# The Future



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

Being a stick and string guy since the mid-fifties…I think one of the unspoken features about “traditional” archery is constant change…and the future will continue the trend. The upside is that there will be more advancement in materials…the damper, as always…is the proliferation of lawyers. (Sorry for the reality check...I'm just the messenger...kindly put them arrows down.)  Rick.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

For me its all about building a more efficient limb 

A limb that performs at a given weight better than another 

A limb that is durable is paramount, big deer come way to hard to have a piece of equipment that in the field could let you down


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I hope I'll be able to show you in a few weeks :tongue: the wait for my new toy is driving me a little crazy (it will be the first of 6 production risers). Riser geometry/balance is way ahead of the pack, matched with the hex6 should make one fantastic shooting combination.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> yeah yeah yeah I know its an oxymoron, but I don't want this thread to be about the definition of "TRAD"


I think it has to be in order to answer your question. More on that later.

Traditional archery isn't immune to the "latest greatest" syndrome. Actually, because of it's inherent limitations, it might actually be *more* prone to such claims.

Design related performance gains are so minimal in terms of cost/benefit, they are pretty much dismissed by all but the most ardent techies.

In terms of things that are actually measurable, in all but a very few cases, a sub 200.00 limb will perform within a few percentage points of how an 800.00 limb will perform. Even then, an even smaller percentage of archers worldwide are competent enough to realize it, let alone capitalize on it.

That brings us back to the definition of "TRAD." 

In my opinion, there is a difference between single string, FITA/Olympic/JOAD type archery, and what is commonly referred to as "traditional archery," which for the most part is hunter/recreational/3D.

Not all, but most of the former don't consider themselves "traditional" archers. What they do is discipline unto itself, and there is very little, if any rejection of technology, design, or material, as long as it fits into the regulations of what they do. Minute performance gains are always going to be a part of the "future" of this discipline because minute differences separate the players, and many of them have no problem paying dearly for that perceived advantage.

In regard to what I consider the "TRAD" types, which are the hunters, the 3D, and the recreational folks, I think the "future" lies more in ergonomic design rather than performance design. Look at the impact ILF has had in the "TRAD" realm. Sure, an argument can be made for performance gains from some of the designs, but for the vast majority, it's popularity has MUCH more to do with the "interchangeability," the convenience, and the ability to build a truly custom rig, than anything having to do with performance. Hunters like designs that hunt. Try shooting full blown FITA rig out of treestand (even if it is more accurate) and you'll know what I mean. Try shooting a Hill style longbow, barebow, at 90 meters, and you'll know what I mean.

Some design features will bleed over from one disciple to the other (as will some participants) but to the majority of the players in each discipline, they will be received as more incidental than intentional, more "desert" than "main meal." 

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I think it has to be in order to answer your question. More on that later.
> 
> Traditional archery isn't immune to the "latest greatest" syndrome. Actually, because of it's inherent limitations, it might actually be *more* prone to such claims.
> 
> ...


I think the future of Trad bows. Wooden riser types. single string bows has a massively bright future.
I think Smoother designs. and not little gains in smoothness are here, on our door step, in ways that are very noticeable, in ways that 200 dollar limbs simply cant compete with. 200 Dollar limbs will feel like straight limbed D shaped longbows for stack.
I think that energy levels will climb beyond all recognition of whats currently available, and I think it can be done with materials available now. Torsional stability will see the end of wibbly wobbly limb tips.
the only trick will be getting the vertical stability dialled.

Riser geometry can jump about too, as the speed gains with higher stored energy means you don't have to make your riser more inline to make it acceptable speed wise.

I think the future is looking bright.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> I think Smoother designs. and not little gains in smoothness are here, on our door step, in ways that are very noticeable, in ways that 200 dollar limbs simply cant compete with. 200 Dollar limbs will feel like straight limbed D shaped longbows for stack.


I think you need to think that. 

What will ultimately matter, at least in the "traditional" realm, is whether a 5 or 10 percent change in performance or "feel" is worth 100, 200, 300, or 400 percent more in cost, ESPECIALLY when what you are measuring is rather vague in terms of quantifiability or necessity.

KPC


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

And here I am trying to learn how to make a decent self bow. LOL


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I think you need to think that.
> 
> What will ultimately matter, at least in the "traditional" realm, is whether a 5 or 10 percent change in performance or "feel" is worth 100, 200, 300, or 400 percent more in cost, ESPECIALLY when what you are measuring is rather vague in terms of quantifiability or necessity.
> 
> KPC


the world floats on that one
bentley
Jaguar
Barbour
Tiffany
Mont Blanc
Rolex

do any of these do anything more than

Ford
Bic
Casio


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> And here I am trying to learn how to make a decent self bow. LOL[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> An honorable pursuit.
> Hmmm, I think I just decided to make one with a hole thru the center for the arrow to pass.:zip: Might be the wave of the future.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> the world floats on that one
> bentley
> Jaguar
> Barbour
> ...


Nothing that means anything to the guy sitting in his pickup filling out his kill tag, and the only "time" he's concerned about is legal shooting hours.

KPC


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

Borderbows said:


> the world floats on that one
> bentley
> Jaguar
> Barbour
> ...



I think you just confirmed and proved KPC's point. Unfortunately, I'm a Timex/Ford kind of guy. I guess that means no Bentley or Border's for me, huh?


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Good luck with your pursuit - the performance gains left to be made are pretty slim, and with Chinese companies stealing your ideas and selling them for pennies on the dollar your business has to be a tough one. Where I see a company like Borders thriving is in the quality of the product. Taking the time to make each and every thing you sell the very best that you can has a place. The same place Bentley & Jaguar comes from, only on a smaller scale where an average joe can own something very nice and hand made that he can be proud of.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Good luck with your pursuit - the performance gains left to be made are pretty slim, and with Chinese companies stealing your ideas and selling them for pennies on the dollar your business has to be a tough one. Where I see a company like Borders thriving is in the quality of the product. Taking the time to make each and every thing you sell the very best that you can has a place. The same place Bentley & Jaguar comes from, only on a smaller scale where an average joe can own something very nice and hand made that he can be proud of.


i think times are changing..
the quality of life and costs of living are climbing in china. its the last hideout for cheap labour and its drying up.
the make'em cheap and stack'em high times are changing i think.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

centershot said:


> Good luck with your pursuit - the performance gains left to be made are pretty slim, and with Chinese companies stealing your ideas and selling them for pennies on the dollar your business has to be a tough one. Where I see a company like Borders thriving is in the quality of the product. Taking the time to make each and every thing you sell the very best that you can has a place. The same place Bentley & Jaguar comes from, only on a smaller scale where an average joe can own something very nice and hand made that he can be proud of.


The true irony here is that for 99% of all automobile owners, a Honda or Toyota is all they will ever need, and ever be able to truly appreciate. 

Not to mention the reliability and durability of the Bently or Jaguar pales in comparison to the Honda or Toyota.

KPC


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Some people will chase every perceived advantage sold to them by techno babble, other will shoot self bows, most will be in the middle. New materials will provide added performance but at what cost. A Dodge won't out run a Ferrari but won't break down as much and is cheaper to buy. You pays your money you takes your choice.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

so... now that the politics are out the way... back to my original post.


i cant seem to post without meeting the same people with the same old tune rolled out.

so. what do you think the future of trad archery is going to be like.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

To me....

Looking at the proliferation of all the high end high prices for little gains in everyday performance is a major turn off.

Traditional bows for the majority of folks are left wanting as opposed to the modern ilf or das type bows being offered. Granted it is easier to produce a high performance limb as opposed to a complete high performance 1 piece bow, but I feel for those who prefer a traditional 1 piece bow there aren't as many options for higher quality components out spending a small fortune. 

What I would like to see is more attention paid to 1 piece bows and encorporating the high end features of the ilf limbs for stability and speed., and also to the non ilf 3 pc bows as well giving the options of different types of limbs without charging almost for a complete bow.

I know that it may be cost prohibited from a manufacturer point of view. .but the simplicity of a 1 piece bow that performs every bit as well as a high end 3 piece is most desirable IMHO..

Mac


----------



## Dalton63841 (Oct 26, 2013)

Borderbows said:


> so... now that the politics are out the way... back to my original post.
> 
> 
> i cant seem to post without meeting the same people with the same old tune rolled out.
> ...


As far as TRAD(meaning bows without training wheels), there is A LOT of enhancement to come. Better materials, ways to make current materials more efficient, etc... If we define TRAD as single piece wood-only bows... I'd say that there are SOME gains to be had, and perhaps different designs, but power out will ALWAYS be less than power in, and wood is only capable of producing a predefined amount of energy.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> so... now that the politics are out the way... back to my original post.
> 
> 
> i cant seem to post without meeting the same people with the same old tune rolled out.
> ...


Maybe it's because the same people (you) keep trying to find different ways to ask the same question and make the same claims.

Now, are you referring to the future of single string FITA/Olympic/JOAD type archery equipment, or what is commonly referred to as "traditional" hunter/recreational/3D type equipment?

I believe there is a difference in the "futures" of both, and answered accordingly in my first post.




GEREP said:


> In my opinion, there is a difference between single string, FITA/Olympic/JOAD type archery, and what is commonly referred to as "traditional archery," which for the most part is hunter/recreational/3D.
> 
> Not all, but most of the former don't consider themselves "traditional" archers. What they do is discipline unto itself, and there is very little, if any rejection of technology, design, or material, as long as it fits into the regulations of what they do. Minute performance gains are always going to be a part of the "future" of this discipline because minute differences separate the players, and many of them have no problem paying dearly for that perceived advantage.
> 
> ...


KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

I understood your post KPC.

It was a contribution. and I do appreciate that.

this thread can go in many ways. infact MAC11700 has a very valid point.

Maybe trad bows need to up the stakes, and meet the onslaught of ILF bows when it comes to Top shelf performance in one piece recurves.

The Future could be Carbon risers.

For example, as a white water Kayaker, here in cold Scotland, I was brought up with Ali shafts on my Schlegel paddles, and suffered horrible pain in my fingers when they got too cold. This problem almost disappeared when carbon shafts came out, as carbon doesn't suck the heat out your hands. Wood is also warm to hold.


Whats your future wishing for...


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> so... now that the politics are out the way... back to my original post.
> 
> 
> i cant seem to post without meeting the same people with the same old tune rolled out.
> ...


No politics Sid, just the way I see it. Some will chase the top end regardless of the costs and potential costs associated with that, some like simple and reliable, most find a place in the middle. 
It also depends what you are meaning by "Trad Archery". Do you mean bow hunting, short range American 3D, long range 3D, field or FITA target. All use pretty much the same bows but all have different requirements.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> No politics Sid, just the way I see it. Some will chase the top end regardless of the costs and potential costs associated with that, some like simple and reliable, most find a place in the middle.
> It also depends what you are meaning by "Trad Archery". Do you mean bow hunting, short range American 3D, long range 3D, field or FITA target. All use pretty much the same bows but all have different requirements.


well, this being the trad section, then trad bow means what ever it wants to mean to who ever is reading it. 

at least this time your post was a *little* more aimed towards the original post.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Just curious Sid, were you suggesting that Border is the *"Jaguar"* of archery equipment.









:wink:

As to what future am I looking for?

I think going forward, the successful companies are going to be the ones that offer the best marriage between performance and value. It's what I've always looked for and will continue to be what I look for in most everything I buy. As things change in the world economy, this will become more and more important.

In terms of archery equipment, I'm fully aware of my abilities, and I am also fully aware of, and honest enough to admit that the miniscule increases in performance claims that bowyers trade in, even if legitimate, will not improve my shooting in any way. I've long ago realized that I can't buy that.

KPC


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I think that getting away for Oly riser geometry is the future. The limbs are fast enough now that speed isn't the issue (even fairly budget ones), we can build 6gpp arrows for 40# bows with enough FOC to be stable. Smoothness isn't the issue at target lengths until you get into the very long DL shooters.

Getting a riser that is stable, forgiving and balanced is the issue. Creating a system that is easy for the archer to shoot and minimizes the errors that we all make.

Almost every ILF riser uses Oly geometry just scaled to length. That geometry was never designed to be stable without stabilizers. We need to create a new path towards barebow geometry that shoots like there are invisible stabs attached. This will likely require going in a direction that loses some speed, but we know that the limbs can be made to get that back.
Keeping it ILF is going to be a challenge but I personally believe that it's the only way to really progress the technology. Otherwise there is no way to really test any measurable gains.

-Grant


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

I think unfortunately the "design" of trad gear is and will be changing. I think bows made of wood in general will be slowly getting phased out by cheaper means of mass producing composite/metal/you name it bows. Its strange to me that "traditional" is getting tech crazy. if you want all the bells and whistles why not just shoot a compound bow? I do love the interchangable limb ideas that have gained traction as you don't need many different bows which is a plus for people on a budget so i see that being big in the future. I also believe in the next decade your going to see a huge shift from people who shoot compounds changing over to "trad gear". the reason i think this is that there was quite an explosion in bowhunting about a decade ago. the more people bowhunt and get used to shooting top of the line compounds at extreme ranges they will start to look for a more challenging way to hunt which is why i see many people already starting to shift. they had great success with compounds (some found it to be easy for them) and want to limit themselves more hence going into trad gear. I have to say though if you are out there with carbon arrows,titanium riser,carbon/graphite/whatever limbs, unicorn hair string, ballistic tip spring activated broadheads, and a laser range finder strapped to your recurve...is that traditional??? I sincerely hope they keep the design from getting too advanced just for a little nostalgia and the limits that you choose to have when hunting/shooting a trad bow. i guess maybe another question is does everyone want trad gear to change at all, maybe stop advancement and leave well enough alone or go get a matthews.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Just curious Sid, were you suggesting that Border is the *"Jaguar"* of archery equipment.
> 
> View attachment 1813191
> 
> ...


No need to troll... not a cute look!

you could have picked Bentley.


but yes you have a good point, the economy is getting a little tighter, so Value for money is a key feature for some companies.

Maclaren have built a MASSIVE production facility to build top end hypercars, So maybe the hypercar market is not that full, maybe they think there is room for another niche car... 
having said that, I think people want to shoot something a little more special than the average colour scheme seen down the club.
afterall, you spend all your week, working, dreaming of those 4-5 hours that are TRUELY yours.
most people cant afford the Jag or the Bentley, and the likes, so its the Honda and Toyota for them. more a necessity than anything else.

ALOT more folks are in the comfortable position to own a top end bow at say $2000.
infact for all the claims of Value is the way forward, it never ceases to surprise me, the number of guys that by 1 or more 1000-1200 dollar bows a year. They have 8-9 of them on the rack.

every day I go to a uplift day for a bit of Downhill mountain biking, the number of guys that turn up with 5-6000 dollar bikes, Body armour.
and that's the bike they cant ride on the flat, they also have a XC bike...

infact, how about 10,000 dollars Bikes like the Santacruz V10c, ive seen 2 on the same day!

I don't think Bows are any different, people want exotica, and the best thing ever is that all the exotica technology trickles down and the $1,000 bikes simply get better every year.

so without the top end, there is no budget end, and less improvement.

which is why its not a price thing, the future is available to all levels.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> I think unfortunately the "design" of trad gear is and will be changing. I think bows made of wood in general will be slowly getting phased out by cheaper means of mass producing composite/metal/you name it bows. Its strange to me that "traditional" is getting tech crazy. if you want all the bells and whistles why not just shoot a compound bow? I do love the interchangable limb ideas that have gained traction as you don't need many different bows which is a plus for people on a budget so i see that being big in the future. I also believe in the next decade your going to see a huge shift from people who shoot compounds changing over to "trad gear". the reason i think this is that there was quite an explosion in bowhunting about a decade ago. the more people bowhunt and get used to shooting top of the line compounds at extreme ranges they will start to look for a more challenging way to hunt which is why i see many people already starting to shift. they had great success with compounds (some found it to be easy for them) and want to limit themselves more hence going into trad gear. I have to say though if you are out there with carbon arrows,titanium riser,carbon/graphite/whatever limbs, unicorn hair string, ballistic tip spring activated broadheads, and a laser range finder strapped to your recurve...is that traditional??? I sincerely hope they keep the design from getting too advanced just for a little nostalgia and the limits that you choose to have when hunting/shooting a trad bow.


VERY interesting post...

I can see the classes of bow remaining constant.

Longbow
R/D bow
Hybrid
Recurve
Super recurve

and each bow type will have progress based on its evolutionary stage.

For example, Can people enhance the Holmgard type wood bow?

There is probably more milage in a flat HH style design,
even more in a recurve
and even more in a Super recurve.

if that makes sence


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

since we're talking mountain bikes and toyotas (fine w me) i actually see advancement in hunting technology as a whole a bad thing. These new bows, new guns, new rounds, new scopes, new rangefinders are making it very easy with some degree of practice to become very deadly accurate at extreme ranges. What this will probably do is increase harvests in many places therefore limiting resources,trophy potential, and overall deminishing the hunting expierience. Some examples are people i know taking and making close to 100yrd bow shots on animals and people being able to shoot with confidence over 500yards + with good rifle,scope combos. its starting to take out some of the original challenge and hunting skill (not shooting skill it takes skill to make these shots) out of the sport and i think technology will ultimately be its downfall to the sport we grew up knowing. its going to be a bad day when you're in the mountains sneaking up on an elk and a shot rings out from 1000yards away and the elk you were looking at drops. (sorry throwing a little gun hunting in for example)


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> since we're talking mountain bikes and toyotas (fine w me) i actually see advancement in hunting technology as a whole a bad thing. These new bows, new guns, new rounds, new scopes, new rangefinders are making it very easy with some degree of practice to become very deadly accurate at extreme ranges. What this will probably do is increase harvests in many places therefore limiting resources,trophy potential, and overall deminishing the hunting expierience. Some examples are people i know taking and making close to 100yrd bow shots on animals and people being able to shoot with confidence over 500yards + with good rifle,scope combos. its starting to take out some of the original challenge and hunting skill (not shooting skill it takes skill to make these shots) out of the sport and i think technology will ultimately be its downfall to the sport we grew up knowing. its going to be a bad day when you're in the mountains sneaking up on an elk and a shot rings out from 1000yards away and the elk you were looking at drops. (sorry throwing a little gun hunting in for example)


The stability of the modern ILF limb and hunting rig when the limbs are top end, gives a very solid bow, but it does still come back to the archer. its still a bow.
What the real high performance bows do is allow people with injuries or age working against them, and keep then in the field rather than on the sideline.

I don't see that side of things as being wrong.

My dad wrote an article for a Spanish magazine about bowhunting in the year 2020, (back in the very early 90's) stating that the guy went bow hunting from his study with a hunting "Drone" an ATV drone.
saying that "that's not what hunting was about for him"
I agree


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> No need to troll... not a cute look!
> 
> you could have picked Bentley.
> 
> ...


Yes, I could have used Bently, unfortunately they don't occupy enough of the market to even be tested, bet lets not go there.

:wink:

If you want to occupy the "boutique" segment of the market, there is always going to be a limited number of customers for you to woo...for a while. That segment of the market is fickle and fleeting. You live and die by the popularity of the celebrities wearing your suits, driving your cars, or wearing your watches, and those that are willing to chase that look by buying it on time. And yes, it never ceases to surprise me either, how many people have 8 or 9 top end bows hanging on the rack in their house trailer, and how many of them will turn up in the classifieds as soon as they get laid off for more than a week, or if their hot water heater dies.

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> the world floats on that one
> bentley
> Jaguar
> Barbour
> ...


You left out Porsche


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

JParanee said:


> You left out Porsche


and ellsworth bikes.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Currently, what do we see as innovation attempts in Trad bows? What, but neutered $200, entry-level, Oly bow riser designs marked up to $400 because they are for Trad use? I guess old, borrowed technology and cheaper manufacturing is innovation as Trad bow makers adopt it, but value??? That's the last thing built into that equation.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Yes, I could have used Bently, unfortunately they don't occupy enough of the market to even be tested, bet lets not go there.
> 
> :wink:
> 
> ...


Ferrari and lambo have been in this exotica market with out a blemish in their market pressance.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Currently, what do we see as innovation attempts in Trad bows? What, but neutered $200, entry-level, Oly bow riser designs marked up to $400 because they are for Trad use? I guess old, borrowed technology and cheaper manufacturing is innovation as Trad bow makers adopt it, but value??? That's the last thing built into that equation.


Cross weave carbon running at 45 degs started in outside of the Oly market.

now is in every single top end limb, and is also now in a lot of intermediate limbs.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

grantmac said:


> I think that getting away for Oly riser geometry is the future. The limbs are fast enough now that speed isn't the issue (even fairly budget ones), we can build 6gpp arrows for 40# bows with enough FOC to be stable. Smoothness isn't the issue at target lengths until you get into the very long DL shooters.
> 
> Getting a riser that is stable, forgiving and balanced is the issue. Creating a system that is easy for the archer to shoot and minimizes the errors that we all make.
> 
> ...



Interesting points


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

Borderbows said:


> The stability of the modern ILF limb and hunting rig when the limbs are top end, gives a very solid bow, but it does still come back to the archer. its still a bow.
> What the real high performance bows do is allow people with injuries or age working against them, and keep then in the field rather than on the sideline.
> 
> I don't see that side of things as being wrong.
> ...


i certainly agree that bows with certain advantages are the only things able to get not-so-able bodies out doing the things they love...i have no issue with that at all. i just dont think having the entire direction of the trad bow to become a thing out of a space age movie a good thing. yes everyones definition of "hunting" differs for some road hunting is hunting for others shooting deer off of feeders is "hunting". hunting is whatever it means to you. the other day we got a handful of caribou but i can assure you it wasnt hunting it was more gathering...drove up the them on snowmachines, got a few and brought them back to give to some very grateful people who were otherwise unable to get meat for themselves. we shot only cows (the bulls are nasty this time of year) but they really had no chance so i wouldnt consider it a hunt at all ...just filling a freezer. some might post it as some great amazing hunt...all in the eye of the beholder. i guess without some level of advancement we'd all have a twig with a sinew string and stone braodheads.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

you can get top of the line ILF limb technology in one piece bows,
I would argue, what innovation has there been in OLY archery?

the diversity of design is in the trad market
the diversity of materials is in the Oly market

What do you get if you combine the two?

IMHO


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> Ferrari and lambo have been in this *exotica* market with out a blemish in their market pressance.


__________________________________________

_*ex·ot·i·ca

/igˈzätikə/

noun

1. objects considered strange or interesting because they are out of the ordinary, esp. because they originated in a distant foreign country.*_

__________________________________________

Is that the segment of the market you want to occupy?


On a side note, there always seems to be a market for devises that *claim* to increase the size of a man's "business" and decrease the size of his waistline, but we all know one is hype and the other isn't needed. That doesn't stop people from getting rich doing it though. 

:wink:

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> and ellsworth bikes.




I love my Ellsworth  




When I was big into rifle hunting I could of gotten away with a box stock rifle and a decent scope for most of my shooting but I derived an incredible amount of joy and confidence using custom built to my specification rifles to do my hunting 

An Ugly Stix with a cheap reel can catch a fish as well as a high dollar graphite rod but for me I enjoy using rods you can feel the fish breathing on and reels that are like silk 

I just left the Ny/NJ Knife show 

I am big into knives and do some work in the industry 

There were knives that cost thousands of dollars that will not skin a cat any better than a walmart cheapy but lines of people to buy them and enjoy them 

My point is some people derive great pleasure from using fine things and there is nothing wrong with that, the same as there is nothing wrong with not wanting to 

It has also been my experience and maybe I'm splitting hairs, is that sometimes as they say.......God is in the details.

I do believe a rifle built by my gunsmith that can shoot 1/4 minute will give ve me an advantage and a properly heat treated blade will stay sharper longer and not let me down in a survival situation 

So shoot what you enjoy and if that is state of the art custom Limbs have at it


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> __________________________________________
> 
> _*ex·ot·i·ca
> 
> ...


not sure your second point merits reading...

but the concept of a line up of Hoyt, Hoyt, Hoyt, W&W, Hoyt, W&W, W&W, W&W, Samick, Hoyt, Samick, W&W, Hoyt etc, then hidden in there you have an individual with a different brand...

it is strange, and interesting. Doesn't mean to say its a 3 limbed bow, or a bow with 4 grips or anything like that...


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

The future of Traditional bows is not about costing as much as a top end oly rig..or compound bow..

While I am quite sure some can afford to pay for a new bow every year, and some do have a whole rack of $1000K bows...the vast majority of folks want something that is affordable. 

If all Borders wants is to cater mainly to the rich..they are losing customers..

The future of Tradional bows are the bowers who aren't charging Bently's prices for a 5 to 10 fps gain in speed.....

For our sport to continue to grow, our young people will have to take up the mantle and to do this have to be able to afford these modern marvels. ..so if they were paying attention to the job markets. ..they would see a trend of less pay for the majority of these folks entering into them.

The smart bowyers would be building bows that offer more for less.....because there are more and more folks looking for a highend bow that can't afford what you are offering. .Please don't take offense to this. .I know you think what you are building is reasonably priced. .but..to many it is not. 

I know only of a few that are doing this now....and would love to see more..

Mac


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

JParanee said:


> I love my Ellsworth
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im With you on that. in 2001, I had a Santra cruz Superlight down to 26lbs in weight... Walked into some pimp bike shops in central London, and the guys hesitated in there sentences to look at my bike. My choice, My pride and joy.
Nothing can replace that smile inside me... Made me want to ride more. 
Made me fitter
More fitness allowed me to ride faster for longer. so it was an utter win for me.
Started racing due to this...

It was the bike that encouraged me.

I also knew in my heart of heart, It wasn't the bike that kept me back... I had no excuse. Not one.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

..... 3D printing and 3D weaving .. if these technologies are introduced into bow production, we'll see some interesting bow designs.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> The future of Traditional bows is not about costing as much as a top end oly rig..or compound bow..
> 
> While I am quite sure some can afford to pay for a new bow every year, and some do have a whole rack of $1000K bows...the vast majority of folks want something that is affordable.
> 
> ...


im mainly playing the flip side to the points being raised.

Not many companies can reach the "made in china" prices when made in Europe or USA.

but it certainly looks like I need to find a different username so that a discussion can take place without every reply being aimed at "Border"

Shame.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

There will always be people willing to pay for what they want 

Like I said I was just in NY last night with a group of custom knife makers 

They wanted to go out to dinner and have drinks in the East Village 

These are guys from around the country that are regular blue collar fellows 

They could not believe the lines at the bars and the eatery's 

The prices were insane and the average age of our group was about 43 and we felt old 

It was kids as we would say, mid 20's to mid 30's 

Even though the country is in a financial slump you could not tell there 

If these are the same age of people getting into archery they will spend money.............especially after seeing the new hunger games chapter 

What would you guys have Sid do 

Try and compete with the large companies ? 

He has developed a part of the market 

This is called Niche marketing and there are people that want that something different 

I can attest to the quality of his limbs and do not have a smidge of regret for buying the 2 sets that I currently have 

I would love a one piece from them next


----------



## MrSinister (Jan 23, 2003)

I think that it could use as someone else said something quantifiable. Sticks and strings has really lagged behind in terms of putting out specs. Pick an arrow weight, a draw weight, use a release to take out the finger release factor and start putting numbers out. If there is performance then let it be known. I hear about it all the time but I would really like to see a standard agreed to and numbers put out. Smoothness of draw is not such a thing and will be argued till the cows come home but at least we could have and should have general performance numbers associated with this equipment.


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

i guess what i look for in a bow is a reasonable price (under 1k with arrows,quiver) and something that has been proven and to my liking. I dont look for what will give me an edge necessarily but something im comfortable with and not something that looks like a compound without wheels or sights,stabilizer,carbon,metal but an older looking bow. I could afford a custom bow but with the way my stuff gets banged around over years of hunting with it, it just doesnt make sense to me to spend an absolute fortune. same reason i use synthetic stocks on my rifles, not so much visually pleasing but functional and frankly dont care if they get scratched of not. id like to see more shooting off the shelf, leather hand grips, back quivers, turkey feathers, and no sights... a lighter bow with some wood taken out of the riser would be nice if you could skeletonize one without making it structurally unsafe just for a little weight savings for the ultralight crowd which is becoming all the rage in hunting be it clothes,rifles,bows,boots you name it the easier it is to carry the better.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> im mainly playing the flip side to the points being raised.
> 
> Not many companies can reach the "made in china" prices when made in Europe or USA.
> 
> ...


You really need to read what I said. ....

I said not to take offense. .but apparently you can't have any type of conversation with out doing so...You ask for opions...but you want to be selective in this

That sir is the shame..and it is entirely of your own doing..

BTW...if you choose to equate what some bowyers are producing as just equal to made in china pricing..then you are doing them a real disservice. 

Good Day


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> not sure your second point merits reading...


I'm sure you don't. What does merit serious thought is this. Claims that have only anecdotal evidence to support them don't really mean much, but that doesn't stop anyone from using them to sell their wares. Often times, the story just needs to sound technical enough to be believable.

And that was the point.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> You really need to read what I said. ....
> 
> I said not to take offense. .but apparently you can't have any type of conversation with out doing so...You ask for opions...but you want to be selective in this


The whole thread is aimed at Border, when it was more about the future of trad bows, at least that was my intenion



MAC 11700 said:


> I said not to take offense. .but apparently you can't have any type of conversation with out doing so...You ask for opions...but you want to be selective in this
> 
> That sir is the shame..and it is entirely of your own doing..


ive tried my best not to mention border infact, tried my best to use 3rd party industries to try and keep it civil.



MAC 11700 said:


> BTW...if you choose to equate what some bowyers are producing as just equal to made in china pricing..then you are doing them a real disservice.
> 
> Good Day


most of the thread was about 200 dollar limbs.

which side of the industry are you interested in discussing?


----------



## deadeye (Aug 22, 2002)

In the past 41 years of shooting, i have my bows shooting 180fps up from 170fps.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

deadeye said:


> In the past 41 years of shooting, i have my bows shooting 180fps up from 170fps.


I can say I have realized the same gains in FPS but for me it was from the 180's to the upper 190's but the big difference for me is I am now pulling less weight 

So while I agree advancements are slow they are coming


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

For example 

One of my favorite hunting bows is a Fedora 560 one piece that at my draw pulls a tad over 60 pounds and feels every bit of it, especially at the end 

This bow will take a 520ish grain arrow and break 190 

I have a set of BF's that pull mid fifties that will beat if by 5 FPS and pull five pounds lighter and infinitely smoother 

I have a set of Borders that pull 6 pounds lighter and will beat it by 10 FPS or better 

Does it really all matter 

To some no 

To me yes


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

JParanee said:


> For example
> 
> One of my favorite hunting bows is a Fedora 560 one piece that at my draw pulls a tad over 60 pounds and feels every bit of it, especially at the end
> 
> ...


I agree, that is where things change. Modern materials have given us that ability but I think it has to be a whole package thing, Riser, limbs, string, arrows and archer. All these things have improved and will continue to do so, I'm just not sure at what speed.
Target scores for example haven't gone up that much but I know 3D scores have. I attribute that to many guys dropping the 60# curves and shooting 45# instead.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Borderbows said:


> im mainly playing the flip side to the points being raised.
> 
> Not many companies can reach the "made in china" prices when made in Europe or USA.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's necessarily about competing with made-in China prices, although, our governments bare some of the burden of competition. Lets face it some are pricing their companies right out of business by helping to drive up the cost of doing business. It's not just labor costs. In fact, direct labor is a small portion of the cost to produce most products. Like it or not, this is going to be part of the future of archery and everything else.

Generally, it's some combination of price, quality and availability/delivery that makes a product attractive to a market. The trick is to find the right combination for the target market.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

My thoughts are this 

For a small company to compete with the giants lets just say they have to so something different to set themselves apart 

Be it performance , fit and finish etc 

Companies like Border need to be pushing the edge to make there own market 

Example 

I just recently wanted a new Enduro I could of went with one of the giants Honda , Yamaha etc 

I have owned bikes from practically every big Japanese company and loved them 

But on this go around I choose a KTM 

The bike was almost 40 % more than the equivalent Japanese bike 

I wanted something different and was willing to pay the extra for what I perceived as a machine that had the qualities I wanted 

Even thou KTM's are pricey they have no problems selling their wares


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> The future of Traditional bows is not about costing as much as a top end oly rig..or compound bow..
> 
> While I am quite sure some can afford to pay for a new bow every year, and some do have a whole rack of $1000K bows...the vast majority of folks want something that is affordable.
> 
> ...


SF is doing that in spades these days.

However in the defense of Border you are only paying for the R&D work on the limbs which are new tech, that work does in fact cost money. Their conventional geometry limbs are the same price or cheaper then anything else of similar tech on the market because they aren't costing anything to develop, so its all production cost.

-Grant


----------



## pokynojoe (Feb 2, 2006)

Mr. Borderbows
What I'd like to see the future of trad archery is the limbs that your company sells now for 5, 6 or $700.00 will sell for 2 or $300. My hope is that niche companies like yours will come up with such incredible improvements in performance that the limbs you're selling presently will become so passe and undesirable that all who possess them will be off loading them at extremely low prices so that people like me (those in the "ninty percent) will be able to buy them and enjoy them. 

You live in a world that's unrecognizable to me. I could never afford any of your products or a Bentley, Rolex, what have you, I can't afford a toyota or honda either. But I think it's important these things exist, and I'm glad there's people that make them and people that can afford and enjoy them. I can't afford fine art either, but I can appreciate it.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> the world floats on that one
> bentley
> Jaguar
> Barbour
> ...


I surely can find different reasons to appreciate each and every one of those...but given the choice...I'm gonna choose a Ferrari over a Ford or a completely customized performance lifted truck over a stock Ford :wink: But...that's just me LOL

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> Trad bows. Love the term.
> 
> where do you think the future of trad bow design is heading?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry. ..I don't see any reference to other companies in this . Since you are Border Bows I took this to be about your company as well..so I could discuss Border as well. .

Are we discussing just $200 limbbs here? I think not. 

Not all of my post was directed at your company, some was..but not all. .

There are quite a few bowyers who specilize..some in the grips..some in the finishes..some in checkering or stippling. .some even in their limbs and risers...and some even in their customer service skills...While not as well known. .they certainly are trying. .

Don't take everything that I have said being solely directed at your company. .The costs to get some of the top end bows from many places is cost prohibited for many...not just those buying from yours..

The high cost to get 5-10 fps more is not worth the cost for the majority of users....perhaps it is to the few who have racks full of $1000k bows..perhaps to the top end shooters in the world..perhaps to those who are well off financially to afford them..but..as I said. .a smart Bowyer. .especially one who wants US sales..will look at the job trend here and realize that this market is expanding at a higher rate..and compromises the bulk of potential new customers..who have less expendable income. .

What makes a Traditional bow of the future...it has to be dependable. .fast..quieter than most. .impeccable workmanship in fit & finish.and be readily available and affordable..to all..not just a select few..If a company can do this. .then they must also have top notch customer relations..because some..note some...need some training in this regard...While i am all fir cutting edge technology..some of these space age materials and components don't always need to figure into the equation but if needed to accomplish the other requirements. .kept hidden. .IMHO...

Mac


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I think Samick deserve a mention here. They make world class Olympic winning gear, good solid shooting hunting gear (including the awesome BF Extreme limbs) and also cater to the entry level too with bows like the Sage. I think they are the best all round manufacturer as far as providing something for everyone goes.


----------



## ArcherFletch (Jul 8, 2012)

I think the future will be including some electronics in the bow, its the logical progression of gadgets. I don't think design will be significantly different because the whole point of "trad" is a bent piece of wood and a single string. Good call on the carbon and other materials, why not carbon nanotubes and graphene, whatever those are lol. 

Also better tuning equipment, for example something to measure vibration and allow easy dynamic tuning of brace height for best efficiency. Like some guitars have to tune their strings automagically... why dont we have those for bows?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I personally don't see much changing. Might get some new materials that might make a few fps gain in the next ten years or so - but that is about it. You will still have wood laminate bows, still have ILF or ILF type bows, etc... There is only so much that can be done with a stick and string.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

The "future" of Trad bow design lies in figuring out how to build dependable, rock solid bows of decent performance and selling them at a low price in order to capture the fastest growing segment of the market, the newbies.

Yes the "big" companies are doing that, but it would surely be good for the littler companies to try and get in on that. A satisfied newby today means a big ticket customer tomorrow.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Carbon risers seem to be in the future of Trad bows. A riser like the Black Douglas out of carbon would be a nice product. It could be very light for the "Ultralight" market...possibly with the ability to add weight for 3D and field shooters? Could allow for off the shelf as well as elevated rest shooting if the tiller was adjustable (ILF)? 21" carbon ILF riser!!!???

An ultralight 66 - 68" one piece or two would be a neat addition. Again could have spots for adding weight? A mostly carbon "Triple Crown" or recurve like some of the older long vintage target bows. Include an option for a very light weight sleeved two piece that looks just like a one piece?

With carbon, twins/ambidextrous bows could make a reappearance. Sometimes spending a long time shooting right handed gets "old" and it is nice to be able to switch to shooting left handed. May make for a better "Archery Workout" as well. With a very thin all carbon sight window section of the riser a ambidextrous riser/bow can be made cut closer to center than ever before in human history?!

Having sailed International 14 (Developement Class boat that is 14 feet and used to cost around $25-30K) skiffs, Sailboards and Yachts I have learned to appreciate carbon, aramids/kevlar/spectra, etc. Never could afford the high end carbon/kevlar stuff. When sailing Pro/Am in sailboarding I saw to many guys step from a production board/rig, on to a carbon board/rig and right away they are 5% faster. ;-( 

As an archer I can now afford carbon limbs, risers, etc. Very cool!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I think that getting away for Oly riser geometry is the future.
> 
> 
> Almost every ILF riser uses Oly geometry just scaled to length. That geometry was never designed to be stable without stabilizers. We need to create a new path towards barebow geometry that shoots like there are invisible stabs attached.
> ...


This is the direction I'm going, a balanced Riser moved away from standard ILF Oly geometry that is already stable i.e no requirement for Stabilizers,although the option is still there. I think Oly bows will be going in this direction in the next few years.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

steve morley said:


> This is the direction I'm going, a balanced Riser moved away from standard ILF Oly geometry that is already stable i.e no requirement for Stabilizers,although the option is still there. I think Oly bows will be going in this direction in the next few years.


