacuum of space. Rocket engines work by shooting high speed particles out their back end. There is nothing to push against. It is purely a matter of conservation of momentum. Honestly, I have tried to come up with a better understanding of efficiency than just lighter limbs, which is why I am pursuing this discussion. Hopefully, this will lead to a deeper understanding of the issue. Go to go. Be back later, hopefully after I have read and absorbed your post.


I get what you're saying. Yes, momentum is conserved, but...

If you need to move Object A to move an object B...

Whatever the kinetic energy you put into moving Object A that is _not_ transferred into object B (which is the output by which we determine the efficiency of the system), is lost, at least in terms of getting put into Object B.

The kinetic energy that you could put into moving limbs with zero mass is zero. Hence, lower moving mass of bow and string (everything else being equal, and ignoring the fact that you've actually got a complex systems with internal resonances, and the timing of those resonances has an effect, a.k.a., speed nocks on compound bows), the more efficient the bow as an energy transfer mechanism.

I think we need to have some buddy beer time, and get ourselves really twisted up in this


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

No, I would not say that Bill.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

The key here is the internal resonance, lower the better. Dampening or expending. Think in terms of a fighter's punch. Sure we can build Limb with huge amounts of stored energy. Change the geometry and string (the delivery) to make it more efficient. But still you have to consider the lever or most has been lost. This is the part that make things work together.
Dan


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Some of us are in fact interested but would rather cut to the chase. Discuss limbs and designs, materials etc without the patronizing making people feel included in something they will ultimately have no say in anyway. (Thats all I meant)
> 
> *As for the constant dribble from people that have no experience with the limbs in question .... Your showing poor manners and it's just plain odd to me*
> Sorry I didnt disclose that ahead of time. I did in fact recently have a CH with the new Hex7s on it. Tested it pretty thoroughly and shot it a bunch. Good bow in many ways IMO. I will even go so far as to say they have the best carbon in the business right now.
> But if you wish to eliminate all the people that dont own or have ever owned one of the bows in question I think the participation number will be pretty small.


For the first part 

It's his thread and he can conduct it anyway he chooses 

As for the second part I really was not referring to you 

For theast part I do believe someone should have expired density something before they offer opinions as fact especilay when being negative


----------



## redribbon (Feb 19, 2015)

Were it not for someone having a new mill , I'd say the more things change ,the more they stay the same and we were headed for working , flexing and composite take down handles and bows that resembled a c when unstrung.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JParanee said:


> For the first part
> 
> It's his thread and he can conduct it anyway he chooses
> 
> ...


Sorry typed that on phone 

For that last part I do believe someone should have epierence with something before they offer opinions as fact especially when being negative


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

JParanee said:


> For the first part
> 
> It's his thread and he can conduct it anyway he chooses
> *Good. Then maybe let him engage and answer the questions. As can others conduct their responses to it however THEY choose.*
> ...


*What the hell!? 
Do you mean "For the EAST"? For the yeast? OH! For THE LAST,! lol ok gotchya. (forgot the space and the "L". 
"For the last part I do believe someone should have" ---expired density? Hmmm? ok this ones a little tougher.
Hmmm?--expired , ex pairs, hmmmm? EXPLORED? is it explored? (I'll just go with it) 
--should have explored density?, densely, destiny,-? Is it "explored destiny"? NO?
Immensely? is it "explored immensely"? Or "explored something immensely" NO? I dont know man? AH HELL I'll just go with it!
"before they offer opinions as fact especilay--(oh this ones easy!) "ESPECIALLY" when being negative"
Did I get it? Dont know if I got the middle but I kind of think I know what you were saying? 

However, I didnt mean to come off as negative. I know that asking to cut through riff raff and analogies that in no way pertain to a damb thing relative to bow making or designs probably comes off as "poor manners" and abrasive. Couple that with some tough questions mired in a little skepticism and people (and their friends) tend to get offended. I get it. 
*


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

The key when looking at conservation of momentum is that the momentum of the center of mass is constant. So using Barney's example, if a freight train hits a golf ball, the movement of the freight train represents the movement of the center of mass since it is much, much heavier than the golf ball. Therefore, you see very little change when the golf ball is struck. The momentum of the bow, archer, arrow, etc., must all stay the same, before and after the shot. The same is true when you fire a gun, which leads to kick. If you are a small person you will get throw back more. An interesting example is a fireworks explosion. The center of mass of the rocket remains the same before the blast, and after it explodes into pieces. The center of mass continues in the same parabolic trajectory, even though the fragments create a sphere. It is actually a moving sphere.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Okay, Barney, I read your sling shot analogy. It was very interesting and covers well, the case where mass is the only contributor to inefficiency. But there are others. We know that. So what proportion of inefficiency comes from other sources, such as vibration of the arrow, bow, archer? Can we control it? Can we tune the natural vibrational frequencies to make energy transfer more difficult? Or is the impact of vibration so small compared to mass that we need not concern ourselves with it?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Now you are cooking Jink. Keep the thoughts coming.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I should add on the golf ball train analogy, the golf bow will be going approximately the speed of the train after it is hit. If the train applied its breaks, the golf ball would continue at the speed of the train. So that begs the question, why don't flies in your car crash into the front windshield when you slam on the breaks?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I should add on the golf ball train analogy, the golf bow will be going approximately the speed of the train after it is hit. If the train applied its breaks, the golf ball would continue at the speed of the train. So that begs the question, why don't flies in your car crash into the front windshield when you slam on the breaks?


I don't know, I've never tried that


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Okay, Barney, I read your sling shot analogy. It was very interesting and covers well, the case where mass is the only contributor to inefficiency. But there are others. We know that. So what proportion of inefficiency comes from other sources, such as vibration of the arrow, bow, archer? Can we control it? Can we tune the natural vibrational frequencies to make energy transfer more difficult? Or is the impact of vibration so small compared to mass that we need not concern ourselves with it?


I'm not saying that there aren't other factors than mass. I'm just saying why lower mass limbs, _everything else being equal_ (which of course is a big assumption), will increase efficiency, that's all. Maybe we've been talking about different things all this time?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Myth buster.
work this riddle out then 
Two bows both with the same limb length.
Ie. Both have the same lever lenght.
both bows have 45lbs at 28"
Which one is under more stress...


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

That's easy... whichever breaks first. 

Next question...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Str8 Shooter said:


> That's easy... whichever breaks first.
> 
> Next question...


As per the rational on the xq1. It could have been a manufacturing fault


----------



## Breathn (Jun 12, 2005)

I have vision..I vision my covert hunter in my hands real soon..lol keep up great work sid


----------



## Chris Hill (Aug 26, 2005)

I like it when Sid starts these threads, it usually means something new is getting ready to come out.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> *What the hell!?
> Do you mean "For the EAST"? For the yeast? OH! For THE LAST,! lol ok gotchya. (forgot the space and the "L".
> "For the last part I do believe someone should have" ---expired density? Hmmm? ok this ones a little tougher.
> Hmmm?--expired , ex pairs, hmmmm? EXPLORED? is it explored? (I'll just go with it)
> ...


Sorry out of town and trying to type on an iPhone

you are rather sarcastic and rude and I really don't appreciate it


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Now you are cooking Jink. Keep the thoughts coming.


Thanks and?...Okay Hank...so following that same path I laid out where all of this has very little to do with any magical thicknesses or highly calculated curvatures but more to do with..

*"JUST HOW FAR FORWARD OF THE ARCHERS BOW HAND THE LIMB TIPS ARE AT STATIC"*

imagine if we now extended those limb tips even further forward too the point that they were just breaking past the archers bow hand in the last few inches of actual draw length...would this not....

1. Amplify the effects of "Perceived Let-Off" even more?

2. Would this not decrease the static length of the bow even more?

3. Which would cause it to "Open Up" in an even more dramatic fashion? 

Hank...think a static braced 40" bow opening up too the likes of a 70"er...where your 40" bow would require a 67" string...an "EXTREME SUPER CURVE".....with a riser that looks like a Gibson Flying V!...an in effect nearly doubling the spunk of any given archers actual DL as now?...the limbs aren't just moving in "one primary direction" (with a gentle secondary arc as witnessed on conventional limbs)....but now?...the limbs are in fact...

"SIMULTANEOUSLY MOVING IN TWO PRIMARY DIRECTIONS!!!" 

As not only are the limbs tips moving forward at a high rate of speed upon release but the 40" bow is now also reeling in that 70"AMO string as it's also rapidly decreasing in length!!!!

So now you're thinking...."You're crazy Jinks!"....it would take a steroid freak to get a limb profile with extreme forward limb tips like that too budge from static position!

Well Welcome Too "Phase Two Bows!"....(and I think that's what I'll name my archery design company! LOL!) 

Hank...(and Sid).....if you're not sitting down?...now might be a great time to grab a chair before reading on....got it?...ready?....okay...here we go....as I ask you to open up your minds-eye and attempt to grasp this as I attempt to convey it...and if I do a good job here?...you most certainly both will...as I venture into the oft overlooked world of...

*"COMBINED TECHNOLOGIES"*

Now picture this...

The Combination Of: "The Extreme Super Curve" (as described above) and?...

What could be best described too the minds-eye as....

