# "Better" Stabilizers



## pherrley (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm going to assume you are talking about long stabs ~30". I'd say the differences between stiffness should be broke down into: between shots, pre-shot and post shot.

Pre-shot:
You're only going to see a difference in aiming if the less stiff stab is causing vibration while aiming. Otherwise, they are pretty much equal.

Post-shot
A stiffer stab should increase "forgiveness". Less flex, will have a higher moment of inertia, and therefore help with inconsistent bow hand position.

Between shot
In my experience, a stiffer stab can be a more comfortable to rest the bow on while still holding the bow in your hand with the stab end on the floor / ground. 

So, to the question. Will it increase your accuracy? If you have an inconstant bow hand, yes. If it helps you rest your shoulder between shots, maybe. I think its one of those things that is hard to measure, but [a stiffer stab] definitely not going to make you worse.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Well, you've already bought. So try the long stab by it's self. Shoot with it. Add some weight. If it starts bouncing....it's not stiff enough. And then how long is it? Many not so stiff long stabs can be cut to stiffen them. Like a 30" cut to 28 or even 26". 

I have a older Cartel 30" and it does great so long as I don't go over 4 ounces on the end. Matched it up with a 10" Stinger back bar with 6 ounces and shot great in 3D all year long - worst finish in club and state sanctioned events was a 4th place at a State ASA Qualifier.


----------



## DeerCook (Jan 23, 2006)

Yes, I was speaking of the 30" area. I have purchased some, but I guess the question is will "Better", "Higher Quality" stabs react more favorable at the shot?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

90% of what you are paying for is the name. I'd trust a small company who will tell you what actually goes into them over a large one that just claims performance. Ultimately it's just a tube with some fittings.

Grant


----------



## DeerCook (Jan 23, 2006)

grantmac said:


> 90% of what you are paying for is the name. I'd trust a small company who will tell you what actually goes into them over a large one that just claims performance. Ultimately it's just a tube with some fittings.
> 
> Grant


What do ya like? I am thinking about the Dead Center Rods, but I just wonder if there is really any advantage over the Shadow Stabs, because they really are tubes with some end fittings. (don't get me wrong, I think they are great stabs and priced right, and they look great)


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

No they are not "just tubes" with end fittings. My 30" Cartel will only handle so much end weight and surpassing such it bends and it bounces. My 30" Bee Stinger Competitor will handle 3 times more end weight. Friend of mine has the Bee Stinger Premier Plus and it's far stiffer.....

3 or 4 years the shop got in 3 new Cartel long stabs. Those pieces of junk liked to give me whip lash, they bounced that bad. Bob cut his to 24" and I sent the other 2 back to Lancaster....

Want to talk with some one, PM EPLC here. He makes stabilizers.....


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

I think the profit margin on stabilizers may be among the largest in the archery industry.

I primarily shoot the same Easton ACE rods (Carbon over Aluminum) that I've had for 25 years, but I don't see any difference when swapping the long front bar with an expensive new Dead Center, or cheap $40 SF Axiom. There are several different types of carbon tube (Pultruded, Extruded, Wrapped, Woven, etc) that might make a difference in the total weight/stiffness ratio as well as how the rod reacts after the shot, but IMO you're 100% safe to use whatever stabs fit your budget and ascetic preferences. 

Coincidentally, I was just getting ready to order a new set of Shadows for my HyperEdge just because the Shadows are inexpensive enough to justify having a different set for each bow rather than constantly swapping them, but last night at the range my buddy (a toolmaker) handed me some Stainless ferrules he made in his spare time and some of the nice looking woven carbon tube. I just need to pick up some epoxy and put them together today.


----------



## pherrley (Jan 24, 2015)

SonnyThomas said:


> No they are not "just tubes" with end fittings. My 30" Cartel will only handle so much end weight and surpassing such it bends and it bounces. My 30" Bee Stinger Competitor will handle 3 times more end weight. Friend of mine has the Bee Stinger Premier Plus and it's far stiffer.....
> 
> 3 or 4 years the shop got in 3 new Cartel long stabs. Those pieces of junk liked to give me whip lash, they bounced that bad. Bob cut his to 24" and I sent the other 2 back to Lancaster....


Sonny is right. They are not all the same. Just like arrows, stabs come in different stiffness's, unfortunately, there isn't a standard by which manufacturers measure and spec stabilizers. I also had the same experience as Sonny. I bought the cheapest stabs I could find for my first set; I had to have a vib-mount in between the weights and the stab to keep the stab from vibrating post shot or if I happened to come into the back wall of my bow a little too fast. 