Steve,

I actually feel that the riser you are talking about is a step in the opposite direction to what I see as the future of BB tech, something I brought-up to the designer at the time. They weren't interested in the conversation.
Inline risers just aren't that stable in my opinion. The original Stolid Bull has a boat load of deflex, as does the Greenhorn Sirius (among other interesting traits). 

I'm thinking about much more than deflex, a complete rewrite of the geometry which will allow balance without having to reduce reflex or increase mass. Moving the grip above center to balance the tiller for 3under and SWing, possibly moving the button up to allow a lower bow shoulder (look at a BB archer vs. Oly bow-arm shoulder position).

Changes that will make the bow completely unsuitable for Oly shooting but will optimize the ergonomics for BB shooters.

Ultimately I may have to do my own development work in order to test the theories. I wonder if you could 3D print a riser that would be strong enough to shoot with lightweight limbs just as a prototype. There is wood of course, always a great mock-up material. Or strips of aluminum ala. Spig Revolution.

-Grant


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Grant I'll let you know what I think when it arrives, I didn't like the Black Thunder at all, I thought it just UGLY chunk of black and the new ILF BT version wasn't any more appealing to me either, more rounded now but felt it didn't help with the looks. I really like the Vanquish even though it's design concept is leaning more towards Oly Riser than Barebow.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

i think cheap bows are coming to an end. bows are labour intensive to make.
also raw materials are also climbing faster.
but the last hideout for mass cheap labour is coming to an end.

i dont know of a US or European maker that can make a set of limbs for under 200 dollars.
thats made in china territiory.



either that or your asking your bowyer to work for cents and not dollars an hour.

i do fully agree that the biggest threat to costs are tax.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> i think cheap bows are coming to an end. bows are labour intensive to make.
> also raw materials are also climbing faster.
> but the last hideout for mass cheap labour is coming to an end.
> 
> ...



You bring up a good point, and to a certain extent, it supports what I was saying earlier. Bows are expensive to make when you make them on a "custom bow" business model, out of exotic materials, and are constantly tweaking this or tweaking that in an attempt to eek out a performance edge and set yourself apart.

When you mass produce them, things are a lot cheaper (a savings that can be passed on to the customer or used to attract customers). Fred Bear realized this back in the 50's, and the larger manufacturers are still doing the same. 

The question remains, how much is a person willing to pay for slight differences in measurable performance? And even if it can be measured, what does it actually mean?

Example:

If a $200 set of limbs throws an arrow at 185 fps, and an $800 set of limbs throws the same arrow at 195 fps, that works to $600 for about A 5% gain in speed. Do you have enough people willing to pay the difference to make that model work? For most people, there has to be a value proposition in order for them to lay down their cash. 

Notice I only mentioned speed. Speed can be measured. Other things like feel, stability, smoothness, etc., are for the most part subjective and unless they can be shown to translate into better shooting (demonstrably), are enough people going to be willing to pay for those attributes?

For some people, the value proposition is simply the prospect of owning something that few others own. For some, it might be aesthetics. For others, it might just be the promise or the hope of better performance/scores/etc.. Boutique products exist for such people.

Lastly, as to the elite archers, it is my opinion, that unless they are being paid to shoot a specific brand, they will for the most part shoot whatever brand translates to the best scores. Let's assume limb "A" is butter smooth, feels 5 lbs lighter than what it actually is, and the limb tips are rock solid in terms of twist. Now limb "B" stacks considerably, the limbs noodle like overcooked spaghetti, they are actually 5% slower than limb "A"... BUT... they consistently produce scores that are better than those with limb "A". I can assure you that no matter how it "feels," not matter how it looks, unless the archer is getting paid to shoot one or the other, he is going to go with the one that he scores the best with.

Here's the deal Sid, and this is just my opinion, and not a negative thing in any way. It's just the way I see it from a business perspective. 

Hoyt is charging about the same for a set of their top end limbs as you are. They may or may not be quite as smooth as yours, or quite as "stable" as yours, or even quite as pretty as yours. However, built into that price is the money they spend for a massive marketing campaign, and a whole stable of celebrity shooters, co-op advertising for retailers, and sponsorship of pretty much every major event there is. They are a household name to virtually every archer on the planet, and they have won or placed at one time or another, in virtually every archery competition known to man. 

You on the other hand are presumably putting all those dollars into R&D, trying to perfect a design that has yet to be proven to mean anything in terms of objective results. I say "as yet" because your designs might just end up being everything that the anecdotal evidence promises. 

Hoyt couldn't care less if Border limbs feel better, noodle less, or feel 5lbs lighter than what they are. Until they start showing up on the podium on a regular basis, above theirs, they just won't notice, and therefore neither will all but a few hundred people that like to debate such things on the internet.

I'm not a good enough archer to tell either way, it's business aspect of it all that intrigues me.

KPC


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

It would be interesting to hear some market numbers.

Analyzing actual costs is pretty straight forward if you have access to the pertinent information but determining what will sell, how much and at what price is another matter.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I am a bit perplexed 

Why are we comparing a custom bowyers work to factory work 

You do not see people saying why would you spend 1600 to 1800 on a Silvertip or a Blacktail when you can spend 500 on a decent factory bow that might even out perform it 

People want what they want 

If this were the case custom bowyers ,knife makers , gunsmiths etc would all be out of business 

All of these Bowyers mentioned Sid ,Norm and Dave all have waiting lists so obviously there is demand for their prouducts


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> You bring up a good point, and to a certain extent, it supports what I was saying earlier. Bows are expensive to make when you make them on a "custom bow" business model, out of exotic materials, and are constantly tweaking this or tweaking that in an attempt to eek out a performance edge and set yourself apart.
> 
> When you mass produce them, things are a lot cheaper (a savings that can be passed on to the customer or used to attract customers). Fred Bear realized this back in the 50's, and the larger manufacturers are still doing the same.
> 
> ...


if your making this all about border...

here is a link to a DFC of two bows

These two lines have equal stored energy. I know which one id want to shoot hands down.


When we took over Border we had 3 guys in the work shop and one in the office.
There are now 11 in the workshop.
3 in the office.

Im happy with our progress.
Im happy that you can drop 10lbs of bow weight and still have the same power under the hood.
demonstrable.

I think so!


----------



## ArcherFletch (Jul 8, 2012)

Borderbows said:


> i dont know of a US or European maker that can make a set of limbs for under 200 dollars.
> thats made in china territiory.
> 
> either that or your asking your bowyer to work for cents and not dollars an hour.


So wouldn't the future be using a machine, not a guy, to build the product, and you design your process to get better quality?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JParanee said:


> I am a bit perplexed
> 
> Why are we comparing a custom bowyers work to factory work


Good point. I think it's because we have taken it out of the realm of custom craftsmanship and entered into measurable performance. 

objective/subjective

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

ArcherFletch said:


> So wouldn't the future be using a machine, not a guy, to build the product, and you design your process to get better quality?


well, I think your dead right.
in 2010 we bought a CNC mill and CNC lathe. BIG for our needs that is. 
We also have a full CAD system and CAM system, we are working on a structured light scanning system to work on point cloud data, and are running looking to commission a custome built CNC machine to try and help.

We are basically looking at rapid prototypeing kit, to look at digitising our current methods.

This is all new technology to learn, so we are working our way through this process.

I was hoping to have a thread about future of trad bows, but people seem to want to talk about Border.



We see demand climbing year on year, and we are trying to grow the skills inhouse to address this.

This will NOT detract from the hand made side of things. just use machines to make the components more efficiently.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Good point. I think it's because we have taken it out of the realm of custom craftsmanship and entered into measurable performance.
> 
> objective/subjective
> 
> KPC


Did you miss the DFC's I posted with equal energy in them, but one bow was 11lbs less weight on the fingers.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> if your making this all about border...
> 
> here is a link to a DFC of two bows
> 
> These two lines have equal stored energy. I know which one id want to shoot hands down.


That's nice Sid, but the question still remains...

How does this...









translate to this...









or this?









KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That's nice Sid, but the question still remains...
> 
> How does this...
> 
> ...


hopefully it even translates to that for this guy...









its the Native American that hits the bulls eye everyone says!

afterall, there is no shortage of folks setting national records with our limbs.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Help me with the math on something here. IF current top of the line limb/riser combination produces ~80% efficiency and fires an 8gpp arrow at 200 fps then that leaves 20% to improve velocity, an increase of 40fps max. (My numbers may be off a bit but close enough for our purposes here) No machine is 100% efficient and super efficient compounds are 85-87% so with compounds as an example that really only leaves about 5% improvement to be made over current offerings (keep in mind that a machine that is 80% efficient is excellent to begin with). That improvement is about 10 fps, hardly enough to get really excited about. Unless I'm doing the math incorrectly the increased performance is going to be minimal with current description of Trad / recurve (single string no mechanical advantage) bows/limbs. With performance peaked, that leaves, feel and quality - feel is subjective but maybe there will be materials that will assist in that department, or maybe like compounds acceptable draw force curves and geometry will change. Quality and attention to details is where I believe Borders and other quality boyers have the advantage and edge. I will pay extra for quality, how much depends on how much nicer it is and how much more it appeals to me. I personally feel that bow design has hit a plateau - compound and recurve. There may be another huge breakthrough like fiberglass backing or fastflight strings but as shown above (unless my math is incorrect) the room to improve is limited. I'm sure this is not the rosy outlook that Sid was looking for and by no means do I think they should stop with R & D, but just my view from the outside. It is a crazy world this Trad 'thing', we move here for the simplicity, yet it can easily become as technical as the most advanced compound bow.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

I know, hunter or target shooter, a draw force curve would go more toward my ultimate goal than some broadhead designs cut into my riser (yes, that costs money, too). To each their own on capturing market share, as folks will buy what they are drawn to. 

In the end, I don't think any bow can ride on looks alone any more than any bow can ride on performance alone. A whole bunch of bows "try" to fit in the middle, though.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Help me with the math on something here. IF current top of the line limb/riser combination produces ~80% efficiency and fires an 8gpp arrow at 200 fps then that leaves 20% to improve velocity, an increase of 40fps max. (My numbers may be off a bit but close enough for our purposes here) No machine is 100% efficient and super efficient compounds are 85-87% so with compounds as an example that really only leaves about 5% improvement to be made over current offerings (keep in mind that a machine that is 80% efficient is excellent to begin with). That improvement is about 10 fps, hardly enough to get really excited about. Unless I'm doing the math incorrectly the increased performance is going to be minimal with current description of Trad / recurve (single string no mechanical advantage) bows/limbs. With performance peaked, that leaves, feel and quality - feel is subjective but maybe there will be materials that will assist in that department, or maybe like compounds acceptable draw force curves and geometry will change. Quality and attention to details is where I believe Borders and other quality boyers have the advantage and edge. I will pay extra for quality, how much depends on how much nicer it is and how much more it appeals to me. I personally feel that bow design has hit a plateau - compound and recurve. There may be another huge breakthrough like fiberglass backing or fastflight strings but as shown above (unless my math is incorrect) the room to improve is limited. I'm sure this is not the rosy outlook that Sid was looking for and by no means do I think they should stop with R & D, but just my view from the outside. It is a crazy world this Trad 'thing', we move here for the simplicity, yet it can easily become as technical as the most advanced compound bow.


currently poor energy storing bows store about 0.8ft/lbs of energy per pound of bow weight.
given 80% efficiency on that you have an answer.
There are trad bows out there that are currently storing 1.17ftlbs of energy (both at 28") per pound held, meaning a SUBSTANCIAL increase in stored energy.
with a 85% efficiency (carbon limb vs 80% of a glass limb) this means that 200fps with a 10gpp arrow is possible, and im not talking triggershot 4 strand string, im talking real bows here.
50lbs with 0.8 SE/PDF = 40ftlbs of energy
50lbs with a sepdf of 1.17 = 58lbs of energy
these two bows although both are pulling 50lbs at 28" are simply not the same bow.

and example benefit of this high energy is unseen smoothness.
58lbs bow, 60" long on a 17" riser from 28" to 29" gains 1.1lbs 
none of this 2lbs per inch game here!


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

What's in the future? Good question. There are boat loads of risers, bows, arrows etc..... You can spend a little or alot. 

I would like to see some kind of innovation that allows a lower poundage (40#??) bow to be just as fast and deadly as a higher poundage bow, while at the same time be ultra-forgiving when shooting off the shelf, super smooth on the draw, and shoot a 10gpp arrow lights out.

Not sure how to make that, but that is what I want.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Are these bows of similar geometry, AMO & Brace Heights? Does the stored energy directly relate to arrow velocity? I see where and how the high energy works and can work to an advantage of shooting lighter weight limbs and get the same speed. - Less works, same result - what we are all looking for right? But I have seen in compound worlds where shooting a super fast high energy 60# bow is actually more work and harder on the shooter than shooting a medium cam 65# bow and getting the same resulting arrow speed. Interesting topic - where do you see the ceiling of bow design? Is my energy theory flawed? or is it kind of a moving target with each bow having a stored energy max and percentage of it's own energy that can be improved upon?


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

UDS - it has wheels on it......


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Are these bows of similar geometry, AMO & Brace Heights? Does the stored energy directly relate to arrow velocity? I see where and how the high energy works and can work to an advantage of shooting lighter weight limbs and get the same speed. - Less works, same result - what we are all looking for right? But I have seen in compound worlds where shooting a super fast high energy 60# bow is actually more work and harder on the shooter than shooting a medium cam 65# bow and getting the same resulting arrow speed. Interesting topic - where do you see the ceiling of bow design? Is my energy theory flawed? or is it kind of a moving target with each bow having a stored energy max and percentage of it's own energy that can be improved upon?


don't know, and our answer is "trying to work it out".

We work on the principal that energy in = energy out as in, you the human has to pull the string back. BUT our heads tie up with how long you spend at full draw. id rather spend 30 seconds at 4" of draw, than I would at full draw. if you see what I mean
that's said, for hunting we see a difference in having to hold..... hold for a better shot, Id rather hold 75% of my max draw than 100% of my max draw.

Similar geometry is a questionable area. a 60" bear on a short A riser doesn't have the same geom as a DAS 17 making a 60" bow. Both bows have the same geom, but that also don't.

On the Brace height for testing, you wouldn't test a old D shape compound with a modern reflexd compound by hammering one bow to conform to the others BH?
I think making all BH's constant is not a valid comparison.
another example is you wouldn't compare a 66" target bow at a 9.25" brace because that's what the 70" bow likes.
You have to test them at the mid point of the makers BH range in our view. that's what the bow is designed to be used at


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> afterall, there is no shortage of folks setting national records with our limbs.


What kind of records? Can you provide a link. I'd truly like to know how the DFC you posted translates to more points or more meat.

As I said before Sid, what intrigues me most about all this is the business aspect of it. The ebb and flow fascinates me.

I've been participating on this board and, ones like it for well over a decade. In all that time, I have only seen two bowyers that have done what you appear to be attempting to do now. They were hell bent on convincing anyone who would listen that their "innovative" designs were the absolute best, and if others couldn't see that, they were wrong, stupid, or just plain out to get them. 

Ironically, both of the bowyers that took this route are out of business. Their designs live on to a certain extent, sometimes in ways that the original designer insisted were unworkable. One of them enjoyed a feeding frenzy where his design was so much in demand that people were literally paying double his asking price for a used model, or buying out other's position on his waiting list. When the bubble burst, when the "subjective" didn't match the "objective"...well, we all know that story. 

In another another case, people were so enamored by a certain design, so convinced by the piles of anecdotal evidence, the DFC's, the degrees of this that or the other thing, that we actually witnessed where some people were buying up as many of them as they could find because the actually thought they were an *"investment."* They actually thought that they were/are going to be collectors items due to their place in archery history.

The only thing that really happened is that they became part of archery history.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Thanks for the heads UP KPC.

Not sure if you have seen this one.

but you might find it interesting reading.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~archer...als-of-the-Design-of-Olympic-Recurve-Bows.pdf

our design philosophy in a nut shell. 

http://bagskytteforum.se/vb/showthr...EX6-SF-Elite-Carbon-Foam-och-W-amp-W-EX-Prime
here you can see that Martin O posted similar scores to the Inno limb with a bow with a different DFC.

The DFC is not one hes used to, so barebow anchor is a little different to get to grips with.

then you can have a wee look:
http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f127/tell-us-about-your-achievements-12406/

these are the ones that wanted to post. There are others. Field, Target. etc.

Your choice if you wish to read it.

but here is a further question for you...

If you think a dfc can/cant make a difference, do you think the DFC of the compounds make a difference to their scores... they differ ALOT more than your average target bow... yet.....

Can you prove that the DFC *doesn't* equate to better cores?
if you cant, then id rather drop a couple of pounds, gain the control at fulld raw and still put the same arrow out there with the same energy as before, for the average guy, that's gotta be a winner?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

GEREP said:


> What kind of records? Can you provide a link. I'd truly like to know how the DFC you posted translates to more points or more meat.
> 
> KPC


I got a set of Hex6 limbs in June and shot 3 National Field records and was 8 points short of a IFAA European/World Animal record within 4 weeks after getting the limbs, I did also get a new riser which obviously played a part. I like the Hex limbs they have a nice relaxed feel at anchor and I was able to get more speed with less poundage but it wasn't enough to secure a win at this years Europeans in Hungary, end of the day I was out shot by a better Archer.

I was pretty happy with the performance increase, I have a short draw and it's hard for me to get that extra hp from a limb, it's at least put me on the same footing speed wise as the taller Archers. Quality is good and service also, Sid kept me in the loop all the way through ordering to delivery.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

The Berkeley link is a good one, must read for anyone interested in the mechanics of a modern recurve.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> The Berkeley link is a good one, must read for anyone interested in the mechanics of a modern recurve.


We put cross ply carbon in at 45 degs to the limb back in 1998, since then every one bar non has followed suit.
this technology changes the game of bow design.

The size of recurve is limited by its ability to resist torsion. So if you can double what is currently available, good, but what if you can double that again, and even double that again.

Well, the gloves are off on design again, which is why I think bow design has FAR from hit its peak. Trad bows can go ALONG way, as can target bows. 
This is where the term super recurve comes in.
If the recurve simply cant be shot without a boost, then its a super recurve.

If you look at 99% of recurve designs out there, the tips at Brace, sit 1-1.5" infront of the bow string.
this is dictated by the natural torsional stability of unidirectional glass. and a core.
what do you think a bow would feel like if the recurve was 3" infront of the bow string at Brace. Well... that's been done.
and then you can ask the question 5" infront.
People have and wil say, 3" infront is radical. but id argue its conservative.

For example.
lets say that a recurve becomes twitchy with a recurve size of 2" when traditionally made of glass fiber.
so the conservative design would say be: 50% of that, so 1"

So if I said that recurves could have the recurve infront of the grip at Brace, ie 7" WOW, that's radical.
so back it off 50% and it then becomes conservative...

see what I mean.

you cant buy this type of technology through Gordon composits, or bingham for example. 
but it doesn't mean its not a feature to be used by Bowyers.

so far its been TS gains... but what else can be done.


if the bow doesn't struggle for speed and energy, then you can start increasing deflex. reducing preload, all sorts of games can be played.


I think the future of bow design is HUGE. I think its about to open right back up again, and a new range of super recurves are going to evolve as this kind of technology is adopted.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> Can you prove that the DFC *doesn't* equate to better cores? if you cant, then id rather drop a couple of pounds, gain the control at fulld raw and still put the same arrow out there with the same energy as before, for the average guy, that's gotta be a winner?


I don't know if they equate to better "cores" *or* scores.  That's the point. I don't think you do either. All we have so far is anecdotal evidence.

As to the second part, sure. But it all depends on how many pounds it costs to drop that couple of pounds. For the average guy, that is what will determine whether it is a winner or a loser.

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Interesting topic - so how much speed gain do you think is possible? I can see how your increasing the area under the curve, but really how much of a gain is reality? 5%? 10%? More? Or will it have to do more with feel? Drawing more weight early then moving toward a flatter curve at full draw and possibly shooting a shorter overall bow? These should be fairly easily modeled with today's software. BTW I'm no speed freak, but that is one of the easiest way to see performance gains for me.

What they are working on now is cutting edge - in a few years it could be the norm, then it becomes more affordable for many.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Interesting topic - so how much speed gain do you think is possible? I can see how your increasing the area under the curve, but really how much of a gain is reality? 5%? 10%? More? Or will it have to do more with feel? Drawing more weight early then moving toward a flatter curve at full draw and possibly shooting a shorter overall bow? These should be fairly easily modeled with today's software. BTW I'm no speed freak, but that is one of the easiest way to see performance gains for me.
> 
> What they are working on now is cutting edge - in a few years it could be the norm, then it becomes more affordable for many.


Well Blackies Bow reports puts the stored energy of two top end ILF limbs at 0.88 and 0.91 FT/LBs of energy per pound held at 28"
These are top end Mostly Carbon/almost all carbon constructions.
then you have bows out there that are storing 1.11 that's of equal spec for all intents and purposes, that is pushing higher speeds.
It is possible to store 1.17 at 28, so this lets you know what kind of sizes of energy we are talking about.
http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/energycalc.htm
here you can see what kind of speeds these energy sizes deliver.
considering there is a 85% efficiency issue.

50lbs @ 0.9 =45ft lbs
50lbs @ 1.17 =58.5ft lbs

lets say 500 grain arrow,
500 grain doing 200fps = 44.5ft lbs of energy 100% efficiency
500 grain doing 230fps = 58.75ft lbs of energy at 100% efficiency

30fps is the pure and unachievable as a difference as its MAX theory
but it shows you what the world looks like from a numbers perspective...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Interesting thread.

Comment on businesss... Small business would have to be nuts to go after the cheap end of the market. They can't compete on efficiency of manufacturing, and they don't have the capacity to handle the volume they'd be dealing with. You can think of it as losing customers, but there's customers they can't handle, and from a business standpoint, customers they don't want. By the time you deal with distribution and dealer networks, they'd be making a few bucks on limbs. The customer service costs of simply answering questions about a limb would put them in the red on a that transaction, and they'd either go out of business, or become very difficult to reach. Where they can thrive is the high-end, customized, service-oriented market, where people value their time, and don't want somebody making less than $10/hr coming anywhere near handling their products. The only way for the stuff to come cheap is from mass manufacturing, though there comes a point where the quality/consistency becomes questionable.

Of course, paying more, or even quality craftsmanship doesn't guarantee better performance, or a better fit with the bow, but... who said it was easy? 

For me, what I want in the not so distant future of _my trad bow_ products, hang onto the speed I've got, with a little less holding weight, little smoother draw, little heavier arrow, a little more quiet, with a sight window and grip that fits my preference exactly. I'm willing to pay more, if I can afford it, and until I can, I'm happy to have what I've got. The epoxy seems to be holding, I'm fairly sure the limb pocket pivot pins won't fall out again, and when I've got some time, I'll play with the bondo


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

the more posts the more weird this gets for me. maybe im the only guy thinking this and maybe because i dont do any competitive shooting or keep track of scores or anything like that just hunt. but why spend so much time trying to squeeze every last ounce of efficiency and materials technology to make an inferior bow better. i think we can all agree compounds are a far more efficient, accurate and easy to shoot bow. it seems to me all this talk of innovating a recurve bow is like trying to pimp out a model-T ford. its already behind the power curve, there is already something better, and most people shoot these for the challenge. i guess i just dont get it. im not an old timer either, im not afraid of change im just in my early 30's i just dont see the draw to further the advancement of trad bows. maybe this is more geared toward competitive shooting.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I'm a little surprised (very little) that one obvious variable is left out. The STRING! Improvements in string materials fascinate me, and I rarely see bowyers discusing them, much less taking advantage of them. Some get on the bandwagon with the low strand count strings, but it's more fad than fact.

Most of what I see is the repeating of old wive's tales, inaccuracies, and downright fallicies. 

If a few fps means a $500-$1,000 difference in the price of a custom bow, why in the world don't you take the time and spend a few dollars for a custom string for that bow rather than stick a "one size fits all" on it? The differences are both measureable and objective--performance, shock, noise, durability, stretch/creep, etc. 

Some of the finer bows I've seen...and some of the more expensive...came with outdated materials, one-size-fits-all strand counts and serving size, and some $1,000+ bows were sporting $5 strings. I don't get it. You don't put watered down fuel in a dragster.

Anyhow...I see string materials being as much a part of the future of traditional archery and it's improvement as anyting else. A good string will make even a mediocre bow better.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> the more posts the more weird this gets for me. maybe im the only guy thinking this and maybe because i dont do any competitive shooting or keep track of scores or anything like that just hunt. but why spend so much time trying to squeeze every last ounce of efficiency and materials technology to make an inferior bow better. i think we can all agree compounds are a far more efficient, accurate and easy to shoot bow. it seems to me all this talk of innovating a recurve bow is like trying to pimp out a model-T ford. its already behind the power curve, there is already something better, and most people shoot these for the challenge. i guess i just dont get it. im not an old timer either, im not afraid of change im just in my early 30's i just dont see the draw to further the advancement of trad bows. maybe this is more geared toward competitive shooting.


some people cant shoot heavy bows. but do aspire to shooting big game.
some people struggle to shoot all distances at a field shoot, but are limited in energy levels, due to low poundage or very short draw lengths.
Higher energy More efficient designs help these people.
Some people simply like hitting the target harder.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

J-in-AK said:


> the more posts the more weird this gets for me. maybe im the only guy thinking this and maybe because i dont do any competitive shooting or keep track of scores or anything like that just hunt. but why spend so much time trying to squeeze every last ounce of efficiency and materials technology to make an inferior bow better. i think we can all agree compounds are a far more efficient, accurate and easy to shoot bow. it seems to me all this talk of innovating a recurve bow is like trying to pimp out a model-T ford. its already behind the power curve, there is already something better, and most people shoot these for the challenge. i guess i just dont get it. im not an old timer either, im not afraid of change im just in my early 30's i just dont see the draw to further the advancement of trad bows. maybe this is more geared toward competitive shooting.


But you have to draw some line someplace. If speed and accuracy is the only criteria you go with a rifle...or guided missal. If it must be a stick and string, you look for better ways to make the stick and the string. Right?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> why spend so much time trying to squeeze every last ounce of efficiency and materials technology to make an inferior bow better. i think we can all agree compounds are a far more efficient, accurate and easy to shoot bow.


My own answer is, simply because I like shooting a recurve more than a compound. I also enjoy shooting a recurve (most of the time) more than my long bow (but not always). If I wanted more of a challenge, I could shoot a primitive kind of bow... Personal preference I guess. I'm not selling my compound bows, but I haven't shot them in a long time. I also like my rifles and revolver too.

Honestly, though, if I could get the performance of a compound bow, with the shooting experience and handling of a recurve, I can't honestly say that I wouldn't be tempted


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> I'm a little surprised (very little) that one obvious variable is left out. The STRING! Improvements in string materials fascinate me, and I rarely see bowyers discusing them, much less taking advantage of them. Some get on the bandwagon with the low strand count strings, but it's more fad than fact.
> 
> Most of what I see is the repeating of old wive's tales, inaccuracies, and downright fallicies.
> 
> ...


complex that one.

Same as shelf materials.

Ask what the best string is, and you wil get more options and opinions chucked at you than you can swallow.
So bows generally come with acceptable strings. Then its up to you which string maker you choose to make it for you. Some people swear the guy down the road makes the best string. unfortunately not all bowyers live on that road. 
Shelf materials, some folks say its beaver tail. some calf hair.
You simply cant get it, same as asking Ford to set your seat height and back rest for you.
for some reason you cant preselect personalisation on behalf of someone.
Its kinda like moving into a furnished house, Its not yours till you have moved the furnature


if you see what im getting at...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

LBR said:


> I'm a little surprised (very little) that one obvious variable is left out. The STRING! Improvements in string materials fascinate me, and I rarely see bowyers discusing them, much less taking advantage of them.


My guess is because strings are not what bowyers make, so they leave it to people like you. That said, you're right, in terms of squeezing out the last bits of performance. I've seen differences in on the chronograph between different kinds of strings made with modern materials that are akin to 'standard' kinds of limbs with wood versus carbon cores. BTW, thanks for turning me onto the 8190 stuff. Love it! Minimal creep without sacrificing the speed. Good stuff


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Some people simply like hitting the target harder.


I have to admit, there is a good deal of satisfaction hitting a wall of foam with a 2219 and hearing a sound that resembles a blow from a club


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Storing the energy is one thing, releasing it efficiently is another. How much of the stored energy is lost when the arrow is launched? Is there much to be gained in this area? Seems that you could only reduce the weight of the limbs so much. Strings help, but I thought we were talking bow designs (maybe I assumed that because it was started by borderbows). Super recurves kind of go against this as they are adding length and mass to the limb. Evidently the super recurve makes up for the additional mass - or the quality of the super recurves exceeds the base line. Still seems like very limited returns are even theoretically possible given the current definition of a recurve. Looking a blackies reports it appears that dynamic efficiencies run in the 82-83% range for some very nice rigs. Improving upon those could be a very daunting task. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> Comment on businesss... Small business would have to be nuts to go after the cheap end of the market. They can't compete on efficiency of manufacturing, and they don't have the capacity to handle the volume they'd be dealing with. You can think of it as losing customers, but there's customers they can't handle, and from a business standpoint, customers they don't want. By the time you deal with distribution and dealer networks, they'd be making a few bucks on limbs. The customer service costs of simply answering questions about a limb would put them in the red on a that transaction, and they'd either go out of business, or become very difficult to reach. Where they can thrive is the high-end, customized, service-oriented market, where people value their time, and don't want somebody making less than $10/hr coming anywhere near handling their products. The only way for the stuff to come cheap is from mass manufacturing, though there comes a point where the quality/consistency becomes questionable.
> 
> ...



I agree


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> complex that one.
> 
> Same as shelf materials.
> 
> ...


I don't know if Chad does, but I do...and I agree. 

The exact same thing can and is said about limb design.

As a matter of fact, if I took exactly what you said and just swapped strings for limb designs, you would be making my argument.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_Ask what the best *limb design* is, and you wil get more options and opinions chucked at you than you can swallow.
So bows generally come with acceptable *limbs*. Then its up to you which *limb* maker you choose to make it for you. Some people swear the guy down the road makes the best *limb*. unfortunately not all archers live on that road. 
Shelf materials, some folks say its beaver tail. some calf hair.
You simply cant get it, same as asking Ford to set your seat height and back rest for you.
for some reason you cant preselect personalisation on behalf of someone.
Its kinda like moving into a furnished house, Its not yours till you have moved the furnature


if you see what im getting at..._
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, at the end of the day, until we can subjectively test such things, with the only variable being different limbs or different strings, and the outcome being quantifiable, like speed or points, it's just *"more options and opinions chucked at you than you can swallow."* 

I'm pretty sure that was my point from the start.

KPC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

LBR said:


> I'm a little surprised (very little) that one obvious variable is left out. The STRING! Improvements in string materials fascinate me, and I rarely see bowyers discusing them, much less taking advantage of them. Some get on the bandwagon with the low strand count strings, but it's more fad than fact.
> 
> Most of what I see is the repeating of old wive's tales, inaccuracies, and downright fallicies.
> 
> ...



Totally agree 

And so does the rest of the industry it seems 

My new Kestrel came with an 8190 string and that's a cam lever bow


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Storing the energy is one thing, releasing it efficiently is another. How much of the stored energy is lost when the arrow is launched? Is there much to be gained in this area? Seems that you could only reduce the weight of the limbs so much. Strings help, but I thought we were talking bow designs (maybe I assumed that because it was started by borderbows). Super recurves kind of go against this as they are adding length and mass to the limb. Evidently the super recurve makes up for the additional mass - or the quality of the super recurves exceeds the base line. Still seems like very limited returns are even theoretically possible given the current definition of a recurve. Looking a blackies reports it appears that dynamic efficiencies run in the 82-83% range for some very nice rigs. Improving upon those could be a very daunting task. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.


Not quite... The limb length is exactly the same as a other limb of the same spec. For example the limb length of a limb like the HEX6 is exactly the same length as a Inno, Meduim for medium.

On AIUK we looked at limb mass. put the limb butt on one scale and the tip on the other. (making a bridge with the limbs) This gave you total mass, as well as mass distribution.
and super recurves when looking at the mass and distribution has no effect on the scales.

(we do a standard profile limb and a big recurve limb of exactly the same core and laminate, so this ones an east test for us, as we wanted to Know)
http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f127/how-much-do-your-limbs-weigh-77613/

yes efficiency is a daunting task.
as I said, Glass limbs deliver about 80% and top end carbon ones are 85% approx. but finger shot is lower.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

KPC, I actually have a lot of data on limbs, I don't have a lot of data about strings.
So until you have string models. you cant really compare strings. So different topic.
I can tell you whats in a Samick limb. I can tell you whats in a Hoyt limb. I can also be assured that Hoyt have not made a Samick limb. And W&W a Black widow limb.
Not the same for strings.
until you can garentee me that a 8125 string made by Chad, is exactly the same as one made by Engleburt, then your argument falls into a hole.

IMHO.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I think that, even though certain aspects of Border are extremely polarizing, they have kept to the correct path for their product and I can't see that changing.
There is no point in Border, Dryad, Uukha etc just making what the other guys make, they don't have the budget or the manufacturing capability to compete. Staying niche is the only way. In the car world it is like Pagani or Noble I guess.
I am not sure if Hoyt or W&W etc will go the super curve route or not. Their development is lead by their athletes demands. If Brady or any of the other big shooters demand a change to give them an edge, then the R&D guys will look at it because if major shooters win major events that sells gear. The fact that super curves have been around for years and no main stream manufacturer has jumped on it suggests there is no demand from their squad members to use that design so long term I think small time companies will continue to do what they do, big time ones will do the same and us consumers will have more choice of how to waste our money 😀


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

Borderbows said:


> some people cant shoot heavy bows. but do aspire to shooting big game.
> some people struggle to shoot all distances at a field shoot, but are limited in energy levels, due to low poundage or very short draw lengths.
> Higher energy More efficient designs help these people.
> Some people simply like hitting the target harder.


understood but with respect...wouldnt a compound better serve most of these requirements? Like i said before i think the technology advance in recurves should be geared more toward competitive shooters. just my view from a business perspective. i dont know of anyone who hunts with a recurve that wants a shiny carbon/metallic recurve with sights and all the other stuff i see with target bows if they do they just get a compound. just my opinion from a hunter that doesnt aspire to competitive shoot. border i actually havent looked at any of your bows but i will check them out. i guess i dont know what market your geared toward.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> the more posts the more weird this gets for me. maybe im the only guy thinking this and maybe because i dont do any competitive shooting or keep track of scores or anything like that just hunt. but why spend so much time trying to squeeze every last ounce of efficiency and materials technology to make an inferior bow better. i think we can all agree compounds are a far more efficient, accurate and easy to shoot bow. it seems to me all this talk of innovating a recurve bow is like trying to pimp out a model-T ford. its already behind the power curve, there is already something better, and most people shoot these for the challenge. i guess i just dont get it. im not an old timer either, im not afraid of change im just in my early 30's i just dont see the draw to further the advancement of trad bows. maybe this is more geared toward competitive shooting.


J I see what your saying but  I did not come from compounds and I am always looking for the highest performance kit I can find in my chosen tools.

I am equally surprised that people do not understand the need and want of performance gains in this industry. I think more do than do not 

I'll use fly rods for an example 

People will spend big money to buy a rod that they perceive will give them a few more feet in distance or pick up line quicker 

People will pay for fancy checkering and woods so why the hard time believing that someone will pay for a smoother and faster set of limbs 

Not picking on your post but just explaining my view


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

MGF said:


> But you have to draw some line someplace. If speed and accuracy is the only criteria you go with a rifle...or guided missal. If it must be a stick and string, you look for better ways to make the stick and the string. Right?


i think you do have to draw the line when the technology makes hunting too easy. i could go buy a .338 lapua or a 50 bmg and shoot stuff at 1000 +yards but i dont for the sake of the tradition and the aspect of the hunt itself. i understand imporving recurve designs but im against where they went with compounds that make long shots way easier than they used to due to 80% + letoff and improved efficiency, overdraws, mech broadheads, illuminated sights w/rangefinder...where does it end. i apoligize my anti-technology rant is probably not what were after here maybe better suited for another thread. most of my complaints are in the direction of hunting which i realize not everyone here is about.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Ask what the best string is, and you wil get more options and opinions chucked at you than you can swallow.


KPC beat me to it. How do you decide what limb design is best? Which riser design? Countless opinions out there, but somehow you choose one, then work on improving it.

I don't understand spending untold amounts of time and money tweaking bow design for tiny gains, while ignoring a simple change that could make a big difference.

Barney, I hate to say it but if you like 8190, you should try BCY-X. I don't know how, but they keep making it better.

One thing about bowstrings, at least with BCY materials, you can look up the stats for yourself. BCY-X is made from SK90 Dyneema and 17% Vectran. SK90 is the highest grade HMPE available. The small percentage of Vectran adds stability, and appears to make it even quieter. That little bit of information is easily available and tells you this is the highest quality material on the market.

That is only part of the equation. Now you have to figure out strand count and configuration.

Deciding between endless and flemish is pretty easy. Both work equally well, if made equally well. Flemish will usually be quieter and more adjustable, endless _*might*_ give you a tiny performance advantage and it's easier for different makers to get their strings to look the same.

Then you decide on strand count. This is much easier with a material like BCY-X, due to it's small but very strong strand. Lower draw weights seem to benefit more from lighter strings, but with X you can build even a "generic" string without much if any performance sacrifice. 18-20 strands works great with bows from 35-80#. Using .024 Halo or .025 62XS, you can get a good nock fit with .098 nocks, and it's not a big deal to offer a smaller size serving for .088 nocks.

A good string isn't that hard to make, but it's more time consuming to build. It's going to cost more. Considering it may be going on a bow that costs over $1,000, I don't see how that would be an issue even if you paid $50 each. You aren't going to be putting "regular unleaded" fuel in that Bently or Ferrarri. 

Just doesn't make any sense to me to spend all that time and money trying to pick up 4-6%, then put a string on the bow that costs you about that much...or spedning the time and money to research new bow materials but ignore string materials. String materials are playing a big part in the future of bow performance.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> KPC, I actually have a lot of data on limbs, I don't have a lot of data about strings.
> So until you have string models. you cant really compare strings. So different topic.
> I can tell you whats in a Samick limb. I can tell you whats in a Hoyt limb. I can also be assured that Hoyt have not made a Samick limb. And W&W a Black widow limb.
> Not the same for strings.
> ...