"A Reverse Wind Warrior (as produced by White-wolf Bows) Dual Limb Design"

EXCEPT!: instead of the secondary limbs being mounted forward of the primary limbs to increase poundage at full draw and offer an elevated level of balancing tiller?....they are a curve-less, dead straight, linear limb mounted too the rear of the riser in a curve-less straight up position...and only protrude but a few inches taller than the extreme super curve limbs themselves...and the string doesn't attach too them at hard points but merely passes OVER them as in actuality?...they are "Not Limbs" at all...but simply act as...

*"OUT-RIGGERS"*

which serve to enhance the strings leverage angle unto the extreme super curve limb tips themselves just to merely....

"Get Them Going & Headed In The Right Direction"

as once the string nocks of the extreme super curve limb tips begin to rise above the glassy smooth string ramp atop the V-Notched outriggers?....the archer now has all the leverage needed to continue on through the draw cycle as the string itself "LIFTS" from the ends of those "now inert" outriggers...as their job is now complete now that the archer has full physical control of the primary extreme super curve limbs themselves and as the archer approaches full draw?...those rather limber, well designed CF outriggers now mate and flex with the ever changing profile of the primary extreme super curve limb itself adding but a few pounds too the bows overall draw weight.

Now...can you...envision that?...and hows that for...."vision"? 

This is not a far departure from making the analogy of how a Pratt&Whitney J-58 Multi-Cycle jet engine (found in the SR-71 Blackbird) works where it switches operating configurations from..."Conventional Jet Running Off A Turbine Driven Compressor Section"...toooo a?..."RAM JET"...where the turbine section goes free spool and no longer needs to gobble up energy driving a "compressor section"....because as the string leaves the smooth slider ramps atop the outriggers as the primary limbs open up?...it is now in it's..."2nd Cycle".

Hows that Hank? 

Some of my closest friends and family who've known me for decades often times have told me I'm wasting my life as a machinist...and that with my vivid imagination and comparatively high IQ as it relates too "mechanical aptitude" that I should've spent my life working in a think tank at M.I.T. but the trouble is?...

Those people don't like me....and the feelings are mutual. :laugh:

Now if you'll excuse me?...I need a warm up of my morning coffee as I mull over which limbs I'd like to mount too my new $139 SF Axiom+ L riser I have on it's way from LAS! :laugh:

Oh?...an grab my WF19 and hit the backyard! 

Have a Blessed Day and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

JParanee said:


> Sorry out of town and trying to type on an iPhone
> 
> you are rather sarcastic and rude and I really don't appreciate it


JP, Man Im just funning with you! Ya know? giving you crap in the lightest of heart. Sense of humor-silly-laughter-ribbing-smiling that sort of thing. I hate typing from phones as well.:wink:
I found the smileys, I hope they help convey the mood.:eyebrows:

So again, moving on.:focus:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JParanee said:


> ...It's his thread and he can conduct it anyway he chooses.
> 
> ...you are rather sarcastic and rude and I really don't appreciate it


With all due respect JP, the sarcasm and rudeness on this thread started in post #21.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, regardless of who starts a thread. The thread belongs to all members who choose to participate. When a thread starter doesn't *"cut to the chase"* as was mentioned earlier, they actually invite what you've seen on this thread. When questions are posed in the form of riddles and thought problems, you have to expect to get a wide range of responses from a wide range of personal experiences. 

As to having to actually own something or at least try it in order to ask legitimate questions.

I would agree, if the questions being asked pertain to subjective things like *"feel."* One can't comment on *"feel,"* if they have never felt what is being discussed.

However, if you are asking questions about objective things like actual performance and or durability, that doesn't apply...at least in my opinion. Those are things that need to be hashed out to a person's satisfaction, prior to making a purchase, not after.

I don't have to buy, or even try a Chevy Volt, to know I don't have any interest in owning one. The fact that a lot of people think they are attractive and have a smooth ride has nothing to do with my decision.

KPC


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> With respect to trends. Materials. Physics and limitations.
> 
> If you had no string mass. Then bow length would be less of a limiting factor in bow performance.
> 
> ...


Im still trying to figure out where this one is trying to lead?

Im just going to go with something.- If limb mass "could be" half of what it currently is (assuming we're wanting to refer this question to the Hex 7 limb) then the momentum of the limb after being stopped by the string would be less. I mean its the Newtons law of motion right?
*An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.* The unbalanced force being the string in this case.

In the world of bow limbs (not trains, plains, and automobiles) there is a forward motion of the limb, and the limb is always going to have flexibility. When the string stops the forward force of the limb, the weight of the string and the moving part TRIES to continue with any energy that cannot be put into the arrow ie, limb bounce/vibration. Make this moving mass lighter in weight, and it moves less in residual vibration after the arrow leaves the string.

In the case of an extra long hook this is inevitably going to equate to more mass AND more flex because of the length. Point I'm making is it simply has to become lighter and stiffer (keeping the same design) to alleviate some or all perception of felt vibration.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Im still trying to figure out where this one is trying to lead?
> 
> Im just going to go with something.- If limb mass "could be" half of what it currently is (assuming we're wanting to refer this question to the Hex 7 limb) then the momentum of the limb after being stopped by the string would be less. I mean its the Newtons law of motion right?
> *An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.* The unbalanced force being the string in this case.
> ...


Ok. Why are solid limbs even when they have more stored energy not as fast as light mass limbs.
why is the jelly bow. Solid glass fiber, not built into modern target bows.

Break horse power per ton.
why is a areal atom faster than a bentley yet the bentley has more bhp.
why can the areal atom stop quicker too.
go round corners faster.
remember a bow is still accelerating till it hits brace height.
after that its decelerating rapidly.
With a change in speed (be it accelerating or decelerating) your going to be consuming energy.
Less mass consumes less energy.

And as for wondering where im heading... LOL.
im heading where your heading.
its a topic of conversation.

Its a topic looking at why bows are stagnent in design.
you tell me where you think bows can go.
ill open the door. You guys point the direction.
so. Back to you. Where do you want it to go?


----------



## O'Mahony (Mar 15, 2014)

> what do you think would happen to bow design is string and limb mass was half what it currently is?


I envision a very short riser with limbs that would resemble clock springs. 

Border Bow's, I have always enjoyed your postings......keep em coming please.


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> Ok. Why are solid limbs even when they have more stored energy not as fast as light mass limbs.
> why is the jelly bow. Solid glass fiber, not built into modern target bows.
> 
> Break horse power per ton.
> ...


Is there something wrong with where its at? I mean at the moment most good high end bows on the market do work pretty darn good! They may not all "work" the same or "feel" the same but there is a pretty good selection right now and even after all the years (30, 40 , 60+) bows and bow limbs still put arrows down range and into targets and into game animals.
I can certainly appreciate the "making a better mouse trap" theory but when its all said and done it still takes a bow and an arrow and it still takes a shooter that aims the bow. 

I guess bow design really depends on what kind of bow you want to make and still be able to call it a bow or what you think a bow should look like. Lets face it, making a bow "look" and "feel" vastly better (in your opinion)is going to require it to look like -well, ? -less than what the average shaped bow on the market does now. So to change a bow into what you think a customer should have in their hands does not mean that that is what they will ultimately choose.

I agree materials are another factor that can allow the ability to come out with , I'll use the term "radical" for lack of a better term, a design that gets you where YOU as a bow maker think it should go. But again we're back to selling someone on the "look" of something to gain what you think is an advantage over current designs.

Having said all that, is it possible that with the materials available you could make something that "feels" like your intended goal (1-1/2lb per inch draw)but looks more like a "traditional" or "conventional" bow shape? And then make it more appealing by putting a good looking wood grain on the limbs? Unfortunately, I think we know the answer to this.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Having said all that, is it possible that with the materials available you could make something that "feels" like your intended goal (1-1/2lb per inch draw)but looks more like a "traditional" or "conventional" bow shape? And then make it more appealing by putting a good looking wood grain on the limbs? Unfortunately, I think we know the answer to this.


Man, don't that beg the question? What look is "more traditional" like? Considering the gambit of "traditional" bows these days, looks is a parameter to consider for marketing, but history proves the market will eventually adapt within reason. Marketing and innovation are tied in this regard, but, not to be limited by each other or we all would be shooting tree limbs for bows.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Is there something wrong with where its at? I mean at the moment most good high end bows on the market do work pretty darn good! They may not all "work" the same or "feel" the same but there is a pretty good selection right now and even after all the years (30, 40 , 60+) bows and bow limbs still put arrows down range and into targets and into game animals.
> I can certainly appreciate the "making a better mouse trap" theory but when its all said and done it still takes a bow and an arrow and it still takes a shooter that aims the bow.
> 
> I guess bow design really depends on what kind of bow you want to make and still be able to call it a bow or what you think a bow should look like. Lets face it, making a bow "look" and "feel" vastly better (in your opinion)is going to require it to look like -well, ? -less than what the average shaped bow on the market does now. So to change a bow into what you think a customer should have in their hands does not mean that that is what they will ultimately choose.
> ...


Well... im sure there was a cave man that was content with his life... till someone demonstrated something better.... woops. Along came the bow and then everyone wanted one, fastforward a thousands of years and all these discontent folks that had a vision of better things and we have the automobile. The internet. Touch screen TVs. And now a new genre of bow design.
and your asking the question. Should we be happy with what we have...
well im happy with all those that have tried.
im happy with progress.