Yes, if you buy from a big name like Bee Stinger, a big part of the cost is going to pay for their marketing efforts. So you would pay more for the "name", than if you bought from a small manufacturer. If you can find someone that is shooting ~16oz on a 30" Shadow without issues, then you could consider them stiff. If you're not going to put very much weight (~4oz) on the end of the stab, you could probably get away with a less stiff stab. 

My suggestion is, if you're on a budget, get Shadow and hope it meets your needs. If you have money to burn, get a high end, big name stab that is "proven" to be stiff.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

SonnyThomas said:


> No they are not "just tubes" with end fittings..


Actually, they pretty much are. The tubes just have different levels of flexibility, but they're just tubes. 

Your main consideration is that they be stiff enough to control the end weight in all axes, or they'll tend to store energy rather than resist rotation. 

The stiffer your rod, the more weight options you have and the harder it is on your attaching gear. Mine tends to sort out insubstantial mounts. 

When the Bee Stinger guys first started up in late 2009, they were making claims of having the worlds stiffest stabilisers on a few forums around the world. 
In January 2010, I asked how they were measuring this stiffness and eventually they stated that they were hanging 40lb on a stabiliser between 16 inch supports. 

I couldn't find 40lb, so I hung a 20 and two 5kg plates on mine for 66.13lbs in the middle of a 16 inch span. 










I couldn't actually measure any bend. 

So I stepped it up a bit and gave it the full span and put 40kg or 88lb's hanging off the middle. Keep in mind that this is a 37.4 inch stabiliser, but the contact points on the bench are about 34.5 inches apart. 

It sagged 9mm which is .35"









I can actually do the same thing and sit on it. I am 196 pounds. It bends about an inch or so. 

Nobody I know of sells a stabiliser that comes anywhere near this stiffness. I designed this one and had the carbon tube filament mandrel wound in Sydney and the end fittings made locally. 

It is just a tube with fittings. However, the tube supports a bass guitar G string under tension the entire length. 

The guy who made the end fittings for this one is a master machinist (and previous junior compound world champion) and made the conversion fittings for turning a manfrotto monopod into an extendable laser tracked stabiliser. It can change length and shift the center of mass of the bow without changing the weight. It's actually fun to shoot totally extended and almost 5 foot long. 
It feels quite unusual and everyone who has tried it has said that they'd shoot it if it wasn't wildly impractical. 

But it's just a tube with end fittings.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

SonnyThomas said:


> No they are not "just tubes" with end fittings.





whiz-Oz said:


> Actually, they pretty much are. The tubes just have different levels of flexibility, but they're just tubes.
> 
> .


You know, this pretty stupid. You saying they are pretty much are (just tubes) and then giving the same as what I noted though describing it different and showing pictures.


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

*I agree, it's just a tube...*



DeerCook said:


> Here is the simple question, do better "higher ended" stabilizers help with accuracy?


For me, no. 
I started out with used ones and new ones that fit my budget. My training and improvements through 
coaching in fundamental shooting from and skills has provided me the ability to quickly dial in a set of 
stabs that the bow and I want to shoot more accurately. Now I shoot ones that aren't round because it's windy
here and will eventually get round ones again.



> For instance, I have gotten more serious about getting better at indoor spots and purchased a Shadow Stabilizer set from here on AT, would purchasing something like Higher end Doinkers, Bee Stinger, or Dead Center bars actually help with overall accuracy?


In general, no. But, knowing that you spent significant money on them could lead you to practice or train
more and get better and then make the statement that "high end" bars improved your shooting. 

I'm in agreement with the statement that it's just a tube. The longest, lightest, stiffest tube the shooter 
chooses will allow the least amount mass at the end to do most (inertial) work for the shooter.

this is a gear thread and should be moved to the appropriate sub-forum.


----------



## DeerCook (Jan 23, 2006)

Rick! said:


> For me, no.
> I started out with used ones and new ones that fit my budget. My training and improvements through
> coaching in fundamental shooting from and skills has provided me the ability to quickly dial in a set of
> stabs that the bow and I want to shoot more accurately. Now I shoot ones that aren't round because it's windy
> ...



Thank you everybody for your replies, it's appreciated. 

Rick, my question wasn't really about the "gear" part of the stabs, it is more directed toward improving accuracy of my spots shooting. It's cool to learn about stiffness etc. but I really am just concerned about what if anything they can do for accuracy.