I had no doubt that you would say that it's different Sid. If I had a mortgage, I would have wagered it.

When all is said and done however, the following statement...

_*"until you can garantee me that a 8125 string made by Chad, is exactly the same as one made by Engleburt, then your argument falls into a hole."*_

is just another way of saying...

_*So, at the end of the day, until we can subjectively test such things, with the only variable being different limbs or different strings, and the outcome being quantifiable, like speed or points, it's just "more options and opinions chucked at you than you can swallow."* _

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> until you can garentee me that a 8125 string made by Chad, is exactly the same as one made by Engleburt, then your argument falls into a hole.



I see that as trying to guarantee a bow made by Border is going to be exactly the same as one made by a different custom bowyer. It's not going to happen. However, when you take the highest quality of materials, and put it into skilled hands with specific instructions, you know the end result will be top quality. 

For the record, I don't make strings for bowyers. Haven't in years, don't have any plans to do so again--my comments are in no way an advertisement or offer. Just my opinion on something that IMO gets left out of these discussions too often.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> KPC beat me to it. How do you decide what limb design is best? Which riser design? Countless opinions out there, but somehow you choose one, then work on improving it.
> 
> I don't understand spending untold amounts of time and money tweaking bow design for tiny gains, while ignoring a simple change that could make a big difference.
> 
> .


my whole reason for me being online is to show you as best I can how to measure these things and decide for yourself.

I will show you what we think is important things to measure, then let you guys decide what YOU think is important.

After that, if MY product stands up the scrutiny... then so be it, if it doesn't I can go away and do my homework.

that's the way I see it.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> i think you do have to draw the line when the technology makes hunting too easy. i could go buy a .338 lapua or a 50 bmg and shoot stuff at 1000 +yards but i dont for the sake of the tradition and the aspect of the hunt itself. i understand imporving recurve designs but im against where they went with compounds that make long shots way easier than they used to due to 80% + letoff and improved efficiency, overdraws, mech broadheads, illuminated sights w/rangefinder...where does it end. i apoligize my anti-technology rant is probably not what were after here maybe better suited for another thread. most of my complaints are in the direction of hunting which i realize not everyone here is about.


J 

I have a 338 Lapua and a 50 cal but I don't hunt with them  

Here is a bow with border limbs 

As you can see its as traditional looking as any other 

Just a little quicker  

In reality with the advent of high performance limbs I can get the same energy pulling less weight 

Also my relatively short draw 27 1/2 inches can use al the help I can get 

I am a hunter not a target shooter


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> I see that as trying to guarantee a bow made by Border is going to be exactly the same as one made by a different custom bowyer. It's not going to happen. However, when you take the highest quality of materials, and put it into skilled hands with specific instructions, you know the end result will be top quality.
> 
> For the record, I don't make strings for bowyers. Haven't in years, don't have any plans to do so again--my comments are in no way an advertisement or offer. Just my opinion on something that IMO gets left out of these discussions too often.


I think its a perfectly good and valid part of the discussion... cant vouch for others


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

J-in-AK said:


> the more posts the more weird this gets for me. maybe im the only guy thinking this and maybe because i dont do any competitive shooting or keep track of scores or anything like that just hunt. but why spend so much time trying to squeeze every last ounce of efficiency and materials technology to make an inferior bow better. i think we can all agree compounds are a far more efficient, accurate and easy to shoot bow. it seems to me all this talk of innovating a recurve bow is like trying to pimp out a model-T ford. its already behind the power curve, there is already something better, and most people shoot these for the challenge. i guess i just dont get it. im not an old timer either, im not afraid of change im just in my early 30's i just dont see the draw to further the advancement of trad bows. maybe this is more geared toward competitive shooting.


I agree with this guy. But maybe that's because, for me, much of the allure of traditional archery is being able to shoot something I made with my own two hands. I would love to one day be able to _hunt _with something I made with my own two hands. That's not possible with guns for most of us. But with traditional archery, practically anybody can do it. So, while others have already covered the technological advancements they're seeing or would like to see, I'm going the other way with it. I think that there are and always will be those who are willing to dump what I see as insane amounts of cash into their hobby (be it archery, golf, stamp collecting, or anything in between), but there are just as many who don't participate in the hobby at all because it's too cost prohibitive. Luckily for me and others like me, traditional archery doesn't have to be like that.

It's probably just my personal bias, but this is how I see a large part of the future of traditional archery. It's guys like me who could technically afford to buy a bow, but my priorities cause me to keep putting it off because there's always somewhere more important for the money to go. But I know how to use the Internet, and it's extremely easy to find detailed build-alongs for several different styles of longbows and recurves. I enjoy working with my hands -- it's a nice change of pace from sitting in front of a keyboard all day long -- and spending a little time shaping a $6 board in the evening or on a Saturday is something I can do. I can also go across town to a friend's house and cut some bamboo -- add some heat for straightening, a nail for a field point, and some duct tape fletchings, and I've got a few arrows that are plenty good enough for my novice self.

This gives me a foot in the door of the sport for a minimal investment (and by minimal, I'm talking more along the lines of $20 total than $200 just for limbs). I'm well aware that there are plenty of people out there who scoff at my way of looking at things. I've heard the comments like "Just save up some money and buy a _real _bow -- they're not _that _expensive." I'm also well aware that there are those who see people like me as a threat to actual bowyers (I find this laughable, by the way). After all, if everybody just made their own equipment, they'd have nobody buying their products, right? But I think that's looking at things backwards. I'm not taking away a customer from Hoyt or Samick or anybody else by making a board bow in my garage because, if not for the option of building it myself, _I wouldn't be doing any archery in the first place._ On the other hand, once I get to a point where I feel like my equipment is holding me back, I might just go out and buy a bow from Hoyt or Samick or Bear or Border, or even Kegan. But it'll be a bow I never would have dreamed of buying if I hadn't gotten started on my own.

I've never set foot inside an archery shop. I've never ordered anything from an online archery shop. All of my equipment is handmade by me. My only archery coach is the community here at AT. But here I am, trying to remember to keep my shoulders down and my back tight. And maybe I'm just one-of-a-kind, but I don't think so. I have a feeling there are plenty more like me, getting started in backyards and garages. And we may not be buying bows (or even arrows) today or tomorrow, but given time to get "hooked" and decide this is really the "thing" for us, we'll be some of those future customers every business is always on the lookout for.

So... what's the future of traditional archery? For me it's online build-alongs and PVC. :wink:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> ...my whole reason for me being online is to show you as best I can how to measure these things and decide for yourself.


Just giving my opinion on the future of the sport when it comes to improvements. You aren't the first well-known bowyer I've spoken with that shys away from discussing strings--far from it. As I said though, I don't get it. It's got to be easier to just tinker with a few strings vs. changing forms and designs. Once you get the basics down with strings it's just a matter of keeping up with new materials and figureing out the best strand count with them. You can pick up performance practically for free.


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

JParanee said:


> J
> 
> I have a 338 Lapua and a 50 cal but I don't hunt with them
> 
> ...


that IS a nice looking bow no complaints there also looks like a nice fall day. would you shoot a bow that had no wood in it at all and call it "traditional" bowhunting? the reason i ask is because with the advancement in materials thats what i see happening. i know im not hunting with a longbow/cedar arrow/stone tip but i wont be weilding a composite recurve in the future either. i just hope a little "traditional" stays in our bows.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> that IS a nice looking bow no complaints there also looks like a nice fall day. would you shoot a bow that had no wood in it at all and call it "traditional" bowhunting? the reason i ask is because with the advancement in materials thats what i see happening.


there is wood in that bow... its all in the limbs butts :tongue:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

J 

I don't care to describe myself as a traditional Bowhunter 

I came from recurves and all the deer I have killed with a bow have been with recurves except for one and that was a cam lever compound shot with fingers

So I like to just describe myself as a Bowhunter who uses a recurve 

But in reality I think my all Phenolic riser with Border limbs is as traditional as my Silvertip that is all wood


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

J here is another bow with Border limbs 

A Trad Tech Titan riser 

It has a machined aluminum riser but my first bear recurve 30 some years ago had I believe a magnesium handle so its all in what your definition is 



















All sporting strings from Chad


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Look how nice those tips unwind


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Advancement is as old as the first Caveman to tie a sinew string to the ends of a willow branch, then a piece of osage, then.........I think as humans we are tinkers and are never truly satisfied. It's also what draws me to Traditional - work like crazy and occasionally shoot a beautiful group - then work like crazy to repeat that group......then change what the definition of a beautiful group is and pursue that.........


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> i just hope a little "traditional" stays in our bows.


the primitive sections of archery here in Europe are VERY alive and kicking. infact a lot of tournaments we have attaneded in Germany and Austria have as many Primative bows as they do Longbows.

(primitive being the competition category they fit in.)


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Jparnee - how do those limbs compare to your BF Extremes in performance, feel and price?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

The Future is going to be different too...
some exotic hardwoods are getting harder to come by..

Cocobolo being one of them
The prices of these woods is simply jumping through the roof.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

LBR said:


> Just giving my opinion on the future of the sport when it comes to improvements. You aren't the first well-known bowyer I've spoken with that shys away from discussing strings--far from it. As I said though, I don't get it. It's got to be easier to just tinker with a few strings vs. changing forms and designs. Once you get the basics down with strings it's just a matter of keeping up with new materials and figureing out the best strand count with them. You can pick up performance practically for free.


This is just my opinion Chad, but I think I can answer that for you. Bowyers make no money by telling a prospective customer that the only thing they have to do to pick up a few clicks on the performance meter is to invest 20 bucks in a high performance string. There is *not a thing wrong with that,* a bowyers job is to sell bows, not strings.

KPC


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

like i said nice looking stuff jp. those tips really do curve a lot, i wasnt familiar with borderbows but looked at them a little bit. i wont be changing my bow out except for maybe a similiar one but thats just my stubborness.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> Well Blackies Bow reports puts the stored energy of two top end ILF limbs at 0.88 and 0.91 FT/LBs of energy per pound held at 28"
> These are top end Mostly Carbon/almost all carbon constructions.
> then you have bows out there that are storing 1.11 that's of equal spec for all intents and purposes, that is pushing higher speeds.
> It is possible to store 1.17 at 28, so this lets you know what kind of sizes of energy we are talking about.
> ...


What bow 50lb. bow is shooting these 500 grain arrows at 200 fos with fingers? Is it one of yours? 

Mac


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I honestly don't know what the future holds but I'm looking forward to seeing it. My hat is off to anybody pushing the edge in performance or efficient manufacturing. Whether it's something I will buy is irrelevant, I want the _option_ of buying it. In my opinion nothing but good comes from advancing the science of archery, or almost anything else for that matter. 

I think in reality any improvements will be incremental at best until some paradigm shifting material is developed, but maybe even that wouldn't change much since the art of making bows seems pretty well developed. The thing is a little improvement here, a small tweak there, pretty soon they add up to something that might be significant even if the materials used are nothing new. 

Material science can be a real game changer though, think of how fiber glass changed bows. Carbon has had a similar although less dramatic effect. Who knows what the future holds, I'm just glad there are people working on it. I don't have to buy it if it doesn't suit me.

I'll take all the performance I can get out of my recurves. I also think there will always be someone willing to make me a pretty one...:wink:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> What bow 50lb. bow is shooting these 500 grain arrows at 200 fos with fingers? Is it one of yours?
> 
> Mac


those were just easy numbers i put into the calc i linked to.
but i dont think 200fps is at 10gpp is far off.
i mean that from a normal config of bow under normal shooting situations


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> This is just my opinion Chad, but I think I can answer that for you. Bowyers make no money by telling a prospective customer that the only thing they have to do to pick up a few clicks on the performance meter is to invest 20 bucks in a high performance string. There is not a thing wrong with that, a bowyers job is to sell bows, not strings.



Understood...but they don't have to give credit to the string, or they can sell the string themselves. What's easier (and cheaper)...dink around with a couple hundred dollars worth of strings, or re-build a limb form...over and over again?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Understood...but they don't have to give credit to the string, or they can sell the string themselves. What's easier (and cheaper)...dink around with a couple hundred dollars worth of strings, or re-build a limb form...over and over again?


Might call Hoyt, Samick, W&W, et al., as they too are steadily wasting R&D dollars on these bow designs, when all they have to do is call BCY for some new strings


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

centershot said:


> Jparnee - how do those limbs compare to your BF Extremes in performance, feel and price?


Center 

BFs are my go to limb and I love them to death 

In a conventional recurve design they are wonderful at doing what they are designed to do 

Very rarely do you hear of any issues with them. Look at Ken. He has a longer draw and probable a million arrows thru his and they are going strong 

As for comparing the Bf to the Hex 6 

They are completely different animals 

The BF is buttery smooth and gains weight slowly 

The Hex 6 is stiffer off the gate but than has a perceived letoff. Nothing like a compound but different from the norm of a conventional limb 

The BF's are about 55 ponds at my draw the borders are about 54 

As for speed the Hex 6's are quicker by about 5 or 6 FPS 

The brace heights are 7 3/4 on the BF rig and 7 on the Hex 6 rig 

I know a lot will say to drop the brace down on the Bf bow and it would get closer to the Border but than the BF rig smacks my arm and sounds way wrong 

The bows need to be shot with in there design parameters

So it's a different feel and a few feet per second. But to be honest I really like both 

As for fit and finish 

The BF's are a factory finished limb and they are done very well 










The Borders are a custom limb and the finish is impeccable in my opinion 














































One of the nicest set of limbs I ever saw was a set of Hex 6's in gloss black that belongs to Ray 

They are gorgeous I can't describe how they just glowed 

Its easy to spray a satin finish over wood grain but to finish out a gloss black anything is work 

As for price new BF's are 600 

New Hex 6 are like high sevens I think 

In a conventional limb you can not for my money beat a set of BF's. For the quality ,speed and warrantee 

In a super recurve in my mind Border is the only answer 

This is coming from a guy with a wall full of custom bows 

These limbs are all I am shooting when it comes to recurves right now 

I am just a Bowhunter but I have shot a lot of different limbs  

In my mind Border is not competing with the Giants as in Hoyt ,Samick and WW 

They are a niche company producing a very exciting product. Border only needs to compete with Border 

I for one welcome that and like that Border keeps thinking out of the box 

Just like no one needs a high modules graphite rod to catch a fish or a handmade Damascus knife to skin a deer there will be people out there that will stand in line to buy them  

Shoot what makes ya happy


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> like i said nice looking stuff jp. those tips really do curve a lot, i wasnt familiar with borderbows but looked at them a little bit. i wont be changing my bow out except for maybe a similiar one but thats just my stubborness.


And I do not blame you. I like Bears myself 

Shoot what makes you happy  

Border does make limbs for Bear risers or at least I know they did at times


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

LBR said:


> It's got to be easier to just tinker with a few strings vs. changing forms and designs. Once you get the basics down with strings it's just a matter of keeping up with new materials and figureing out the best strand count with them. You can pick up performance practically for free.


Sure, but once you've got your strings down where do you go?

I don't think Sid is suggesting that it's not worth using the best string possible, but rather the market is somewhat contentious about the perception of what exactly that is, and as a Bowyer, he doesn't want to get drawn into that can of worms. He'd rather build the bow he wants to build, and leave the personal string choice to the owner. It's not an either or kind of thing. Taking the performance gains in both venues is entirely plausible. Dismissing both is equally valid. Personal choice. Some may choose to put a generic 16 strand B-50 string on a 40#, $1,000+ custom bow. _Most_ wouldn't, but if they're happy, I'm happy for them. Some of us _like_ the cheap beer, even if we're eating gourmet food.


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

Yewselfbow said:


> ..... 3D printing and 3D weaving .. if these technologies are introduced into bow production, we'll see some interesting bow designs.


Agreed. We've already seen some accessories in the DIY forum.

Also, on-demand CNC milling at a local / personal level, I've got a 2-piece bow design which I need to try cutting on my Shapeoko.

I'd like to see more metal bows --- I'd love to see Bear reintroduce the magnesium-handle takedown --- I want an A-handle (anyone know if it would work in aluminum?) and I'm curious how it'd work in carbon.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Might call Hoyt, Samick, W&W, et al., as they too are steadily wasting R&D dollars on these bow designs, when all they have to do is call BCY for some new strings


Like I said, bowyers are in the business to sell bows, not strings. It's Chad's job to get the word out that you don't need always to spend $500-1000 to get an extra 5 or 6 feet per second. All it sometimes takes is a $20 string and you might even get a quieter, better behaved bow too.

Short story to illustrate my point. About 10 years ago I bought a Hoyt Gamemaster. It came with the base limbs and whatever string Hoyt sent with it at the time. It was some 16 strand Flemish twist rope that I could have used for a tow strap to pull my truck out of the ditch. The first time I shot the bow I was actually amazed at how BAD it was. So loud and shocky I literally thought something was broken. Long story short, I talked to a few Gamemaster owners and decided to try a different string. I called Chad and he twisted me a 10 strand D97 string. I literally could not believe the difference. If I had shot the two bindfolded, I literally would have thought they were different bows. In reality, they were. I just wonder how many people bought and subsequently sold those Gamemasters when all they needed was a decent string to make them sing.

I'd be willing to bet Chad has heard that same story dozens if not hundreds of times.

KPC


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> those were just easy numbers i put into the calc i linked to.
> but i dont think 200fps is at 10gpp is far off.
> i mean that from a normal config of bow under normal shooting situations


So...these numbers you stated aren't reality..but hypothetical now...?

What about the 1.11 limbs you said were measured by Blackie? Are these yours ? If so what speeds with a 10 gpp at 50lbs @28" are they getting with fingers? I'm assuming the ones you've been testing are the 1 . 17 figure you stated...so again assuming this. .these are the latest iteration of the hex 7?

This is all well and good. .but a funny thing that strikes me is...how in the hell this is about discussing $200 limbs Sid?

I know you build some of the best limbs available. .that was never in question..and if it were..who ever is questioning this needs a full head exam...lol...lol...but I digress here ...is this thread about the future of traditional biws in general. ..or about your bows..and what's off the drawing board being tested now?

I like others do indeed appreciate your efforts in all of this. .but...since you took some offense before. .and stated this wasn't about Borders bows..I'm just wondering where this all is leading...? Sorry for being direct. .but that's just how I am. .

Mac


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> This is all well and good. .but a funny thing that strikes me is...how in the hell this is about discussing $200 limbs Sid?
> 
> Mac


Good point...

It would seem that the question, then, is at least a two-part one, maybe 3. 

One, what is the future of technological advancement within the limitations of 'Traditional' bow design, and what defines those limitations, and to whom.
Two, can these benefits trickle down into less fairly mass market products, and are they likely to.
Three, does the bulk of the 'traditional' market have anything to do with, or at least much interest in, technological advancements.
Four, what other factors are relevant to the future of 'Traditional' archery as an activity.


Takers?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Might call Hoyt, Samick, W&W, et al., as they too are steadily wasting R&D dollars on these bow designs, when all they have to do is call BCY for some new strings.


Par for the course, not even close to what I said or meant. I was approached about putting in a bid to make strings for the Hoyt Buffalo bow. No thanks. BCY doesn't sell strings, they sell, among other strings, string _*material*_. Hoyt does buy a lot of material from BCY. I don't know about Samick or W&W--maybe I'll find out.

Of course I never said or implied R&D should be halted or that money spent on R&D is a "waste". The question was why not take advantage of a relatively cheap and easy means of making a bow shoot and perform better.



> Sure, but once you've got your strings down where do you go?


Like KPC mentioned earlier, substitute "limbs" or "riser" for "strings" in the above statement. Then you keep working with the new materials that come out and try to keep improving your build. Again, I can't see the point in paying top dollar trying to gain a relatively tiny amount of performance or comfort or whatever, then skimping on the string and loosing most if not all of what you gained. Would you buy cheap or mismatched arrows to shoot from a Border?



> I'd be willing to bet Chad has heard that same story dozens if not hundreds of times.


You would win that bet--that's why I bring it up. Not to mention I've experienced it myself time and time again.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JDBrown said:


> I agree with this guy. But maybe that's because, for me, much of the allure of traditional archery is being able to shoot something I made with my own two hands. I would love to one day be able to _hunt _with something I made with my own two hands. That's not possible with guns for most of us. But with traditional archery, practically anybody can do it. So, while others have already covered the technological advancements they're seeing or would like to see, I'm going the other way with it. I think that there are and always will be those who are willing to dump what I see as insane amounts of cash into their hobby (be it archery, golf, stamp collecting, or anything in between), but there are just as many who don't participate in the hobby at all because it's too cost prohibitive. Luckily for me and others like me, traditional archery doesn't have to be like that.
> 
> It's probably just my personal bias, but this is how I see a large part of the future of traditional archery. It's guys like me who could technically afford to buy a bow, but my priorities cause me to keep putting it off because there's always somewhere more important for the money to go. But I know how to use the Internet, and it's extremely easy to find detailed build-alongs for several different styles of longbows and recurves. I enjoy working with my hands -- it's a nice change of pace from sitting in front of a keyboard all day long -- and spending a little time shaping a $6 board in the evening or on a Saturday is something I can do. I can also go across town to a friend's house and cut some bamboo -- add some heat for straightening, a nail for a field point, and some duct tape fletchings, and I've got a few arrows that are plenty good enough for my novice self.
> 
> ...



Setting the term "traditional" aside, I think there's room for all of it. There are a lot of us making our own bows AND buying bows. Jimmy Blackmon is a good example. I make lots of my own stuff and today I hunted with an oak bow that I built. I also made my quiver, tab and the knife I was carrying. My wife made some of the clothes I was wearing. But I also ordered a bow from Kegan. There are even bowyers building and selling self bows.

It doesn't have to be one or the other even for an individual. When talking about the entire stick and string market (many market segments?) it sure doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> Good point...
> 
> It would seem that the question, then, is at least a two-part one, maybe 3.
> 
> ...


Sure. New technology tends to get less expensive after it's been around a while. It does tend to trickle down.

The "bulk" of the market is going to respond as markets do. It's going to pay for some item of perceived value. There's all sorts of candy but M&M's don't melt in your hand and Wheaties is the breakfast of champions. LOL

The seller is always looking to offer something different or better than what the competition offers. Or, at least, to convince the buyer that they are. That's how you get somebody to buy from you instead of from the competition.

In regards to the future of traditional archery as an activity, I have no idea. A movie comes out and all of a sudden people go nuts buying bows. Somebody could come up with a new archery game/sport or even just a new reality TV show and it could change the whole landscape.

I think there are segments of the market that have been around a long time and will be around for a long time to come but somebody is always coming up with something.

I think guys like Howard Hill and Fred Bear created the markets they sold to by taking their show on the road.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Like I said, bowyers are in the business to sell bows, not strings. It's Chad's job to get the word out that you don't need always to spend $500-1000 to get an extra 5 or 6 feet per second. All it sometimes takes is a $20 string and you might even get a quieter, better behaved bow too.
> 
> Short story to illustrate my point. About 10 years ago I bought a Hoyt Gamemaster. It came with the base limbs and whatever string Hoyt sent with it at the time. It was some 16 strand Flemish twist rope that I could have used for a tow strap to pull my truck out of the ditch. The first time I shot the bow I was actually amazed at how BAD it was. So loud and shocky I literally thought something was broken. Long story short, I talked to a few Gamemaster owners and decided to try a different string. I called Chad and he twisted me a 10 strand D97 string. I literally could not believe the difference. If I had shot the two bindfolded, I literally would have thought they were different bows. In reality, they were. I just wonder how many people bought and subsequently sold those Gamemasters when all they needed was a decent string to make them sing.
> 
> ...


Kevin I whole heart idly agree 

My biggest string test is in bare shafting 

I could take a decent over the counter D 97 string and by switching to an 8190 string from Chad see the bow shoot from slightly soft to right on 

Telling me that on the same bow (center shot was controlled) I could see what string was imparting more energy 

Like I said 

God is in the details 

I know I am not a good enough archer to exploit these small bits and pieces of performance that I search out, but if even a hack like me can release clean enough, or an even better way to explain it is repeatable enough to consistently get the same bare shaft flight someone that has vast more skill than I could really ring it out 

So if you add up all the little things they start to mean something 

Even though I'm just a simple hunter I set my sights high and good animals are hard to come by. So I will pay a little more for some bits and pieces that account for a bit more energy and stability. So that hopefully in that one moment of hours in the field a magnificent animal gives my less than perfect self a chance to slip that arrow in the right spot everything adds up.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

You can buy Border tech in $300 limbs (bias carbon). The difference is that Border had it over 10 years ago. Likewise with buying excellent ILF risers for around $250 that would have fetched twice that just 5 years ago or so.

But really this thread isn't about where $200 bow tech is going, that will always be behind the cutting edge although it will benefit from trickle-down as the R&D gets paid for by the premium end of the product line. It's not even about where Border are going, as we know they will forge their own path according to the engineering that they have conducted. Companies will look at their tech and decide what is safe to incorporate into their own products. The $200 limbs of tomorrow are the $600 limbs of today, at least in terms of materials.

Now that I have that over with lets get away from material tech for a while.

Lets think outside the same old box. The bows we have now are using geometry which was designed when trying to cast aluminum arrows with glass powered limbs. Even Hoyt is getting away from the GM geometry in an effort to increase performance (Ion-X/HPX), but they are doing it on a bow which will be shot with artificial stabilization. Not many respected BB archers have stuck with the Ion-X/HPX after trying it, IMHO because it just doesn't shoot that well without stabs.

We as barebow archers are thrilled with the trickle-down of Olympic tech (ILF) into our sport but we need to realize that it really wasn't designed for what we are asking it to do. Companies take their Oly riser, add some weight to the bottom and call it a BB riser. There is no fundamental change in the geometry to benefit our style of shooting.
The manufacturers really aren't producing anything designed from the ground-up for BB shooting. They are just taking an Oly design and scaling it to our needs for overall bow length and perhaps messing with the limb-pad angles or deflex to get the performance we want. There has been no fundamental shift away from a design that was for shooting an under-chin split fingered hold with a sight and stabs.

Here is something interesting. Peter Garrett's set-up from the 2011 World 3D Championship:








I know he placed the rest up there for a reason (gapping off the riser), but ignore that for a moment and look at how LOW his bow-arm is! It's almost down where you'd see an Oly shooter have it.
Now look at John Wurt with the arrow close to the hand:









Two archers with the same riser and similar anchors. But the geometry isn't the same and so Peter is able to use a much stronger position for his bow-arm. I believe this would be even more noticeable for an archer who is stringwalking like this one:









Notice how high the arm and shoulder is.

I honestly think that the gains for BB archers will be in producing bows that work with our technique to make the easiest bows to shoot. Deflex, rest height, vertical grip position, balance and mass all contribute to making a bow easy to shoot.

Fast is great, I want a bow that is EASY.

-Grant


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Like I said, bowyers are in the business to sell bows, not strings. It's Chad's job to get the word out that you don't need always to spend $500-1000 to get an extra 5 or 6 feet per second. All it sometimes takes is a $20 string and you might even get a quieter, better behaved bow too.
> 
> KPC


Sure, we've all seen the difference between a crappy built string and a good one - but, I doubt it's been a secret that needs an ambassador. All the rest in between those two extremes, well, the lack of concern on the majority probably speaks more for the true situation over one or two folks who claim there's secret in the sauce somewhere. Still, though, all that is irrelevant. To keep the discussion on bow improvements, the extra FPS in the bow will still be there no matter the string. If the quest is for the fastest rig, the string's contribution is still going to be exceeded, unless, what you are really saying is someone would not be smart enough to put a good string on their higher power investment.

For a new archer, that might be the case in buying more than he understands. But, come on, a seasoned archer doesn't need a string maker to tell him he's got a crappy string for his rig.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> But, come on, a seasoned archer doesn't need a string maker to tell him he's got a crappy string for his rig.


I suspect a seasoned archer doesn't need to be told (or sold) a lot of things, but that doesn't stop people from trying. It's the unseasoned that often fall prey.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> It's the unseasoned that often fall prey.
> 
> KPC


I understand, but if a new person is buying performance, they are falling prey no matter what they buy to start with. It doesn't matter, they are a long way from realizing the potential of any of it. Speaking of which, even for someone who is seasoned, we tend to leave much HP in our bows by default. This I've seen proof of about every time I test it. Chrono someone that doesn't suspect the reason at 20 yards, then, move them up to 10 yards and chrono again, 7 to 10 fps is a standard gain just in how they perceive the new ease of the target and shoot the bow. I don't doubt that the mental placebo of a new string factors in that same design to some extent.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> But, come on, a seasoned archer doesn't need a string maker to tell him he's got a crappy string for his rig.


Sadly, a lot of them do. I've seen it in person, saw multiple instances of seasoned archers recommending crappy strings on message boards, including this one. It's like some people make it a point to display their ignorance of strings. I'm floored that a seasoned archer such as yourself hadn't noticed--I see it all the time.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

LBR said:


> Sadly, a lot of them do. I've seen it in person, saw multiple instances of seasoned archers recommending crappy strings on message boards, including this one. It's like some people make it a point to display their ignorance of strings. I'm floored that a seasoned archer such as yourself hadn't noticed--I see it all the time.


What do you mean by this, crappy made or choice of materials, if so what do you consider crappy?

I've been making my own Strings since 2002, all BCY products, initially because of crappy String makers. I shot Longbows with small tips and just couldn't get a string with small enough loops so I was kinda forced to start making my own.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> What do you mean by this, crappy made or choice of materials, if so what do you consider crappy?


I'm sure you have seen quite a bit. Too short, too long, serving way too long, wrong size serving, serving comes loose. Flemish that looks like two vines wrapped around each other, and/or has way too many twists. Endless with end servings separated and/or coming loose. Huge strings on light-weight bows. Nocks fitting way too tight. Loops way too big. Etc. etc. etc.

The worst materials have been taken off the market, thankfully.

Excellent choice in BCY. Have you tried the new BCY-X yet?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> I'm sure you have seen quite a bit. Too short, too long, serving way too long, wrong size serving, serving comes loose. Flemish that looks like two vines wrapped around each other, and/or has way too many twists. Endless with end servings separated and/or coming loose. Huge strings on light-weight bows. Nocks fitting way too tight. Loops way too big. Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> The worst materials have been taken off the market, thankfully.
> 
> Excellent choice in BCY. Have you tried the new BCY-X yet?


I think we can universally just call that the criteria for a well made string. The rest is the shooter's choice of material, which have pluses and minuses for each depending on the archer's personal parameters. Unless there's some overwhelming data on a few strand counts either way making any noticeable difference, it seems that most archers who can discern the differences against their preferences are doing so without the need for further customization in their string, if there were such a thing. There's just not that much to a string - good material, good construction, get good results.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

LBR said:


> Excellent choice in BCY. Have you tried the new BCY-X yet?


No, I have 6 large spools of 8125 and 2 x D97 so it may be a while, I do make strings for our club members and anybody else who asks so I must make around 40 to 50 strings a year, I feel like I'm at the level where I'm making a decent string for myself. 

My pet hate with bought strings was twisted loops, I always ensure my string loops line up on the bow, some may argue it may or may not make a difference but it shows me somebody has put thought/care into making a string, for me personally, I feel it makes a difference.

String count for me is about nock fit and finger comfort, squeezing more speed is the last criteria if at all.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Other things that come to mind for what may be in the future:

A decent One design bow that allows lower income archers to compete on a more level playing field.

More flex in the riser for a more "continuous tiller" and more stored energy in the bow's riser section (augment and balance with the limbs tiller/energy). Again weight placement may allow adjustment of the "dynamic flex"/tuning of the riser.

More dynamic load sensors, high speed cameras and computer CPU cycles devoted to analysis and design of the bow and arrow system (Arrow, riser[rest], limbs, string and human/"human to bow interface").

Further advances in laminate build materials, laminate schedules (including tapered/feathered laminates), ceramics/foam improvements, and analysis/design specific to these advances.

A surge in Archery Golf and other fun things for the average Joe/Jane at Archery Special Events such as trade shows and tournaments.

More shooting and having fun doing so!


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> String count for me is about nock fit and finger comfort, squeezing more speed is the last criteria if at all.


Strand count is about more than speed, for me at least. Fitting the string to the bow can make a noticeable difference in shock, noise, and tuning. Nock fit comes with the proper serving size. Performance gains are the last concern, but if you can pick up a couple of fps for free, why not?

This side of the sport benefits greatly from the compound side, especially where strings are concerned. Tons of money goes into improving string materials, and obviously there's enough people interested for AT to devote an entire forum to just strings and arrows, and archers that shoot well enough to tell the difference in an over the counter string and one custom made to their specs. A person would about have to be deaf and numb to not tell the difference with some bows, even if they can't shoot accurately enough to tell the difference.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

OH yea...more tapered arrow shafts may be big in the future. Taper at the front of the shaft may deserve a closer look.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

You guys are missing one major point...

Putting Alloy wheels and low profile types, on a old beater of a car, is NEVER going to make it a Bentley.
yeah its going to make a difference... BUT really... Lets keep this real.
When I look at a TOP end bike a deal breaker for me would not be the middle of the road tyre. Those things are disposable...
I would hate to think you could take a Samick SKB, and turn it into a Hex6-BB2 just by changing the string.

Strings are not the only bow performance Enhancing aspect... but keep it real.

I think our hex6 BB2's would still sing even if you but a Dacron string.
put on a top notch Custom string and watch them really stand out.

lets see, the review above puts the two bows in compairison at say 6-7FPS speed difference.
Dacron is about that too... so put on a Dacron string and you have a Extreme BF...

really... lets not dumb down the importance of the bow.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> So...these numbers you stated aren't reality..but hypothetical now...?
> 
> What about the 1.11 limbs you said were measured by Blackie? Are these yours ? If so what speeds with a 10 gpp at 50lbs @28" are they getting with fingers? I'm assuming the ones you've been testing are the 1 . 17 figure you stated...so again assuming this. .these are the latest iteration of the hex 7?
> 
> ...


Mac, I think we have our words all muddled up, crossing what its the same ideas.

Once you start a thread, you have little control over the direction. (both good and bad)
Where this is heading I have NO idea.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Ok...so.let's discuss these numbers you put forth. ..

Are the 1.17's your upcoming hex 7 spec's ?

I don't think you would be broaching that number off hand...:wink:

Then..let's go at this from a rational perspective. .or a Traditional perspective. ..lol

While the target oriented folks look for relevant specs on light weight rigs...those like myself who primarily hunt as opposed to punching x's..prefer to look for heavier draw weights.....to many of us..Traditional. .entails nice 1 or 3 pc bows. .not necessarily ilf or das...50 to 65lbs. .

Run your numbers..gaze into your crystal ball. .and see what the future holds for us too..see while the target crowd loves light weight bows..many of us neanderthal types like a little more horse power..for the 10 gpp and up....While we aren't the majority. .there's plenty of us around still. .

Mac


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> Ok...so.let's discuss these numbers you put forth. ..
> 
> Are the 1.17's your upcoming hex 7 spec's ?
> 
> ...


You run the same tunes we do here. Heavy arrows simply have a nicer tune to them.

our crystal ball looks to have put 5-6fps onto what we currently have with our R&D.
but we will see what its like in the real world.

People tend to find different things. so its not my opinion that counts, more what everyone elses opinion that actually matters


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Steve:

Not to question you in any way, I'm just using a couple of your statements to illustrate a point.



steve morley said:


> I like the Hex limbs they have a nice relaxed feel at anchor and *I was able to get more speed with less poundage *but it wasn't enough to secure a win at this years Europeans in Hungary, *end of the day I was out shot by a better Archer.*
> 
> I was pretty happy with the performance increase, I have a short draw and *it's hard for me to get that extra hp from a limb*, it's at least put me on the same footing speed wise as the taller Archers.





steve morley said:


> String count for me is about nock fit and finger comfort, *squeezing more speed is the last criteria if at all.*



People don't seem to have a problem dropping hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in an attempt to eek out a little extra performance based on promises of the latest and greatest limb designs. Sometimes all that is needed is to throw away the "tow strap" that most bowyers supply with, or recommend for their bows because of liability concerns.

To me, it's a little like buying a new engine to get a little more performance when all that is needed is a different tune and higher octane fuel.

The guy selling the engines loves it, and the guy selling the fuel just shakes his head.

Interestingly enough, races are more often won by the best drivers, than by the fastest cars.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That's nice Sid, but the question still remains...
> 
> How does this...
> 
> ...





GEREP said:


> Interestingly enough, races are more often won by the best drivers, than by the fastest cars.
> 
> KPC


and your point is caller?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

So with this:
View attachment 1813831





and this
View attachment 1813838


you can achive this

View attachment 1813833


or this?

View attachment 1813835


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> and your point is caller?


That's an easy one Sid. My *"point"* is rather simple.


*This...*










*without this...*










*produces this for the archer...*










*and this for the bowyer.*










Hey, this is fun, I love telling stories with pictures.



KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

nope... equals short term sales quickly goes bust.
id much rather have a forgiving setup that help reduce the effect of a less than perfect form.

and before you say it.
the phrase id rather have a slow hit than a fast miss.
this means its possible to have a bow that will help you miss.
so its not all about talent.
it does help to have a good bow design or else that phrase wouldnt exist...


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Grant - that is the first time I have ever seen a rest 1/2 way up the window! That could have some nice advantages with common riser designs shooting 3 under. It should help balance the bow, gets the bow arm lower and in a more natural position and the biggest - makes the sight window an exact height for aiming. Interesting, innovative and will probably cause a rule change.............


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> *nope...* equals short term sales quickly goes bust.
> id much rather have a forgiving setup that help reduce the effect of a less than perfect form.
> 
> and before you say it.
> ...



Just giving my opinion Sid, and we all know that's what you're looking for when you start conversations like these.




Borderbows said:


> People tend to find different things. so its not my opinion that counts, more what everyone elses opinion that actually matters



If I didn't know better though, I'd almost think it's only the opinions that coincide with yours that *"actually matter?"*

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Strings are not the only bow performance Enhancing aspect... but keep it real.


I never said or implied such. Let's do keep it real--KPC said it better than I could with the following:



> People don't seem to have a problem dropping hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in an attempt to eek out a little extra performance based on promises of the latest and greatest limb designs. Sometimes all that is needed is to throw away the "tow strap" that most bowyers supply with, or recommend for their bows because of liability concerns.
> 
> To me, it's a little like buying a new engine to get a little more performance when all that is needed is a different tune and higher octane fuel.
> 
> * The guy selling the engines loves it, and the guy selling the fuel just shakes his head*.