Afterall. Earl Hoyt. Fred Bear and Howard Hill. Pushed to make a better mouse trap. Infact they did so much that your content with asking the question "is it worth trying harder"
Trust me when i say this. "Being handed back a bow by a guy who thinks is feels so different he questions if its broken" floats my boat. I want to do that to everyone...
i want to see him smile on the 3rd pull as he realises what people are on about when they mention "that let off feeling".

I want to show people that not all mouse traps need to be the same and that they can be quantitavily objectified.
i want to show people that there can be different designs that are not copies of someone elses design.
i want to show YOU that there are dozens of routes to designing a bow again. And that those routes are NOT all like our designs. And if you see one like ours... id question why its like ours and not a deeper narrower limb design for example. Why it still confirms to the same 25" riser long limb for a 30ish" draw. Taking a bow string thats 3" shorter. With a 9" brace height. With a string lift point at the 21" mark just like every other copy of earl hoyts design.
pick a stat on any target bow and i bet they are all within a stones throw of each other. How is that good for innovation...
how is that good for archery?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Man, don't that beg the question? What look is "more traditional" like? Considering the gambit of "traditional" bows these days, looks is a parameter to consider for marketing, but history proves the market will eventually adapt within reason. Marketing and innovation are tied in this regard, but, not to be limited by each other or we all would be shooting tree limbs for bows.


Sanford.
if forums were alive back when howard hill was flattening limbs to put glass on them, there would be someone wanting to ratain the trad look of the day.
same as there are still people who choose mobile phones because they still have a number pad on them.
the 1.5lbs per inch gain is so yesterday. 
1lbs per inch is available today...


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Borderbows said:


> Sanford.
> if forums were alive back when howard hill was flattening limbs to put glass on them, there would be someone wanting to ratain the trad look of the day.
> same as there are still people who choose mobile phones because they still have a number pad on them.
> the 1.5lbs per inch gain is so yesterday.
> 1lbs per inch is available today...


Sure its availabe, I agree with you on that. But not at the expense of having the design look like a carbon fiber candy cane. 

But certainly, you are free to make it look however you wish. Just know that "tradition" and 'innovation" dont always go together. But no doubt you are definitely an innovator.:wink:


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

On the 1lb per inch thing. Would you agree that say 45lbs at 28" is still 45lbs at 28" no matter how it gets there no matter what bow its pulled from?
I mean this weight has to be dispersed throughout the draw out to 28" regardless. Most other bows simply lose out on 2" of this power stroke in which to disperse this the 45lbs based on where you design your bow to be braced at. I think anyone could drop their brace on any other recurve and make the draw feel of that bow quite different out to the example 28".


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

So ya'll are still talking about how the CF was woven and directed and sorts of scientific technicalities right down to who farted in the epoxy and drew that extra line on the BP when the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day?...

The limb tips of the super curves travel too a point well past that of the archers bow hand rather than stopping before it such as conventional limb profiles do and require a much longer string to get that done.

"THAT'S": what makes them so much more powerful, fast and efficient.

"THAT's": what gives them..."That Different Feel".

Now...please remit any further questions you might have to my engineering department.

and?....

"THAT's: how other manufacturers would handle this. :laugh:

Sorry...made this afternoons coffee a bit on the strong side.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> In the case of an extra long hook this is inevitably going to equate to more mass AND more flex because of the length. Point I'm making is it simply has to become lighter and stiffer (keeping the same design) to alleviate some or all perception of felt vibration.


Was following until this....

The length of the hook just means that more of the limb is curved at and approaching brace. It doesn't add mass, or for that matter, make the bow or limb longer.

There is something as to the nature of how the limb will vibrate after the shot, in terms of where it vibrates, in that the string lift points, at brace, are farther away from the tips. So, while a long bow (the exact extreme opposite of a big hook), will have the whole limb flex in phase between the riser and the string contact point, with a recurve (and more so with a super reurve), the limb flexes such that the part between the string contact point and the riser flexes in opposite direction to the limb beyond the string contact point, and the limb tip.

It changes the nature of the vibration, as well as the dispersion pattern of sound radiated (as does the shape of the limb itself), but I don't think it's a simple more or less relationship.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> I'm sure my name is mudd on this topic by now (over one slight oversight of my "Vision" LOL!) but here's what I see as what currently is..."slight exploitation"...of today's advanced materials within the design of the recent crop of what's now being referred too as..."Super Curves"...and it has nothing to do with folks jumping off moving motorcycles or out of cars in that to me?...the big material advantage is...less mass weight AND increased strength which allows for this...
> 
> Materials that allow for limb profile designs which at static?....place the limb tips themselves well forward of the grips throat instead of the limb tips being located slightly behind the grips throat as found in more conventional limb profiles.


Jinks, your name is as good as ever! The 'Slight' exploitation would be mass and efficiency. You lose some mass, it gets more efficient, but not by a whole lot, for two reasons. One, you're not lowering the mass a whole lot in the scheme of things. The limbs are indeed heavy, but they also aren't moving nearly as much as the arrow.

What the Super Recurves exploit in the materials, to what I consider not so slight a benefit, if that benefit is of value to you, is the torsional stability of the material, allowing big hooks while still maintaining a stable bow that doesn't try to unstring itself, among other things. But, don't confuse this with 'Static'. Static hooks may also benefit from this, but in the case of Border Hex limbs, they are anything but.

The placement of the grips has nothing to do with this feature. Don't confuse the effects on the draw force curve with increasing the power stroke and the effective draw length from the perspective of the limbs. They both relate to stored energy, but address it in entirely different ways. I have both kinds of bows, with the same brace height and power stroke, and they are as different as different can get (or at least close enough to say it that dramatically )



> This in effect has the similar affect playing the same role as "A Heavily Reflexed Riser"


For emphasis, totally doesn't.



> How could we make it faster and more efficient?...push those limb tips out forward even further yet...as this is in effect increasing the DFC distance which starts out and ends off well forward of the archers bow hand.


For more emphasis, completely and totally irrelevant.



> Hows that for "Vision"?
> 
> Did I make up for my many sins? :laugh:


There's no sin in not understanding something. It happens to me a lot, and I like to think I won't be condemned for it


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Sure you can. There are more than a few risers with that level of deflex when shot without the grip and a few which have it when shot with. Not to mention the Olsen Variable....
> 
> -Grant


Elaborate please? Particularly on Olsen Variable.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks and?...Okay Hank...so following that same path I laid out where all of this has very little to do with any magical thicknesses or highly calculated curvatures but more to do with..
> 
> *"JUST HOW FAR FORWARD OF THE ARCHERS BOW HAND THE LIMB TIPS ARE AT STATIC"*


Just for emphasis, totally irrelevant )

Well, maybe incidentally relevant, Deeper hook, more energy storage under draw force curve with equivalent holding weight, _and_ that hook puts the limb tips farther forward at rest, but that's about it


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> So ya'll are still talking about how the CF was woven and directed and sorts of scientific technicalities right down to who farted in the epoxy and drew that extra line on the BP when the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day?...
> 
> The limb tips of the super curves travel too a point well past that of the archers bow hand rather than stopping before it such as conventional limb profiles do and require a much longer string to get that done.
> 
> ...


You really need to fire everybody in your engineering department 

It is an inspired hypothesis, and intuitively, it may make sense to some, but from a physical standpoint, it doesn't jive with pretty basic physics.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BarneySlayer said:


> You really need to fire everybody in your engineering department
> 
> It is an inspired hypothesis, and intuitively, it may make sense to some, but from a physical standpoint, it doesn't jive with pretty basic physics.


That's because when you design a limb profile that results in a 60" bow that requires a 59" string?...you've moved far beyond...

"basic physics"

as it pertains to recurvse as we know them. 

But if "Basic" is what you better comprehend?...here's a pictogram that might help explain things in a more easy to understand fashion...ready?...

String this and shoot it: *)*

got it?...okay...good...now?...

String This and Shoot It: *(*

Now....which one was faster?...which one required a longer string?...see whad I mean Vern? :laugh:

and you know I'm just JK'ing and playing with here Barney so don't go getting all knotted up on me here! :laugh:


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> Was following until this....
> 
> The length of the hook just means that more of the limb is curved at and approaching brace. It doesn't add mass, or for that matter, make the bow or limb longer.
> 
> ...


I think you missed where I was aiming with that. But understanding what you thought I meant, I would for the most part agree with you.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> I think you missed where I was aiming with that. But understanding what you thought I meant, I would for the most part agree with you.


That is entirely possible, as I wasn't intending to reply to anything you had said


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> That is entirely possible, as I wasn't intending to reply to anything you had said


But then, maybe i was... I need more sleep


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Miss one day and you get pretty far behind. I guess I should not have gone out shooting today.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> Having said all that, is it possible that with the materials available you could make something that "feels" like your intended goal (1-1/2lb per inch draw)but looks more like a "traditional" or "conventional" bow shape? And then make it more appealing by putting a good looking wood grain on the limbs? Unfortunately, I think we know the answer to this.


When I first saw the deep hooks, it looked whacky to me. After getting used to them, I look at a standard recurve and feel that it looks a bit timid.