Spending money on equipment isn't an issue, I just don't wanna waste it on things that wont help. I literally have no problem spending $500 on a new set of stabs because they look cool, I just want to know there not gonna help me shoot any better.


----------



## thawk (Mar 11, 2003)

Yes, to some stabilizers will increase your accuracy. I'm not giving you first hand experience but rather repeating what couple top pros in their classes have told me.
Woman's pro paige pearce gore, has been telling me for a couple years I need to try Bernie's control freak stabilizers. Yes she is sponsored by Bernie but does not get paid by him neither up front money or contingency money. She says they helped her out quite a bit as they are very light and allow less weight to produce the same results.
She convinced senior pro Alan Ruddock to give them a try and I asked him what he thought at redding this year, he told me the same thing. He defiantly felt they helped him, Alan likes a light bow and the stabilizers being half the weight of others allowed more end weight for the same overall weight.
Keep in mind we are talking about a lady and a senior so mass weight might be more noticeable to them then a, in shape 30 year old man.
For me, all the different brands I have used have had roughly the same GPI and I cant say one has aimed better then the other with the exception of length.


----------



## duc (Jul 18, 2009)

Why do people think one brand of tube with end fittings hold "better" than another bran of tube with end fittings? There is no magic to a stabilizer. As Andy says, they are just a tube with end fittings.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

duc said:


> Why do people think one brand of tube with end fittings hold "better" than another bran of tube with end fittings? There is no magic to a stabilizer. As Andy says, they are just a tube with end fittings.


It isn't just brand. If you believe one "tube" is just a tube then one arrow shaft is just a arrow shaft and you shouldn't have any trouble with .600 spine arrow shaft 30" long.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Unless we're talking about EXTREMELY flexible stabilizers, the arrow is long GONE before the spine of the stabilizer could have any influence over the shot, so it may be that one stab "feels" better than another, but as far as having any influence on where the arrow hits, not so much.


----------



## Longlost (Jan 26, 2015)

whiz-Oz said:


> Actually, they pretty much are. The tubes just have different levels of flexibility, but they're just tubes.
> View attachment 4394282
> 
> 
> ...


Thing is stabilisers aren't loaded with force halfway along there length. Hold one end in a vice and see how much weight you can put on the other end.

Basic round tubular stabs are pretty much the same. What varies is stiffness and weight. Those are critical so better quality, more expensive ones will be stiffer and add less overall mass to the bow.

Not all are just tubes however. Stabs are stressed with decreasing force along there length, from the bow end where most of the stress is applied, to the weight end, that has the least leverage working on it and stressed the least. A continuous round tube must be strong enough, and therefore heavy enough to withstand the stress at the bow end but strength further along the stab, becomes increasingly redundant. That means a tube can be twice as heavy as it needs to be. A stab that tapers along its length, achieves a much better ratio of stiffness and weight.

This is why I have a Fuse Carbon X Taper:wink:


----------



## duc (Jul 18, 2009)

SonnyThomas said:


> It isn't just brand. If you believe one "tube" is just a tube then one arrow shaft is just a arrow shaft and you shouldn't have any trouble with .600 spine arrow shaft 30" long.


An arrow is dynamic Sonny, LOTS of forces are applied to it. A stabilizer bar is static, it does NOTHING except hold a bit of weight. There is so much rubbish talked about them you would think they where a magic wand or could cure cancer. They are essentially a stick with a weight on the end. Nothing magical about this. Hype is what sells one over another. It's like saying Coke is a healthy drink because it contains water. 
The only true magical device in archery is a mirror. I look at it every now and then all it shows me what I'm doing wrong.


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

DeerCook said:


> Thank you everybody for your replies, it's appreciated.
> 
> Rick, my question wasn't really about the "gear" part of the stabs, it is more directed toward improving accuracy of my spots shooting. It's cool to learn about stiffness etc. but I really am just concerned about what if anything they can do for accuracy.


Fair enough. If you add a bunch more information as to what type of shooting you do, what stabs/lengths you have used, what class you shoot, and what class are you moving to the responses will be more along the lines you are expecting. Being this is the I-A forum, I assumed you have shot long stabs or stab sets before, my bad. 

In our club and state org, BHFS Open guys shoot 2-4 less X's than FS Open guys. So, at that level, long stabs with lenses combine to add 2-4 X's per five spot round. For Senior classes, the difference between BHFS and FS are up to 13-15 X's per round as we can't see crap without a lens and a 12" stab with 18oz on it is does not feel or respond to shooter inputs the same as a 30" stab with 7 or 8 oz on it. (rear stabs are typically the same on each setup for me)


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

SonnyThomas said:


> You know, this pretty stupid. You saying they are pretty much are (just tubes) and then giving the same as what I noted though describing it different and showing pictures.