Just more evidence to back what we have been saying. Of course it won't sell more bows, in the short run anyway, if you inform people that they can pick up several pounds worth of performance by just putting the right string on their bow or, as Rod Jenkins talks about on his site, learning to pull through the shot.

The biggest variable in this sport isn't the bow, or the string, it's the archer. Give a lousy shot a great bow, they will still be a lousy shot. Give a great shot a lousy bow, they will still make great shots.

The topic was supposed to be about the future of the sport, and where it was leading us. Purposely leaving strings and string materials out of it isn't keeping it real.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Here is how I look at it - Archery is my passion - I don't got to bars, I don't play soft ball, I don't buy coffee from those little stands, I bring left overs to work for lunch every day, my daily driver is a toyota Carola (try that at 6'6") - basically I'm a cheap guy. But, by god I shoot the best archery equipment that money can buy. When I was strictly a hunter I shot a custom Morrison take down. Did it shoot better than a samick sage? Not that much but, it gave me pleasure every time I looked down at it while sitting in a stand. I'm not a bow hoarder all I want is one target bow and one hunting bow but, I want to shoot what I feel is the best that money can buy. 

Four years ago I shot a 3d with a friend on a whim - I LOVED IT. I shot 3d with my hunting rig that year and decided at the end of the year that I wanted to try Trad worlds. That was the year the Scott Antezack cleaned up and not being a guy to shy away from a challenge I figured lets shoot for that. So I set out at doing my research and putting together the best RU bow money can buy. Being cheap I bought much of it used - the acceptation being the border limbs I settled on. When I was looking for limbs I shot Dryad, Morrison, W&W, and Samick - Border worked the best for me and the criteria I was looking at. I wasn't sold on any one limb I tested them extensively and the Border worked the best for me - so I bought 2 pair.

Yep they they are expensive but, look at it this way - what does one of those fu-fu coffees cost - what does buying lunch every day cost? Multiply it out over the year and it makes buying a top end set of limbs look like a bargain and they give me pleasure every single time I draw them back.

As to strings - Chad (LBR) makes mine ;-)

















They seem to work

Matt


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

good post Matt:thumbs_up

I think the key here is many of the better shooters research all the top brand limbs available (they will all win tourneys for you) and select the limb that best fits the type of shooting they doing, gives them the best feel and confidence to shoot their best.

I haven't shot every limb available but enough to make an informed choice as to what works for me, interestingly it's not always about the price tag, I got a set of SF Elite Plus limbs for 190 Euros (new) and they shoot way better than the Pro-Accent and Winex limbs I had before.

I see another set of Borders in my future, think it will be the CV limb though, just to compare.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Good post Matt 

Like I said shoot what ya like 

I don't do the coffee thing either and I eat anything


----------



## pokynojoe (Feb 2, 2006)

I would like to retract my post, I see now that it has nothing to do with the theme Mr. Borderbows started. You'll just have to excuse me, I'm quite old, and I sometimes get confused. My apologies to Mr. Borderbows. In the future I'll try to make a concerted effort to comment on the theme of the original post.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> The topic was supposed to be about the future of the sport, and where it was leading us. Purposely leaving strings and string materials out of it isn't keeping it real.


No, it was strictly about bows and "bow designs", which again, as has been pointed out, is independent of string enhancement. A 3fps faster bow design will still be 3pfs faster. It might be even more faster with a faster string, but heck, that's a string discussion. If someone shoots with bad form and a crappy string, that's still not in the realm of "bow design". 

Give a lousy shot a great string, they will still be a lousy shot. Give a great shot a lousy string, they will make great shots. You seem to spend a great deal of typing in going against yourself.

Sid is a Trad bow builder and Oly bow builder. No other builders of scale ever have the ear of the Trad community here or consult the community, so what's the problem with him asking here for a discussion on bows? Never mind he might have his own prejudices and opinions, at least he's here raising discussion. There's plenty of space to start your string-education/discussion threads if you like.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> good post Matt:thumbs_up





JParanee said:


> Good post Matt


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

pokynojoe said:


> I would like to retract my post, I see now that it has nothing to do with the theme Mr. Borderbows started. You'll just have to excuse me, I'm quite old, and I sometimes get confused. My apologies to Mr. Borderbows. In the future I'll try to make a concerted effort to comment on the theme of the original post.


I think your post is Valid. bows of tomorrow means todays bows become cheaper. Your quite right.
Please, Call me Sid. My Dad and I are Both Called Sid, he answers emails, and I dabble on the internet...
My Dad, Mum (Ann) and My self, Run Border Archery. Well, Actually as part of the team, we do the Admin Customer Facing bit, The rest of the team back us up with the bows...A company is no one person. Its the team. Without them, Your stranded.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Sanford: Thank you.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> Here is how I look at it - Archery is my passion - I don't got to bars, I don't play soft ball, I don't buy coffee from those little stands, I bring left overs to work for lunch every day, my daily driver is a toyota Carola (try that at 6'6") - basically I'm a cheap guy. But, by god I shoot the best archery equipment that money can buy. When I was strictly a hunter I shot a custom Morrison take down. Did it shoot better than a samick sage? Not that much but, it gave me pleasure every time I looked down at it while sitting in a stand. I'm not a bow hoarder all I want is one target bow and one hunting bow but, I want to shoot what I feel is the best that money can buy.
> 
> Four years ago I shot a 3d with a friend on a whim - I LOVED IT. I shot 3d with my hunting rig that year and decided at the end of the year that I wanted to try Trad worlds. That was the year the Scott Antezack cleaned up and not being a guy to shy away from a challenge I figured lets shoot for that. So I set out at doing my research and putting together the best RU bow money can buy. Being cheap I bought much of it used - the acceptation being the border limbs I settled on. When I was looking for limbs I shot *Dryad, Morrison, W&W, and Samick - Border* worked the best for me and the criteria I was looking at. I wasn't sold on any one limb I tested them extensively and the Border worked the best for me - so I bought 2 pair.
> 
> ...


Good post Matt. Something tells me that whichever limbs you decided on, the results would have been the same. Same for Jason. And for me, the opposite is true. 

I'm beginning to think the secret doesn't lie in the limbs, the riser, or the string...it's those "knuckle dragger" draw lengths.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter; 1068754818 said:


> Matt


We really should have given Jared a stool or something.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

J. Wesbrock said:


> We really should have given Jared a stool or something.


I'm going to beat him with it if he goes over to compounds.

Matt


----------



## Dsturgisjr (Aug 20, 2004)

J. Wesbrock said:


> We really should have given Jared a stool or something.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

GEREP said:


> Good post Matt. Something tells me that whichever limbs you decided on, the results would have been the same. Same for Jason. And for me, the opposite is true.
> 
> I'm beginning to think the secret doesn't lie in the limbs, the riser, or the string...*it's those "knuckle dragger" draw lengths.*
> 
> ...


Compounds kinda leveled the playing field……just like Sam Colt, but when dealing with single strings that big power stroke can be helpful. The big drawback for guys like Matt and Jason is finding gear that will stand up to 32" draw length and arrows that are long enough to stay on the shelf/rest.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> I'm going to beat him with it if he goes over to compounds.
> 
> Matt


I'll leave that up to you. I'd look funny being thrown through the air like a javelin.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Here is how I look at it - Archery is my passion - I don't got to bars, I don't play soft ball, I don't buy coffee from those little stands, I bring left overs to work for lunch every day, my daily driver is a toyota Carola (try that at 6'6") - basically I'm a cheap guy. But, by god I shoot the best archery equipment that money can buy. When I was strictly a hunter I shot a custom Morrison take down. Did it shoot better than a samick sage? Not that much but, it gave me pleasure every time I looked down at it while sitting in a stand. I'm not a bow hoarder all I want is one target bow and one hunting bow but, I want to shoot what I feel is the best that money can buy.
> 
> Four years ago I shot a 3d with a friend on a whim - I LOVED IT. I shot 3d with my hunting rig that year and decided at the end of the year that I wanted to try Trad worlds. That was the year the Scott Antezack cleaned up and not being a guy to shy away from a challenge I figured lets shoot for that. So I set out at doing my research and putting together the best RU bow money can buy. Being cheap I bought much of it used - the acceptation being the border limbs I settled on. When I was looking for limbs I shot Dryad, Morrison, W&W, and Samick - Border worked the best for me and the criteria I was looking at. I wasn't sold on any one limb I tested them extensively and the Border worked the best for me - so I bought 2 pair.
> 
> ...


Nicely said Mr P. Do you still have that Morrison or has the Dorado/Dryad combo taken it's place?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Give a lousy shot a great string, they will still be a lousy shot. Give a great shot a lousy string, they will make great shots.


I don't remember anyone saying that a string made people shoot better. They can however, make a bow behave and perform better.

Great shots will make great shots no matter what they are shooting, strings or limbs. Poor shooters will make poor shots, no matter what they are shooting, strings or limbs.

I'm pretty sure that's what some of us (at least me) have been saying all along.



Sanford said:


> Sid is a Trad bow builder and Oly bow builder. No other builders of scale ever have the ear of the Trad community here or consult the community, so what's the problem with him asking here for a discussion on bows? Never mind he might have his own prejudices and opinions, at least he's here raising discussion.


I beg to differ. There are all kinds of bowyers that have the "ear of the community" or "consult the community," they just know that there are more important things than being right, and 
not quitting until you prove it. 

As I said before, there were a couple other well known "geniuses" (not my term) that tried the same tactics and they are both out of business.

JMveryHO of course.

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> No, it was strictly about bows and "bow designs", which again, as has been pointed out, is independent of string enhancement.


What good is the bow without a string? What can it do without a string? 

Technically the string is part of the bow--a strung bow is a "weapon", an unstrung bow is a stick. 

"Independant of string enhancement"?? So, why is it some bowyers won't warranty certain strings? Why do we recommend against using certain strings on certain bows? Why does AT have a forum just for strings (and arrows)? 



> Give a lousy shot a great string, they will still be a lousy shot. Give a great shot a lousy string, they will make great shots. You seem to spend a great deal of typing in going against yourself.


Thanks! You continue to make my point for me--that even "seasoned" archers like yourself need a lot more education on strings. 

You see, if you were up to speed here you would understand that although what you said is true, that's not the point being brought up over and over again. I'll try to help you out. 

The point is, if you have a bow that is noisy, shocky, and slow with a lousy string it can become quieter, smoother, and faster with a good string. A good string will improve a lousy bow, and it will improve a great bow. You just have to be smart enough to take advantage of it. You don't even have to be a great shot to realize and benefit from the improvements.

Sid, seriously--why is this rejected? You aren't the only bowyer I've seen this from, and you aren't the first one I've asked, but I have yet to get a straight answer. It's like you are spending all your time on coming up with the perfect recipie for the perfect pie, but you don't bother using the best fruit. Why keep trying to re-build the engine and ignore the quality of fuel used to power it?

Compound manufacturers don't ignore it--they are the drive behind our ever improving selection of string materials. I'm afraid that if it were left up to the traditional side of the sport, we'd be stuck with polyester.

I'm just curious. Again, I have no interest or desire whatsoever to make strings for any bowyers--I've turned down lots over the last few years. I just don't get it--it's practically effortless on your part, it improves the bow in several categories, cost increase is minimal if there is any at all....what's the deal?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Bigjono said:


> Nicely said Mr P. Do you still have that Morrison or has the Dorado/Dryad combo taken it's place?


Dorado riser with Dryad ACS longbow limbs is my goto hunting bow. I've sold off my DAS risers and will sell the Morrison at some point.

Matt


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Big Country said:


> The big drawback for guys like Matt and Jason is finding gear that will stand up to 32" draw length and arrows that are long enough to stay on the shelf/rest.


Jason is the only guy I've ever seen that needed an overdraw to shoot full length shafts. (Well, him and Manute Bol, but he switched to a crossbow)

:wink:

KPC


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

I can't remember the last time I cut one of my arrows to length.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I can't remember the last time I cut one of my arrows to length.


My guess is before puberty.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

LBR said:


> Sid, seriously--why is this rejected? You aren't the only bowyer I've seen this from, and you aren't the first one I've asked, but I have yet to get a straight answer. It's like you are spending all your time on coming up with the perfect recipie for the perfect pie, but you don't bother using the best fruit. Why keep trying to re-build the engine and ignore the quality of fuel used to power it?
> 
> Compound manufacturers don't ignore it--they are the drive behind our ever improving selection of string materials. I'm afraid that if it were left up to the traditional side of the sport, we'd be stuck with polyester.
> 
> I'm just curious. Again, I have no interest or desire whatsoever to make strings for any bowyers--I've turned down lots over the last few years. I just don't get it--it's practically effortless on your part, it improves the bow in several categories, cost increase is minimal if there is any at all....what's the deal?


Come on Chad, do you really need to ask that question? I mean seriously.

Why does Apple come out with a NEW iPhone every year?

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

The reason is that a performance string helps every bow pretty much equally. So if the same string is used then it does not make a difference to the bow design.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Come on Chad, do you really need to ask that question? I mean seriously.


I know...even on this side of the sport, "new and improved" sells. Still, why not get the jump on your competition in a most simple and cost effective way? Charge $1,000 plus for a bow, then skimp on the string???? :confused2:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

lbr. ok. so you want me to pay attention to the string. as a string maker can you advise me on how to design a bow thats optimised for 8190 over 8125.
i want to use 8190 on my bows but would like some feedback on how to design a bow for a specific string?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Why does Apple come out with a NEW iPhone every year?
> 
> KPC


I don't know, in some cases it might be why we don't have to do dial-up from the house any longer. In others, it might just be false advertising, like claiming no glass in the limb makes for a new and improved limb and having some poor soul running around stating the fact, when in fact, we find it's no different from the rest of pack with glass in it (thanks to Sid ) - just a previous standard of construction.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> We really should have given Jared a stool or something.


Funny  

I'm pretty short so I can't say much


----------



## marc weier (May 26, 2009)

All these claims of performance above and beyond everyone else is killing me. I have a set of your limbs and they tested at the EXACT same speed as my TT extremes on the same riser, string and machine. Stop talking and send a bow to have Blacky publish a bow report on!!!!!!!

Your attitude makes me want to sell my limbs even though they are the limbs that I have tuned up and that I am shooting right now.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> lbr. ok. so you want me to pay attention to the string.


I have nothing to loose or gain, I'm just curious to know why you don't when it's a simple way to improve the bow's performance and feel. As per the topic, improved string materials are part of the future of bows, and the string is an intregal part of the bow.



> as a string maker can you advise me on how to design a bow thats optimised for 8190 over 8125.


Huh? As you said, I'm a string maker--not a bowyer. I don't design bows. I make strings that bring out the best qualities of a bow. I could advise you on how to make a better string for your bow; I can tell you what the base material for 8125 and 8190 is, the benefits, etc. but I won't pretend I could design a better bow. There are others here that specialize in pretending. :wink:



> i want to use 8190 on my bows but would like some feedback on how to design a bow for a specific string?


Again, I have made no such claim or implication. I haven't claimed I could build a better motor or invent a better recipie for a pie. I am smart enough to realize that the performance of that motor will be affected by the fuel, and that taste of that pie by the quality of the fruit...and the quality of the string will affect the feel and performance of the bow. Doesn't matter if it's a $130 Samick or a $1,300 Border--either will benefit.

My question, again, is why ignore that simple fact? Not picking on you--as I said, I've asked others, can't get an answer. I'm just curious.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Chad,

You clearly consider yourself to be an expert on strings. Rather than continue to deflect the topic away from bow design perhaps you could start a thread about the future of strings. Specifically what properties you think will be the most important for traditional archery? Will companies develop materials that optimize single string performance? Do you think that the characteristics of a material developed for a compound might not actually benefit us in the same ways? Do you have an active roll in developing fibers or do you take what the manufacturers produce and adapt it to your design?

-Grant


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

It seems that string threads have been tried in the past......not much interest and they get buried pretty quickly.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> You clearly consider yourself to be an expert on strings.


Actually I've said I do NOT consider myself an expert, on anything. I have above average knowledge and experience with strings, but that's as far as I'd go with it. I've said this many times over the years. I've never referred to myself as an "expert"--mainly because I am not.

I can't see how the future of bow design could be relevantly discussed without discussin the string. As I said, the string is part of the bow. Sure, you can take it off. You can take the limbs off any td bow--does that make the limbs any less a part of the bow?

Sid is all about performance. I'm just taking the opportunity to ask why this very important variable is given so little attention by most bowyers.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

LBR, what is it that makes you think Border uses cheap strings on their bows to begin with?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> It seems that string threads have been tried in the past......not much interest and they get buried pretty quickly.


Yeah...that's why there's a forum dedicated to them...lack of interest...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

marc weier said:


> All these claims of performance above and beyond everyone else is killing me. I have a set of your limbs and they tested at the EXACT same speed as my TT extremes on the same riser, string and machine. Stop talking and send a bow to have Blacky publish a bow report on!!!!!!!
> 
> Your attitude makes me want to sell my limbs even though they are the limbs that I have tuned up and that I am shooting right now.


Im a little confused. 

I tried for over 3 pages of this to avoid mentioning anything. in those 3 pages, there were more than several attempts to point the finger at Border.
what limb model do you have? (if you don't mind me asking?)


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> LBR, what is it that makes you think Border uses cheap strings on their bows to begin with?


What is it that makes you think I said Border uses cheap strings?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> What is it that makes you think I said Border uses cheap strings?





LBR said:


> and the quality of the string will affect the feel and performance of the bow. Doesn't matter if it's a $130 Samick or a $1,300 Border--either will benefit.
> 
> My question, again, is why ignore that simple fact? Not picking on you--as I said, I've asked others, can't get an answer. I'm just curious.


the implications of a lot of your statements are that a string from you could improve our bow performance.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

My 2c, Chad's strings are the best and certainly enhance your shooting but again it's back to the mental aspect, full confidence in your kit results in better shooting more often than not.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> the implications of a lot of your statements are that a string from you could improve our bow performance.


That's your assumption, not my intention. I've made it clear I have no interest in making strings for ANY bowyer. I've also made it clear my questions are out of curiosity, and that I've asked the same type questions of other bowyers with the same lack of straight answers. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be.

Since you made it clear early on that you don't put much focus on strings (starting on page 5, after my comment on the bottom of page 4), I took the opportunity to ask why. The more I ask, and the more bowyers avoid answering, the more curious it makes me.

Since you don't put much (any?) emphasis on strings, my bet is a well made string--made for your specific bows--would be an improvement. How much? Can't say. How much better does a tailor made suit fit vs. a "one size fits all" t-shirt?

Anyhow...strings and string materials are as much a part of the future of bows as anything. Without the string, even the most expensive bow is useless.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> That's your assumption, not my intention. I've made it clear I have no interest in making strings for ANY bowyer. I've also made it clear my questions are out of curiosity, and that I've asked the same type questions of other bowyers with the same lack of straight answers. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be.
> 
> Since you made it clear early on that you don't put much focus on strings (starting on page 5, after my comment on the bottom of page 4), I took the opportunity to ask why. The more I ask, and the more bowyers avoid answering, the more curious it makes me.
> 
> ...


So whats the breaking strains of each string type?
whats the stretch of each string type?
what would the mass be of each string type when made into a string of equal dimensions
say 14 strand. 60" long with 2 equal loops of say 3/4" endless loop, served equal amounts with the same serving and centre serving.

8125
8190
452X
Angel
Fastflight Plus


The properties of the string should tell us if there is a difference.


lets Dial this in a bit then.
So twist count also needs to be equal.

If you keep No. Twists equal, string length equal. serving equal.
we can answer the weight, diam, Potential stretch, and strength of the string.

this will tell us reliability shot after shot (Stretch), Speed by diam and mass, and strength of the string by way of its strain to failure values.

after that you have build quality.
if they are all built by the same guy, then they should all have the same attributes after that.
equal load per strand, Tightness of serving. amount of wax applied.

So fire away.

I don't pay much attention to strings as I have that understanding in the bag.

after that, a string is just a string. 
Now. with the same string I can play with a mountain more variables in the bow design. 
I can throw one string in the bin.  and get another one for 20 bucks. 
unless im missing something


the reason why I don't spend a lot of time on strings.

60% of my customers re-serve the strings to fit the nocks that have on their bow.
or chuck the string out because they have more confidence in the string that THEY make.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

My take on the string thing / Bow set up is this.

I started with the riser I wanted (Luxor 27")

Then I told Sid what I wanted out of a set of limbs - we optimized the limb length and draw weight to my riser and draw length.

Sid's not a string guy but, strings do make a difference - so I contacted a string guy - Chad optimized the string (strands twists ect). to the riser, limbs and nock I shoot.

Getting the perfect grip, arrow and stablizer set up is my problem.

Matt


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> That's your assumption, not my intention. I've made it clear I have no interest in making strings for ANY bowyer. I've also made it clear my questions are out of curiosity, and that I've asked the same type questions of other bowyers with the same lack of straight answers. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be.
> 
> Since you made it clear early on that you don't put much focus on strings (starting on page 5, after my comment on the bottom of page 4), I took the opportunity to ask why. The more I ask, and the more bowyers avoid answering, the more curious it makes me.
> 
> ...


here is a question...
who makes strings 2" shorter than the bow length?
AMO type strings are 3" shorter than bow length?
so, if we are getting our strings made 1" longer than normal for our hex limbs
normal length for our CV series limbs
Normal length but smaller loops for our Longbows.

made in two colours, as per our request.

when the customer requests a endless loop opposed to our standard Flemish twist string, we need to know what limb its going on... reason. the reason is if it were to go on our horse bow, it would need a end serving aprox 8" long, if it were going on a hex limb it would need to be 6.5" long. and the CV series a standard length serving will do.


We don't standard strings. We buy Spools of string. and commission our own string makers to make strings for us. 
we "buy" strings for our bows.
They are our strings.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Have you actually collected all that data? I haven't--doesn't really apply in the long run due to variables--I'm interested in real world results.  It's worked for me the last 20 years or so.



> after that, a string is just a string.


That seems to be the prevailing myth...and why some strings sell for $5 and $10 and others don't, even when they are made from the same material, the same length, same strand count.



> 60% of my customers re-serve the strings to fit the nocks that have on their bow.
> or chuck the string out because they have more confidence in the string that THEY make.


Proper nock fit is a big deal to anyone I know who can shoot. Keeping 2 or 3 serving sizes on hand is no big feat. A lot of them may chuck the string you send, but many aren't making their own...they are ordering them from someone else. Why is that, if a string is just a string? I suppose a bow is just a bow? I bet you would be insulted by that.

Another thing I don't get is the hostility. I asked a simple question and offered what I still feel is good advice, neither of which will affect me one way or the other. I did get an answer to my question, kind of. The same "answer" I've deduced from some others I've spoken with. Still just amazes me.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> who makes strings 2" shorter than the bow length?
> AMO type strings are 3" shorter than bow length?


That should be simple for any string maker.



> Sid's not a string guy but, strings do make a difference...


I agree. I just never figured out why bowyers in general...at least most of the ones I've spoke with...don't take the time to get temselves more educated on strings. To me, strings are easier to understand. That may be the problem--some personalities have a tendency to over-complicate things.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> Have you actually collected all that data? I haven't--doesn't really apply in the long run due to variables--I'm interested in real world results. It's worked for me the last 20 years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We receive about 10-15 "best strings" from our customers a year. We get them sent in with bows. without bows, as demos. and freebies.
We have seen a few strings in our time.

We have a rack of strings that must be about 100 or so. Collected over time. People leave them here. forget them etc.


Pre stretched, shot in, etc. all the tricks.

we have tested strings to distruction, tested them for abrashion resistance. 
Put them in ovens on a bow at brace to 50 deg C. 
we checked the tiller, BH, String tension. All sorts to stupid things to see what we could see.

I get the feeling people think we are daft.
Border has been around since 1940, our production director has been European Barebow champ, has been making bows for 46 years, been through string fashions.
My Dad was sponsored by Border in the 1970s when he shot IFAA style for Scotland. Made his own bows for fun back then.
We have customers who rank in the top top classes of crossbow. (we make recurve prods for target crossbow) Set Multiple World records in Flight archery for normal bows several times, have national records in multiple different styles of archery in multiple nations
Yes.
a string is part of a bow.
so is the arrow.
and so is the archer.

I don't tell people how to shoot the bow. String walk, Face walk, Gap, what ever. I also don't tell them what arrow to use, nor do I tell them what glove/tab to use, So why do I need to have an opinion on the string.



im interested in the variables.

the reason is, with enough data, you can start to see patterns... then you can with experience skip the naff ideas and head to the good ideas.

ive spent since 2007, promoted the break down of individual aspects of bow design, so that you can start to look for the pattern you think is good for your shooting.

tried to show cause and effect of each aspect, so that you can select a better design rather than being sold the latest and greatest snake oil.

if you cant see it on a graph, and you cant feel it, it probably doesn't exist.

stored energy, Torsional resistance, Vertical stability, Limb mass, and limb mass distribution ,Smoothness. etc.

ive gone though each one over the years.

Its about the numbers for me.

yes we have tested a lot of them


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Appreciate the info. Considerably different than what was offered on page 5.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

LBR said:


> What is it that makes you think I said Border uses cheap strings?


That is what is insinuated in your posts.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

LBR said:


> Yeah...that's why there's a forum dedicated to them...lack of interest...


There is? Where?


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

LBR, since you're unable to get a satisfactory answer out of an actual bowyer, why don't I, as probably the least qualified person here, take a crack at answering for them? :teeth: If I were one of them, this is how I would answer your question (since I'm not, it's just for fun):

Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, it doesn't make sense to invest time, effort or money in any activity that will not have an impact on your sales. An archer buying a Border bow (to continue the theme of picking on Border) doesn't buy it for the string. It could come with a top tier custom HMPE string, a generic B50 string, or no string at all, and the price customers will be willing to pay won't change.

So why should the bowyer invest the time trying out different strings to figure out which one "feels" the best on each bow? If you think about it, that's a lot of testing. You have to account for different risers, limbs and draw weights with each different type of string -- that's a LOT of combinations, and you have to test each setup multiple times. Now add in interchangeable risers and limbs, and the fact that every archer has a different draw length and different preferences, and you can see how it could quickly grow from a quick check of which string is best (and how do you define "best"?) to a full-fledged testing schedule that will pull an employee away from his or her regular work (or require you to hire someone else just to do the testing). In short, trying to choose the "best" string for the bow quickly becomes an exercise in futility.

It seems to me that the bowyers have learned that most of their customers fall into one of two categories: those who will replace the string with one of their own choosing anyway, and those who don't know BCY-X from paracord (for the record, I'm in the latter category, but I'm new). For either category, it makes no economic sense for the bowyer to hire an extra employee (even part-time) to try and determine the best string for each bow. It does make sense for them to provide a decent string that will be good enough for those who don't know any better, because those who actually care are likely going to replace it anyway.

I think the examples cited earlier in the thread (the pie and the sports car) are flawed, and here's why: You can't buy an apple pie at the bakery, take it home, decide you want to switch to a different variety of apples, and just swap them out. Well, you could, but you wouldn't be happy with the results.

As for the sports car: you don't buy a sports car for the gas. If you want to buy a Ferrari, you aren't going to change your mind and buy a Porsche because the car dealer put 89 octane gas in the Ferrari and 92 octane in the Porsche. You'll buy the car you want, and then go put the gas you want in it. Maybe you'll put the highest octane fuel you can in your Ferrari, along with all the recommended fuel additives for maximum performance. Or maybe you just want to be seen in a Ferrari, you don't care how well it runs, and you're a bit of a cheapskate (penny wise, pound foolish), so you fill it with the cheapest discount gas you can find.

It's the same with bows. Two guys will buy the same $1000 bow, but one will keep the string it came with and the other will go out and get the perfect string (for him) to go with it. The bowyer has no control over either. So really, it's the archers you ought to be talking to, not the bowyers. Because the string material or design that works best for the bowyer won't necessarily work best for the customers.

Now, there is one exception to all of this: if the bowyer is going to publish numerical data (e.g. fps) as part of his sales material, then he would be wise to find the string that works best for him with that bow, and get his arrows tuned before doing the tests. Why? Because the whole point of publishing fps is to show that your bow shoots faster than your competitors' so you'd better make sure you've got it shooting as fast as it possibly can. And if you've already gone to the trouble of doing all that, it seems a little silly to not ship your bow with the same type of string you used to test it. On the other hand, that custom string might cost quite a bit more than the "standard" string, and we're right back to the argument of "why should the bowyer spend extra on a string that isn't going to have any impact on whether or not someone is going to buy the bow?" Yeah, it's probably only a few bucks, but profit margins aren't exactly huge for anybody these days, and every little bit makes a difference.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying all of this -- for example, a bowyer that prides himself on top-notch customer service might decide to provide a higher quality string as a small perk, a way of saying, "I'm looking out for you in every way I can." In such a case, the symbolic statement made by the bowyer providing a higher quality string probably means much more than the string itself, and might go a long way toward enhancing his image as somebody who goes the extra mile. Or it might go totally unnoticed by a dingbat like me who couldn't distinguish between B50 and BCY-X to save my life.

But I stand by what I said earlier. Bowyers provide the strings they do because the type of string provided with the bow has no effect on the customer's decision to buy or not to buy. It's up to each individual archer to find and use what works best for him with his equipment and shooting style.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> That is what is insinuated in your posts.


You assumed. I never said it, implied it, or insinuated it. I have no idea who makes their strings, what they use, or what they cost.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

JD, I appreciate it and you make sense. If I may....



> So why should the bowyer invest the time trying out different strings to figure out which one "feels" the best on each bow?


For the same reason they try different lengths, different woods, different designs, etc. Seems to me swapping out a string would be a lot easier than making new limbs, or a new riser, or a new form, etc.



> You can't buy an apple pie at the bakery,...


I said _recipie_--big difference.



> you don't buy a sports car for the gas.


I agree--but if you are trying to get the most from that car, or the dealer is wanting to sell that car, do you put just any old gas in it, or do you go for high octane? Or do you just keep re-building the motor trying to make it faster and pay no attention to the fuel?



> I'm sure I'm oversimplifying all of this...


Nahhh--it's a simple thing, to me anyway. That's why I don't get it. 



> Bowyers provide the strings they do because the type of string provided with the bow has no effect on the customer's decision to buy or not to buy.


That very well could be the case, at least with some folks and some bows. I think with some ILF bows you buy the string as a separate part, just like the limbs and riser. When I delt in custom bows, the customer got a custom string as well, made to their specs. 

Just speaking for myself, if I look at a bow that costs upwards of $1,000 and the string is mediocre at best, it makes me wonder if there were corners cut elsewhere. Offering a string made for the bow, especially a custom bow, just makes good sense to me. Not just length and serving, but material, strand count, etc. With materials like BCY-X it's even easier to do since strand count isn't as critical as with some other materials.



> ...a bowyer that prides himself on top-notch customer service might decide to provide a higher quality string as a small perk, a way of saying, "I'm looking out for you in every way I can." In such a case, the symbolic statement made by the bowyer providing a higher quality string probably means much more than the string itself, and might go a long way toward enhancing his image as somebody who goes the extra mile.


Exactly! That's the way I look at it, but I guess I'm just weird.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Another good topic derailed.......


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

centershot said:


> That is what is insinuated in your posts.


No....I've muddled all the way through the back & forth here..Chad has never insinuated this. What he has asked is if Border has considered the strings being used and how the performance is effected. .

Bottom line is that the string can and does make a significant impact on the performance of a bow..and if this is not being considered. .itshould be. It is relevant to this discussion. .

I'm not a expert on building either a bow or a string. .and dont need to be to be able to see, feel, or hear the difference between the two. 

What Chad is saying is this. .Pay attention to the string..

Honestly. ..if so much R&D is going into eeeking every last fps and performance out of the materials being used in building the limbs...why in blue blazes wouldn't any bow builder optimize the string choices? There are so many choices of what can be made,and how each can tailored to the bow...Some give better speed..some give better speed..some are more durable...Some are quieter..not to mention again....some give better speed....it's not just a string...it is what makes the bow work...

Chad is a damn good string builder...he may not claim to be a expert on the matter...but I would bet my ladt dollar he knows more about strings than the majority of folks on this forum discussing this thread..

The simple thing to do is this..someone send Chad a Border bow to experiment with. .or..Sid..have who ever is building your strings try all of the materials and combinations to optimize what is being used. .

There is no need to go back and forth on this. .anyone who has ever put a good set of strings on their bow who has had a bad set..knows darn well they can indeed make vast improvements. .It's not just about weight anymore..or bundle count..string materials have evolved. .just as limb materials have...

Mac


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Guess there wasn't enough interest to keep it on topic....:tongue:


----------



## Xero (Apr 20, 2013)

Carbon fiber limbs and arrows. I think there's a market for a decent synthetic fletching. We're doing target exclusively. I like the Shurlock Elite sight, but there seems room for improvement on the rear anchor sighting point.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Thanks Mac--you summed it up nicely. 

I don't want a bow sent to me, but I'd be happy to offer advice if anyone wanted it. 

It's really not that complicated. Take a good material, match the strand count to the draw weight, assemble the string properly...it's especially easy if you are dealing with one set of bows, are familiar with them, and have them on-hand. Gets a little more complicated when you are trying to match strings to bows you don't have on hand or aren't familiar with, but with a little knowledge and experience it can be done.

Wading through all the myths is the hardest part, IMO.


----------



## 1shot1 (Oct 14, 2013)

LBR said:


> . Just speaking for myself, if I look at a bow that costs upwards of $1,000 and the string is mediocre at best, it makes me wonder if there were corners cut elsewhere. Offering a string made for the bow, especially a custom bow, just makes good sense to me. Not just length and serving, but material, strand count, etc. With materials like BCY-X it's even easier to do since strand count isn't as critical as with some other materials..


 Just saying... Black Widow Bow recurves come with their suggested performance string, Dyna Flight 97...


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

LBR said:


> Thanks Mac--you summed it up nicely.
> 
> I don't want a bow sent to me, but I'd be happy to offer advice if anyone wanted it.
> 
> ...


It's just another part of all of this. ..and one that is usually least discussed. .I would wager most folks have never had a truly great string to actually see the difference it can make. ..Sure there are many great string builders. .but..I know there are just as many who aren't. .

The string is what allows the magic of the limbs design to function properly. .Some enhance. ..Some take away....to deny this in any way shows lack knowledge or interest of the subject. .

So much effort time and money is spent on designing a $1800 bow..one would think that just as much effort would be expended on having a string optimized for it..I would hope that it is at least. .If I were doing it. .you could be assured that all aspects would have my fullest attention....and I would be questioning my string builder to make sure. .If I were spending thousands of dollars on producing the best. ..measuring every part of the limbs...I would be doing the same with the very thing that allows me to use it. ..

Does Sid feel the same. ..I have no idea of it..but I suspect that he knows a little about it...and if he wants to. .he can certainly ask or test these things. .

Mac


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

Based on post #219, it sounds like Sid has done a fair amount of testing with different strings. FWIW.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

JDBrown said:


> Based on post #219, it sounds like Sid has done a fair amount of testing with different strings. FWIW.


You could take it that way. .but..testing customers strings over the years is not a indication of testing or optimizing the newest string materials being produced. .

I'm sure they do some..but..it would be nice to see the results of as much testing ...We are discussing the future of Traditional bows here...are we not? 

I'm no expert. ..but from first hand experience in using different strings and having to tune my bows for them, ,just how drastically different they can react..

Mac


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Since this thread has turned into the Future of Traditional Strings I might as well ask the questions that I was hoping someone would answer in a new thread about strings specifically:

1) Why don't string companies list how much their material weighs? Some sort of unit that would take into account the different diameters and allow us to directly compare string mass.

2) Since we are using string materials now that are many, many times stronger and more rigid then required does mass start to play more of a role in our material selection?

3) Does string fiber designed for compounds actually meet our requirements 100% or should we be asking for specific development?

-Grant


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> I'm no expert. ..but from first hand experience in using different strings and having to tune my bows for them, ,just how drastically different they can react..
> 
> Mac


And so, with the current line-up of many quality strings to choose from (I think BCY offers at least 10, now 11), and the practically limitless combinations in arrows and arrow construction for different purposes, do you think there will come a time when the bowyer will know just how differently all the combinations will react and then for each individual shooter's form? Then, we can just order up perfectly tuned bows with perfectly tuned arrows  Or, are we talking a one string world - New World Order of strings, I guess? 

If that sounds ridiculous, well, this whole thread turned ridiculous long ago, which was the whole point on having the interlopers to begin with.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I'm beginning to think the secret doesn't lie in the limbs, the riser, or the string...it's those "knuckle dragger" draw lengths.


But I can't buy that! 

I suppose I could get a bow arm extension crutch, probably for $199 or so... 

Or, I could just ask Matt to shoot for me.. :tongue:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Since this thread has turned into the Future of Traditional Strings I might as well ask the questions that I was hoping someone would answer in a new thread about strings specifically:
> 
> 1) Why don't string companies list how much their material weighs? Some sort of unit that would take into account the different diameters and allow us to directly compare string mass.


They'd have to index that information for each color... been my personal experience at least. Recommended strand listings for nock fit, in my experience, are both useless and inconsistent.



> 3) Does string fiber designed for compounds actually meet our requirements 100% or should we be asking for specific development?


Good question. I don't know the answer to that. Sorry


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

On the string issue I will make two comments. If I buy an el cheapo bow I won't be surprised if the string is not a top shelf custom made of the latest best materials.
BUT, if I pay top dollar for a bow, custom or not, I would expect it to come with a high quality string, unless it was understood from the beginning that no string is included. If it's a high dollar custom then I would expect the string to be the best the bowyer can buy or produce, well matched to the bow.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Borderbows said:


> Trad bows. Love the term.
> 
> where do you think the future of trad bow design is heading?
> 
> ...



Back to the original idea,,, I don't really have a clue about the direction things might take in the future. What I do know is that it will progress. Can't possibly stop it. I think that before fiberglass most people could not begin to imagine what the future would bring. But, we now know the changes that took place over the last fifty or sixty ears. Trust me, there will be changes, some whiz kid will discover a new material or method and make the old stuff obsolete. Never fails, time marches on and change is inevitable. Those who roll with it will sell products and those who don't will be forgotten.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Back to the original idea,,, I don't really have a clue about the direction things might take in the future. What I do know is that it will progress. Can't possibly stop it. I think that before fiberglass most people could not begin to imagine what the future would bring. But, we now know the changes that took place over the last fifty or sixty ears. Trust me, there will be changes, some whiz kid will discover a new material or method and make the old stuff obsolete. Never fails, time marches on and change is inevitable. Those who roll with it will sell products and those who don't will be forgotten.