As for the wood grain, if they can put wood grain on carbon fiber arrows, I suppose you could do it to limbs, but personally, I prefer the look naked.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> That's because when you design a limb profile that results in a 60" bow that requires a 59" string?...you've moved far beyond...
> 
> "basic physics"
> 
> as it pertains to recurvse as we know them.


Answer, if possible, why? Why does a string 1" shorter than bow length, as opposed to 3" shorter than the bow length, change the basic principles? It is a string and a spring lever. Force vectors still apply. Energy put in still equals force x distance. Energy output cannot exceed energy input.

The curve has more curve, but otherwise, what, specifically, from a physics standpoint, has changed?




> But if "Basic" is what you better comprehend?...here's a pictogram that might help explain things in a more easy to understand fashion...ready?...
> 
> String this and shoot it: *)*
> 
> ...


If that was your explanation, i'd have no problem with it 



> and you know I'm just JK'ing and playing with here Barney so don't go getting all knotted up on me here! :laugh:


Jinks, I appreciate you clarifying. If I came across at knotted up, I apologize. For my own clarification, I'm happy to have you here.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Miss one day and you get pretty far behind. I guess I should not have gone out shooting today.


No, you definitely should have gone out shooting!

I got some play time too, busting leftover birthday party balloons. I need to get some more. I forgot how fun balloons are!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> I'm not saying that there aren't other factors than mass. I'm just saying why lower mass limbs, _everything else being equal_ (which of course is a big assumption), will increase efficiency, that's all. Maybe we've been talking about different things all this time?


Barney, I was not taking exception to what you said. I was just trying to push the discussion to look at other factors that affect energy loss, how big they are, and can they be controlled.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> On the 1lb per inch thing. Would you agree that say 45lbs at 28" is still 45lbs at 28" no matter how it gets there no matter what bow its pulled from?
> I mean this weight has to be dispersed throughout the draw out to 28" regardless. Most other bows simply lose out on 2" of this power stroke in which to disperse this the 45lbs based on where you design your bow to be braced at. I think anyone could drop their brace on any other recurve and make the draw feel of that bow quite different out to the example 28".


When you say 'disperse', what do you mean by that?

If you actually compare the draw force curve, and what that means in terms of energy available, you will understand that there is more to it than just 'feel', and that 45#@28" may be the same as 45#@28", in terms of static holding weight, but what happens, in a very objective sense, is quite different, if you're comparing appreciably different designs.

My Predator Velocity run the same brace height as my CH, same power stroke, and not only is the feel significantly different, but the energy stored, and delivered, is significantly different, in proportion to holding weight.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Barney, I was not taking exception to what you said. I was just trying to push the discussion to look at other factors that affect energy loss, how big they are, and can they be controlled.


I was wondering, and I have no good idea, how wind resistance factors in to limb width. Is it appreciable? Anybody have an idea?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I was wondering, and I have no good idea, how wind resistance factors in to limb width. Is it appreciable? Anybody have an idea?


That one depends on the dynamic COG of the limb.
for example static recurves do all their bend closer to the fadeout. Meaning all that mass of the recurve needs to move.
while working recuves can be more static at the fadeouts... the latter meaning your moving less mass.
the COG is closer to the tip.
love the way some people just want to talk about the hex7 (normally nay sayers) when the thread is about vision. Options. Diversity. The open door infront of us...

Maybe considerable rediction in mass makes statics a more punchy option.... the COG closer to the fadeout is less of a penalty when mass is 50% less than normal


----------



## rembrandt (Jan 17, 2004)

LOL.....I read thru this thread and most was beyond my intelligence but it was a pleasure to read......My lands to Mergatroid, how can a trad bow be so complicated with all the physical endowments spoken of here? All I care about is cost, feel and performance.....Kinda like buying a new car.....I could care less whats under the hood as long as it gets me down the road with a smile on my face...I leave all that "under the hood, built in features" to the mechanics.....dang....I think I'm gonna go hug my bow and tell it I am amazed at how much smarter it is than me......I know one thing, its probably shaking its head, I mean riser at me at the way I shoot.....It's probably saying "Come on man" you are making me look bad.....your probably saying..."then why in blue blazes are you reading this thread, why not pass over it?" Well, I really don't know.....guess I was thinking I might rise up to the level of Parnee, Hank, Jinkster, Barney and others that really work their brain on these components and their abilities......but I'm still not the wiser.....I do know one thing howsomever......bamboo sure makes for a light bow......see how smart I am........


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Rem,

If we could only convince trees to grow to the right proportions, we could go back to just bending sticks, and still get the high performance we covet. Maybe we should get the genetic engineers working on it. This is going to require more than just natural selection.


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> When you say 'disperse', what do you mean by that?
> *45# to spread over 22" of draw or the average conventional recurves 8" braced 20" of draw stroke. Spread over a longer stroke and each inch has less in it.*_
> 
> If you actually compare the draw force curve, and what that means in terms of energy available, you will understand that there is more to it than just 'feel', and that 45#@28" may be the same as 45#@28", in terms of static holding weight, but what happens, in a very objective sense, is quite different, if you're comparing appreciably different designs.
> ...


_

9Got messed up in the edit!)_


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rembrandt said:


> bamboo sure makes for a light bow......see how smart I am........


ahhh!!!...a man after my own heart! LOL!....as bamboo is the core (grass) material in my Sky TR7 limbs...and I'm not certain?...but it does seem to be the lightest, strongest, most resilient natural material known to....well?...me. LOL!

and I think it's knowing the density of it's gaggillions of tightly grained fibers that makes it so smooth drawing...to my mind anyways! LOL!

Besides?...it's the only "natural material" in my entire rig but figured I gotta at least..."have some somewhere!" :laugh:

But low and behold?....like I read another poster post elsewhere?...

*"I've owned everything from $100 a set econo limbs to the mid range offerings and even high dollar, premium grade, top shelf limbs and through much first hand scientific testing?...have discovered I have the unique ability to equally shoot like chit with them all!"* 

:laugh:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> pick a stat on any target bow and i bet they are all within a stones throw of each other. How is that good for innovation...


Maybe because there are certain characteristics which make a bow easy to shoot? High-end target compounds are still running a +7" BH and they don't even have to contend with a finger release.....

-Grant


----------



## rembrandt (Jan 17, 2004)

JINKSTER said:


> ahhh!!!...a man after my own heart! LOL!....as bamboo is the core (grass) material in my Sky TR7 limbs...and I'm not certain?...but it does seem to be the lightest, strongest, most resilient natural material known to....well?...me. LOL!
> 
> and I think it's knowing the density of it's gaggillions of tightly grained fibers that makes it so smooth drawing...to my mind anyways! LOL!
> 
> ...


Jink.....I talked to a guy yesterday at the Howard Hill Southeastern Classic and he told me that years ago they did a test of heat treatment for different woods and of course bamboo and when they heated bamboo starting out at 120 degrees on up. that bamboo kept getting stronger and more densely flexible.....When they reached the limit on bamboo that it was like spring steal......light but great for bows......I've always wondered about it being of any value for bows but now I understand.......


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BarneySlayer said:


> Elaborate please? Particularly on Olsen Variable.


Fiberbow has more deflex built in. Any bow shot without the grip likewise has the same.

Variable:
http://ide-teknik.mvvf.net/eindex.htm

I'm shocked that Olsen hasn't sold a pile of them to other developers. Talk about an easy solution to evaluating design changes.

-Grant


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

rembrandt said:


> Jink.....I talked to a guy yesterday at the Howard Hill Southeastern Classic and he told me that years ago they did a test of heat treatment for different woods and of course bamboo and when they heated bamboo starting out at 120 degrees on up. that bamboo kept getting stronger and more densely flexible.....When they reached the limit on bamboo that it was like spring steal......light but great for bows......I've always wondered about it being of any value for bows but now I understand.......


Rem, I do a lot of bow building with bamboo. It's my favorite natural substance to work with in this regard. It's some funny stuff, though. The fiber density works in vary narrow bands, and you get anything starting with softer pith (wide strand dispersion) to rock hard (dense dispersion), all within the same cross-section.

Heat is a very touchy subject with boo. One, you can green-dry it pretty fast with heat, basically boiling the moisture away, but it cannot tolerate high heat and still be useful for bows. Just slightly overheat it, and it becomes as brittle as glass.

On laminated bows when used as core wood, it's really not that critical on properties anyway. As was mentioned before, the core of a bending beam is pretty neutral on compression and on tension stresses. Here, it does have a slight weight advantage - very slight.

If you had to assign where it shines the most, that would be where tension stress is greatest, but real glass wins that place on most modern bows.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> love the way some people just want to talk about the hex7 (normally nay sayers)


Do you feel flattered? 



> Maybe considerable reduction in mass makes statics a more punchy option.... the COG closer to the fadeout is less of a penalty when mass is 50% less than normal


So, do you mean that a reduction in mass would make a bigger difference in a static limb, because more of the limb has to move?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

rembrandt said:


> LOL.....I read thru this thread and most was beyond my intelligence but it was a pleasure to read......My lands to Mergatroid, how can a trad bow be so complicated with all the physical endowments spoken of here? All I care about is cost, feel and performance.....Kinda like buying a new car.....I could care less whats under the hood as long as it gets me down the road with a smile on my face...I leave all that "under the hood, built in features" to the mechanics.....dang....I think I'm gonna go hug my bow and tell it I am amazed at how much smarter it is than me......I know one thing, its probably shaking its head, I mean riser at me at the way I shoot.....It's probably saying "Come on man" you are making me look bad.....your probably saying..."then why in blue blazes are you reading this thread, why not pass over it?" Well, I really don't know.....guess I was thinking I might rise up to the level of Parnee, Hank, Jinkster, Barney and others that really work their brain on these components and their abilities......but I'm still not the wiser.....I do know one thing howsomever......bamboo sure makes for a light bow......see how smart I am........