Very true 

I guess that since I did not come over from compounds to recurves I am not looking for buckskin and self bows 

Not there is anything wrong with that if its your bag 

So for me the last 10 years have been awesome 

Like I said earlier I was used to shooting 65 pound to 70 pound bows and now I am getting the same performance at 10 pounds less 

I am confused with peoples not being accepting of what others chose to use 

Everyone looks at everyone with contempt 

If your a professional fighter I can understand, you need that going in but the trad guy looks down on the compound guy and the compound guy looks down on the crossbow guy 

Even here we have the for technology crowd against the keep it simple crowd 

Heck it seems we can't even get a general opinion on strings 

Everyone knows a great string can make any bow better. It's that simple 

I think SIDS reluctance to weight in on strings comes from kinda feeling no matter what he says he will be called on it 

Samick and Hoyt do not suggest strings so why should he 

The Buffalo comes with a so so string and my F7's were stringless also 

As my good friend Chad stated the compound market is paying attention 

I just received a new fingers Set Up Kestrel 










It came with an 8190 string 

Eventually the stick bow guys will follow suite 

But most important of all is acceptance of what we all choose to use 

Hell it makes it interesting 

So for me I welcome all of it 

I know in reality I could get it done with the simplistic of bows , I've done it but I need all the help I can get so I am glad there are guys in white lab coats designing BF Extremes and mad scientists in Scotland pushing the limit 

Like I said it makes it interesting


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Good post JP, and I agree on all of it. I just happen to be in the keep it simple group but I certainly understand that most other people aren't. There is a market for all of the different styles of equipment and it's guaranteed to progress as time goes by.
But what is that tricky looking thing in the pic? It's missing it's wheels!:wink:

edit,
Oops, I found the wheels, they're just in the wrong place.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

The future of traditional bows may be driven by the aging of old bows. What proportion of traditional archers are shooting old wood bows compared to modern equipment? These old bows will need to be replaced. There will be less available on eBay which will drive folks to new sources. Will they get comparable priced bows like a Samick Sage, that is not as nice, but in a similar price range. Or, will there be something better? There is a large proportion of the traditional community that is focused on value. Producing a high quality value bow may be the next frontier (like Taylor Guitars driving high quality to lower price points with CNC).

Also, high quality wood is becoming scarce. It has already hit the music instrument industry and will seriously impact archery. Materials will be an issue, and it may not be by choice. 

Other than that, I am with Grant and his revolutionary riser design idea. Trad becomes a front line player in design, rather than a copy cat of Olympic technology.

And the last point to be considered, trad may be a fad. It has grown by leaps and bounds. We all want to extrapolate our passion forward to infinity. Ten years from now, today's trad archers may be shooting compound bows.

Now I am tired. I can't believe that I commented on a thread that is 10 pages long. I admit, I gave up reading after 3 1/2 pages in. Hope I did not miss anything important.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Good post JP, and I agree on all of it. I just happen to be in the keep it simple group but I certainly understand that most other people aren't. There is a market for all of the different styles of equipment and it's guaranteed to progress as time goes by.
> But what is that tricky looking thing in the pic? It's missing it's wheels!:wink:
> 
> edit,
> Oops, I found the wheels, they're just in the wrong place.


It's still a compound just with curves  

I shoot them fingers with a sight and they are a blast


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

I think SIDS reluctance to weight in on strings comes from kinda feeling no matter what he says he will be called on it 

JParanee. your comment summed it up for me.

i find forums is an art form. like juggling greased kittens.

but the difference between you and the guy next toor is less the with the guy at the other end of the country.
im sat on a different continent to the most of you guys.
my chocolate bars are different to yours. and might use different terms to discribe it.
but it is still chocolate.

most arguements come from missing the intended reason behind a post.
hey its the internet!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Assumption sumption, what's your function?....Hookin' up thoughts and ideas to help support and argument LOL 

School House Rock, baby! :wink:

Yeah...the internet...a place where some people miss the intent or reason behind a comment :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Just yesterday at work I was looking at C and C router and a 3D printer in action and wondered what a innovative bowyer could accomplish with these two tools. Exacting tolerances, working with new and different materials. I don't know probably going on in the big manufactures.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Back to the original idea,,, I don't really have a clue about the direction things might take in the future. What I do know is that it will progress. Can't possibly stop it. I think that before fiberglass most people could not begin to imagine what the future would bring. But, we now know the changes that took place over the last fifty or sixty ears. Trust me, there will be changes, some whiz kid will discover a new material or method and make the old stuff obsolete. Never fails, time marches on and change is inevitable. Those who roll with it will sell products and those who don't will be forgotten.


Good post FG.

And yes, back to the original idea as it was me, in part, that took the thread in a different direction. I apologize for that, but to expect that conversations on a message board won't evolve (or devolve, depending on your opinion) just like a conversation around a campfire is a little naïve.

As to the future of Trad bows. As I said in my original post, I think the future really does depend on how you define "Trad." You really can't talk about the future of something unless you first define what that "something" is. 

For those that are looking for such things, there will always be a race for technology and the performance enhancements it provides. As small as they might be, if a company plays in that arena, small gains, real or perceived, will be marketed to the fullest extent...as they should. That's what businesses are in business for.

I'm not a bowyer, nor am I an engineer, so I simply can't speak much to the technical side of things, but it would seem to me that there are certain limits to what can be done with a recurve limb. It would seem to me that the lighter you make a limb, the faster it is going to be. Having said that, I would think there is point where a limb would become unstable or no longer strong enough to stand up to regular use. Same would be true (I would think) for increasing the size of the hook on a limb. At some point, I would think, it gets so radical, that either it won't stay together due to differences in expansion and compression rates, or it won't stay strung, if you can even get it strung. Maybe it's going to be a much lighter material, whatever that happens to be, that is molded or extruded and not laminated. Or maybe the advancements are going to be adhesives that allow certain designs that are not possible now. 

In addition to all this, you face the challenge of having to stay within what designs are "legal" as it relates to the competition side of single string archery, and "acceptable" to the "trad" side of single string archery.

Using golf clubs as an example, there are many things that can be done to vastly improve the performance of both clubs and balls, but they are not allowed as the governing bodies feel it takes away from the integrity of the game, therefore they are actually made "illegal."

In addition, you have a cost benefit calculation to make. Staying within what is legal and acceptable, I don't see where we have much room to move, so the question remains how much is the customer going to be willing to pay for relatively small increases in performance, that may or may not actually improve their "experience."

The "future" might also show that actual improvements in accuracy will come at a *cost* to raw performance, and that what was once a race for speed becomes a race for accuracy. 

Kind of like what has happened in the automobile industry. The raw power muscle cars of my youth have given way to fuel efficiency and durability. Ultimately, the market will drive the technology in the way the market wants it to go. 

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I think Sid's reluctance to the string issue is that the sting is a constant in the testing..................if the same string is used for testing each of the bows or limbs the string material is irrelevant. Now if for some reason testing was done with a B50 18 strand string on one test then a 10 strand D97 on another the entire test would be skewed and useless of course unless your testing the strings and not the bow itself.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Speed in itself is not inaccurate. 
afterall, some of the most accurate guns in the world are pretty fast and have LOTS of energy in them...

So energy and Speed are not incompatable with accuracy...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> Speed in itself is not inaccurate.
> afterall, some of the most accurate guns in the world are pretty fast and have LOTS of energy in them...
> 
> So energy and Speed are not incompatable with accuracy...


I didn't say they were Sid.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I didn't say they were Sid.
> 
> KPC


AND I didn't say you did either.

yeah this is fun!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I wonder what methods are being employed these days in the analysis of bow designs.

When I build a bow, I mostly guess and use what I've been told works. From my engineering background I know that a lot can be done with materials and geometry to effect the transfer function of a system or structure. However, the design and analysis tools are expensive and so are the people who know how to use them.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MGF said:


> I wonder what methods are being employed these days in the analysis of bow designs.
> 
> When I build a bow, I mostly guess and use what I've been told works. From my engineering background I know that a lot can be done with materials and geometry to effect the transfer function of a system or structure. However, the design and analysis tools are expensive and so are the people who know how to use them.


I think if you fully understand the stresses in a limb, then your able to control the environment in which the materials are used. when we make a new laminate, we make several sets of limbs based on our calulations with controlled variables and record the destruction points. This allows us to calibrate the model we have. This concept of real world feedback to a computer model has been tweeked and developed over time. Its not a bought in package.

Although we are a small bow making company, we have been making very advanced bows for a little while, so this means we cant achieve this without some sort of systematic R&D process.

Im not sure this can be done any other way...

the systems your talking about are generic systems that are expensive. a very specific system aimed at one aspect, of one type of design can be developed inhouse.
when you do this, you know the limitiations of the system too.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

I suspect the days of manufacturers dictating the market are long gone. In a competitive marketplace, consumers drive the market more than the market drives consumers. And there has been quite a shift in consumers recently.

In the last decade or so we have seen a huge increase in the quality of shooting educational materials. A few weeks ago I bought an old VHS tape (late 80s, I think) on instinctive shooting from a resale shop. The advice in that tape was baffling and ridiculous. Judging by the horrible shooting displayed by the participants, they should have been seeking advice, not giving it. These days we have things like the MBB series, DVDs by Ty Pelfrey and Scott Antczak, and shooting clinics by Rod Jenkins. We’ve moved past the blind leading the blind with respect to shooting tutorials.

Thanks to the I.B.O. we now have _real_ traditional archery championships in this country, instead of puffed up club shoots with exaggerated titles. There also seems to be increased interest in indoor target and field archery, which will only further raise the bar for traditional archery accuracy. Furthermore, there are a few message board sites out there where people can actively discuss shooting fundamentals unencumbered by the editorial mandates of the trad police.

I think with the bar being raised for shooting accuracy, equipment will follow. I suspect as more people learn to shoot accurately, we’ll see fewer speed demon twitch monster recurves and longbows that are better suited for shooting through chronographs than into targets or animals. When a person moves past minute-of-paper-plate accuracy, they can actually see the difference bow design plays in shooting proficiency.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I suspect the days of manufacturers dictating the market are long gone. In a competitive marketplace, consumers drive the market more than the market drives consumers. And there has been quite a shift in consumers recently.
> 
> In the last decade or so we have seen a huge increase in the quality of shooting educational materials. A few weeks ago I bought an old VHS tape (late 80s, I think) on instinctive shooting from a resale shop. The advice in that tape was baffling and ridiculous. Judging by the horrible shooting displayed by the participants, they should have been seeking advice, not giving it. These days we have things like the MBB series, DVDs by Ty Pelfrey and Scott Antczak, and shooting clinics by Rod Jenkins. We’ve moved past the blind leading the blind with respect to shooting tutorials.
> 
> ...


Good points all, Jason.

Hey, I just thought of new theory, let me know what you think. You knuckle draggers are always touting how your extra power stroke is such an advantage. What do you think about the theory that guys like me, with significantly shorter draw lengths, actually have the ADVANTAGE in that the arrow is on the string for a shorter period of time, hense less time for me to **** up the shot? Kinda like a bow with a higher brace height? Hmmmmm?

:wink:

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I suspect the days of manufacturers dictating the market are long gone. In a competitive marketplace, consumers drive the market more than the market drives consumers. And there has been quite a shift in consumers recently.
> 
> In the last decade or so we have seen a huge increase in the quality of shooting educational materials. A few weeks ago I bought an old VHS tape (late 80s, I think) on instinctive shooting from a resale shop. The advice in that tape was baffling and ridiculous. Judging by the horrible shooting displayed by the participants, they should have been seeking advice, not giving it. These days we have things like the MBB series, DVDs by Ty Pelfrey and Scott Antczak, and shooting clinics by Rod Jenkins. We’ve moved past the blind leading the blind with respect to shooting tutorials.
> 
> ...


Very well said.

Ive been trying to develop a bunch of posts that elaborate on the attributes of what a "twitch monster" is.
Hopefully with this information out there, people can test there experiences against the info posted... and either agree of disagree by way of actions.
To read words free of charge, walk away and test them is my goal.
Expose some of the testing methods, and allow you guys to test your bows for yourself.
I think you can feel a twitch monster before you even shoot it.
That's been my remit for being online.

With that in mind, you can head out and seek designs that fulfil YOUR ideas as to whats good. 

My theory is that if I get my design right, it will also coincide with what your thinking too.

but again. This is a forum, and ive not asked you to spend a dime to read what ive posted.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

GEREP said:


> Good points all, Jason.
> 
> Hey, I just thought of new theory, let me know what you think. You knuckle draggers are always touting how your extra power stroke is such an advantage.
> 
> KPC


I think the advantage is grossly exaggerated.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> we’ll see fewer speed demon twitch monster recurves and longbows


My bows/setups shoot fine, the only twitch monster I know is ME :tongue:

He's an idea for future bows, if you could build two small Gyroscope's into a Riser would it eliminate the need for Stabilizer's??


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

When I got into Compound's with fingers 280fps was a very nice place to be, at 300fps you better be spot on. The pulse interval (time arrow is on the string) between the two arrows is microseconds. As "Borderbows" stated advancement take alot of R&D, and time (Money). With that said, As time passes the equipment gets better and we can shoot faster bow with less poundage at shorter draw with more reliablity and accuracy. After all this time, I still find that the advantage goes to the person how is willing to go to the edge in equipment/failure, like a fine race car. Are we talking about tuning the person to the equipment or tuning the equipment to the person? I think the two are getting closer.
DD


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I think the advantage is grossly exaggerated.


Of course. All the guys with the ape arms are going to say that.

Now, if I could just find a guy with short arms that can shoot, I'll test my theory.



KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Great points Jason--hopefully it will follow. Guys like you keep pushing for stability in a bow rather than which one is fastest, guys like me will keep pushing for stability in a string rather than trying to get it down to two strands with padded loops and 1.5" of serving, maybe the message will eventually get through. 'Course it helps a lot more when it's guys like you that get out and win....


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Related to draw lengths and weights - is there a specific draw length that is designed for? Like the nominal 28"? I would have to believe that a limb could be optimized for a specific draw length (although probably not economically feasible). And is there a draw weight range where limb stability and weight are optimal? I would think that a limb too light would be whippy and hard to control and one too heavy has enough mass already to be stable or more stable than average.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I suspect the days of manufacturers dictating the market are long gone. In a competitive marketplace, consumers drive the market more than the market drives consumers. And there has been quite a shift in consumers recently.
> 
> In the last decade or so we have seen a huge increase in the quality of shooting educational materials. A few weeks ago I bought an old VHS tape (late 80s, I think) on instinctive shooting from a resale shop. The advice in that tape was baffling and ridiculous. Judging by the horrible shooting displayed by the participants, they should have been seeking advice, not giving it. These days we have things like the MBB series, DVDs by Ty Pelfrey and Scott Antczak, and shooting clinics by Rod Jenkins. We’ve moved past the blind leading the blind with respect to shooting tutorials.
> 
> ...


Great post Jason


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I think the advantage is grossly exaggerated.


No way dude! With your 32" draw, you can get the same performance pulling 40# that normal mortals pulling 28" would get from 80#!

Sorry...couldn't resist...:tongue:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> Great points Jason--hopefully it will follow. Guys like you keep pushing for stability in a bow rather than which one is fastest, guys like me will keep pushing for stability in a string rather than trying to get it down to two strands with padded loops and 1.5" of serving, maybe the message will eventually get through. 'Course it helps a lot more when it's guys like you that get out and win....


can you define a stable string.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Good points all, Jason.
> 
> Hey, I just thought of new theory, let me know what you think. You knuckle draggers are always touting how your extra power stroke is such an advantage. What do you think about the theory that guys like me, with significantly shorter draw lengths, actually have the ADVANTAGE in that the arrow is on the string for a shorter period of time, hense less time for me to **** up the shot? Kinda like a bow with a higher brace height? Hmmmmm?
> 
> ...


but shorter bows have lower brace heights.
and faster bows cover the 20 odd or so inches of power stroke faster.

lots to think about there.

a good chunk of the good shots have long draws


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

stable: resistant to sudden change or deterioration: steadfast; dependable. 

Not to be confused with overbuilt.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Related to draw lengths and weights - is there a specific draw length that is designed for? Like the nominal 28"? I would have to believe that a limb could be optimized for a specific draw length (although probably not economically feasible). And is there a draw weight range where limb stability and weight are optimal? I would think that a limb too light would be whippy and hard to control and one too heavy has enough mass already to be stable or more stable than average.


HUGE question.


here is a smoothness graph showing limb length and its smoothest point. as you can see as limb length gets longer so the smoothest point moves out too.
This will depend on each limb model by each maker.

What you will find is that the thicker the limb the more stability it has. as a very rough rule.
So longer limbs (due to longer leavers) need to be thicker to account for the longer lever. for the same poundage.
but this comes with a flip side, the longer limb is also prone to more flex. so the two are acting against each other.
There are limb to core ratios that help account for some of this. in that you can use thinner glass for lower poundage bows. keeps the limb from being over built composit wise. (if that model has that style of build)
this level of detail might not suit mass production runs, depends on the levels of complexity any maker decids to put in. For example the approx. estimate is 0.002" gives you one pound in bow weight.
so if you use the same composit, then you will see a 0.02" difference for every 10lbs. heavy limbs will be chunky and thick vs light weight ones not so. 

but it does depend on the composit thickness.

Torsional stability works in a similar way. Thicker limbs have more TS.
Difficult to say and is a HUGE topic.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> stable: resistant to sudden change or deterioration: steadfast; dependable.
> 
> Not to be confused with overbuilt.


I could have googled the definition of Stable my self.

I was hoping for an indication as to how you define a stable string.
for example. Is 452X more stable than 8125?
is 18 stands more stable than 12 stands.
does the number of twists makes a string more stable.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I was hoping for an indication as to how you define a stable string.


That is how I define a stable string. Stability is only one part of the equation, but it's a big part.

Your other questions are too vague. Having done all those string tests you listed, I'm sure you already knew that. They are like asking "What is better--a longbow or recurve? Should I choose a 62" bow or a 66" bow? What poundage should I be shooting?"


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> That is how I define a stable string. Stability is only one part of the equation, but it's a big part.
> 
> Your other questions are too vague. Having done all those string tests you listed, I'm sure you already knew that. They are like asking "What is better--a longbow or recurve? Should I choose a 62" bow or a 66" bow? What poundage should I be shooting?"


Does a recurve require a different string to a longbow?

Does a 70" bow require a different string to a 52"?

ok... So lead me through some of the logic to how you choose a string for someone.

Would a 45lbs trad archer recurve, shoot a different string to a 45lbs trad archer shooting a longbow?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> "What is better--a longbow or recurve? Should I choose a 62" bow or a 66" bow? What poundage should I be shooting?"


those questions are not vague. they are complex.
Longbows are recurves are different animals.
Recurves allow a shorter bow for more smoothness. Longbows are limited by design, BUT are simple by design. if you follow the simple by design route then the longbow is better. If you want a shorter bow, but still like the smoothenss, and if you like a faster shooting bow, then the recurve is going to be the one for you.
The length of the bow is quite a complex one too. If you want to shoot in confined spaces then the shorter bow is for you. If you have space then the longer bow will give you better accuracy due to better string angles for starters. but there is a complex relationship. Most bows of normal design means that the shorter bows are mostly recurves,, You will struggle to get a smooth shooting 62" longbow. ESP for longer draw lengths.
and lastly the poundage is dictated by the fitness level you have and your own personal strength levels. A personal view is that archery is about dominating the power of the bow, and the more power you can dominate, the more variables you have to help you tune the bow to your needs. a 20lbs bow is VERY limited in its choice of arrows. a 50lbs bow gives choice of FOC, Choice of spines etc. so my reply is the higher the better, as long as you have the form, and fitness, to control the bow for the duration you wish to shoot it over... then that's the poundage for you.

You can answer them, but they take a bit of typing.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> So lead me through some of the logic to how you choose a string for someone.


It's pretty simple really. If they aren't sure what material they prefer, I suggest one and explain why. I can also give them opinions and facts on several other materials they can make an informed decision. 

If they don't have a preferance on strand count, I will help them choose based on draw weight and the string material. A decision is made on serving material and size and color. Then it's a matter of picking the loop size, string length, and any other particulars they prefer or require for a particular bow. All that's left is the proper assembly.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> those questions are not vague. they are complex.


Without me telling you what I prefer, what I intend to use the bow for, what is more important to me (speed? smooth? quiet?), what my draw length is, what weights are comfortable for me, etc. etc. etc. then you can't give me an answer--because they are too vague. If I gave you all my information, then it could become complex, depending on my needs and preferances...or it could be quite simple.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> Without me telling you what I prefer, what I intend to use the bow for, what is more important to me (speed? smooth? quiet?), what my draw length is, what weights are comfortable for me, etc. etc. etc. then you can't give me an answer--because they are too vague. If I gave you all my information, then it could become complex, depending on my needs and preferances...or it could be quite simple.


... well, I could run through the variables of what speed can do, I can also say that the speed can be changed through arrow mass like a gear box on a car to convert the speed into power. 
Smoothness is a benefit all round, all bow makers are trying to emphisie smoother designs in each evolution...
Quiet, well, there are many ways to quiten a bow. and I can run you through the reasons for each area of quietening a bow, including the placement of the puffballs on the string. Closer to the centre slows the bow down, but acts a little better as deadening the string, while closer to the tips has less effect but effects speed less.
With this information you can make your own mind up and I don't need to know your actual stats.
at the end of all this, you will know what bow length, bow design, etc etc etc that you want. and you can tell me what bow you want without me knowing what you want to use it for.

Its the long way round the houses, but if you don't like my logic you can make your own mind up


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Like I said, the questions are too vague--at least for a simple, direct answer. Sure, you could try to list each and every possiblity...how many pages would that take? Then I would have to waste my time, if chose to bother, sorting through it all trying to find the parts that might be applicable to me.

I rather make strings.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR, its not very nice when someone gives you a grilling.
so how about we leave this.

if its any help.
ive heard you make quality strings. I dont doubt this.

our customers ask us some very smart questions, so we need to know from our own testing whats what in archery kit.
Just like you have done your homework, We have done ours.

Lets leave this alone eh?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

??? I'm just being honest and straightforward. But, I basically got my question answered some time ago, so I'm good with it.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> ??? I'm just being honest and straightforward. But, I basically got my question answered some time ago, so I'm good with it.


so am I, but it doesn't stop people from dragging every word all over the shop.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Without me telling you what I prefer, what I intend to use the bow for, what is more important to me (speed? smooth? quiet?), what my draw length is, what weights are comfortable for me, etc. etc. etc. then you can't give me an answer--because they are too vague. If I gave you all my information, then it could become complex, depending on my needs and preferances...or it could be quite simple.


And bowyers would rather build bows - same as string makers  But, as to the above, that pretty much nails it for bowyers who build bows but don't have access the end user, so, how do they spec the most performing stings either, based on the same limited knowledge you are using as defense?


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Thinking again of the future of Trad bows, and the suggestion of some comments made by others here it appears that one very good idea is a bare bow that does not look like a bug/antenna yet still shoots great in competition. Can a good bow be designed that uses weight placement rather than stabs? It would be great if the bow would shoot well at min. weight and lights out accurate at distances once tuned with weight. This is obviously already being done...just more of an emphasis on design/layout and weight so you do not bump into or fall over your OLY like rig.

Spent some time looking at the Border site and there is quite a depth of design therein. A mostly carbon light weight version of a "Harrier Royal" that has spots (depression/slots/?) for adding custom weights would be interesting. Would this really help tune a bendy in the handle longbow for different shooting characteristics...I dunno? As others have pointed out, while wood is a great bow build material it is starting to be depleted. A ILF riser like this (longer...say 21") might be interesting also.

Many people like trad because they do not want to walk around with a bow looking like an NSA SigInt strong point. Even if does do the right thing.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

CORRETION: Even if it does do the right thing. Or even if she does the right thing???


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Like the target bows of the 70's? I have an old Tamerlane that is heavy and solid, neat old bow. As far as I know, nobody makes anything comparable to those anymore.


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

I'd be very interested in a Bear latch-system takedown w/ the internal mercury stabilizers Ben Pearson did.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

wseward said:


> Thinking again of the future of Trad bows, and the suggestion of some comments made by others here it appears that one very good idea is a bare bow that does not look like a bug/antenna yet still shoots great in competition. Can a good bow be designed that uses weight placement rather than stabs? It would be great if the bow would shoot well at min. weight and lights out accurate at distances once tuned with weight. This is obviously already being done...just more of an emphasis on design/layout and weight so you do not bump into or fall over your OLY like rig....A ILF riser like this (longer...say 21") might be interesting also.


Just moving mass around is easy, every BB specific riser does it plus you can fit weights into a variety of bushings on most risers. There comes to a point where you just add as much mass as you can handle and hope it makes the bow stable (which it does to a degree). It's still nothing like shooting with stabs though.

Geometry is what needs to change to really alter the feel of the bow on a fundamental level.

-Grant


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Borderbows said:


> so... now that the politics are out the way... back to my original post.
> 
> 
> i cant seem to post without meeting the same people with the same old tune rolled out.
> ...



speed and accuracy are what most want more of. Risers are trending away from natural wood and so are limbs. Looks play into it but is subjective and often in line with the vewers age. Make a cool looking yet still tradional styled bow able to launch arrows at 250 from 45 pounds and you would corner the market. My 2 centavos.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

The tiller on the bow pictured with the rest up high in the sight window might be interesting. The bow probably does not have a standard (STD) tiller? The big OLY risers look fairly ridgid...are they?
Do they store much potential energy? Can they be designed to store more potential energy. Providing the limbs design are getting tapped out for energy gains where do you look. Maybe the big huge 25-27" relatively stiff riser?

If the riser is designed to store more potential energy how do you control the structure and any resonance/imbalance issues? Movable weight? Bow geometry? Both?

Changing the laminate schedule between events? 

I can see how more deflex will make a bow more forgiving...we know what recurves do. Grips seem to be more or less in the correct spot on most of the bows I have shot (not many by the way). For a accurate adjustable rest system a wire elevated rest and plunger look to be hard to beat. So what are some of the ways STD geo can change for the bows of the future?


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

"Make a cool looking yet still tradional styled bow able to launch arrows at 250 from 45 pounds and you would corner the market."

Yea...all in BLACK carbon. ;-)


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

wseward said:


> The tiller on the bow pictured with the rest up high in the sight window might be interesting. The bow probably does not have a standard (STD) tiller?
> 
> *Well most Oly shooters use 0-0.5" of positive tiller, most barebow shooters use 0-0.5" of negative tiller. I'd estimate that he likely used quite a bit of positive tiller because his draw-hand is substantially higher than the grip. But if we looked at a bow which was designed to be stringwalked (or even 3 under) then maybe a bit higher rest position would help balance the limbs?*
> 
> ...


Grip position along the vertical axis of most bows places the throat right at center. Which would well hen shooting split-fingered and using stabs to balance the bow. I personally believe that having the throat of the grip above center would work better for barebow because it would equalize the strain on both limbs (so you don't have to use negative tiller) while also causing the bow to balance better. This is the concept used on Border risers.

I personally believe that the risers of the future will be longer, I expect to see a 29" within 5 years (get that HAAS working Sid!). They will rely on shorter limbs with very smooth DFCs to store massive amounts of energy and release it efficiently through the reduced mass of a shorter limb.
Hopefully barebow will be a significant enough discipline to justify developing geometry that trends away from what will be offered to the Olympic archers. 

-Grant


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Sanford said:


> And bowyers would rather build bows - same as string makers  But, as to the above, that pretty much nails it for bowyers who build bows but don't have access the end user, so, how do they spec the most performing stings either, based on the same limited knowledge you are using as defense?


Just a guess here..but I would venture to the bowyers specs for the bow..and what he feels is the best compromise. ..

Happy Thanksgiving to All. ..

Mac


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Grip position along the vertical axis of most bows places the throat right at center. Which would well hen shooting split-fingered and using stabs to balance the bow. I personally believe that having the throat of the grip above center would work better for barebow because it would equalize the strain on both limbs (so you don't have to use negative tiller) while also causing the bow to balance better. This is the concept used on Border risers.
> 
> I personally believe that the risers of the future will be longer, I expect to see a 29" within 5 years (get that HAAS working Sid!). They will rely on shorter limbs with very smooth DFCs to store massive amounts of energy and release it efficiently through the reduced mass of a shorter limb.
> Hopefully barebow will be a significant enough discipline to justify developing geometry that trends away from what will be offered to the Olympic archers.
> ...


It was good chatting with you the other day... we have similar visions eh!

Up till now we have been working on limb tech to fit existing risers. We do see riser design as limiting this technology line, so we have been learning how to make ali risers.
We invested heavily in two CNC machines to allow us to start this process.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Speed - Stability - Power - Forgiveness can we have it all? In the quest for all out speed and power do we naturally have to give up some stability and forgiveness? Vis versa the quest for stability and forgiveness give up some speed and power?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Arron said:


> Speed - Stability - Power - Forgiveness can we have it all? In the quest for all out speed and power do we naturally have to give up some stability and forgiveness? Vis versa the quest for stability and forgiveness give up some speed and power?


Speed and stability are linked. but not directly.

A simple answer is that two bows made of from the same former. same guy.
the one with solid ebony cores will be slower than the one with a light weight core.
yet it will be the same bow with the same DFC.
if you look at what makes a bow unstable, then you get the hint of what makes the stable ones stable. Push those buttons hard enough and you can start changing the geometry without the negatives we once had. 

A simple example of this is that aircraft manuverability used to be limited by the planes twitchiness at landing. All the highly manuverable fast jet designs, were reported to be real PIGS to land. Take this and solve the low speed twitchy and you get the best of both worlds. 
They have done that with HIGHLY manuverable FAST jets, and solved the planes wish to tumble out the sky with electronics.

Fast recurves had reflexed risers, to give a artificial longer draw, had HUGE preload, meaning funny vertical stability issues, and Big twitchy recurves.
Its now possible to treble the size of the target style recurve and still have total lateral tip deflections less than the target limbs that have been enjoyed to date. So some of the problems faced are being overcome. With the extra power you can start to increase deflex, reduce preload and sort the geometry and keeping the design holistic but still be quicker than the competition

that's not to say that the problems of making sure the design is stable isn't there, its just the goal posts have moved along a little.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

I have gone in the opposite direction and am more attracted to the simpler is better approach. I'd rather have a self bow that performs well than a fancy high tech bow. Simplicity and challenge is what attracted me to this sport. It's not about the bow but the total experience.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

This is my future, first of 6 off the production run :wink:









It's not my riser, mine will be black


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

steve morley said:


> This is my future, first of 6 off the production run :wink:
> 
> View attachment 1816204
> 
> ...


Very cool


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

grantmac said:


> Just moving mass around is easy, every BB specific riser does it plus you can fit weights into a variety of bushings on most risers. There comes to a point where you just add as much mass as you can handle and hope it makes the bow stable (which it does to a degree). It's still nothing like shooting with stabs though.
> 
> Geometry is what needs to change to really alter the feel of the bow on a fundamental level.
> 
> -Grant


Just curious Grant, what is it that you feel most needs correcting on current riser designs. Is it forward-backward roll, lateral movement, or rotation? Admittedly, I don't know a lot about this, I'm just trying to get an idea about what you are after?

KPC


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LongStick64 said:


> I have gone in the opposite direction and am more attracted to the simpler is better approach. I'd rather have a self bow that performs well than a fancy high tech bow. Simplicity and challenge is what attracted me to this sport. It's not about the bow but the total experience.


I think that's where consideration of the different market segments comes in. We may all want the same things but to varying degrees.

Just as an example, greater hunting skills might result in lower demands on the bow because the performance requirements of the bow are based on what it takes to down game. Likewise, if you're cutting down trees and carving them into bows you can only make it shoot so well. Now you have to make up for it with hunting skill...or find a way to make a better bow.

Competition is a different animal. The target and distance is set. Getting closer isn't an option. In the case of shooters with very similar skill, a slight advantage from bow, arrow or tuning might make the difference between winning and losing.

You're splitting hairs at that point but that's probably what drives innovation. Once the technology is there, you go looking for ways to expand the application and sell it to more people (other market segments).

A lot of the technology we use every day was originally very expensive and developed for a completely different purpose than what we use it for.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

My future in Traditional. .after a long time trying to figure it out. .I'm sending my Earl Hoyt Hunter Supreme riser in to Jim at Centaur's. .to have a set of his Triple carbons fitted to it.. I don't want to wait a year or spend $1500-1800 on a bow....no matter how nice it is. .

While not as fancy as some of the risers. .I'm fully comfortable with this one. .and don't have to modify it to get his ilf limbs to work..

A trip down to Big Jims for a beaver grip install. .and I should have a great new bow..

I'm just going to have to start a slush fund to get a set of Sids new limbs for this next year so I can retire my original recurve limbs....

It should be interesting comparing the 2 I think. .

Mac


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

MGF said:


> I think that's where consideration of the different market segments comes in. We may all want the same things but to varying degrees.
> 
> Just as an example, greater hunting skills might result in lower demands on the bow because the performance requirements of the bow are based on what it takes to down game. Likewise, if you're cutting down trees and carving them into bows you can only make it shoot so well. Now you have to make up for it with hunting skill...or find a way to make a better bow.
> 
> ...


Well, there you go...looks like we've come full circle.

That's why I said in my first post on this thread, in order to define the future design of a tool, you have to define what the tool is being used for, and by whom.



GEREP said:


> That brings us back to the definition of "TRAD."
> 
> In my opinion, there is a difference between single string, FITA/Olympic/JOAD type archery, and what is commonly referred to as "traditional archery," which for the most part is hunter/recreational/3D.
> 
> ...


KPC


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

MGF

Agree that the purpose defines the need. I don't compete so I don't need what a target archer seeks. But if we are to discuss what the future has in store it is interesting to me that the timeless self bow will not die off either. As progressive we go with technology, the self bow is still being used.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LongStick64 said:


> MGF
> 
> Agree that the purpose defines the need. I don't compete so I don't need what a target archer seeks. But if we are to discuss what the future has in store it is interesting to me that the timeless self bow will not die off either. As progressive we go with technology, the self bow is still being used.


Self bows are used but not by everyone.

Even self bows change because of other technologies. I use steel tools and even some power tools to make a self bow. I can move a lot more wood in a lot less time than the ancients using stone tools could have.

Would you cut down a giant hickory or Osage to make a bow using stone tools or would you cut a sapling or branch? Would you mess with carving a non bending contoured handle? Keep in mind that during the time you spend trying to carve this piece of wood to shape, you are not killing any food.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC

we are sitting at about 8-10weeks normally, but with the Christmas vacation we are looking at 10-12 weeks.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

MGF

You are losing my point, I am not saying self bows are used by everyone, nor is it true everyone uses an ILF bow. People shoot what they want and I'm good with that. What I'm saying is for the most part the self bow has enjoyed it's own rebirth. There are many who prefer to use a self bow. Ever wandered off to Primitive Archer, you'll see we are not a dying breed. So I say that if we are talking about future developments don't rule out how many still prefer a simpler bow.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

MGF

The time I spend making the bow adds to the experience. Hunting season is all year round and I have 4 self bows that shoot perfectly fine so I don't need to make a self bow everytime I hunt. I am sorry to say this but you seem ignorant of self bows to make such a comment.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

"The Experience" This is also a selling point. Look at Apple. There products tend to run on the pricier side but people eat them up in part for "The Experience". A innovative bowyer with a awesome product that can tap into "The Experience" factor will sell product.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LongStick64 said:


> MGF
> 
> The time I spend making the bow adds to the experience. Hunting season is all year round and I have 4 self bows that shoot perfectly fine so I don't need to make a self bow everytime I hunt. I am sorry to say this but you seem ignorant of self bows to make such a comment.


Which comment is a display of ignorance? I make and shoot self bows, although so far, most of mine eventually break. LOL

My point was that the typical design of even self bows changes based on other technologies available. No you don't make a bow every time you hunt but when the self bow was "state of the art" survival was a time and calorie counting game. The time and energy you spend making the bow is time and energy you can't spend doing something else that needs to be done. It would have been a simple bow.

What about a string for that self bow. Are you using B50 or raw hide/sinew? Do you shape the bow with flint knives/scrapers or do you use steel rasps, draw knives and steel scrapers. Well, you get the idea. The result is (or can be) a different sort of bow and you couldn't spend all that time making a bow if you weren't getting most of your food from the grocery store and living in a somewhat modern home.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Ok so now we need to defend our use of the bow based on a supermarket, dude you are way off on what I'm saying, The topic is about future developments, which I don't oppose, but I don't find the need to based on my satisfaction of the equipment I use. I could care less what you use, that is your choice. But because I don't wear your jersey, I'm wrong. That thinking is what keeps this sport down and unappealing to new archers who just want to enjoy shooting. Your thinking is primitive at best.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LongStick64 said:


> Ok so now we need to defend our use of the bow based on a supermarket, dude you are way off on what I'm saying, The topic is about future developments, which I don't oppose, but I don't find the need to based on my satisfaction of the equipment I use. I could care less what you use, that is your choice. But because I don't wear your jersey, I'm wrong. That thinking is what keeps this sport down and unappealing to new archers who just want to enjoy shooting. Your thinking is primitive at best.


You don't have to defend anything. We must be getting out wires crossed someplace because, at this point, I'm pretty sure that I don't know what you're talking about.

Keeps the sport down? Unappealing to new archers?...what?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> You don't have to defend anything. We must be getting out wires crossed someplace because, at this point, I'm pretty sure that I don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Keeps the sport down? Unappealing to new archers?...what?



Same here, I don't see the communication failure except maybe someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.:croc:


----------



## 1shot1 (Oct 14, 2013)

MGF said:


> My point was that the typical design of even self bows changes based on other technologies available. No you don't make a bow every time you hunt but when the self bow was "state of the art" survival was a time and calorie counting game. The time and energy you spend making the bow is time and energy you can't spend doing something else that needs to be done. It would have been a simple bow.
> .


 called a bundle bow and you can put one together in a few hours even with stone tools...
Bows appeared in North America at a later date,( 1500-2000 years ago) then the rest of the world, and some cultures still used a lance, atlatal instead of bows due to their greater range/power...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Options are good. Wise and grant are hitting on something which I think there is a lot of opportunity for those who find it. That is, integrating technology, past and present. Some of the older style bows balanced better sans stabilizers. I prefer that. I'd rather not have to add bolts and washers to get the bow how I want it. I like the wood aesthetic and feel, but I also want to be able to choose my grip, and if possible, sight window. I like speed and performance, but the bow I will shoot best is the bow I get to know and love, because I will shoot it regularly, will learn and ingrain the little things it wants from me to do its best.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Look for a moment at another sport...sailing. In the America's cup the multihull/cat just went from the fastest boat on the water...to a boat double that in speed. I did not see such a gain as possible...so quickly. The difference came down to exploiting technology. Prior to very recent time we did not have the materials to build foils (centerboards and rudders) that are so strong for their weight. Now we can. I posted a post build test photo (here at AT) of a centerboard being stress tested by Bieker Boats and it looks like they are testing a HUGE recurve limb. The laminate schedule is different than a recurve limb for sure, as the loads are different. That "Recrve Limb" is mostly carbon. The whole 70' boat and spars are mostly carbon! Just think of the material costs of the carbon alone in a project of that scale!!!

Now a deveplopement class called the Moth is making huge gains due to these FOILING mostly CARBON foils. They just have a mainsail (no kite or jib needed) and foiling foils and are now amoung the fastest sailing craft (foiling multihulls, foiling monohulls, foiling kite boards). A foiling kite board just won the "Bridge to Bridge" race out here on the west coast. Carbon (and good epoxy resin) made all this possible.

I still really like my self/board bows. Carbon and other materials like it are the future of Archery.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

I have a Phenolic 15" ILF riser that I really like. I just tuned that 60" bow with low cost 34# carbon long limbs and draw approx. 41#s at 30". When I string that bow with a stringer I can feel the riser bend. When I sanded the bow to get a better grip I could see how soft the resin for the Phenolic is. This bow just tuned both 400s with 100g tips and 340s with 200g tips. It seems to me to be a very efficient bow. I think part of the efficiency of the bow is coming from the bendy riser.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

I have been wanting one of these for a long time:







It is a I-14 built of mostly carbon. I can not afford one of these. I can not afford to build one of these.

I now realize that I would probably be better off in a foiling moth (only one sail, etc). I can not afford a moth...let alone the travel expenses to campaign her.

I can afford a mostly carbon bow. I can afford to build a mostly carbon bow. Is not archery grand!


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

For you die hard wood guys:







It appears to have wood veneers and is probably mostly carbon. It could be built of all wood veneers...I bet it would be a dog that did not hunt...at least not in the top ten.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

wseward said:


> Look for a moment at another sport...sailing. In the America's cup the multihull/cat just went from the fastest boat on the water...to a boat double that in speed. I did not see such a gain as possible...so quickly. The difference came down to exploiting technology. Prior to very recent time we did not have the materials to build foils (centerboards and rudders) that are so strong for their weight. Now we can. I posted a post build test photo (here at AT) of a centerboard being stress tested by Bieker Boats and it looks like they are testing a HUGE recurve limb. The laminate schedule is different than a recurve limb for sure, as the loads are different. That "Recrve Limb" is mostly carbon. The whole 70' boat and spars are mostly carbon! Just think of the material costs of the carbon alone in a project of that scale!!!
> 
> Now a deveplopement class called the Moth is making huge gains due to these FOILING mostly CARBON foils. They just have a mainsail (no kite or jib needed) and foiling foils and are now amoung the fastest sailing craft (foiling multihulls, foiling monohulls, foiling kite boards). A foiling kite board just won the "Bridge to Bridge" race out here on the west coast. Carbon (and good epoxy resin) made all this possible.
> 
> I still really like my self/board bows. Carbon and other materials like it are the future of Archery.


there is athread on here of a bow that shooting 10gpp at 200fps. 28" draw.

The limb was ILF, and it was an extra short. 66" bow on a 27" riser. and the DFC was smoother 27-28" than a conventional 70" target setup.
but the limb mass for one limb was 134 grams.

Now if you put your limbs on a weight scale, id say that if you limb states carbon and weighs more than 190 grams for a long limb... there is not much carbon in it.

I know this because a long ILF limb with metal work say 40lbs, would come in at a shade over 150 grams.

so yes, but the marketing of carbon limbs seems to leave out the Glass content. its a buyer beware. Carbon is there, its just not all carbon limbs are carbon. most are bound in glass.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

wseward said:


> I have been wanting one of these for a long time:
> View attachment 1816398
> 
> It is a I-14 built of mostly carbon. I can not afford one of these. I can not afford to build one of these.
> ...


I can name plenty of sports that you cant get a top end setup for less than $2000 Archery is quite a easy on the wallet sport in my opinion


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

wseward said:


> I have a Phenolic 15" ILF riser that I really like. I just tuned that 60" bow with low cost 34# carbon long limbs and draw approx. 41#s at 30". When I string that bow with a stringer I can feel the riser bend. When I sanded the bow to get a better grip I could see how soft the resin for the Phenolic is. This bow just tuned both 400s with 100g tips and 340s with 200g tips. It seems to me to be a very efficient bow. I think part of the efficiency of the bow is coming from the bendy riser.


bendy risers means that the energy in the system is having to move more mass than needed. Stiff risers are faster. That's for sure.

we aim to not even have to move the limb butt.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

"bendy risers means that the energy in the system is having to move more mass than needed. Stiff risers are faster."

Borderbows is expert in making bows. I am not an expert in making bows. However, once the short limbs on the bow are at the max. efficiency...where do you look for more potential/stored energy?

Why can the riser not be part of the big spring that the bow is? Borderbows can control limb twist in radical recurves. Is it really impossible to build a riser that adds energy to the system?

Heck...the string can maybe store more energy as well? Control of the release of energy and directional loads may be the issue?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

wseward said:


> "bendy risers means that the energy in the system is having to move more mass than needed. Stiff risers are faster."
> 
> Borderbows is expert in making bows. I am not an expert in making bows. However, once the short limbs on the bow are at the max. efficiency...where do you look for more potential/stored energy?
> 
> ...


Your looking to store energy in as little a mass as possible.
what a bow is about is making the moving part as light as possible for the most amount of energy.

Long limbs store better energy, so yes, that could include the riser as per the case of the full compass longbow, but with modern tech, its about getting the limbs to work better.

one of the reasons why Grant wants a 29" riser is that the limbs would be shorter. (less mass moving part)

The idea that longer limbs are smoother = compromise between smoothness and limb mass, so if you can make a limb endlessly smoother then you can make it endlessly shorter. = SPEED...

This is where ILF is stuck as it cannot accommodate different thinking and the reason we invested in a CNC mill...

If someone came out with a XX Short limb, would it fit a 30" draw on a 13" riser. Someone will try it!


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

I've had risers that flexed..I want no part of them.

Will traditional bows reach a point that they have this, I think not. 

Traditional will always have a certain look and feel for the majority. .only a few will want futuristic looks..but almost all will want futuristic performance..

Blending of the two to satisfy all will be the trick. .....because as much as some want to advance every aspect of the bow, we are firmly rooted in the love of the past..

Mac


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

GEREP said:


> Just curious Grant, what is it that you feel most needs correcting on current riser designs. Is it forward-backward roll, lateral movement, or rotation? Admittedly, I don't know a lot about this, I'm just trying to get an idea about what you are after?
> 
> KPC


Backward roll really isn't an issue, you just add weight until it stops. But with a bow that is designed to naturally sit upright you don't have to add as much and you can design in more deflex without it getting back-heavy.
Deflex helps make a bow which holds with more stability and resists unwanted input from the archer. By making the bow harder to move you make it easier to shoot, same principle as a stabilizer.
Unfortunately the characteristics which make a bow stable also frequently make it less efficient. But if you can produce limbs which are both lighter and store more energy then you can get all that power back and then some without giving-up the stability that you've worked towards.

Look at where compounds have gone in terms of riser to limb length, then ask yourself why recurves haven't followed?

-Grant


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Wseward:
Depending on how much you weigh there are better options then a Moth. I've heard anyone over 160# is going to have a heck of a time getting them to foil.

-Grant


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

"Wseward:
Depending on how much you weigh there are better options then a Moth. I've heard anyone over 160# is going to have a heck of a time getting them to foil."

Grantmac, Thanx...I was not aware of that fact. I weigh 185, so the Moth is out. ;-) Good that I have plenty of boards and rigs left over from the past. AND some very good archery rigs.

Also, tried the Ruggbii tab you recommended and I think it will take me a while to use it well. First shots were 8" high and felt so different I went RIGHT back to my original tab. With some work, I know I can get it to work for me...just a matter of finding the time to make the change.

As far as future bow design goes...there may be quite a few ways to make a good bow for the future.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> Now if you put your limbs on a weight scale, id say that if you limb states carbon and weighs more than 190 grams for a long limb... there is not much carbon in it.
> 
> I know this because a long ILF limb with metal work say 40lbs, would come in at a shade over 150 grams.


I just weighed a few limbs, I only have one set of long SF Elite plus 202g they say "Produced from 60% carbon – 35% foam – 5% Fibre", the Elite plus shorts are 180g which are 9g lighter than the Pro-Accent shorts, the Kaya Tropics wood/carbon 221g and the Hex 6 come in at 135g (how much do your wood cores come in at?)

Sid I know you use your own cores, maybe they're lighter than the competition, the 5% Fiber stated with the Elites I'll assume this is glass, so at least they're not claiming all Carbon. So we can assume a lighter limb is going to give more speed. Other makers maybe afraid to push the limbs on lightness may be trying to keep prices competitive, when mass producing on such a large scale maybe they feel the direction you are going is too risky for them. I consider this a strength of Border, looking forward all the time always trying to be better, I can relate as it's the same attitude in my shooting.

If the other manufacturers put as much effort into making a stiffer, lighter and faster limb as they do with their logos, maybe we would see some serious progress in limb technology.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

wseward said:


> "Wseward:
> Depending on how much you weigh there are better options then a Moth. I've heard anyone over 160# is going to have a heck of a time getting them to foil."
> 
> Grantmac, Thanx...I was not aware of that fact. I weigh 185, so the Moth is out. ;-) Good that I have plenty of boards and rigs left over from the past


Just to go totally off topic:

Check out an RS600. They are a one-design, can be sailed conventionally or foiled, work with higher weight sailors and are fairly cheap (relative to a moth).



steve morley said:


> If the other manufacturers put as much effort into making a stiffer, lighter and faster limb as they do with their logos, maybe we would see some serious progress in limb technology.


Nail meet hammer.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

"Just to go totally off topic:

Check out an RS600. They are a one-design, can be sailed conventionally or foiled, work with higher weight sailors and are fairly cheap (relative to a moth)."

I dunno...$12,323 will buy a whole lot o' archery kit. Plus I have this she devil (and others):


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Steve. some makers are advancing thier game. and just because they are not buying the top shots doesnt mean thier product is sub par.





steve morley said:


> I just weighed a few limbs, I only have one set of long SF Elite plus 202g they say "Produced from 60% carbon – 35% foam – 5% Fibre", the Elite plus shorts are 180g which are 9g lighter than the Pro-Accent shorts, the Kaya Tropics wood/carbon 221g and the Hex 6 come in at 135g (how much do your wood cores come in at?)
> 
> Sid I know you use your own cores, maybe they're lighter than the competition, the 5% Fiber stated with the Elites I'll assume this is glass, so at least they're not claiming all Carbon. So we can assume a lighter limb is going to give more speed. Other makers maybe afraid to push the limbs on lightness may be trying to keep prices competitive, when mass producing on such a large scale maybe they feel the direction you are going is too risky for them. I consider this a strength of Border, looking forward all the time always trying to be better, I can relate as it's the same attitude in my shooting.
> 
> If the other manufacturers put as much effort into making a stiffer, lighter and faster limb as they do with their logos, maybe we would see some serious progress in limb technology.


----------



## K31Scout (Sep 17, 2003)

How about a vertically adjustable risers; 19" to 21" and 21" to 27". Maybe adjustable deflex-reflex geometry. All that extra hardware would have to be light weight or we'd have 8lb risers.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Steve. some makers are advancing thier game. and just because they are not buying the top shots doesnt mean thier product is sub par.


Sid, I think we long ago established that outside of the Olympic arena the vast majority of archers are not "bought" they compete on their own dime and choose their own gear so sub par equipment won't often get seen.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I commend Border for their research while trying to push the limits of bow design and construction as I appreciate every other archery company.

I like to see clean and interesting lines with my bows with a focus on performance. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> Sid, I think we long ago established that outside of the Olympic arena the vast majority of archers are not "bought" they compete on their own dime and choose their own gear so sub par equipment won't often get seen.


oh i dont know about that.... you might have agreed. but i and others migh disagree.
did you read the observations of others over on the fita section about limb fit issues.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> oh i dont know about that.... you might have agreed. but i and others migh disagree.
> did you read the observations of others over on the fita section about limb fit issues.


I didn't Sid, but I will. Out of interest, what percentage of 3D and field shooters, non compound, use bows provided free for them would you estimate?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I commend Border for their research while trying to push the limits of bow design and construction as I appreciate every other archery company.
> 
> I like to see clean and interesting lines with my bows with a focus on performance.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I agree Ray, many new ideas in limb design have come about because of Border, no one can dispute that but I think all the big manufacturers have made huge leaps too. The good thing is that not all of them are following the same path. That gives us the archers a wider choice.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Bigjono said:


> I agree Ray, many new ideas in limb design have come about because of Border, no one can dispute that but I think all the big manufacturers have made huge leaps too. The good thing is that not all of them are following the same path. That gives us the archers a wider choice.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> I agree Ray, many new ideas in limb design have come about because of Border, no one can dispute that...


Other than Border and a couple smaller custom shops, who's using them?

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

biased carbon running at 45 deg.... if its used to torsionally stabilise the limb. then thats a border one.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

GEREP said:


> Other than Border and a couple smaller custom shops, who's using them?
> 
> KPC


Hoyt
Samick
W&W (SF)
Dryad
Morrison
Sky.........


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

grantmac said:


> Hoyt
> Samick
> W&W (SF)
> Dryad
> ...


Hoyt has been using *bias* *carbon* to stabilize limbs since the mid seventies. What other design features being used by Hoyt, Samick, and W&W are uniquely Border?

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Just an observation--not an reprimand or anything like that...I bring up strings (an intregal part of a bow, much like the point or fletching is part of the arrow) and a few complain that I'm going off topic, but sailing posts and pictures get nary a peep? Oh well...it is what it is I reckon......


----------



## Greg W (Apr 28, 2004)

JParanee said:


> For me its all about building a more efficient limb
> 
> A limb that performs at a given weight better than another
> 
> A limb that is durable is paramount, big deer come way to hard to have a piece of equipment that in the field could let you down


I agree. It would be great to drop my holding weight significantly an maintain my kinetic energy. Possibly limbs that do not stack near as much as those of most bows we shoot now. In other words a more level force draw curve.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Borderbows, Congrats on the new bow. Saw the pics and discussion regarding the "Covert" on some other sites. The limbs are RAD Trad. Looks like another good bow for the future.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I'm drooling as I post this LOL

Ray :shade:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Hoyt has been using *bias* *carbon* to stabilize limbs since the mid seventies. What other design features being used by Hoyt, Samick, and W&W are uniquely Border?
> 
> KPC


not at 45 deg that we have seen.
we even had two limb models.
the xp10 which had 45deg carbon
and SM carbon. as it was the SaMe carbon hoyt used. ie 90 deg. you can see the 90 deg bais in the limb but of the f4 limbs for example.
if it was at 45 deg then the quatro carbon woulndt be the torsionally stiffest limb hoyt had made. and they wouldnt have made the whippy tipped but fast FX


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Greg W said:


> I agree. It would be great to drop my holding weight significantly an maintain my kinetic energy. Possibly limbs that do not stack near as much as those of most bows we shoot now. In other words a more level force draw curve.


its possible to have a 60" bow the is 58lbs at 28".
17"riser that pulls 1.1lbs between 28 and 29"
this kind of smoothess developes energy levels over 1.1 (se/pdf)at 28.
top top shelf ilf limbs generate 0.9

so in one case your generating 10% more ft/lbs of energy than you have holding weight. in the other case you have 10% less than the holding weight.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

wseward said:


> Borderbows, Congrats on the new bow. Saw the pics and discussion regarding the "Covert" on some other sites. The limbs are RAD Trad. Looks like another good bow for the future.


thanks. its not possible without baised 45 deg carbon.
its a game changer in our view


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> Just an observation--not an reprimand or anything like that...I bring up strings (an intregal part of a bow, much like the point or fletching is part of the arrow) and a few complain that I'm going off topic, but sailing posts and pictures get nary a peep? Oh well...it is what it is I reckon......


there is technology in those boats that we have in our limbs. you just have to know how and where its used.
its been intgral to bow design in my view.
it aslo addresses price.
there are 10000 dollar windsurfing rigs and 10000 mountain bikes.
the innovation in these sports has been huge.
but then again it is what it is.


----------



## Belicoso (Aug 22, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm drooling as I post this LOL
> 
> Ray :shade:


Wow,I would like to test this bad boy myself.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

The statement was made that _*"many new ideas in limb design have come about because of Border, no one can dispute that..."*_

My question wasn't so much about what Border is doing in their limbs, the question was what are the other manufacturers doing that they *borrowed* from Border. In other words, what Border design is found to be so superior that it has found it's way into other limbs other than Border?

In regard to the utilization of 45 degree "bias" (not "biased") carbon as opposed to 90 degree bias carbon. Again, as I said before, I am not an engineer but it is my understanding that they are pretty much the same material, it's just that one is cut at a 45 degree angle to the salvage edge, and the other is cut at a 90 degree angle to the salvage edge.









Using it in the 45 degree bias orientation *is* slightly stronger, but can't the argument be made that it is your *design* that *requires* a the additional stiffness, and that the use of the 45 degree bias carbon isn't the *design feature* at all, but what you feel is *required* to make your design workable? You even said it yourself:



Borderbows said:


> thanks. its not possible without baised 45 deg carbon.
> its a game changer in our view


45 degree bias carbon isn't so much the design, it's a material that in your opinion. is what is required to make your design "possible." 

As someone mentioned early on in this thread, a lot of people make purchases based on whatever the latest *"techno babble"* happens to be at the time. That's fine, it's their money and they are free to do whatever it is that they feel will benefit them. What some of us *try* to do is cut through all that and at least attempt to understand, in laymen's terms, what any of it means to the vast majority of us that aren't, and won't ever be at a level that any of it will ever matter.

When anyone does this, you seem to take it as a personal affront to your designs, when that isn't and never was the intent. 

When you seek opinions, it's probably a good idea to expect some of those opinions to differ from yours.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

if you add 90 deg carbon. you increase ts by 5%. when you 45 deg you add 70% more. 
thats no small amount. infact w&w advertised a patent on this tech with the inno.
the supprising stiffening effect of double angled carbon.
so its not a material thing is a design thing.
when we introduced this. we noted the benfits.... but we also noted the advantages to design and are now using it.
thats not to say it doesnt add benefits on a conventional design. just like hoyt have added recently.
but that also doesnt mean that the layup of the samick limbs hasnt been done before either.
a prime example is the use of S2 glass as an outer layer over the top of biased 45deg carbon over ud carbon.
we stopped this layup in 2006. after starting it in 2001.
name me another s2 laminate used back then?
if you want to find any of these ts filled high spec products just look for the conventional profiled Talisman TX 40 limbs
also have a look at the core layup.
thin layer of wood on the belly side witha sythetic core on the back side of the nutral axis.
that one started in 2000....
mmm i spy with my little eye a extreme bf
done. 2001.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Just curious Sid, if the use of new materials (or the different use of existing materials) is actually a new "design", why have we all seen you suggest that the big boys like Hoyt, Samick, W&W and others are still using old designs? 

I still maintain that what you are doing with your deep hook is a *new design*, made possible by a different use of existing material. Others are doing the same thing by using those materials in their *existing designs*. 

Which leads me to the same question I asked before. Other than a couple of smaller custom shops, what manuf. are barrowing *designs* that are uniquely Border?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

using a material in a very different way. for a different purpose means its a design thing.
to ignore the longdiudinal fiber orientation 100% to increase torsional stability with no other objective is not the same as making a limb stiff width ways. and length ways.

its a very different design concept. and that w&w tried to patent it means its concpt is different.
so id dissagree that its the same as any other material use.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

so the use of hybrid cores wood and synthetic.. and s2 glass.
the use cross weave carbon aside.
the big three have these new design concepts available to them.
its different to having a need to change presses.
doesnt stop the design concepts being used.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

I might not understand all the technical stuff listed but this has been a wonderful post from limbs, riser and string concepts.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> its a very different design concept. and that w&w tried to patent it means its concpt is different?


Why were they unable, or choose not to patent it?

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> its been intgral to bow design in my view.


I understand the material discussion--but posting pictures of and discussing sailboards is more pertinent to a discussion on the future of bows than mentioning new string materials? Yeah, right. Again, not trying to reprimand anyone, just pointing out the obvious. Most definitely, it is what it is. 

There has been a lot of interesting discussion. Got to be on your toes around here--quite refreshing.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Why were they unable, or choose not to patent it?
> 
> KPC


they tried in something like 2005.
the ip had been out and about in the hands of the public since 1999


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> they tried in something like 2005.
> the ip had been out and about in the hands of the public since 1999


So are you saying that there was another patent that was too similar, there was nothing unique enough about the process, method, or material to be awarded a patent, or it was determined that it wasn't a patentable design feature but simply the use of an existing material or technology? 

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

prior art. as in you cant paten the wheel because its already in the public domain.
same as you cant patent the idea of the bow. again its already public domain.
the idea of using cross weave carbon at 45 deg to torsionally stiffen the limb had already been out in the publics hands before the patent application went in.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> prior art. as in you cant paten the wheel because its already in the public domain.
> same as you cant patent the idea of the bow. again its already public domain.
> the idea of using cross weave carbon at 45 deg to torsionally stiffen the limb had already been out in the publics hands before the patent application went in.


And this belonged to Border?

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> prior art. as in you cant paten the wheel because its already in the public domain.
> same as you cant patent the idea of the bow. again its already public domain.
> the idea of using cross weave carbon at 45 deg to torsionally stiffen the limb had already been out in the publics hands before the patent application went in.


I understand the patent process, that's why I asked the following.



GEREP said:


> So are you saying that there was another patent that was too similar, there was nothing unique enough about the process, method, or material to be awarded a patent, or it was determined that it wasn't a patentable design feature but *simply the use of an existing material or technology?*


So are you saying that Border was the first to ever use 45 degree bias carbon in a limb?

If not, I'll go back to my original question. 

Other than a couple of smaller custom shops, what manuf. are barrowing *designs* *that are uniquely Border?* 

Even if it is the case that you were the first to ever use 45 degree bias carbon in a limb, that constitutes one design feature. What are the others that would lead someone to say that *"many new ideas in limb design have come about because of Border, no one can dispute that."*

What are just a *few* of the *"many"* new ideas in limb design, developed by Border, that are being utilized by Hoyt, Samick, and W&W?

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I understand the patent process, that's why I asked the following.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know of another limb that does predate ours. of 1999
the XP10.

Wood on the belly side, Synthetic core on the Back side.
why would this be done? We have our valid reasons.... It has a very good reason...

S2 Glass on the outside of the limb....
why would the glass be on the outside... why would the laminate layup be in exactly the same format?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> And this belonged to Border?
> 
> KPC


if the IP is out on the market place then the Prior Art works.

If we are the only one... (still waiting to hear from a maker that wishes to contest this statement) then the IP belongs here.

We simply don't know of any limb that had this construction before we introduced it.
we have had it in every limb since. due to us thinking it was a attribute worth having. Looks like everyone agrees.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

I think the future is in grip shape and hand placement into the grip. All this energy going into deflex/limb stability/mass weight is a by product of crappy grips and torque... but it sells a lot of bows


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Other things that may develope in the future, as it relates to bow design.

Materials vendors start making lighter "cloth" weight Uni/0-45+45 tapes in widths of 1", 1 1/2", .....3", 3 1/2" that make fine tuning of laminate schedule better. More material in the areas needed and less material where the material is not needed.

More common use of vacume bagging, and resin infusion techniques to get the "cloth" to resin ratio just right. Pumping up a big hose or placing the "rubber tubes"/clamps just right may not be the best method?

Foams/ceramics with waste carbon chop added for structure just right, using yes...force fields (EMF, magnetic, ???)? Mixing up some BOG with chop always make me feel a little better. ;-)

Heck...hybrid strings that are woven (under tension) and they differ as to weave at the tips, "field" and center? The OLY guys start stringing their bows where no one can see...with 76" jigs/presses?

Who knows what the future will allow us to do...if we keep trying and don't give up.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> S2 Glass on the outside of the limb....
> why would the glass be on the outside... why would the laminate layup be in exactly the same format?


The only thing I can think of Sid, is that you are a genius, and everyone else is out to get you.

:wink:




Borderbows said:


> If we are the only one... *(still waiting to hear from a maker that wishes to contest this statement)* then the IP belongs here.


That *could* mean that they *can't* contest it, or it could simply mean that the big three have marketing strategies that don't include their design people having wizzing matches on archery message boards when the results won't have any effect whatsoever on how they design their limbs, where they finish in competition, or market share. 

KPC

KPC


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

USA DOD, NASA, etc.........have been using all of these concepts.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

KPC. Whats with the constant facetious coments?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> KPC. Whats with the constant facetious coments?


If you are referring to my last post, I wasn't really being facetious. The part about everyone being out to get you was a little in jest, but it was actually in response to you actually thinking (and saying) that people are always stalking you, trying to give you a hard time.

The part about wizzing matches on message boards was not facetious at all. From what I've seen, it's usually a risk taken by people trying to gain market share. Those that already have it, most often don't feel the need to employ such a risky strategy. It's like walking a tight rope without a net. If it works, you're a hero, if it fails, hopefully the damage isn't fatal.

JMHO

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

if its any help, the F4 limb has had the nocks cut further round the former by the looks of things... (hard to really tell) this adds to the amount of string wrap round the recurve...
Maybe that's an attempt to get more smoothness over the 990's
Without a former change?


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

GEREP said:


> or it could simply mean that the big three have marketing strategies that don't include their design people having wizzing matches on archery message boards when the results won't have any effect whatsoever on how they design their limbs, where they finish in competition, or market share.


Ya think?


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Design and build are linked. What good is a design if you can not build it. So...here are some more sailboat related vids that show some things that may be in the future of bow design.

At about three minutes into the vid below is resin infusion of a mold:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqzjMc_xBjg&list=PLWO8hWaPuxmqaT4B1W9JGIc3vFkfj-6jc

Heck...if you are into making strings, ropes and lines...check out about 1.5 to 2 minutes into this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EM...ew-vl&list=PLWO8hWaPuxmqaT4B1W9JGIc3vFkfj-6jc

These are long vids and have lots of carbon fiber in the footage...you have been warned! ;-)


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sid,

How much testing have you done with risers?

Right now I'm fantasizing about a bow using your new prototype limbs on an RCX 17 riser or one similar that Border may make in the future :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

ray.
we currently have 6 risers made in different geoms that we play with.
testing the different levels of deflex and limb pad angles


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

kpc.
still doest detract from Border having had 3 axis of fiber orientation. and being the first to market with it.
there are plenty of design claims of "being first" buy the big boys. 
except more ts is one they have all adopted.

still doest detract from us being first to market with advanced materials.
S2 glass.
totally glass free limb construction.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> ray.
> we currently have 6 risers made in different geoms that we play with.
> testing the different levels of deflex and limb pad angles


Have you tested the stiffness of risers and the effect it has on speed? Have you made any all carbon risers yet?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Have you tested the stiffness of risers and the effect it has on speed? Have you made any all carbon risers yet?
> 
> Ray :shade:


we have made riser that flex in the past. but the feedback you get from stiffer designs seems nicer.

if you look at the carbon content in our risers... there comes a point where the carbon takes over.
this carbon content allows us to run 5/16ths over centre


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> kpc.
> still doest detract from Border having had 3 axis of fiber orientation. and being the first to market with it.
> there are plenty of design claims of "being first" buy the big boys.
> except more ts is one they have all adopted.
> ...


Your right sid. 

Just a couple things to keep in mind from a business/marketing perspective (and as I've often said, that is my main interest in this)

Being the "first to market" doesn't necessarily mean being the first to experiment with a design, material, or process. It often just means that you are the first to recognize a benefit (real or perceived) or require such "improvements" to make a particular design work, and therefore make it a part of your overall marketing plan, or in some cases make it your marketing plan in totality.

Being the first to market doesn't necessarily(and often doesn't) mean the first to ultimately perfect, and profit from a given design, use of material, or process. It might also simply mean that a design, material, or process, while workable and maybe even marginally better in terms of performance, does not pass the test in terms of a cost/benefit, or in terms of benefiting and therefore attracting potential customers in their target market. 

Not to pick any old scabs, but let me give you an example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Back in the days of the DAS-Titan wars, one "side" made the determination that the way to win market share was to argue to death that the DAS connection was superior in design, superior in performance, superior in safety, and superior in adjustment, etc.. 

While all of that might well have been technically true, albeit marginally, albeit sometimes a matter of opinion, and sometimes in a way that the vast majority of potential customers would never or could never appreciate, the other ""side made the determination that they were going to focus on something totally different.

They realized that for the *VAST* majority of the market, convenience, ease of use, interchangeability and universality (if those are even words ) would ultimately be the main draw and *NOT* every single percentage point of raw performance, every single degree of preload adjustment. They realized that the people who would ultimately be attracted to this specific type of design would want to be able to mix and match risers and limbs, of different manufacturers, profiles, designs and weights, without having to modify them in any way...even if it might mean (potentially) giving up a degree or two of adjustment. 

I happened to be involved in the prototype process of the Titan, and I specifically remember saying that at the end of the day, regardless of performance, regardless of a degree or two of adjustment, I thought that it was *"all about the connection"* and said so. I even remember coming up with a stupid little saying about people just wanting the ability to *"pick it, click it, and stick it."* I thought that the overwhelming number people that are attracted to this type of setup do not want another proprietary system, they don't want to have to modify things, with the potential of ruining something, or voiding a warranty, and they *certainly* don't want something so sensitive, or so delicate that they have limits as to what can be used with what, for fear of something blowing up, even if it meant not getting the absolute most they possibly could out of a given setup in terms of performance. You and I had this discussion years ago Sid, when you seemed hell bent on controlling what limbs people used with what risers. 

In my opinion, out of a hundred potential customers, probably less than 5 are only interested in getting every last smidgeon of performance out of their setup. Like me, they readily admit that they aren't good enough to appreciate it, OR think that it will be the "holy grail" in terms of making them someone who *can* appreciate it.

At the end of the day Sid, great engineers know engineering stuff. Great business people know *people*. For the ones who actually know both, the world is their oyster.

If I can say one thing about the person who developed the Titan (Rob Kaufhold of LAS), and continues to develop other very successful products for traditional archers and bowhunters, in my opinion *one of the smartest things he ever did*, and continues to do, is to seek input from *average* archers, *NOT* just the best of the best, and *NOT* just those that are only concerned about raw performance. He knows more than enough about the technical side of things to know what makes a good setup, but he is also smart enough to realize that the largest part of his market does not consist of the people that can truly appreciate them. Some of them can, you bet, but most can't.

With all due respect, and I mean this sincerely Sid, I have no doubt that you know your stuff when it comes to design an performance. That is obvious, sometimes painfully in my opinion, but no less obvious. What you don't know, again *in my opinion*, is how to handle people and cultivate a market. In terms of the success of your designs and ultimately your business, the latter is *infinitely* more important than the former. 

Good luck.

KPC


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Sid

To many of us, the big part of "future" developments and implementation is cost. You do a magnificent job selling the new design and materials, what is the future cost to us if we want to buy into it. Also based on the design and materials used what should the archer expect in performance relative to today's equipment. How far along is the performance ?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Your right sid.
> 
> Just a couple things to keep in mind from a business/marketing perspective (and as I've often said, that is my main interest in this)
> 
> ...


Thank you for your input. 

I appreaciate your time in typing your thoughts out.

Can I ask you a question.
with all this feedback you have given me. 
What were our sales 5 years ago, vs this year to date?
What new markets have we entered that we haven't been in before?

not that im saying your input isn't wanted.
you might have noticed, we don't sponser. Maybe that's because we don't design bows for the pro staffers. We design bows for you and me...
but hey ho, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
My dad will be 65 next year, and our secret agenda, is to make a bow that gives him the same hitting power as he had when he was 50.

So far we are ahead of that race.

So maybe when you have a injury that you cant quite recover from, Then you might be happy we have had this tech race.

If you wanted to drop a big Buff, but don't have the strength to shoot a 75lbs bow, remember that our 60lbs bow punches harder than most 75lbs recurves.

if your a once a week target archer, and you don't have the fitness to shoot 45lbs, we provide you improved cast to punch holes at 70 meters.
We do actually make our bows to suit Mr average. infact they suit Mr Average better than the budget limbs, IF you are willing to place an order for them...

We actually provide bows that deliver above and beyond the average performance, but for the average guy. no need for the 32" draw. No need to hold high weights. No need to beat your rotor Cuff injury into a pulp.


I remember a saying, Smile and the world smiles with you. 
I find threads a bit like that, takes one baiting post and it all goes down hill quickly.
there have been parts of this thread that were interesting. others that were DULL.
Chase me with endless off topic questions. and i'll hound them back. Your call!

but thanks for the marketing masterclass, I'll hold it in mind for our next encounter :-D.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LongStick64 said:


> Sid
> 
> To many of us, the big part of "future" developments and implementation is cost. You do a magnificent job selling the new design and materials, what is the future cost to us if we want to buy into it. Also based on the design and materials used what should the archer expect in performance relative to today's equipment. How far along is the performance ?


I didn't intend this thread to be about Border.
I wanted to talk 3rd party about things, about what aspects of bow design delivers better performance and how... but once you open a topic up in a public place, its open to being pulled in all directions including marketing lessons. 

anyhow. The SF limbs are getting this trickle down technology. Have you felt how stiff the limb tips are on those limbs. (certain Models are better than others), The price of this tech is coming down.

I see made in china going up in price. so things are going to start changing. (in my view)

but in our case, we have our TOP end laminates on all our bows. an example of this is:
our CV series limbs have our top end laminate in it. The R&D on that limb profile has been covered a few years ago. So we are not sure we can justify the price of the TOP end limbs. 
Top dollar price is there to cover tooling, R&D, and Materials. you can see by the limb profile, we have needed different tooling for the different limb shapes, and that limb shape has required R&D.

anyhow, its been said a few times by respected bowyers, that if you can add 4-5fps, you have made a significant improvement in design. We have reports of 20fps, difference between well respected bows, and some high performance bows that are out there.
to take a top end ILF limb and add 5fps, and also drop 1lbs in bow weight. That's a step forward.
but to add 11fps is in a different ball game.
Ask anybowyer what his/her opinion on what 11fps is.
I do think 200fps with 10gpp finger shot at 28" from a regular bow, regular modern string is about to be possible,
I think levels of smoothness that will cause even bigger ripples is possible, even bigger polar reactions in people.
I think bow design is going to start to show that conventional limb profiles, will be put in a class of its own, like Hybrids, and Longbows.
That's why I think the term super recurve needs a destinction as being a recurve that wouldn't work without enhanced stability levels.
Same as a conventional recurve wouldn't work with Howard Hill limb cross section. 1/2" deep by 3/4" wide.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> Thank you for your input.
> 
> I appreaciate your time in typing your thoughts out.
> 
> ...


I was actually going to be done with this thread Sid, but since you asked me direct questions, I think it would be rude to ignore you. First, I would have no way of knowing what your sales figures were 5 years ago vs now. I can however say that I have seen your marketing methodology tried before, on these very boards. Where a person blasts onto the scene, with the latest, greatest, best performing, best designed, best everything since sliced bread bow. Anyone who happens to question the design, the performance claims, or the price is summarily dismissed as an uneducated, unknowing, rube. 

Both of the examples that I am thinking of had a meteoric rise in sales, exposure, and the expected groupies that come with such things, over a period of just a few years...until people realized that all that still didn't make them elite archers and they moved on to the next latest, greatest, best thing since sliced bread design, which right now, in my opinion, happens to be you. Both were archery design "geniuses." Both were going to put conventional designs in the trash heap, and both are now out of business.

Like I said, good luck. I wish you the best. 

KPC


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

marketing makes all the difference sometimes. i've seen inferior products (guns expecially) that are overpriced and shoot worse than one 1/3 its price but because its been marketed as the greatest people pay the money. crazy how that works. I would think the average Joe would be the market everyone would be after becasue there are more of them and they buy 1000x more products than the small percentage of elite archers. im a run of the mill average archer not great, not bad. i would say im in the norm, marketing to me, a guy who probably spends over 1k or 2 on hunting junk every year would be far more profitable than marketing to a handful of world champions who care about a few fps.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Hmmmmm....what do you get when you breed Border with Win Win? Maybe this :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

looks nice!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

J-in-AK said:


> marketing makes all the difference sometimes. i've seen inferior products (guns expecially) that are overpriced and shoot worse than one 1/3 its price but because its been marketed as the greatest people pay the money. crazy how that works. I would think the average Joe would be the market everyone would be after becasue there are more of them and they buy 1000x more products than the small percentage of elite archers. im a run of the mill average archer not great, not bad. i would say im in the norm, marketing to me, a guy who probably spends over 1k or 2 on hunting junk every year would be far more profitable than marketing to a handful of world champions who care about a few fps.


Different markets for different product tiers. The ultimate end-return to the manufacturer is all in margin (net profit) and asset turnover (inventory sales). In the end, selling more at lower margin can be no more profitable than selling few at higher margin - the latter is sometimes a lot less work for the same end-return. Some companies target both markets and some don't.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

i think gerep has some valid points for consideration. i have no idea to what degree those points have been addressed by borders, but they're useful, i think, for anybody. kind of a vhs/beta thing, or sorts. it is certainly nice to go after performance, and in fact, the performance can translate into ease of use in itself.

at the same time, there does come a point where it may be that commonly accepted conventions may themselves be the inherent limitation, like failing to adopt the metric system over the legacy imperial standard... as a customer, i like to have options. i want to be educated, and i want to choose for myself.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

LongStick64 said:


> Sid
> 
> To many of us, the big part of "future" developments and implementation is cost. You do a magnificent job selling the new design and materials, what is the future cost to us if we want to buy into it. Also based on the design and materials used what should the archer expect in performance relative to today's equipment. How far along is the performance ?