While we're geeking out or arguing, you're shooting.

Who's the smart one?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Fiberbow has more deflex built in. Any bow shot without the grip likewise has the same.
> 
> Variable:
> http://ide-teknik.mvvf.net/eindex.htm
> ...


Wow, that's pretty cool. Talk about customization potential. Jinks, I think you need that. You could dink with it all day for a year, and not exhaust every combination.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Do you feel flattered?
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you mean that a reduction in mass would make a bigger difference in a static limb, because more of the limb has to move?


Flattered yes. 
They picked up the term super recurve the fastest.
they created product differenciation by pointing out that hex limbs were different..
a couple of them have unwittingly allowed me to explian the differences time and time again.
even started threads about the differences. Which inturn creates interest...
as for mass and statics.
i was just putting the thought out there.
who else is looking at the age old relationships and questioning them.
if limb length is a question of smoothness and smoothness has been turned upside down. Why are limbs the same length.
if limb mass is totally different. Then why are limbs the same.
if ts solves alot of design problems why are they still all the same width/recurve profiles....


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Maybe because there are certain characteristics which make a bow easy to shoot? High-end target compounds are still running a +7" BH and they don't even have to contend with a finger release.....
> 
> -Grant


I dont buy that easy to shoot bit.
how about from a design point of veiw.
Make a deflex riser. And then put the limbs pointing towards the archer and still keep the BH low?
Its not the BH that makes a biw stable. The BH is a consiquence of the bows needs.
its like asking for a 2" Bh with 4" of riser deflex. Its not really going to happen


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> i was just putting the thought out there.
> who else is looking at the age old relationships and questioning them


All major manufacturers are. Their business and marketing models, as they pertain to research and development, are just different. 

I bet we'd be amazed if we knew what the engineers at other companies have on their drawing boards, computer screens, and in the prototype stage. 

They just don't play new designs out on internet forums, and they don't bring them to market unless and until they are absolutely convinced that not only is it the direction that they want to take, but it will perform the way they want it to for the market they are making them for. 

Unlike larger manufacturers, small custom shops can try new things, sell a few, tweak this and tweak that, sell a few more, deal with a few failures, sell a few more, etc. If a particular design doesn't work out exactly as planned, they move on to something else. 

Larger manufacturers like Hoyt, WW, Samick, etc., can't do that. They settle on a design, ramp up production to meet thousands and thousands of orders, and are pretty much committed to a particular design, at least for a model year. Look what Hoyt recently did with the Formula System. It was a massive undertaking, a huge risk, literally years in the research and development stages, and fortunately for them, the results came in terms of wins for their target market.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, the methods are simply different based on different business models. I do think it's a mistake however, to assume that no one else is questioning the status quo.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> All major manufacturers are. Their business and marketing models, as they pertain to research and development, are just different.
> 
> I bet we'd be amazed if we knew what the engineers at other companies have on their drawing boards, computer screens, and in the prototype stage.
> 
> ...


id be impressed to see the "less deflex" R&D on some riser designs that have come out of late.
id also be keen to find out what riser length the F4 limbs are weighed on?
if you think its that comprehensive.... then i think we would disagree.

post 49:
http://tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49428&highlight=winex+faster&page=4

so i think you can take your assuptions above and think again

in the same way even MASSIVE mass production companies state quite clearly, Subject to change without notice in thier T&Cs.


post 67 gives you more details


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

with Honeyfoam core writen on it










without Honeyfoam


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Same model year?

Changes other than cosmetic?

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Larger manufacturers like Hoyt, WW, Samick, etc., can't do that. They settle on a design, ramp up production to meet thousands and thousands of orders, and are pretty much committed to a particular design, at least for a model year. Look what Hoyt recently did with the Formula System. It was a massive undertaking, a huge risk, literally years in the research and development stages, and fortunately for them, the results came in terms of wins for their target market.
> KPC


Sure they can! It's called prototype testing - testing within a small market of end-users. Done all the time and even within major competitions. THEN, they commit to larger production, which doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Sure they can! It's called prototype testing - testing within a small market of end-users. Done all the time and even within major competitions. THEN, they commit to larger production, which doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.


Of course they do. Like you said, it happens all the time. I've personally been a part of that process on a number of occasions, and am currently involved in one right now. However, *for the most part*, "prototype testing" is done within the confines of staff shooters and other targeted end users, not paying customers acting like guinea pigs at full retail. Prototypes are by definition, pre-production test models.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> However, *for the most part*, "prototype testing" is done within the confines of staff shooters and other targeted end users, not paying customers acting like guinea pigs at full retail. Prototypes are by definition, pre-production test models.
> 
> KPC


No! For the most part, it's marketing testing. The real R&D was done by the professionals  They use a high-visibility player or just an Internet "mouth", depending, or both. 

That's part of what I respect about Border's aproach. It's real enough that they don't have to give away bows to create "buzz". They may spend a lot of time explaining their product and their product's benefits over other bows, but they do not "buy" one or two votes in hopes of attracting more. 

Every good word you read about their bow comes from customers who paid full-boat or near full. Can't beat that for believing in your product sold, and, in believing in a product you have bought or about to buy.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Every good word you read about their bow comes from customers who paid full-boat or near full. Can't beat that for believing in your product sold, and, in believing in a product you have bought or about to buy.


That is true. And almost every not so good word is met with immediate condemnation, ridicule, and accusations of improper use. 

Like I said Sanford, two different business models, two different approaches. I have my opinion on which I prefer, so do you. Doesn't make either one right or wrong, just different. 

I don't need you or anyone else to see it my way, I'm just stating my opinion. 

It was inferred that no one else was pushing the envelope and I simply disagreed. I believe they are, just not in public forums as the chosen medium. 

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That is true. And almost every not so good word is met with immediate condemnation, ridicule, and accusations of improper use. KPC


You'd have to be imagining to stretch what is discussion with those descriptive words. 

Maybe you're thinking of the few cranks who go as far as use alter names to throw mud in the conversation. Otherwise, kid games aside, adult conversation may be blunt, but never seen anyone complain about this product in question and get met with condemnation or ridicule. 

Improper use? Maybe the maker has some pointers the user can't or won't consider. Still not improper to offer. To the other side, if a lot of good folks find no fault with the product or surrounding claims with it, what is a minority complaint telling them? That they don't know how to use or read a bow? Improper use or knowledge?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

You're bucking for an argument that I'm neither interested in, nor willing to take part in Sanford.

I'll stick with what I said earlier. Just because we don't see it played out on internet forums, that doesn't mean other limb and riser makers aren't pushing the envelope in terms of design, technology and innovation. Sometimes most people don't even know what is being considered until it hits the market. 

That's what I was posting my opinion on. If you want to use it as a reason rehash old arguments, be my guest, but you'll be doing it without me. 

Have a nice day.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Look, Gerep. No one wants any argument. You got your point across fine. Well, your insinuation that the big boys have the R&D kinks worked out prior to full production and marketing and the smaller guys use the market to test their R&D at the expense of customers' pocketbooks. Anyone who has been around archery for any time knows that's just not the case. Some of the big boys, the biggest, are as guilty as pushing crap on the market as any smaller company - that's an ethics issue, not one of scale.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> However, *for the most part*, "prototype testing" is done within the confines of staff shooters and other targeted end users, not paying customers acting like guinea pigs at full retail. Prototypes are by definition, pre-production test models.


Are you implying that, by contrast some companies don't do prototypes with in house or targeted testing, or are you just clarifying what prototype means? 

I've never heard of any company selling a product that hasn't done some kind of testing prior to release. Then again, I suppose it's not the kind of thing a manufacturer would announce loudly


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Are you implying that, by contrast some companies don't do prototypes with in house or targeted testing, or are you just clarifying what prototype means?
> 
> I've never heard of any company selling a product that hasn't done some kind of testing prior to release. Then again, I suppose it's not the kind of thing a manufacturer would announce loudly


That's it, Barney. You can't say bowyers are funding their R&D from the pocketbooks of their customers without saying they have an ethics issue - sending out unproven, to them, an item as being marketable and ready for use when it is not.

In kind, you can't say it's a business model to do so, without insulting every bowyer in your supposed business model.

Ethics run the gambit, big and small. R&D problems run big and small. I've got some big name limbs in the closet, broken, to prove that - but, the next year's model was better, even though my year-model (as did a huge majority of users') only had one year of warranty


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> Are you implying that, by contrast some companies don't do prototypes with in house or targeted testing, or are you just clarifying what prototype means?


As it pertains to the quote of mine that you referenced, the latter.

KPC


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> I dont buy that easy to shoot bit.
> how about from a design point of veiw.
> Make a deflex riser. And then put the limbs pointing towards the archer and still keep the BH low?
> Its not the BH that makes a biw stable. The BH is a consiquence of the bows needs.
> its like asking for a 2" Bh with 4" of riser deflex. Its not really going to happen


I do not think we could be more polar opposite on this issue right now Sid.
You are talking about engineering a bow without regard for the person using it beyond basic biomechanical impossibilities (ie: BH must be high enough to not contact the hand).
BH is a consequence of the archer's needs, otherwise every target compound would be running a 5" BH. The bow NEEDS to be designed around the archer otherwise you produce a product which isn't forgiving, which perhaps is true at the moment with your Hex limbs.

-Grant


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> As it pertains to the quote of mine that you referenced, the latter.
> 
> KPC


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> I do not think we could be more polar opposite on this issue right now Sid.
> You are talking about engineering a bow without regard for the person using it beyond basic biomechanical impossibilities (ie: BH must be high enough to not contact the hand).
> BH is a consequence of the archer's needs, otherwise every target compound would be running a 5" BH. The bow NEEDS to be designed around the archer otherwise you produce a product which isn't forgiving, which perhaps is true at the moment with your Hex limbs.
> 
> -Grant


This touches on two very interesting points.

The first, which I am sure about, is that regardless of the physics of the bows itself, the engineering has to address the shooting behavior of the shooters, and the difficult thing about that is that the behavior of the shooters will vary. In the end, you can't make a product that is necessarily best for everybody, you can only try to make it perform to certain, selectively chosen criteria.

The second, how much brace height, in itself, is responsible for 'forgiveness'. Intuitively, and mechanically, it would make sense that a higher brace height is more forgiving. After all farther the arrow nock and string stay away from the riser handle, the more they will resist hand torque.

However, on that point, I don't believe that the brace height issue, _in itself_, is nearly so dominant as we tend to think. In other words, while it may in itself contribute to a forgiving behavior during the shot, perhaps the brace height, in part, is at least a bit incidental.

For instance, my reflexed Predator Velocity (a reflexed riser with a brace height of 6 5/8" where I like it) is just as or more forgiving than any of my Predator Classic recurves, which seem to shoot well for me at 7 3/8". Same limb design, but one has a reflexed riser, and lower brace height that, by conventional wisdom should make it twitchy, and it is one of the most forgiving bows I've met. I've had massive flinches with it that still send the arrow more or less that way. BUT, it does do one thing in common with the other bows, _IF_, I had dialed up their brace height. That is, more preload on the limbs at brace.

Interesting, at least.

Dunno, would like to hear thoughts on that.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> I do not think we could be more polar opposite on this issue right now Sid.
> You are talking about engineering a bow without regard for the person using it beyond basic biomechanical impossibilities (ie: BH must be high enough to not contact the hand).
> BH is a consequence of the archer's needs, otherwise every target compound would be running a 5" BH. The bow NEEDS to be designed around the archer otherwise you produce a product which isn't forgiving, which perhaps is true at the moment with your Hex limbs.
> 
> -Grant


Im not sure how you can identify a lack of forgiveness in a single aspect of bow design.
riser deflex
np path... not a constant.
bows centre of gravity. And its distribution from the COG.

I can see several factors that alot in comon with bh. But hanging your hat on bh without looking at the rest is also wrong.
for example.
What happens with tiller?
And if tiller has changed. Whats happened to . The path the np takes.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> Im not sure how you can identify a lack of forgiveness in a single aspect of bow design.
> riser deflex
> np path... not a constant.
> bows centre of gravity. And its distribution from the COG.
> ...


BH is one constant which really hasn't changed for both recurve and compound bows used in competition. Ignoring how BH effects the archer is short sighted and shows a distinct tendency to engineer without thought to the user.
NP travel and tiller are both related and adjustable. Provided neither change on a shot by shot basis then they really aren't an issue.

Riser deflex is important since it allows limbs to operate at their optimum while keeping the bow shootable from the archer's perspective (mainly though increased BH). 

Do I think recurve bow development has reached a plateau? Yes definitely. Do I think that it's moved beyond the time when revolutionary changes were possible into a time when things will be merely evolutionary? Yes, it's probably been there 40+ years. Do I think that bow geometry needs to start a divergent evolution down two paths; one for Olympic and the other Barebow? Yes definitely.

On that last point: I think that Barebow, way more than Olympic, is a discipline which would benefit greatly from a user-centric design philosophy. Part of me REALLY wants to buy a Variable riser simply to be able to test hypothesis with regards to geometry changes and their effect on ease of use.
I have my theories about how Barebow geometry should depart from Olympic but since no manufacturers seem to want to explore that it's unlikely I will see whether they are true.

-Grant


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Grant... thats your opinion. based on every bow that has been made under the geometry of earl hoyts designs.

page 45

https://archive.org/stream/theorypracticeof00ford#page/44/mode/2up

Brace heights of 6" for mens bows (longer) and 5.5" for ladies bows...

and with this advice the guy was the greatest archer of his era.
1880's

almost every title at every distance was held by Horace Ford. No window, and Wooden arrows.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Love the idea that the bow was designed by an engineer here at Border.

our production director was a barebow European Champion in the 1970's and won the Scotish Champs 2 years running last year and this..

My Dad shot for the Scotish IFAA team in the 1970s and held Scotish records in Bowhunter recurve. the last two years he has also held titles under the SFAA.

As a Family we have held ALOT of British titles. (NFAS) Even my sister has medals to her name.

Are you suggesting we dont understand how bows shoot.
We have a combined 110 years of shooting experinece in our list of Directors.
with National records held, AND national titles. even some international.....

My dad turned up with a 64lbs hunting bow BD Ultra, to the Portugese European Bowhunter champs in 2001, he came 14th in Bowhunter. which isnt a bad shout for someone who turned up to meet old friends and have a laugh.

I wish you could come and Visit us, im sure you would change your opinion of who we are, infact, im sure you would!

I know one of my foils on this very Forum, a guy Whiz-Oz, Turned up and we are now friends, as distance and misunderstanding, on both our behalfs was changed when he turned up for a factory tour.
here is is resulting post:
http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?29547-A-visit-to-Border-Archery


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Earl Hoyt riser geometry has been used to break every one of those records. Indeed it currently holds ALL the records in recurve archery with the exception of Flight.

Did Ford accomplish pretty amazing things? Yes. But you can't pretend he wouldn't be shooting even better with modern equipment.

Clearly using your logic Vegas should be dominated by low BH compounds, except it's not. You can build a compound which will shoot just fine out of a shooting machine at virtually any BH but target bows are+8" and that is trigger fired, fully stabilized, with the string captured fully in the cams for 100% of the shot.

-Grant


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> Love the idea that the bow was designed by an engineer here at Border.
> 
> our production director was a barebow European Champion in the 1970's and won the Scotish Champs 2 years running last year and this..
> 
> ...


And there it is....classic Sid approach of blaming the customer.

Please let me know when you start designing bows which can be shot by us mere mortals. Until then I'm sure I can get by with what has won every major event in the last 40 years or so.

-Grant


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sid, I think sometimes, in your familiarity of technical details, you miss them in your explanations.

I also think that in this, your belief in your product comes off as dismissive of the real experiences others are having with your product. some might even find it arrogant, though I doubt that is your intention.

Instead of trying to show why somebody's experience is wrong, it would be nice to actually try to figure out how their experience may relate to what you know. Some of these guys, even if you feel they might be in error about causation, have a valuable finger on more than a few pulses in archery and equipment.

It is a common practice, when tuning a bow, among people who know how to tune (and those who don't,) to dial up te brace height. Many people find that their bows shoot best for them with the brace height beyond the manufacturer's suggested maximum, including some people who have won barebow division at vegas, I believe. One of those, whom I talked to, actually ran your limbs above suggested brace at western trad IBO year before this most recent, and pounded out 11's with the thing like I've never seen, and had the highest score at the shoot.

so, something is in fact, objectively going on, and it relates to brace height, even if brace height in itself is not the dominant determining factor. How about digging deep and exploring what may be happening, instead of labeling it opinion?

Thanks.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Sid, I think sometimes, in your familiarity of technical details, you miss them in your explanations.
> 
> I also think that in this, your belief in your product comes off as dismissive of the real experiences others are having with your product. some might even find it arrogant, though I doubt that is your intention.
> 
> ...


I hear you.
my problem is people are putting in PBs with our limbs.
mere mortals. How do i handle Grants coments from thousands of miles away?

Some people do it.
some people dont.
now i cant blame the archer....
how do i round that square


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Barney. I take it you have read reviews by people about some folks shooting well with one limb yet cant shoot well with others.
yet they are 99% identical.
Martins limb review post was an interesting read. That the hex limbs for him shot the same score as a set of limbs that can win the olympics.
yet our conventional profile limbs scored higher.
id put money that the same limbs in the same test conducted somewhere else would come out with different results.
how can that be if the only variable is the archer.

The other vairable is tune.
what bow is closest to tune?
Which one is closest to the middle of the bell curve for that archer...
which one is best alligned?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Off topic but 

I just sold a pair of F 7's to a well known bowyer 

He wanted them for his test bed 

I asked what he thought and he said they performed only marginally better than a much cheaper limb in Hoyt's stable 

That was their latest and greatest not to long ago 

So as for other companies pushing the envelope 

Maybe not so much


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Barney. I take it you have read reviews by people about some folks shooting well with one limb yet cant shoot well with others.
> yet they are 99% identical.
> Martins limb review post was an interesting read. That the hex limbs for him shot the same score as a set of limbs that can win the olympics.
> yet our conventional profile limbs scored higher.
> ...