Not Sid but here's my take. Future Costs............well if you would have told me that Hoyt could sell $1300 carbon compounds as fast as they could make them 5 years ago I would have laughed - boy was I ever wrong on that one. IF it's what the consumer wants/demands - sky is the limit on pricing. (Good point is that there is also a $500 Hoyt compound that shoots just as nice as the $1300 one - not as impressive to your buddies but anyway) The trickle down is great for guys like me that enjoy the technology but don't pay the price. A couple year old tech with lower price is just fine with me.

Performance - as in speed? Not much left to gain in my opinion 5-10%. as in stability? This seems to be where Border is making some good headway. Along with the stability comes the opportunity for new designs (super recurves) which change what we are used to in standard draw force curves and feel. I think improving upon the best of today will be a difficult process, but you just never know when the next great idea will come along and blow conventional thinking out of the water.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

centershot said:


> Not Sid but here's my take. Future Costs............well if you would have told me that Hoyt could sell $1300 carbon compounds as fast as they could make them 5 years ago I would have laughed - boy was I ever wrong on that one. IF it's what the consumer wants/demands - sky is the limit on pricing. (Good point is that there is also a $500 Hoyt compound that shoots just as nice as the $1300 one - not as impressive to your buddies but anyway) The trickle down is great for guys like me that enjoy the technology but don't pay the price. A couple year old tech with lower price is just fine with me.
> 
> Performance - as in speed? Not much left to gain in my opinion 5-10%. as in stability? This seems to be where Border is making some good headway. Along with the stability comes the opportunity for new designs (super recurves) which change what we are used to in standard draw force curves and feel. I think improving upon the best of today will be a difficult process, but you just never know when the next great idea will come along and blow conventional thinking out of the water.


I would agree on that one, but the problem is, Whats your experience to decide what the best is...
I could take two 1400 dollar bows, and put 18fps between them. taking the same string from the same maker, and same Gpp.
so not all top end bows are equal, infact the ILF revolution to the trad market, has put top end performance in peoples hands for much less.
the challenge for Trad bowyers is to keep up, and try and step up the mark.

I feel 10% on what is comercially available today is possible.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Edit: moved to correct "bow design" thread.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Borderbows said:


> I would agree on that one, but the problem is, Whats your experience to decide what the best is...


Darn little, as testing mean buying and $1400 test bows are not within my budget. I would guess that most fit into this category, therefore we read, listen and try to decipher marketing BS from fact - then still buy from the classifieds..........trickle down then buy used is how my testing gets done.


----------



## Belicoso (Aug 22, 2006)

Sid,
what´s your take on the ACS limb concept.??I had one of Ol´s ACS-CX longbows almost 10 years ago(I think 2005) the bow was shooting the same arrow weight at the same speed as most any other US made recurves 7-10 lbs heavier I owned at this time(Habu,Silvertip,Brack Quest,Acadian woods,Widow,Morrison,just to name a few).It was a real high performing bow(in my book)


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Hybrid laminate? Could the core (wood/foam) fade toward the tip and the tips are all carbon, orientated so that you have a narrower, thinner, lighter, same ts and thus better performance?

Also could put spectra or kevlar strands (or even a continuous length spiral) in carbon bows and arrows to keep any failure a little more subdued?

A bow builder takes the HUGE pile of carbon scraps and uses it in a low cost molded bow similiar to the PSE Snake?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

wseward said:


> Hybrid laminate? Could the core (wood/foam) fade toward the tip and the tips are all carbon, orientated so that you have a narrower, thinner, lighter, same ts and thus better performance?
> 
> Also could put spectra or kevlar strands (or even a continuous length spiral) in carbon bows and arrows to keep any failure a little more subdued?
> 
> A bow builder takes the HUGE pile of carbon scraps and uses it in a low cost molded bow similiar to the PSE Snake?


the resin bonding to the fibers is vital in limbs due to the movement that happens. unlike normal uses of these kinds of fibers where the structure is ridgid and solid, limbs bend, and not so sticky fibers like Kevlar are a bit of a pain to deal with.

The rest of the ideas all add mass to the limb. Mass is not good for speed.

(My opinion that is)


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Belicoso said:


> Sid,
> what´s your take on the ACS limb concept.??I had one of Ol´s ACS-CX longbows almost 10 years ago(I think 2005) the bow was shooting the same arrow weight at the same speed as most any other US made recurves 7-10 lbs heavier I owned at this time(Habu,Silvertip,Brack Quest,Acadian woods,Widow,Morrison,just to name a few).It was a real high performing bow(in my book)


Not convinced.

The early Synergy Limbs from W&W had a cross sectional shape to them, and so ive read about some of Harry Drakes flight bows...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Belicoso said:


> Sid,
> what´s your take on the ACS limb concept.??





Borderbows said:


> Not convinced.


Ironically, Adcock was one of the two absolute *"best thing since sliced bread"* designs that was going to put the entire limb industry on it's ear, that I spoke about earlier in this thread. Also a bowyer that wasn't shy about telling everyone that would listen how brilliant he was, and how dumb they were...if they didn't agree with him. 

Good design? Sure...

Good performance? You bet...

Flight shooting records? Oh yeah...

Meteoric rise in sales? Literally couldn't build them fast enough...

Still in business? Not so much...

O.L. who? Oh yeah, he's that guy that's still sitting on deposits.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Here's some products. That I ran accross at a work shop. http://www.smooth-on.com/Laminating-Epoxies/c1335/index.html
What do you think, Sid? Could this be in the future. One is good for Carbon fiber, S-glass, C-glass, Kavalor. Also with silica filler, microballons or Free form Air. 
DD


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Ironically, Adcock was one of the two absolute *"best thing since sliced bread"* designs that was going to put the entire limb industry on it's ear, that I spoke about earlier in this thread. Also a bowyer that wasn't shy about telling everyone that would listen how brilliant he was, and how dumb they were...if they didn't agree with him.
> 
> Good design? Sure...
> 
> ...


Yeah I gathered that was who you were on about.

Border started in 1940.

infact one of the worlds more influencial bowyers, well, Started here in the borders of Scotland
George Birnie
http://archeryduns.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=12838245
we don't intend to go anywhere bad soon. :-D


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Here's some products. That I ran accross at a work shop. http://www.smooth-on.com/Laminating-Epoxies/c1335/index.html
> What do you think, Sid? Could this be in the future. One is good for Carbon fiber, S-glass, C-glass, Kavalor. Also with silica filler, microballons or Free form Air.
> DD


I beleave quite a few bow makers use smooth-on.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> I beleave quite a few bow makers use smooth-on.


I thought so.. I did a repair on my son's compound limb that drop out of the truck and it still is holding up to this day. Most people would of replaced it. I just microscopically check on it from time to time, for cracks. It's getting the right combination that's the key. Lots of high pressure application.
DD


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

not that this is a borders thread, but kpc's point bring to mind the covert hunter you're developing, makes a good example, i think. i understand the the riser design is integral to the limb design, and you don't want people to mix up other limbs with that riser, however, the ilf limb fittings, compared to the bolt down, offer more of a sight window, which in a 17" riser, i am sure i would want. it also gives you tiller and draw weight/curve adjustment. not going to tell you your business, but in this example, i would opt for allowing the option of ILF, and put big huge disclaimers all over the packaging contents of the bow, as well as into any ear you can grab. if somebody wants to short change themselves on a frankenstein combination, so long as they've been warned... not like people don't use the wrong length strings, string bows backwards, etc...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> Yeah I gathered that was who you were on about.
> 
> Border started in 1940.
> 
> ...


None of that is the point Sid. 

The point is that Adcock was absolutely, positively, no doubt convinced that his design was the best. Had charts, websites, and all the proof you could possibly ask for, and more than his share of followers...just you like you, an many other manufacturers.

In spite of that, you have no problem simply saying *"I'm not convinced."*

Yet when someone says the exact same thing about your designs, your "proof" and your theory, you accuse them of being "daft," accuse them of stalking you, and write them off as unknowing , uneducated, and take it as a personal affront.

That's the irony.

KPC


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

GEREP said:


> None of that is the point Sid.
> 
> The point is that Adcock was absolutely, positively, no doubt convinced that his design was the best. Had charts, websites, and all the proof you could possibly ask for, and more than his share of followers...just you like you, an many other manufacturers.
> 
> ...


Lol 😀


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> not that this is a borders thread, but kpc's point bring to mind the covert hunter you're developing, makes a good example, i think. i understand the the riser design is integral to the limb design, and you don't want people to mix up other limbs with that riser, however, the ilf limb fittings, compared to the bolt down, offer more of a sight window, which in a 17" riser, i am sure i would want. it also gives you tiller and draw weight/curve adjustment. not going to tell you your business, but in this example, i would opt for allowing the option of ILF, and put big huge disclaimers all over the packaging contents of the bow, as well as into any ear you can grab. if somebody wants to short change themselves on a frankenstein combination, so long as they've been warned... not like people don't use the wrong length strings, string bows backwards, etc...


Now Barney since you brought it up! I had a neighbor that had a small company that made springs for airspace application and he told me that he could make me some spring. What a franken combo, All riser with all kinds of adjustment. Just have to figureout how to attach the string. LOL. O well I guess your idea is better. 
DD


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Pulling it away from a specific company, and hopefully we can depersonalize here just a bit...

Anybody doing any kind of development I expect to be passionate about what they do. As they are human, they will have biases in their perspective. They will present their perspective, which will reflect their priorities. That's fine.

On the OL adcock example, good example, in both ways. There is some novelty in the design. The reasoning is sound. It has a good story. The bow performs well. 

I have a friend with one of those long bows. It shoots well, it performs, but with her short draw length, shooting relatively heavy wood arrows, well... no design marvels are going to get her up to speed with her husband shooting carbon arrows with a 30" draw length. Just reality.

The failure in the marketplace had nothing to do with any of this. Yes, it is true that it isn't _really_ the only way to make a good bow, but the weakness was in the business management. If you create a demand you can't deliver, perpetually, that's a recipe for disaster.


The market (us customers) will listen to lots of stories, with lots of hype, and a lot of us will buy into a lot of flim-flam. Advertising and Marketing sells products. We consumers buy into the idea of the product as much, or more, than the reality of the product. It's just the way it is. If we take our time and gather information, we make more informed choices. If not, sometimes we get lucky, sometimes we don't. High-end archery products are no different. There are lots of great products out there, and there are products that look great, but don't actually work any better than something 1/3 the price. What's more, value does not correlate necessarily to market success. Pumping the message can have far more effect on the perceived value than the reality of the product, even _after_ in the hands of the consumer. 

Let's face it, in most cases, people don't shoot regularly enough, well enough, or have enough experience to really differentiate the differences between equipment, and _how well it fits their personal needs_, which is, functionally, far more important than how a bow performs in any given objective metric. Most of us, though, have no idea what our needs really are. I believe that I am on the verge of figuring this out myself, after buying several compounds, a couple long bows, and 6 recurves. The experts can provide guidance to finding that answer, but even the most honest, impartial, and knowledgeable can't tell you exactly what that answer is. Ultimately, the individual shooting the bow has that responsibility. So be it.

As for the future of traditional archery, I think it looks good. The past and proven will remain, no doubt, and there seem to be incremental gains, which people may choose to use, or not. If I can get the same speed, energy, and trajectory with a bow that holds at 45# that I can get with my bow holding 54#, that sounds attractive to me. It doesn't change the game. It doesn't mean that I can be more accurate than using a less expensive conventional bow holding 45# with a little less energy. It doesn't mean, even, that I will necessarily shoot any better than when I'm shooting my 54# bow, so long as I'm in a physical state to dominate the bow. Doesn't even mean that I will necessarily find this hypothetical technological wonder more fun or useful than a hypothetical 30 year old classic recurve, or what not, be my use competition, hunting, or purely recreation.

But, the more options I have, so long as I do the homework to navigate, I sincerely believe that I'm better off.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

you certainly do make alot of negative assumptions.


i think your cristal ball is probably as accurate as mine.
but mine involves a little more optimism.

but thanks for the heads up.
just like our wizzing comp over samick vs tradtech limbs. time will ACTUALLY tell.


im not convinced because you can make a bow just as fast without that tech.
but you cant make a enhanced torsionally stable limb without 45 deg carbon




GEREP said:


> None of that is the point Sid.
> 
> The point is that Adcock was absolutely, positively, no doubt convinced that his design was the best. Had charts, websites, and all the proof you could possibly ask for, and more than his share of followers...just you like you, an many other manufacturers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

first of all. we are keeping it bolted at present as thats the platform with least variables.
we can do our homework. but once its out... thats when people do things you dont expect.
we have every intention to make it ilf. we have a planned date of about summertime for the ilf side. but thats in pencil yet. lots to think about first. and lots to do.
as kpc points out. we dont want a book of do's and donts. but kpc wants to tell us our failings without knowing the full picture imho. infact he likes to pount out his assumptions of who we are.


we do have a list of Ilf riser it should fit best.





BarneySlayer said:


> not that this is a borders thread, but kpc's point bring to mind the covert hunter you're developing, makes a good example, i think. i understand the the riser design is integral to the limb design, and you don't want people to mix up other limbs with that riser, however, the ilf limb fittings, compared to the bolt down, offer more of a sight window, which in a 17" riser, i am sure i would want. it also gives you tiller and draw weight/curve adjustment. not going to tell you your business, but in this example, i would opt for allowing the option of ILF, and put big huge disclaimers all over the packaging contents of the bow, as well as into any ear you can grab. if somebody wants to short change themselves on a frankenstein combination, so long as they've been warned... not like people don't use the wrong length strings, string bows backwards, etc...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> Lol &#55357;&#56832;


the window actually suits quite a few people.

the top if the shelf acts like a gap reference point. so rather than aiming at the dirt you can use the top exposed corner if the window.

between that and the speed. you actually dint need a big window.
but window shapes etc are personal preference.
depending on the distances you shoot over and you style of shootin.
i can explain how the window works if anyone wants me to.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

ok, here goes.

15-30 yards you can use the top of the window.
30-40 you kinda hit no mans land, as per any gapping technique.
but 40-65yards you can then use the point.

these are some used Gaps from a bow shooting 9gpp, corner of mouth, split finger, 28" draw.

here is a thread about this very gapping technique

http://tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26524&highlight=gappers+delight

unfortunately you need to sign in to see the pics on how to read the window shape and size to your benefit


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> im *not convinced* because you can make a bow just as fast without that tech.


Interestingly enough, you seem to be discounting the ACS design as being about the speed. However the exact same arguments you make about the benefits of your design were, and still are being made about the ACS design.



Borderbows said:


> My dad will be 65 next year, and our secret agenda, is to make a bow that gives him the same hitting power as he had when he was 50.
> 
> So far we are ahead of that race.
> 
> ...


As to your belief that you *"cant make a enhanced torsionally stable limb without 45 deg carbon."* 

A lot of people don't question that, including me. What we're *"not convinced"* about is *whether or not it matters, and if it does, to who.* 

I remember the same type of arguments being made about the fact that one particular riser was being made out of 7075 aluminum alloy (if my memory serves me correctly) and another riser was being made out of 6061 aluminum alloy. I don't think anyone questioned the fact that one alloy might have been stronger than the other, the question was *did it matter, and to who?* 

Ironically, after all the hoopla about the added strength, rigidity, and stability, the riser that *was* being made from the 7075 alloy is *now* being made from the 6061 alloy. In reality, *did it matter, and to who?* 

Same was true for the limb connection design on that particular riser. All kinds of things were claimed, from performance enhancements to tuning superiority, to safety issues. Now that riser is being offered with the same connection that the original designer insisted was inferior. Again, after all the claims, in reality *did it matter, and to who?*

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Interestingly enough, you seem to be discounting the ACS design as being about the speed. However the exact same arguments you make about the benefits of your design were, and still are being made about the ACS design.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ok, flip side, Does your point matter, and to who.

im here still talking with you 17 pages later, We are the only ones discussing this...

So to who does this matter?
You?

so if you have no dog in this race, and its of your opinion that this doesn't matter, then why are you still debating this with me.
Its clear to me why im here, but you?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> ok, flip side, Does your point matter, and to who.
> 
> im here still talking with you 17 pages later, We are the only ones discussing this...
> 
> ...


That's a fair question Sid, and I'll try to give you the most honest answer I can.

First, I'm a firm believer that these forums, in order to be of any benefit, should be an honest exchange of information, from both sides of an issue, not just infomercials for sponsors, or worse yet in my opinion, a cleverly disguised marketing strategy for those that choose not to be sponsors.

Second, the only "dog" I have in this race is an honest desire to help. I don't make bows, I don't sell bows, nor do I have any particular interest in designing them other than contemplating what will make them more user friendly to people like me, hunters and recreational shooters of average ability. 

As I said before, the business/marketing aspect of this intrigues me, as well as the financial aspect of it as it relates to the consumer. I am a financial advisor, and I see every day what the actual cost is of people "chasing" the latest and the greatest. I honestly believe that it's everyone's prerogative to chase whatever it is that they want to chase, and spend whatever it is they want to spend, but at the end of the day, 99% of the people out there will never realize, in any meaningful way, what the latest and greatest is supposed to do for them. They are led to believe that if they will just buy the next "latest and greatest" thing, they will finally have what is necessary to make them something they are not, or ever be...an elite level shooter, a buffalo hunter, or whatever it is they think the new technology will do for them.

Ironically, and in a rather perverse way, the money actually spent on chasing the "latest and greatest," that will supposedly allow them to hunt buffalo, will pretty much guarantee that many will never be able to afford to hunt buffalo.

So you ask... why, if I don't think the technology matters to most people, am I here debating it with you. That's simple. While I truly don't think the *"latest and greatest"* will matter to most people, I *do* believe that the *cost,* in terms of dollars, frustration, and unmet expectations, definately *does* matter.

Do we have to agree? No. Will we continue to debate it? Probably. At the end of the day, we will both do whatever it is we do for our own reasons...neither any more or any less valid than the other.

KPC


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> the window actually suits quite a few people.
> 
> the top if the shelf acts like a gap reference point. so rather than aiming at the dirt you can use the top exposed corner if the window.
> 
> ...


I 100% agree on that one Sid. For certain kinds of gap shooting the window and even the wood grain in the window matter a lot. I really dislike federations who restrict what you can do with a sight window but some do.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That's a fair question Sid, and I'll try to give you the most honest answer I can.
> 
> First, I'm a firm believer that these forums, in order to be of any benefit, should be an honest exchange of information *honesty is a matter of opinion*, from both sides of an issue, not just infomercials for sponsors, or worse yet in my opinion, a cleverly disguised marketing strategy for those that choose not to be sponsors.
> *This one depends on your definition of sponser, You spend time here and in doing so, aids to the interest of the forum. contributing is a form of payment, or else why would the forums be here... if you object to me or other archery professionals being here, that don't sponser. then I suppose you can take it up with the forum authorites, they can judge whos is advertising and who is contributing? (if you would get off the topic of border, then I might be able to contribute more, and not have to defend borders name)
> ...


please see the bold inside your reply


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> I 100% agree on that one Sid. For certain kinds of gap shooting the window and even the wood grain in the window matter a lot. I really dislike federations who restrict what you can do with a sight window but some do.


yes it is a little frustrating


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

GEREP said:


> That's a fair question Sid, and I'll try to give you the most honest answer I can.
> 
> First, I'm a firm believer that these forums, in order to be of any benefit, should be an honest exchange of information honesty is a matter of opinion, from both sides of an issue, not just infomercials for sponsors, or worse yet in my opinion, a cleverly disguised marketing strategy for those that choose not to be sponsors.
> *This one depends on your definition of sponser, You spend time here and in doing so, aids to the interest of the forum. contributing is a form of payment, or else why would the forums be here... if you object to me or other archery professionals being here, that don't sponser. then I suppose you can take it up with the forum authorites, they can judge whos is advertising and who is contributing? (if you would get off the topic of border, then I might be able to contribute more, and not have to defend borders name)
> ...


Interesting for sure.

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Interesting for sure.
> 
> KPC


So if your not talking to me, then you wont be offended if I don't reply?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> So you ask... why, if I don't think the technology matters to most people, am I here debating it with you. That's simple. While I truly don't think the *"latest and greatest"* will matter to most people, I *do* believe that the *cost,* in terms of dollars, frustration, and unmet expectations, definately *does* matter.
> KPC


If that's your mission, to forewarn the uninformed, heck, there's tons a threads on here about the latest and greatest TradTech riser or TT limb, new string material, etc.... to date, none of this stuff has added or subtracted any scores on the board or meat on the table. Here, in those situations, you have direct access to the end user who mistakenly believes otherwise, yet, they are not warned of the added cost in dollars and unmet expectations. Could it be just that Borders is the only one that fits your target?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

KPC, you make some outstanding arguments. Agree or not, you make the intelligent think. I have never had a problem with politely asking someone to back up a claim--it helps separate the wheat from the chaff when you see either a logical answer presented or the one making the claim running away from the question (have seen it both ways here).

I chime in myself, for the same reason, when I see faulty/ridiculous advice given on strings. I don't mind when someone asks me why I said something.

Threads like this are interesting and informative, to me at least.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> im not convinced because you can make a bow just as fast without that tech.
> but you cant make a enhanced torsionally stable limb without 45 deg carbon


First is certainly true. Second is mostly likely true, right now...

But, I think if you back it up a whole lot, in a lot wider perspective, his points are more useful.

You CAN have a really fast bow without a super recurve design, which diminishes the need for the enhanced torsional stability. It may not have as much stored energy to deliver (i.e., requires lighter arrows), but in a FPS arena, it can compete. Or, it may not be a recurve at all (a.k.a., compound), in which case it walks all over the super recurve in terms of speed, stored energy at holding weight, and the engineers can easily design whatever draw force curve they want.

None of that truly makes irrelevant what you're accomplishing in your designs. In my opinion, you guys are truly doing something different, and pushing things along, and I applaud you.

However, it is good to have the perspective to realize that not everybody is going to get what you're doing, or even want or need it, particularly if you're determined to make them have it just the way you want (and I'm not assuming that you are, I mean it as a hypothetical).

I do not mean to get involved in the personal friction here, and maybe I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I've seen in many industries where inferior products thrived, and superior products languished or died, because of variables that had nothing to do with the products themselves. Could be marketing, production flow, internal financial incompetence, personal turmoil, or simply the ability to answer the phone or e-mail in a timely fashion, what have you. Not saying that Borders is guilty of any of this, and I don't expect that you guys are, because you've been around for awhile as a company, and that's reassuring. Rather, I'm just trying to point out that the nature of GEREP's comments are not really about whether any technology of yours or somebody else is a valid advancement, or not, but that from a business and market standpoint, it's just one aspect, and truly, unfortunately, secondary.

For me, I really do appreciate you getting on this forum and discussing, in great depth, the technical aspects of bow design. I wish that the 'big kids' in the industry would do the same. I can't say it'd be a good move for them from a business standpoint, because if you have a marketing juggernaut, most often it's best to keep to your guns, but it would be something that I would like.

Thanks, both of you, for playing on this thread. Truly interesting.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> first of all. we are keeping it bolted at present as thats the platform with least variables.
> we can do our homework. but once its out... thats when people do things you dont expect.
> we have every intention to make it ilf. we have a planned date of about summertime for the ilf side. but thats in pencil yet. lots to think about first. and lots to do.
> as kpc points out. we dont want a book of do's and donts. but kpc wants to tell us our failings without knowing the full picture imho. infact he likes to pount out his assumptions of who we are.
> ...


I've decided that my pay pal account has your name on it. I'll see if I can get there by summer


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> the window actually suits quite a few people.
> 
> the top if the shelf acts like a gap reference point. so rather than aiming at the dirt you can use the top exposed corner if the window.
> 
> ...


I'm actually on the same page with that. However, the top of the arrow trajectory referenced to my line of sight, for me, with an arrow going 200 fps, with my anchor, 3 fingers under, is about 3" above the shelf (might be a little less), around 8-10 yards or so. With 3 1/2", roughly, maybe it's closer to 4", on another bow that was a little slower, 20 yards was about halfway between the top of the window and the arrow point, which made a convenient reference...

This is one reason I think it's really cool that you can, with your risers, get a custom sight window, assuming you have the room for it.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Do we have to agree? No. Will we continue to debate it? Probably. At the end of the day, we will both do whatever it is we do for our own reasons...neither any more or any less valid than the other.
> 
> KPC


To me, it seems that you're both making very valid arguments about entirely different things


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> I 100% agree on that one Sid. For certain kinds of gap shooting the window and even the wood grain in the window matter a lot. I really dislike federations who restrict what you can do with a sight window but some do.


Does that mean no camo patterns on the bow?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I'm actually on the same page with that. However, the top of the arrow trajectory referenced to my line of sight, for me, with an arrow going 200 fps, with my anchor, 3 fingers under, is about 3" above the shelf (might be a little less), around 8-10 yards or so. With 3 1/2", roughly, maybe it's closer to 4", on another bow that was a little slower, 20 yards was about halfway between the top of the window and the arrow point, which made a convenient reference...
> 
> This is one reason I think it's really cool that you can, with your risers, get a custom sight window, assuming you have the room for it.


I personally think that's why you can get risers from 13-27"

but the window size allows you to set the bow bow up the way you want.

for example.

the arrow comes out the bow flat, and from every foot the arrow is away from the bow, its going to start dropping. BUT the drop is a straight issue. Max speed at the point of leaving the bow means that its going to travel the furthest, when the fall is slowest.
so in essence you have very little drop over the first 15 yards.
so lets assume for the sake of example, that that 15 yards is flat.
for the parallel flight shots, your looking to have a sight point, exactly parallel to your line of your arrow.
so imagine two parallel lines, one of the line of vision, and one of the line of your arrow. 
if you change the height of your arrow, you can tune the parallel flight to match the eye/window/kill
this does not detract from the length of your arrow being a point on for the other choice of distance your wanting.

so that gives you your 15 yarders.
but you do need your anchor to be the same height from your eye, as the corner of the sight window is from the arrow rest.




as per the blue and red here

if your using the corner of your mouth, as your anchor point then the short window can work wonders.

you can the use the point on as a second point of aim.

I keep remember seeing an Archer who has a DAS riser I think, and he has his rest set half way up the sight window.

Im wondering if hes using the shelf corner as one sight point, The point of the arrow as a second, and the shelf as a third...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> First is certainly true. Second is mostly likely true, right now...
> 
> But, I think if you back it up a whole lot, in a lot wider perspective, his points are more useful.
> 
> ...


self bows will still be around, longbows will still be shot just as they are.
I have utterly no expectations of the world changing direction.

Like longbows cant really compete with recurves for speed. and recurves cant really compete with compounds. I don't think that there is much room to improve a standard recurve.
I think the testament to the performance is out there in peoples hands. Its been improved for 10's of years buy multiple bow designers.
Super recurves are new. Not only are they new, they match and beat a lot of current top end recurves. 
the deliver smoother draws, in almost a love/hate kinda way, which generally means its bigger than your normal change.
and unlike hotrod recurves, there is little to no aggression in the power stroke.
If you have shot a highly wound up design, you will kinda know what im getting at here.

if you take a hot rod longbow and test its vertical stability, Its not that great, When you take a top end oly bow, and test its vertical stability its pretty dam good.
Vertical stability is an aspect of bow design that again shouldn't be overlooked.
so I think its wrong to compare a hotrod longbow with a top end oly style recurve.


They are a different kind of bow.
Its up to people to be aware that they are there, and work out if they are a longbow guy, recurve guy or a super recurve kinda guy.

work out if they think Torsional stability is important, or work out if vertical stability is important. or even work out if a self bow is there bag.

That's about it... in my books.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I've decided that my pay pal account has your name on it. I'll see if I can get there by summer


And I'll do my best not to disappoint
our usual 28days money back if not happy will apply as usual.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> If that's your mission, to forewarn the uninformed, heck, there's tons a threads on here about the latest and greatest TradTech riser or TT limb, new string material, etc.... to date, none of this stuff has added or subtracted any scores on the board or meat on the table. Here, in those situations, you have direct access to the end user who mistakenly believes otherwise, yet, *they are not warned of the added cost in dollars and unmet expectations.* *Could it be just that Borders is the only one that fits your target?*


Valid question Sanford.

No, it has *nothing* to do with Border per se. For me, it happens to do with the entity giving the infomercial and who stands to gain. If someone comes on and gives an honest opinion about a purchase they've made, and want to extoll all the virtues of the that purchase, I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, that is PRECISELY what these forums should be about. I have friends that shoot Border limbs and *love* them. I've shot them on numerous occasions and I like them too. I see a rather large difference between that and a bowyer giving an infomercial and suggesting that anyone who happens to disagree is either out to get him, "daft," or simply beneath him in terms of knowledge.

Am I a TT fan? Yes. No secret there. Everything I have ever said about them has been from MY personal experience. I have nothing to gain if anyone buys a TT bow or set of limbs. 

If you were paying attention, (or being honest...I'm not sure which) you would also know that while I love my BF's I have said many, many, many times that as good as I think they are, I think the Black Max Carbon/Wood limbs are about the best *value *out there in a hunting limb. I can't tell you how many times, when I've been asked which I would choose if I were buying another set of hunting limbs, I've said if it were me, I'd go with the 220.00 BM limbs over the 630.00 BF limbs. Are they as nice or as smooth as the BF's? NO. Am I more accurate with the BF's than my Black Max Carbons? No. Are the BF's the nicest limb I have personally ever shot? Yes. Do I need them to hunt deer, shoot 3D, or do I think they make me a better archer? No, and I've said that a hundred times. 

I can't tell you how many times I've suggested that when it comes to buying a riser, people should try them all and by the one that fits THEM the best. I can tell them all day long what works for me, but it might not be what works for them. 

So to answer you question. I am *just as concerned* about value, and expectations no matter what limbs and what brand I'm talking about. To insinuate otherwise is simply not true. I'm all about value Sanford, I have been consistent about that since I joined these boards over a decade ago. I was saying the same thing when I was buying and shooting ChekMates. I said at least a thousand times, I didn't think you would find a better *"VALUE"* in a custom bow. Were they the absolute best performers? No. Were they the absolute prettiest? No. But *all things considered,* they were the best custom bow *value* out there, dollar for dollar, in my opinion.

To insinuate that I have somehow changed my tune depending on the brand, or have not always been concerned about overall *value*, is *completely* inaccurate.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Gerep, I guess the conflict with your concerns is that: one, there are other posters here at AT who also have archery related business (there's an arrow thread going on right now), and it is no more egregious to the rules than this one; two, no product was pumped here in all these 18 pages; and, three, in the same number of pages, Sid never talked down to anyone on their input, never insinuated anyone was daft. Now, he might have grown tired of you and LBR dogging him, prodding him to go there, but, he stayed the high road the whole time, even then.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Gerep, I guess the conflict with your concerns is that: one, there are other posters here at AT who also have archery related business (there's an arrow thread going on right now), and it is no more egregious to the rules than this one; two, no product was pumped here in all these 18 pages; and, three, in the same number of pages, Sid never talked down to anyone on their input, never insinuated anyone was daft. Now, he might have grown tired of you and LBR dogging him, prodding him to go there, but, he stayed the high road the whole time, even then.


In your opinion, I'm sure you do see a "conflict." Just like I see certain "conflicts" that you don't see. That's the beauty of message boards where people are allowed to respectfully express their opinions, no matter what they happen to be. Funny how you see this as LBR and me dogging Sid, and others might see it as you and Sid disputing everything we say.

Your perception is your reality Sanford, and so is mine. However, the insinuation that I have been anything but consistent in my focus on *"value"* is just plain bunk.

KPC


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I think it's extremely disappointing that when faced with the chance to discuss technology and gain insight into the mechanics behind bows that some people would rather spend the time discussing business models.

-Grant


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

For us split finger, non-string walking, anchor at corner of mouth, cradle the grip throat shooters, what advantage is there to a higher ("above center") grip placement? Assuming ILF and adjustable tiller? Not really interested in gapping off this or that...not yet anyway.


----------



## Tom Koz (Dec 5, 2013)

*New Ideas*



grantmac said:


> I think it's extremely disappointing that when faced with the chance to discuss technology and gain insight into the mechanics behind bows that some people would rather spend the time discussing business models.
> 
> -Grant


Hello from Poland
I have found a few solutions that can develop assumptions reported earlier by Grant
I do not want to patent them by myself but expand with some manufacturer.
In my opinion there is still a lot to do. Unfortunately, interest in the industry is almost none.
I suspect that they came to the conclusion that nothing is possible to come up with.
I'll be grateful for the contact to a person really focused on the development of new ideas.

Tom


----------



## Tom Koz (Dec 5, 2013)

I have experience in several areas. One is the audio.
Vibration, noise, creating a sound wave, damping, etc.
Those are deeply understood phenomenon and as I look at the fight with them with completely wrong methods....
I will briefly present some of ideas in the next posts.
Of course the basic assumptions.
Tom


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

grantmac said:


> I think it's extremely disappointing that when faced with the chance to discuss technology and gain insight into the mechanics behind bows that some people would rather spend the time discussing business models.
> 
> -Grant


Grant:

I understand your frustration, but in my opinion, to discuss future design possibilities without discussing cost/benefit, whether or not you get customer buy in, and how you intend to reach those customers is a little naïve.

Those things will always drive new design and technology. 

As a matter of fact, the very act of asking a pool of potential customers what they think is possible, and what they would like to see in in the future, is in fact market research.

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I think it's extremely disappointing that when faced with the chance to discuss technology and gain insight into the mechanics behind bows that some people would rather spend the time discussing business models.


Grant, how about discussing sailing? Motorcycles? A non-mod chastising other members when the discussion had nothing to do with them? Etc. etc. etc.? 

I agree with KPC. It's pointless to discuss what a bowyer could do with "Material XYZ" without discussing whether or not XYZ will be affordable to the customer. 'Course I think string materials also fall into the discussion too, so what do I know. 

Just my opinion, right or wrong--but those other things?  A much farther stretch to bring them onto the board, much less this particular discussion...yet nobody gets chastised for those?

In one case there's no doubt it's nothing more than an attempt to throw some cheap jabs. In others...well, you make the call. IMO discussing costs and marketing, pertaining specifically to bows, is much more on topic than many of the other things that were brought up.

To be clear, I'm not chastising anyone for bringing up different subjects, just noting my observation of the blatant double standard.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Since it's still on business models here, just what is this cost/benefit to the market from the production side? Cost from that side is either cheaper labor, cheaper materials, or cheaper process, and we all know where that leads in the end, as business is designed to seek a higher margin from their seeking of a lower cost - not the other way around. The other side of this equation is purely the market and what it will pay. 

Now, if you want to discuss R&D and what can or cannot be done, whether it works or not, the cost to get there will be higher, regardless, and historically, unless you want to pay for it in the beginning up front and with with a skewed cost/benefit ratio, you wait until the market and new R&D render the former near obsolete. That's what has kept us off stone tools - segmented markets. Some will (can) pay in the beginning, some will wait. 

Not chastising anyone, but just if you want to discuss the subject, know the parameters all players work under first. You can't just make up new rules of the market as a fantasy and apply that straw-argument and expect folks to swallow it.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

That's what I was trying to get across Chad.

If you look at the original question:




Borderbows said:


> Trad bows. Love the term.
> 
> *where do you think the future of trad bow design is heading?*
> 
> ...


The *"future of trad bow design,"* and *"what people want from a bow"* has *everything* to do with what people want or need, what they are willing to spend, how demand for certain designs or technology is created, received, and ultimately accepted or rejected. 

For me specifically, the future of bow design is an amalgamation of ergonomics, performance, and cost. For me, that defines "value," and is ultimately where the future of trad bow design is.

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Now, if you want to discuss R&D and what can or cannot be done, whether it works or not, the cost to get there will be higher, regardless, and historically, unless you want to pay for it in the beginning up front and with with a skewed cost/benefit ratio, you wait until the market and new R&D render the former near obsolete.


Good point Sanford, and exactly the reason I personally believe that a real discussion needs to happen (even if it's with one's self) in regard to what the vast majority of archers can actually realize in terms of their ability and what new technology actually means to them and their shooting experience. 

I will gladly let you or others pay for *"bleeding edge,"* fully knowing that *"leading edge"* or even *"close to the edge"* is all I will *EVER* need. 

Also fully knowing that guys like Sid will create a *"new"* bleeding edge in a year or two, and what used to be bleeding edge, is now the leading edge and therefore a *much* better value...for me.

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

KPC, I think you are dead on the money. Like I said earlier, agree or not your posts will make an intelligent person think. Won't matter if you have the smoothest, fastest, most forgiving, shock-free bow design ever--if the cost of manufacture and materials are prohibitive, what's the point?

Or, more along the lines of what I was getting from your posts....you get a 5% increase in those areas, but at a 100% cost increase. Is it worth it to the public in general?

If we are just talking fantasy, might as well add options that will turn your bow into a light sabre or a hovercraft. If we are talking reality, then of course you have to consider cost.

What would you like to see in the future of archery? Let's see...a bow that is fast, smooth, stable, no hand shock, forgiving, comes with a string that enhances those features plus is very durable and doesn't stretch...all at a cost I can afford and a delivery time under 6 weeks. That's probably leaning too far to the fantasy side, even without the light sabre or hovercraft...:laser:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Good point Sanford, and exactly the reason I personally believe that a real discussion needs to happen (even if it's with one's self) in regard to what the vast majority of archers can actually realize in terms of their ability and what new technology actually means to them and their shooting experience.
> 
> I will gladly let you or others pay for *"bleeding edge,"* fully knowing that *"leading edge"* or even *"close to the edge"* is all I will *EVER* need.
> 
> ...


KPC, that discussion could be a world of its own, and in the end, what we will find is that it's not an either/or situation. If you don't have both extreme of the market, eventually, there is no market - it dies from lack of participation, which equals capital, or dies of lack of innovation, which equals interest creation (participation). Yes, the two can swap across lines to some extent, but only on a very limited basis.