That, my friend, is the nature of people, and as such, the nature of your business 

You might sell a piece of the system, but your opportunities for success or failure, in each individual case, go beyond your own marbles. You can only do what you can do, but by all means, try to do whatever that is. If you honestly do that, well, you've done it.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JParanee said:


> Off topic but
> 
> I just sold a pair of F 7's to a well known bowyer
> 
> ...


First, how do you quantify "marginally better", and in terms of what? Speed? Torsional stiffness? That ever elusive thing we call "feel?" 

The difference between mid to upper end limbs is almost always *"marginal."* It usually only becomes *significant* when it is being used in marketing claims. For example, some potential customers might say why in the heck would I spend hundreds of dollars more for a limb that is only 3-5 fps faster than their old set, when the people making them might proudly say that their new whiz bang design generates a whopping 3% increase in speed.

As to whether or not others are pushing the envelope. First, like I said before, I think we'd all be surprised if we knew what was on the drawing boards and the computer screens of engineers as we speak. As I said before, the fact that not all manufacturers choose to let their new design ideas play out on internet forums doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything. How many people on these boards knew about Hoyt's paralever system prior to it's introduction? 

Second, not all manufacturers are looking for improvement in the same areas. Some might be looking for raw speed, others might be looking for ease of tuning, others forgiveness, and the list goes on and on. It could also be that while certain new designs have indeed been tried, and show improvement in one area, it might have been felt that it came at a cost in other areas. A cost that some manufacturers did not feel was worth it, or even necessary in terms of what their target market was looking to achieve.

How much better is a Quattro than a F-7? In terms of what? Depending on who you ask, it could be "marginally" and it could be "substantially."

How much better is a Hex7 than a Hex6? In terms of what? Depending on who you ask, it could be "marginally" and it could be "substantially."

How much better is a Extreme BF than a Black Max Extreme? In terms of what? Depending on who you ask, it could be "marginally" and it could be "substantially."

Lastly, it's nothing more than internet fodder for the vast majority of us anyway. Who here is good enough to actually discern the "marginal" differences between limbs in any objective or quantifiable way. Not me.

KPC


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

GEREP said:


> First, how do you quantify "marginally better", and in terms of what? Speed? Torsional stiffness? That ever elusive thing we call "feel?"
> 
> The difference between mid to upper end limbs is almost always *"marginal."* It usually only becomes *significant* when it is being used in marketing claims. For example, some potential customers might say why in the heck would I spend hundreds of dollars more for a limb that is only 3-5 fps faster than their old set, when the people making them might proudly say that their new whiz bang design generates a whopping 3% increase in speed.
> 
> ...


 *Who here is good enough to actually discern the "marginal" differences between limbs in any objective or quantifiable way. Not me.*
Perfectly put!
My scores on the 3D range did not improve with the Hex7 in my hands. If I screwed up on the shot, my impact point reflected that. 
Here's another point to objectivity, -- I feel that bow design and performance have somewhat plateaued for the past 15 to 20 years. What some see as a big huge 3% gain is not even worth mentioning to me. I'm just not easily impressed I guess. 
I can understand from a builders standpoint, that might be worlds of difference from a competitive market perspective. But I'm a buyer, not a bowyer, and maybe tend to not be swayed so easily just because some ONE gives a product a good review. (or a bad one)

Personally, I think that when the ultimate goal is to win the market at all cost by marketing "innovation" (unproven innovation at that)-you take a huge risk! We'll see where the current innovation is in 3 or 4 years from now and if its discontinued or not. No matter how anyone sees it, I have a feeling that reliability will always win out in the end.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Myth Buster said:


> *Who here is good enough to actually discern the "marginal" differences between limbs in any objective or quantifiable way. Not me.*
> Perfectly put!
> My scores on the 3D range did not improve with the Hex7 in my hands. If I screwed up on the shot, my impact point reflected that.
> Here's another point to objectivity, -- I feel that bow design and performance have somewhat plateaued for the past 15 to 20 years. What some see as a big huge 3% gain is not even worth mentioning to me. I'm just not easily impressed I guess.
> ...


For me its all about the way things feel 

I have never said that a hex 7 would make anyone a better shot or a better Hunter 

Whether it be a fly rod or a custom knife or rifle some people will pay for very small nuances


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

KPC... 
there is a difference in innovation and marketting.
for example, its possible to dirive a formula to tune a bow.
XBow+YArrows= Tuned.

its possible to market this solution as something that gets you results.

the problem is when you change one aspect of it, you trash the equation.

the formula = success.

is the equation innovative... well, kinda... does it stifle innovation...

yes, but i suppose it is dictated by you income stream, arrows or bows.

is the cart selling horses, or does the horse sell carts.

one is driven in the marketting depeartment, the other is driven by innovation.

being an accountant, i can see your point of money money money, IS IT WORTH IT?
but for us, making a better mousetrap IS worth it. 

we dont want to limit bow design to fit an arrow chart, we want to make a bow that allows you to tune an arrow to that, and here lies the problem.
we fight against the tide of "must fit to chart", must fit to 9" BH, must fit 1.25 cycles in paradox. Must have a limb mass of about 190-200 Grams and must have a SE/PDF of 0.91 at 28"

i think since the 1980s all ILF limbs pritty much fit this matrix.
and i think Joe has just illuded to this.
you just have to look at the structure of the industry Giants to see that its about fitting to a marketting departments needs... of having a successful chart that customers tick boxes in to come out with a tuned bow.

innovation will be seen as difficult. as it doesnt fit the norms of the 10s of years of following a formula.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> being an accountant, i can see your point of money money money, IS IT WORTH IT?
> but for us, making a better mousetrap IS worth it.


I can only assume that the above statement is in reference to the following:



GEREP said:


> Second, not all manufacturers are looking for improvement in the same areas. Some might be looking for raw speed, others might be looking for ease of tuning, others forgiveness, and the list goes on and on. *It could also be that while certain new designs have indeed been tried, and show improvement in one area, it might have been felt that it came at a cost in other areas. A cost that some manufacturers did not feel was worth it, or even necessary in terms of what their target market was looking to achieve.*


Let's clarify a few things. First, I'm not an accountant. My wife is, but I'm not. 

Second, I think you missed my point when I referred to *"cost."* While it would be naïve to think that any innovation can be viewed out of the context of profit or loss, that wasn't my point. Any innovation that isn't commercially viable isn't really an innovation at all.

When I said *"It could also be that while certain new designs have indeed been tried, and show improvement in one area, it might have been felt that it came at a cost in other areas,"* I was referring to performance and behavior, not dollars and cents. 

Example: It's relatively easy for a auto manufacturer to substantially increase fuel economy. First and foremost, reduce weight. However, while efforts to reduce weight might well increase fuel economy, it can also decrease safety, durability, ride quality, performance and yes, even looks. In other words, increased fuel economy, while achievable, might *"come at a cost"* to those other things. A cost that the consumer, and ultimately the producer, is not willing to incur. 

They can also increase fuel economy by forcing drivers to use their products in a certain way. A manufacturer could probably accurately tout a 25% increase in fuel economy with one of their designs. However, in order to realize that increase, tires must always be inflated to their maximum level, only the driver can be in the vehicle, no passengers, no cargo weighing more than 25 lbs, no towing and no tie-downs. In addition to that, engine RPMs can never exceed 2500, a governor will limit top speed to 50 mph, and the automobile can only be used on flat dry roads, in temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Some customers would surely buy into those requirements and realize the increased fuel economy. Most would probably say *"it's not worth the cost"* in terms of what they actually want to do with a vehicle. It's a personal decision.

I feel that way about the Hoyt Formula System. It might well do every single thing they say it will...and even more. Even so, I'm not willing to buy in. I'm a realist. First of all, I'm not a good enough archer to actually exploit most of the benefits. Very few people actually are. Nor am I willing to forego the universal nature of all my other equipment in order to get benefits that I'm not good enough to exploit anyway.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I can only assume that the above statement is in reference to the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if you have market dominance.... why rock the boat?


this can only be answered with what is actually out on the market.
for example, its only recently with the Quatro has an fiber angle other than 90 degs been used in Hoyt limbs. So how can they tell what can be done in the hands of thier congrigation. this R&D you speak of.

if any prostaffer were seen shooting anything other than a hoyt profile limb, im sure someone would have comented...

so yes, i get your theory, im sure you get mine too. :-D


This also works on the principal, of marketting driven companies. companies driven by accountants. where production changes, and justification that the profile that won on sunday isnt the profile you buy on monday.
works on the prinical that thier mass production would need a second line of formers and tooling for the second shape, while thier current setup can make all tiers of product on the one production setup.

remembering you cant make entre level limbs with cross weave carbon for the same price as you can wood/glass. so wood glass geom cant be used on more advanced profiles. returning us to the wins on sunday, sells on monday.

thats marketting driven.

our business model doesnt catter for the entry level limb. so we are not restricted to wood/glass levels of geometry.

so comercial viablity depends on your marketting!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> so comercial viablity depends on your marketting!