Think of it this way. The Sage is about the better "value" out there in my opinion - not the only, but dang good one in value of cost/benefit. Not the prettiest and not the most efficient/functional for all purposes but will do all the "archery" any of us could really need if we had to. Now, for those of us who like the BW-ish looking bows, would we be satisfied at a semi-good-looking Sage. For those who need performance in tournaments, would we be satisfied at an entry level build Sage? We want our ultimate package in cost and benefit, but we surely don't want an evolution to Sage bows for all.

As consumers, having both sides of the equation operating in the market benefits us all. Higher "costs" and "better/more" move higher and in the same direction expect in limited pockets of markets and at limited times. Eventually, though, the better does become the "value" at a lower cost. That's the innovation that *does bring* value to the market and how the two markets, as different as they are, work to make it happen! 

LBR:


> Or, more along the lines of what I was getting from your posts....you get a 5% increase in those areas, but at a 100% cost increase. Is it worth it to the public in general?


Yes, because that's the engine of the market that has kept you off stone tools since man started trading coin for goods.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

if you want to ignore the contentment of owning one of the finest achievements in bow design, if you want to ignore the pleasure of ownership of something special.
yes, Massproduced product is value, but then again, this is not communism, where we have to wear state issue clothing.

Making a choice in your bow, and not owning 1 of 9000 identical others, IS a choice with a custom bow.

Where you get to choose your woods. Based on your ethics on timber sustainability, Timber mass, Riser colour, Amount of deflex Its your choice with a custom bow. Its a little expression of who you are.
You don't get that with the ruthless efficiency of Value and mass production.

A lot of people work in that office environment or workshop, where your boss barks at you for missing deadlines, and where you are part of the system.

Is paying to have your expression a crime?

Is paying for that moment of joy where you DO have something exceptional?

I personally don't see that in a mass produced product.

We have watched people recieve their bows when the pick them up. They halt in there sentence, as they open the Velcro fastener. while trying to look, but also trying to talk.
There expectations are VERY VERY high. 

Oh look. Its just the same as the others... No, Buying a TOP end bow is more than just the bow, Its about the process of buying it, Its about the process of spec'ing it out, and then the enjoyment of being able to shoot it and call it yours every day.

I don't see that as a bad thing.
I don't begrudge anyone who does enjoy that.

Enjoying your bow is VALUE for money. Its not just about shooting it or FPS, Its about knowing what you have in your hand. That's about enjoying the money YOU have earned.

People spend a lot of time knowing there bow.
people talk to us about their timber selections in their latin names. they spec their draw lengths to an 1/8th on an inch, they even make castings of their grips, or carve their own out to send to us.

We had one guy travel 900 miles on a 400cc Motocross bike, just to buy a bow, just to head home the next day.
this isn't about buying a bow from a webshop.

Value, doesn't even come close.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> We had one guy travel 900 miles on a 400cc Motocross bike, just to buy a bow, just to head home the next day.
> this isn't about buying a bow from a webshop.
> 
> *Value, doesn't even come close.*


Maybe it should. I mean after all, if that guy spent less on *"one of the finest achievements in bow design,"* maybe he could buy a friggin' car.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Maybe it should. I mean after all, if that guy spent less on *"one of the finest achievements in bow design,"* maybe he could buy a friggin' car.
> 
> :wink:
> 
> KPC


His choice.

to give you an idea.

I had a mountin bike, that equalled more than the sum of all 6 cars I had to that date.

My priorites were not the same as someone who wanted the car more than the bike.

I have a friend who rode his bike from London England to Auckland NZ. Maybe he should have got a plane ticket, it was cheaper than his bike?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Well, I took the question as asking for individual opinions.

I appreciate a custom bow as much as anyone. I love exotic woods and fine craftsmanship.

However...take two archers. One shooting a "mass produced, one of one million, same as all the rest" bow. The other shooting a beautiful, one of a kind custom. If one of them is an outstanding shot, that will be the one that gets my attention, regardless of the bow. I've been around long enough to know the bow doesn't make the archer. A great archer can shoot a Sage very well. A lousy archer will still be a lousy archer, even if they are carrying the most beautiful, most expensive piece of functional art available.

The bows I take the most pride in owning...hmmm...those would be (in no particular order) an osage orange selfbow made by Kevin Brennan, a BBO made by Eric Krewson, a pignut hickory selfbow with buffalo horn tips that I made (with a lot of adult supervision), a "fake Chocktaw" I acquired from the son of the original Choctaw bowyer, Lenny Pierce (son of Jerry), an old Herter's td, and an old Pearson Signiature td with the aluminum dovetails. That's not counting my son's first bow, my wife's, etc.

One thing these bows have in common is not one of them cost me a dime. Another is money won't buy any of them. No bought bow, custom or otherwise, could give me more pleasure than owning these.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> KPC, that discussion could be a world of its own, and in the end, what we will find is that it's not an either/or situation. If you don't have both extreme of the market, eventually, there is no market - it dies from lack of participation, which equals capital, or dies of lack of innovation, which equals interest creation (participation). Yes, the two can swap across lines to some extent, but only on a very limited basis.
> 
> Think of it this way. The Sage is about the better "value" out there in my opinion - not the only, but dang good one in value of cost/benefit. Not the prettiest and not the most efficient/functional for all purposes but will do all the "archery" any of us could really need if we had to. Now, for those of us who like the BW-ish looking bows, would we be satisfied at a semi-good-looking Sage. For those who need performance in tournaments, would we be satisfied at an entry level build Sage? We want our ultimate package in cost and benefit, but we surely don't want an evolution to Sage bows for all.
> 
> As consumers, having both sides of the equation operating in the market benefits us all. Higher "costs" and "better/more" move higher and in the same direction expect in limited pockets of markets and at limited times. Eventually, though, the better does become the "value" at a lower cost. That's the innovation that *does bring* value to the market and how the two markets, as different as they are, work to make it happen!


Of course it's not an either or situation. Nobody said it was or suggested it should be. Just don't get all upset when everyone doesn't value the same things you value, or the same things that someone is pumping.

The question was about the *"future of trad bow design,"* and *"what people want from a bow."* 

It wasn't about the future of *ONE* bowyers design, or what people specifically want from *ONE* particular bowyer...


...or maybe it did.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Maybe it should. I mean after all, if that guy spent less on *"one of the finest achievements in bow design,"* maybe he could buy a friggin' car.
> 
> :wink:
> 
> KPC


Heck, since I'm picking on folks anyway, especially LBR, let's examine that a bit more. In the hands of a skilled archer or novice, a well-built $10 Flemish (shipping included) string off Ebay will suffice. Heck, a $20 shop string will suffice, it ain't Oly archery, after all. Sure, some folks think there's more value or that they can shoot the difference by using a "custom" string, but to be real, what do you get when you triple that cost and pay LBR $32 for a simple Flemish string?

Sure, some folks will "think" that extra $20-till is worth it, and more power to them. But, in "value", a good and shootable string for the $, do that a couple of times and your well on your way to having spent enough for a new pair of limbs or something else, like a better riser.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I've seen the type. Love to brag about how much they paid, talk about the woods and how long they waited...and can't hit a barn from the inside. Money would have been better spent on lessons.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Money would have been better spent on lessons.


Actually, for once, you are correct! That's where the money would get the most bang for the denominations!


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> His choice.
> 
> to give you an idea.
> 
> ...


No dispute there sid. It's all about choices and what each individual values. That's what I've been saying all along.

It's also why I said what I did, in my second post on this thread, when it comes to your perspective on the future of trad bow design, and what is coming.

*"I think you need to think that. 

What will ultimately matter, at least in the "traditional" realm, is whether a 5 or 10 percent change in performance or "feel" is worth 100, 200, 300, or 400 percent more in cost, ESPECIALLY when what you are measuring is rather vague in terms of quantifiability or necessity."*

I'll stand by that.

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> Heck, since I'm picking on folks anyway, especially LBR, let's examine that a bit more. In the hands of a skilled archer or novice, a well-built $10 Flemish (shipping included) string off Ebay will suffice. Heck, a $20 shop string will suffice, it ain't Oly archery, after all. Sure, some folks think there's more value or that they can shoot the difference by using a "custom" string, but to be real, what do you get when you triple that cost and pay LBR $32 for a simple Flemish string?
> 
> Sure, some folks will "think" that extra $20-till is worth it, and more power to them. But, in "value", a good and shootable string for the $, do that a couple of times and your well on your way to having spent enough for a new pair of limbs or something else, like a better riser.


I agree. I bet Chad will also. And again, nobody said any different. The reason strings were even brought into the discussion was for those that wanted to eek every bit of performance out of a setup. The point was being made that sometimes you can do it for the cost of a string, not 800.00 for a set of limbs. It's *IS* the value play for those looking to eek every FPS out of their rig.

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> ...what do you get when you triple that cost and pay LBR $32 for a simple Flemish string?


Wondered how long it would take before that weak little jab would be thrown...

Of course anyone that knows much of anything about strings understands that even a rank beginner can benefit from a good string. You don't have to be in the top 1% to benefit from reduced shock, reduced stretch, increased durability, proper nock fit, etc. A Flemish string is "simple" if you know what you are doing, and are willing to take the time to do it right, and if you are willing to invest 20 or so years of your life perfecting your trade and continually working to make it better...you'll even stay pretty busy in spite of those who don't know that they are speaking of letting their jealousy boil over on message boards. That is what happens when you let your work speak for itself. 

Now, if you'll excuse me...I've got a ton of strings to get made....


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Actually, for once, you are correct!


Sorry I can't say the same for you.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> The reason strings were even brought into the discussion was for those that wanted to eek every bit of performance out of a setup. The point was being made that sometimes you can do it for the cost of a string, not 800.00 for a set of limbs. It's IS the value play for those looking to eek every FPS out of their rig.



Thanks KPC--as usual, you hit the nail on the head. Lots of times I don't even think to bring up the performance aspect, because squeeking out that last tiny bit just isn't a priority to me. It's bonus with a properly made string, but IMO not one of the main benefits.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> Wondered how long it would take before that weak little jab would be thrown...
> 
> Of course anyone that knows much of anything about strings understands that even a rank beginner can benefit from a good string. .


ID LOVE to see you justify this...

No more than a rank beginner could benefit from a good bow?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> The point was being made that sometimes you can do it for the cost of a string, not 800.00 for a set of limbs. It's *IS* the value play for those looking to eek every FPS out of their rig.
> 
> KPC


That was addressed, but herein lies the problem if we are back to that. Assuming the bowyer should send out the bow with a good built string from good material, what's left? In response to the end bit of performance to be gained from a string (if we subscribe to that), LBR was asked for some specifics to spec a string to a bow. He said without knowing the main variable, the user's end goals, etc... it was pointless to speculate on such. 

In that vein, it was asked then how could the bowyer eek out the remaining "value" of performance if he's missing the same important variable, the end use, since he's he's not building a spec bow. 

Crickets on that one to date


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR: you will never make a Ford Tarus a Bentley, No matter what alloys you put on it, no matter what polish you use.
a string will not make a poor bow outperform a top end bow infact, some top end bows will finger shoot faster with a poor string faster than a mediocre bow will shoot from a hooter shooter with your PERSONAL "bestest" ever string ever made..
infact a 600 dollar set of limbs cannot keep up with an 800 dollar set as long as you pick the best of the best of those two market areas.
if its performance your eeking out, your string will simply not turn your ford into a Bentley.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

The company I work for builds very thing custom, but we still have deadlines and standards and unform pricing, in order to compete with other company's. 20 years ago with didn't have to compete (just a couple of other company), high or low end, now we do. See they have a certain amount options to choice from in most cases. Now if you want to pay enigeering cost to build something new and wait months to years for that to happen, then that would really be the finest, one of a kind. Is that what we are talking about? For some, with money and time, that may be the case. 

So, Hypothetcally, I can order a bow with limb that look like big horn ram horns? Would it work? 
In the end we have to give the customer some guidance or provide thru R&D that we do have a real good idea that may change the way design performs.
DD


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> That was addressed, but herein lies the problem if we are back to that. Assuming the bowyer should send out the bow with a good built string from good material, what's left? In response to the end bit of performance to be gained from a string (if we subscribe to that), LBR was asked for some specifics to spec a string to a bow. He said without knowing the main variable, the user's end goals, etc... it was pointless to speculate on such.
> 
> In that vein, it was asked then how could the bowyer eek out the remaining "value" of performance if he's missing the same important variable, the end use, since he's he's not building a spec bow.
> 
> Crickets on that one to date


That's an easy one Sanford. The problem with the "crickets" is, you try to make a stab at one thing, get shot down, and you keep changing the subject so you can attempt another stab, just to get shot down again.

Now, to your question.

*"That was addressed, but herein lies the problem if we are back to that. Assuming the bowyer should send out the bow with a good built string from good material, what's left?"*

Nothing. That's why they keep designing the latest and greatest. They neeed to. THAT is the value play for the bowyer.

Nothing wrong with that either...just recognize it for what it is.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> if its performance your eeking out, your string will simply not turn your ford into a Bentley.


But, there is a market that will let you call a Ford a Bently and charge accordingly. That's the anomaly of pockets of the market that ignore efficiencies for the hope of getting some of the marketing hype - the low cost to play usually factors into that.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Borderbows said:


> If its performance your eeking out, your string will simply not turn your ford into a Bentley.


I guess it all depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking to haul ass, the Bentley might be the value play. If you're looking to haul a deer, good luck with the your Bentley.

KPC


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> That's an easy one Sanford. The problem with the "crickets" is, you try to make a stab at one thing, get shot down, and you keep changing the subject so you can attempt another stab, just to get shot down again.
> 
> Now, to your question.
> 
> ...


Not taking stabs. That might be your perception, though, which we already covered. Sid said they ship with quality strings, so that was covered. If the discussion is that bowyers would be better customer servers to ship with same, that's not up for debate by me, as fully agree. A crappy string doesn't bode well for a good bow at first put-together.

So, if the value play for bowyers is to send out bows with 8190 or BCY-X, as it's the latest/greatest, do they diminish their product or value to the customer if they send it with D-97? 

I guess that's the overall question?

To me, I would throw out the 8190 and put on D-97. My value is different, though. I don't like the feel of some of the newer stuff.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

This thread is getting rather tedious so I think I'll end my participation here.



Sanford said:


> That might be your perception, though, which we already covered. Sid said they ship with quality strings, so that was covered.


With all due respect, Sid says a lot of things. However, that in no way makes it settled law.

Have a nice day.

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Sure, some folks will "think" that extra $20-till is worth it, and more power to them. But, in "value", a good and shootable string for the $, *do that a couple of times and your well on your way to having spent enough for a new pair of limbs or something else,* like a better riser.


That's the kind of embellishments I love to see--they drive home a point I've made time and time again...you can't have an honest debate with someone who refuses to be honest.



> ID LOVE to see you justify this...
> 
> No more than a rank beginner could benefit from a good bow?


I never said a beginner couldn't benefit from a good bow. Will a beginner see a noticeable gain for a bow that is 5% faster?

What we are looking at with strings is, from what I've seen, an average difference of maybe $10. I talking decent--want to get into real junk you can get them for $5 each or less.

Ok, do I spend another $10 once every year or two, or even twice a year, to get a quieter shot, reduced shock, less frustration due to string stretch/creep, and (gasp) even a little performance increase...or am I better served spending an extra $1,000? Up to the individual to make that call.



> Crickets on that one to date


The reason being you aren't worth my time to explain it, and if I did bother you would just try to twist and spin my words into something they are not. It's what you do--so why would I bother?



> LBR: you will never make a Ford Tarus a Bentley,...


I never said otherwise. What you seem to have a problem understanding is some of us are quite happy with a Ford. Others might like to own a Bently, but can't afford it. Then there are some that own it and can't drive for squat, or are afraid to get it out of the garage. My old Ford truck gets a ding, oh well--it's a character mark.



> if its performance your eeking out, your string will simply not turn your ford into a Bentley.


You really don't pay much attention to what I actually say do you? I'll say it again...eeeking out that last little bit of performance is NOT a priority with me. Never has been. If I get to a point where 5-10 fps means the difference in a hit or miss, a wound or a kill--I'll take up a different weapon to hunt with and a different hobby.



> That's an easy one Sanford. The problem with the "crickets" is, you try to make a stab at one thing, get shot down, and you keep changing the subject so you can attempt another stab, just to get shot down again.


Nailed it again. I wish I had your gift of eloquence. The way I want to say it would just get me banned.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> The company I work for builds very thing custom, but we still have deadlines and standards and unform pricing, in order to compete with other company's. 20 years ago with didn't have to compete (just a couple of other company), high or low end, now we do. See they have a certain amount options to choice from in most cases. Now if you want to pay enigeering cost to build something new and wait months to years for that to happen, then that would really be the finest, one of a kind. Is that what we are talking about? For some, with money and time, that may be the case.
> 
> So, Hypothetcally, I can order a bow with limb that look like big horn ram horns? Would it work?
> In the end we have to give the customer some guidance or provide thru R&D that we do have a real good idea that may change the way design performs.
> DD


you can have recurves 3x bigger than your used to seeing.

So close to rams horns :-D

These big recurves provide smoothenss unlike anything ever seen.

58lbs bow at 28", from 28 to 29" pulls 1.1lbs gain in that inch.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> I keep remember seeing an Archer who has a DAS riser I think, and he has his rest set half way up the sight window.
> 
> I'm wondering if hes using the shelf corner as one sight point, The point of the arrow as a second, and the shelf as a third...


I use any aspect of the riser/hardware available, assuming it proves handy. Top of the window, bottom of the quiver mount, top of the strike plate, tip of the arrow, top and center, top of the shelf, top of my hand...

One thing I would point out, though, is that, depending on the shooter, if your eye is above the arrow, the impact point is rising from the eye's perspective from 0 to about 10 yards or so, mileage may vary.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

LBR said:


> That's the kind of embellishments I love to see--they drive home a point I've made time and time again...you can't have an honest debate with someone who refuses to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*No need to get frustrated. if you don't want to debate it. Don't!*


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Now, that what I posted about having a spring for limbs. But I guess it got lost in between Barney's post. DD


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

LBR said:


> Or, more along the lines of what I was getting from your posts....you get a 5% increase in those areas, but at a 100% cost increase. Is it worth it to the public in general?


Absolutely not. Then again, that applies to lots of things, including well-crafted strings. It doesn't have to be worth it to the public in general to have a viable market. And, if the company is small, they don't really want the public in general as their target market. Then again, techniques developed for the more demanding customers, who will pay more, can often trickle down, over time, to the general market. String material on cheap, generic strings, in my opinion, is far better than what was available 30 years ago.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I like that concept about weaker then progressly harder as they uncoil, make the coil bigger or smaller, for different poundage using same material. To me it looks like you may have something there, were the limb move up and down like parallel limbs on a compound? Instead of back a forth. Which requires a bunch of stabization. Could it be ILF, or does the Riser has to be specially fitted? DD


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Sid, none of that was directed at you. The embellishment was the insinuation that spending $20 more on strings would put you "well on your way" to buying a new set of limbs or a riser. Hilariously false.



> I feel your taking this road since you don't have anything to back it up with???


What have I not explained? I've listed the benefits of a properly made string. I don't have any mathematical formulas for it. Anyone familiar with strings should have no problem understanding. 



> I have no problem with this... but I don't think that's the position to throw stones from though


Because you may not agree with my opinion doesn't mean I am throwing stones.




> if its not a priorty to you why spend your time trying to eek out that last bit of performance on a string


Show me where I've said even once that's what I do. To the contrary, I've said over and over that is not my priority.



> No need to get frustrated. if you don't want to debate it. Don't!


I don't mind honest debate--I enjoy it. Key word being honest. I do get aggravated when I get accused of saying things I never did. I know better than to try and debate certain people though, because honesty is a concept they will never grasp.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> *"That was addressed, but herein lies the problem if we are back to that. Assuming the bowyer should send out the bow with a good built string from good material, what's left?"*
> 
> Nothing. That's why they keep designing the latest and greatest. They neeed to. THAT is the value play for the bowyer.
> 
> ...


I would offer a differing opinion on that. 

I would alter it to say,

"That's why they _*keep making a show of*_ designing the latest and greatest. They need to, designating new models every year with often marginally incremental or sometimes totally bogus technological gains. THAT is the value play for the bowyer."

That's my perception, anyway, _in general_, particularly in the compound market. I've got 2008 PSE Moneymaker single cam compound bow that,_for my purposes: *me* shooting fixed distance_ I don't believe will be substantially surpassed in my lifetime. I got the bow figured out, in terms of setup and what it wants from me to do that job. It puts the arrow where it's pointed. I barely use it, but when I do, I've never wanted anything about it to be different. I have absolutely no interest in an upgrade. There are way faster bows, but for what I do with it, there's nothing that can be improved.

Still, that's not how I feel about any of my recurve bows. I think they're all great in a way or another, and have no interest in getting rid of them in an 'upgrade'. Still, I am looking for something more, that has many of their positive attributes, but combined together, with a smoother draw, lower holding weight, and little sacrifice to energy available in the arrow. While I do believe that this is not entirely a new technological issue, I also believe that technology can play some part in this. Is spending more than a grand on a new iteration of this quest a value-oriented decision? Nope. _(If somebody wanted the best value, I'd suggest hitting up Kegan for something unfinished with an unshaped handle, actually custom fit it to themselves, and just go shoot)._ Will I be incomplete without it? Not at all. It is a luxury purchase, the kind I don't make very often, and one that I intend to make great use of, as opposed to hanging it on the wall to chase the next bleeding edge thing. I'm fine with that  I saves my pennies.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I like that concept about weaker then progressly harder as they uncoil, make the coil bigger or smaller, for different poundage using same material. To me it looks like you may have something there, were the limb move up and down like parallel limbs on a compound? Instead of back a forth. Which requires a bunch of stabization. Could it be ILF, or does the Riser has to be specially fitted? DD


Thanks for trying to keep this thread on track.

ILF does have its limitiations... That limb pad angle means you cant have these ideas implemented.

our design concept starts with steep initial climb, Hold that weight climb as long as possible and then back off the weight climb, and hold....

Ideally you want a bow that pulls 0-40 in the first inch, then hold 40lbs out to 28". the energy would be HUGE... infact it would punch like a 80lbs bow but your only holding 40lbs.


have you seen smoothness graphs.

this is a graph where the lbs gained per inch is shown.
2lbs per inch, would be a straight line.
the gain in a normal bow is 6,5,4,3,3,2,2,1,2,2,3,4
the gains we are looking at are 6.6.6.5.4.3.3.2.2.1.1.1
This as a por example shows the smoothness through the clicker/anchor as very predictable, but with LOTS of energy behind it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Then again, that applies to lots of things, including well-crafted strings.


Barney, good points on the different markets! If the same roll of string will make a good $20 string as makes a good $32 string, what's the market paying for in the same material use. There's either an extra $12 in work or in the name and expertise of the one building it. If it's the latter, then we have to ask, why doesn't that "value" pass down in getting more better strings for less money?

The answer is just business. Same for all. If another market will bear it, makers will ask it. If not, they must adjust.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

GEREP said:


> Of course it's not an either or situation. Nobody said it was or suggested it should be. Just don't get all upset when everyone doesn't value the same things you value, or the same things that someone is pumping.
> 
> The question was about the *"future of trad bow design,"* and *"what people want from a bow."*
> 
> ...


Sure seems like it. ..

Now...since folks are picking on Chad again. ..I'll say this to anyone..including Sid..

If you haven't experimented with your bows with the strings many here in the States have.like .those of us who don't build our own ..then you are arguing for nothing. .and don't fully understand this. 

I have purchased 1 string from Chad....and can say......his craftsmanship is excellent. .and his knowledge of the strings is very high..his attention to details on what bow it's going on..to what it is going to be used for is discussed if that person chooses to discuss it with him.I sold the intended bow before I got to test it for speed..but it was put together better than the majority of the high end strings being marketed. .of which i have been buying since 1963 and that is a fact. .

For the record. ...I purchase all of my strings. .and I have bought some only to return them for obvious defects..while in the package. .some after a few shots..some I've kept. .Good strings as opposed to some cheaper ones are a great value. .even at 2x the price. .especially when you can gain 4-7fps with them as I have found after checking my notes..4 to 7 fps...on a few of them mind you. .so..if you can't see a difference in speed from your suppled strings from those many of us have. .that is very strange to me. .

Now. .for those who choose to slam him for charging $30 bucks instead of $10 bucks...get a life..he's never said anyone will gain fps with his over what you have. .but you can gain in some cases. .and he is 10000% correct in this. So...can you take a mediocre bow with a pos string and make it better. .you darn straight you can...Can you take a great string and make a top of the line bow shoot better that's got a pos string on it..of course. ..that is what is being said about this. .whats so frigging hard to understand. .BTW...I don't know very many newbies who start out shooting 90 meters...I'm sure some do..but I don't know of many..seems like that distance would come at a later date when they are more familiar with the sport. .

Also..let's take this opportunity to go a little further. ..

For what it's going to cost for Sids newest creation...what bow can equal the experience if the main attraction is just a few feet per second over something costing a lot less...? That is only perception on the buyers part...not on the individual who is trying to sell it to them. ..Is it going to be the greatest achievement of the Traditional world of archery. ..I sincerely doubt it. .

Value is nothing more than perception. ..unless it is offering a great deal more than what can be had for less elsewhere. .However there are those who think that spending the most money on a item regardless of what it is makes it the best...if only for a small gain..

Fine craftsmanship, customer service and a customers fantastic overall experience is not limited to just Border bows...Many bowyers in this country offer this everyday..and some are less expensive too..
...


Mac


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> I would offer a differing opinion on that.
> 
> I would alter it to say,
> 
> ...



I think its fake to think that a bowyer can come up with evolutionary improvement to you the customer on a Gregorian calander event.
every year the catalogue demands a change.... 

Some bowyers deliver a change when its a tangable difference. That never seems to happen on a catalogue date, it happens when it happens.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Thank you Mac.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> Sure seems like it. ..
> 
> Now...since folks are picking on Chad again. ..I'll say this to anyone..including Sid..
> 
> ...


its more than FPS. but that's a different topic.

I also don't have a issue with Chads strings. having seen one in person, yes, the work is top notch. 

I also didn't say custom was limited to Border.
I was addressing KPC's point that life is all about value for money in his eyes. Value for money is about more than just the bow. (WHO EVER delivers that service)


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> Thanks for trying to keep this thread on track.
> 
> ILF does have its limitiations... That limb pad angle means you cant have these ideas implemented.
> 
> ...


Your welcome.

I otherwords it's not like lifting a 40lb weight vertically straight off the floor, but still progressivly, with a layout at the in.
Can shooter's feel this "layout" without the need of a clicker?
DD


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Mac, the conversation was never about who made quality and who didn't. All mentioned I think can be said are top quality.

The proposed notion was that bow builders should/could/would strive to get more performance for less money as the future of bow designs - IOW, strive and design to give the customers more but charge less. Seems an honorable notion, but if so, the market for other archery items should equally fit that "value" goal too.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Your welcome.
> 
> I otherwords it's not like lifting a 40lb weight vertically straight off the floor, but still progressivly, with a layout at the in.
> Can shooter's feel this "layout" without the need of a clicker?
> DD


can you feel a difference between a longbow and a recurve?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> Thanks for trying to keep this thread on track.
> 
> ILF does have its limitiations... That limb pad angle means you cant have these ideas implemented.


Is the limb pad angle limited by the connection device, or is it a spec of the ILF system? IOW, can you use ILF connections but change the limb pad angle?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Borderbows said:


> I think its fake to think that a bowyer can come up with evolutionary improvement to you the customer on a Gregorian calander event.
> every year the catalogue demands a change....
> 
> Some bowyers deliver a change when its a tangible difference. That never seems to happen on a catalogue date, it happens when it happens.


Didn't mean that it implied to everyone. Meant market in general.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mac. as I posted before.
________________________________________
User name Rabid Hamster:
... round the boss at 90m?

I've had my Hex5's a week now. I've got the tillering sorted and the brace height and I've put up some nice groups and scores at 70, 50 and 30m but I was kinda avoiding the real reason I bought the things ...... 90m.

Since the shoulder surgery in 09, I cant reach 90m on the poundage I shoot. The Hex5's were best hope I had to get the cast speed to fling an arrow all the way down the field. So today was the day to try. I left it to the end of this mornings shooting so as not to disrupt anyone ... but eventually I had to take to the line and give it a whirl.

Stu was dispatched down to spot. Scopes and monoculars were trained on the boss and I was prodded up onto the line. It was with a certain resignation that I cranked the sight all the way into the riser and the pin all the way to the bottom. The best I'd managed on my old SF limbs was into the grass at the base of the boss.

Nock arrow, grip string, set hand on riser, raise, draw, anchor, aim & draw .... aim and draw ... aim and draw <click> ... release! 

The arrow flew straight and true down the field ... about 50' off the ground and I lost track of it in the background. ... Silence ... All eyes turned to Stu, who with a true masterly of suspense paused before shouting "OVER!"

OVER???? ***! I have to move my sight up? 

I gave the sight a full turn and the next arrow was 11 o'clock blue, the next 12 o'clock red. 3 more into the boss and then I collected. Returning to the line (more rapidly than normal) I fiddled with the sight. Got a mark I liked the look of and returned to the line. 6 arrows and a rapid scamper down the range and I had a 10,9,9,7,6,6. WooHoo!

So now that the Happy Dancing round the boss is over. How many FITA's are left before the end of the year? I've got more medals to chase! 
______________________________________________________________________________________________

This means that this guy can compete again, compete in a way that's serious to him... If he wasn't able to compete by way of missing out on the 90 meter shots completely archery wasn't a complete sport for him.
This isn't a small change of mind for this guy. Infact it keeps archer a keen sport for him.

being able to choose some kit that keeps your sport alive is worth bucket loads to some people...


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Is the limb pad angle limited by the connection device, or is it a spec of the ILF system? IOW, can you use ILF connections but change the limb pad angle?


ILF is more than just the connection system... Its a interopterability assumption.
you cant have a ILF system that simple doesn't perform or even work on a ILF compatable product.

if you see what I mean.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Didn't mean that it implied to everyone. Meant market in general.


yeah, that's cool, I thought there was two meanings.

text based communication is very limited...


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

I was going to be done with this Sid, but I thought I should comment on the following.



Borderbows said:


> I was addressing KPC's point that life is all about value for money in his eyes.


I never said, nor did I ever imply that *"life is all about value for money."* You made that up.

While at it's core, it's probably true for *everyone* that lives in a currency based society, it's just not something that I have ever said.

The only difference is what we place "value" on.

KPC


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Maybe a dumb question but how about ergonomics? As we age and our youth indestructibility catches up to us with sore wrists, elbows and shoulders. Is there design improvements to facilitate better ergonomics over speed and power or could you still have it all?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> can you feel a difference between a longbow and a recurve?


I guess I meant to say is this layout adjustable.
DD


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Borderbows said:


> Mac. as I posted before.
> ________________________________________
> User name Rabid Hamster:
> ... round the boss at 90m?
> ...


No offense. ..but what exactly does this have to do with a newbie? 

This person sounds to me as a individual well versed to the sport 

I'm fully aware of folks needing something more than what they have had..especially after an injury. .but ..in this case...while for this individual its great he can continue. .has no connection to being new to the sport as what you put forth. .

Mac


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

:jeez: :happy1: :beer:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Arron said:


> Maybe a dumb question but how about ergonomics? As we age and our youth indestructibility catches up to us with sore wrists, elbows and shoulders. Is there design improvements to facilitate better ergonomics over speed and power or could you still have it all?


My theory is that a limb with too much stiffness comes back to bite you in the wrist and elbow if you're not careful. Torque has to go somewhere.
Also avoid shooting Hill style bows too 😀


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Sanford said:


> Mac, the conversation was never about who made quality and who didn't. All mentioned I think can be said are top quality.
> 
> The proposed notion was that bow builders should/could/would strive to get more performance for less money as the future of bow designs - IOW, strive and design to give the customers more but charge less. Seems an honorable notion, but if so, the market for other archery items should equally fit that "value" goal too.


I'm not suggesting bowyers charge less for more..that's just silly..

What I'm saying is. .more and more people have less and less disposable income. .and if these bowyers only want to cater to the rich..then they will not be selling new to the larger section of folks. .

Yes..I know cutting edge is vital. .and without it..no advancement of the industry happens. .but..If a company only chooses to cater to those individuals who are top shooters..or those who are well off..then they are missing out and other companies will profit more. 

I look at the market and see little difference in terms of usability. .craftsmanship. .speed. .in many of the top of the line bows..and I am not in the minority here....

So..what is value. .besides perception. .when 1 cost almost up to 100% more than another? 

Are we trying to decide where Traditional bows are headed..or just a single top teir bow..and what they can do to gain a larger market share? 

We choose what we buy by our own needs wants and desires...and for the majority of folks what they can afford. 

I would love to have a new Border bow..it would be very nice. .but like many here....my hard earned money will be spent elsewhere. .I can not justify the extra cost. ..for what I am getting...and what my budget can handle....I have nothing against any who can. .or the company. ..but..I am sure the fan boys hate when people look at this from this position. .not theirs...and I am seeing this here..

Mac .


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Mac, I would ask, then. By what mechanism or design, any, does a bowyer make a bow more accessible to this bigger market other than reduce his price on existing bows? 

The only mechanism I suggested was lower labor costs, cheaper materials, or cheaper production process. That's not a new direction, though. 

See, folks have offered up the suggested heading for Trad bows, make better bows more accessible, but no one has said how this is supposed to take place.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Hi everyone

Way I see it......and I mean all of my comments going forward in a polite, friendly way........ is that this thread besides the silly back and forth stuff has been very informative.

For those of you that thought that Sid started this thread to promote his Bows, and by the way if I were him I would do the exact same thing  you have all just helped this thread at the time of this writing hit over 20 pages and almost 7000 views 

So if that's not getting some buzz I don't know what is  

As for my prediction of where bows are going

You are all right 

Certainly value line limbs for the hunger games generation and people realizing just how decent inexpensive limbs can be will keep growing 

Companies like Trad Tech will keep supplying the shooter on a budget and the very elite 

Look at their product line 

They sell fantastic value limbs and in many people's opinion including myself one of the best production classic recurve limb out there in the BF Extreme 

They also just recently released the mid priced Black Max Carbon Extreme to satisfy that part of the market 

If you take the rest of there limbs in the Black Max line you see they are wisely covering their bases 

The Giants Hoyt , Samick, WW will keep pushing technology and it will trickle down to the base line models 

Sid needs to keep doing exactly what he is doing 

That is Niche marketing and he is doing a good job, making a fine product 

They also make different levels of limbs so they are covering their bases as well 

At the end of the day there is enough for everyone 

And competition is good for advancements in the sport 

Archery is rapidly growing and every segment of the sport will also continue to grow 

We are getting the largest surge of new archers that I have ever seen right now 

Its wonderful ........ Advancements will come because of it. 

When sales are up.......R&D is up 

Oh I almost forgot the part of the market that is the beautiful high end bows like Blacktail , Schafer and Border again. They are all back logged 

Just like the genius behind LAS that has set them apart in the industry Border has also set themselves a part 

I for one am very excited about what I am seeing in the industry and welcome all of it 

Btw what would should SiD do......not market his product ? Not push in the direction that he feels is the best for them and their Company ?

Boy the world would be awful boring if we looked at everything we are passionate about and thought that 

There is a lot of good information here and it shows how diverse the market is


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

JParanee said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> Way I see it......and I mean all of my comments going forward in a polite, friendly way........ is that this thread besides the silly back and forth stuff has been very informative.
> 
> ...




:thumbs_up And somebody will always raise the bar. There's no doubt that there WILL be a better mousetrap in the future.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Well said mr. JP.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> I'm not suggesting bowyers charge less for more..that's just silly..
> 
> What I'm saying is. .more and more people have less and less disposable income. .and if these bowyers only want to cater to the rich..then they will not be selling new to the larger section of folks. .
> 
> ...


Have you actually looked at a Border pricelist lately? They really aren't more then any other high-end bow, except that you get a lot more then just some pretty veneers.
Their risers are priced inline with any wooden ILF made in the US, and they have a lot more engineering going on. Their CVS or Hex5 limbs are less than TT BF Extremes.
In my mind I can't think of any other custom bowyer and a great many mass-produced bows that can match Border for value.

The reason we are shooting scaled-down Oly geometry is because every Trad ILF riser out there is just trickle-down engineering. Unless somebody does some designing then we will be stuck with basically what we've got right now. I for one want to see how far we can take a barebow.

-Grant


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Grant..

Ive seen their prices...how much to have a plain bd-17 and hex 6 or 5 shipped here?

Add in any custom woods..horn...shipping cost..then how much. .?

Mac


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

The amount that people spend on a "hobby" is not necessarily in line with their overall financial status.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

MGF said:


> The amount that people spend on a "hobby" is not necessarily in line with their overall financial status.


True. .but many do...especially when they have 2 kids in college......:wink:

Mac


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

a bd 17 with hex5 wood core as standard is $980 with the CX riser and shipping is 65 dillars.
thats shedua and bubinga. other timbers are an extra 65 dollars


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Borderbows said:


> ILF is more than just the connection system... Its a interopterability assumption.
> you cant have a ILF system that simple doesn't perform or even work on a ILF compatable product.
> 
> if you see what I mean.


The reason I spent the extra money for the ILF was not for the quick disconnect or poundage adjustment options, but rather for the tiller adjustment. I think tiller adjustments is overlooked for finger shooters.
DD


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

When I got my first ILF rig, I sure was glad I could back it off just a little bit. And it still had a good amount of throw in adjustment, back off, remaining.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

One of the design features I really like about the BD series is the thin ridge at the bottom of the handle section of the grip. One of the next bows I build will get this design feature (in MY case for bend and to promote a throat grip), as well as some bend in the throat and some bend (hopefully ts stable) in the sight window area. Not a lot just some.

If one were to accurately measure OLY riser state through the draw cycle...I would GUESS that you would probably be able to record a little riser bend?


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Oh yea...Blackjack!!


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

I was checking out this thread last Sunday- didn't look at anything on Archery Talk all week- checked it out tonight Fri and the same people are still fighting with each other -don't any of you have jobs or families or A LIFE-


----------



## Pixel (Sep 19, 2019)

Tough question. Interestingly enough I know barebow is growing in popularity and inclusion among our collegiate competitions. So I would say with the expansion of the colleigate and youth programs we will see a increase in inclusion for barebow among bigger competitions


----------