Correct! Unless one incorrectly assume there is only one, homogeneous, tier of buyers in the world. Manufacturers and marketers have long realized that they are catering to at least 3 tiers of buyers, each unique from the other in taste and buying power.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> if you have market dominance.... why rock the boat?
> 
> 
> this can only be answered with what is actually out on the market.
> ...


I do understand your theory, but you keep referring to monetary cost, and that's not what I was referring to when I posted what I did.

One thing we can definitely agree on is that the commercial viability of any innovation, either real or perceived, *"depends on your marketting [sic]."*

There is an *Ice Mountain* bottled water plant close to my home here in MI. 









Their marketing states:

_*"Ice Mountain® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water is sourced only from carefully selected springs, and contains naturally occurring minerals for a crisp, clean taste.

Filtered Naturally By The Earth

There are over three hundred fifty-eight million trillion gallons of water on Earth. But not all water is created equal. Ice Mountain® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water comes only from carefully selected mountain springs that are continually replenished. What starts out as rain and snow, soaks into the ground and is filtered naturally by the earth with a distinct composition of minerals to create our crisp, refreshing taste."*_

Now, while all of that might be technically accurate, there isn't a "mountain" anywhere near that bottling plant, and the same water they are selling at a premium, for all the reasons they cite, is the same water, and gives the same benefits that the neighbors are getting from the water out of their garden hoses. It's Evart, Michigan well water, plain and simple. :wink: 

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Now, while all of that might be technically accurate, there isn't a "mountain" anywhere near that bottling plant, and the same water they are selling at a premium, for all the reasons they cite, is the same water, and gives the same benefits that the neighbors are getting from the water out of their garden hoses. It's Evart, Michigan well water, plain and simple. :wink:
> 
> KPC


Sure it's technically correct, Gerep. The aquifer my well taps here in the marshy coast of Texas starts in the mountains many hundreds of miles from me. They are just underground conduits.

You are just a different market. You get no benefit because it costs you nothing. Live in a place where treated surface water is your only source and all those benefits mean something worth paying for. No marketing gimmick there! It's real, non-chemically processed, water.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I do understand your theory, but you keep referring to monetary cost, and that's not what I was referring to when I posted what I did.
> 
> One thing we can definitely agree on is that the commercial viability of any innovation, either real or perceived, *"depends on your marketting [sic]."*
> 
> ...


imagine a situation where you could structure your water with more calcuim.
meaning you dont need as much in your diet. (good for those who are lactose intolerant)
imagine a means of finding a rock filtration system, that adds Vitamin C to the water.

Keep adding these and you end up with a water that is a diatary suppliment.

that makes a difference...

its step by step you make a better mouse trap.

one thing for dead cert, without change you dont get progress.

Maths formulas dont change, and if you design a bow to fit a spine chart. thats you innovation hammered into a corner.
infact, your reduced to rebadging the same product as everyone elses.


and water is not just water... ;-)

https://www.southernwater.co.uk/water-hardness

anyone that has tried hard water vs soft water will know the difference.
soft water struggles to get soap off your hands.
Hard water washes it off quickly.
hard water contains calcium, so bottling water from a limestone aquafer and moving it to a granite bedrock area will provide a different taste. as well as different calcuim content...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Ironically, in a more convivial conversation elsewhere, where there isn't a need by some to immediately refute others, pretty much the same concept of non-monetary cost, or *"expense"* was espoused.




Sanford said:


> Sid, might you be saying that tuning our arrows by changing preload comes at an expense of timing limbs under tiller. But, the margin there is a large enough playing field that it doesn't matter and the gain is worth the trade?





Sanford said:


> Archery is nothing but a world of compromises. Figure, too, the bow is nothing but a closed loop with continuous equilibrium of forces along all points. I think it safe to say we ask it to compromise to our and our arrow's needs rather than the other way around.


One benefit often comes at a *"cost"* to another. Depending on what you are trying to achieve, and who you are attempting to target, some things are perceived to be worth that cost, and others are not.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Ironically, in a more convivial conversation elsewhere, where there isn't a need by some to immediately refute others, pretty much the same concept of non-monetary cost, or *"expense"* was espoused. KPC


I only said it was not treated surface water, so the product was beneficial to others as the label states. That pertains to how some folks view a product innovation over another - need plays into who fits the target market. 

Not sure why I'm pegged with being involved with your definition of costs. You studied finance, so I assume you know the various definitions of costs already and don't disagree with you at all.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> and water is not just water... ;-)
> 
> https://www.southernwater.co.uk/water-hardness
> 
> ...


Indeed it isn't, and as we all know taste is subjective. 

However, let's step away from the marketing aspects, and get back to a useful comparison. Aside from any contaminants, 99% of all species won't realize an objective difference between bottled water and water from the hose. All other things being equal, a tomato plant isn't going to grow any better if it's watered with Ice Mountain 100% Natural Spring Water, water from the garden hose, or rain.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Indeed it isn't, and as we all know taste is subjective.
> 
> However, let's step away from the marketing aspects, and get back to a useful comparison. Aside from any contaminants, 99% of all species won't realize an objective difference between bottled water and water from the hose. All other things being equal, a tomato plant isn't going to grow any better if it's watered with Ice Mountain 100% Natural Spring Water, water from the garden hose, or rain.
> 
> KPC


I always thought the same about the "water" hype, given my near-free access to tapping an underground aquifer several hundred feet below my backyard. Water, to many others, is an issue I probably have no comprehension about, never having lived in a "water issue" world. On a lighter note, some folks are so spoiled on the taste of "their" water, mine they will not drink and bring their own. My taste-buds are not that sensitive, unless we are talking city treated tap water, then, I'll bring my own or buy next best thing.

My tomato plants don't have taste-buds


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

Ok so on to something likely more interesting, --
Hey Sid, have you ever seen (or know anyone that claims to have seen) the Lock Ness monster? Or "Nessy", as we here in the states might refer to it as?
And how far do you live from there? (actually very seriously interested to know your true thoughts on this)


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Myth Buster said:


> Ok so on to something likely more interesting, --
> Hey Sid, have you ever seen (or know anyone that claims to have seen) the Lock Ness monster? Or "Nessy", as we here in the states might refer to it as?
> And how far do you live from there? (actually very seriously interested to know your true thoughts on this)


*HEY!!* I knew I saw that profile somewhere before!!









Time to come clean Sid, where did the inspiration for the Hex-7 *REALLY* come from.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Inspriation came from the waterbuffalo. If you want to keep it topical and not factual.

I can taste the difference between hard water and soft water. I can also tell you the difference when washing my hands. Infact you can also see the difference in kettles...

Some water takes ages to get that slippy soap feeling off your hands. While others strips it off almost too quickly.

Infact water tastes soo different from location to location that "yorkshire tea" is a blend of indian teas that suits yorkshire water.

Now for a question close to my heart.
do you water your whisky down with tap water... or chemicaly tasteless water.
lets not go near guiness made under licence is nothing like guiness made from water from the Liffey river that runs through dublin. Where the original brewery is situated.
people CAN tell the difference.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Ironically, in a more convivial conversation elsewhere, where there isn't a need by some to immediately refute others, pretty much the same concept of non-monetary cost, or *"expense"* was espoused.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what "cost" is there in having a different tune?
Once tuned. Its tuned...


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> GEREP said:
> 
> 
> > I can only assume that the above statement is in reference to the following:
> ...


----------



## Myth Buster (Mar 27, 2015)

GEREP said:


> *HEY!!* I knew I saw that profile somewhere before!!
> 
> View attachment 2301457
> 
> ...


:set1_rolf2:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> I can taste the difference between hard water and soft water. I can also tell you the difference when washing my hands. Infact you can also see the difference in kettles...
> 
> Some water takes ages to get that slippy soap feeling off your hands. While others strips it off almost too quickly.
> 
> ...


That's a straw man Sid. Nobody that I've seen said there wasn't a difference. Certainly not me. The question I was asking was is it subjective or objective, and if it is indeed objective, what percentage of the archers out there are capable of exploiting it? 

As to the rest, I don't drink whiskey at all. I got sick on it as a teenager and to this day just the smell nauseates me. Wouldn't matter if I watered it down with *"Ice Mountain 100% Natural Spring Water"*(from a well in Evart, MI), or water from my tap. It would still nauseate me. As far as Guiness goes, some connoisseurs could probably not only tell what water it was made from but what the brew master had for lunch. However, for the other 99.9% of the folks out there who are just looking to enjoy a cold beer, whether it was Guiness or Bud, the result would be the same. 

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> So what "cost" is there in having a different tune?
> Once tuned. Its tuned...


A forgiving "tune" or design might come at a "cost" to speed.

An ultra high performance "tune" or design might come at a cost to it's range of applications.

We can go around and around about this all day but in my opinion, it all came full circle with your last statement in post #183.

At the end of the day, whether or not a design proves to be commercially viable is almost completely dependent on marketing. Hoyt doesn't actually need to create thousands more Brady Ellisons, they just need to convince enough people that it's *their equipment* that makes it possible. 

Now, this conversation has been enjoyable, but if you'll excuse me, I think my wife and I and a couple friends are going to head out on the pontoon boat. I doubt we'll see *"Nessie,"* but you never know. I guess it all depends on how many fine Bud Lights we have.

:beer: :wink: 

KPC


----------