So why are you saying that they're not "just tubes" if now you've decided that they are?


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

thawk said:


> Yes, to some stabilizers will increase your accuracy.


If you've got a brand that you like and someone you respect likes, you're almost guaranteed to think that you shoot better with it on. 
Note that most new equipment makes you shoot better because of "the three day effect" but nobody actually puts a different stabiliser on and instantly shoots better. 

They will find a balance point and speed of float and hold that they find is optimum for them at that time. The stiffness of their stabiliser selection will determine how much weight they can use effectively and their strength and endurance will determine for how many shots they can hold it at optimum steadiness for. 

However, archers aren't capable of evaluating performance changes unless they're using statistical evaluation methods. 
Archers who don't know about how cognitive bias works swear blind that they can. 

Professionals like scientists, statisticians and data analysts knows that archers can't. 

This is why the top archers in the world like Mike Schloesser and Brady Ellison actually statistically analyse their training arrows and their coaches plot their competition ones. 

So unless someone actually can show you data where gear or technique made a statistically proven performance increase, you can safely ignore their opinion as having no factual basis. 

The best archers test opinions that lesser archers accept. 

Note: This kind of information always gets the people who have no ability to verify information very upset. Particularly on forums without scientists, engineers or analysits.


----------



## duc (Jul 18, 2009)

whiz-Oz said:


> If you've got a brand that you like and someone you respect likes, you're almost guaranteed to think that you shoot better with it on.
> Note that most new equipment makes you shoot better because of "the three day effect" but nobody actually puts a different stabiliser on and instantly shoots better.
> 
> They will find a balance point and speed of float and hold that they find is optimum for them at that time. The stiffness of their stabiliser selection will determine how much weight they can use effectively and their strength and endurance will determine for how many shots they can hold it at optimum steadiness for.
> ...


So if I buy a complete new rig every 2 months, one month before the effect wears of then after about the third or fourth time around then I'll be an awesome shooter. An expensive way of doing it but think of all the time I save learning and training. Thanks for the heads up Andy. And all of these years I've been doing it wrong.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

No worries Rob. 
Some people do actually try this kind of thing. 
"Increased performance through superior spending power" If you're at the stage of learning to shoot that most people go through until they peak at the point where their practice level no longer yields improvements, it seems totally legit. 
After that, the difference is little, but the delusion can be convincing. We all experience it.


----------



## duc (Jul 18, 2009)

Was taking the p!$$ Andrew. I know what's involved in trying to becoming good shooter and its not buying new stabilizers or releases.
As I side note Andy my litte Audi got me into trouble for 3 months not so long ago so all shooting has stopped for me. And I just joined the club and started training hard again.


----------



## thawk (Mar 11, 2003)

I was just relaying what they both said, others said the same thing but to be quit honest their shooting is not good enough to tell. Paige and Alan are good enough. I also said someone with no injuries and a fair amount of strength might never feel a difference, but for a lady and a senior shooter taking 2-3 oz off the rod might help. They feel it did.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

duc said:


> An arrow is dynamic Sonny, LOTS of forces are applied to it. A stabilizer bar is static, it does NOTHING except hold a bit of weight. There is so much rubbish talked about them you would think they where a magic wand or could cure cancer. They are essentially a stick with a weight on the end. Nothing magical about this. Hype is what sells one over another. It's like saying Coke is a healthy drink because it contains water.
> The only true magical device in archery is a mirror. I look at it every now and then all it shows me what I'm doing wrong.


I've gave instances of stabilizers, those weak, those good, but limited to weight and those good that can handle large amounts of weight. When you have a stabilizer that bounces, comes close to shaking the bow out of your hand, then these so-called "tubes" aren't just tubes.....

George Ryals, aka Griv;
Good, well made, stabilizer setups most effectively raise your MOI. Your stabilizer needs to be as light as air and it needs to separate the most of its mass as far away from the bow as possible. The stabilizer also has to be rigid with almost no flex. Limber rods allow the bow to move through the flexible range of the rod before the mass of your stabilizer weights can have their greatest effect on rotation. There are many rods out there that are pretty stiff. The best way to check your rig is to just grab the rod in each hand and give it a bend. If you feel flex at all, it’s likely that your rod is allowing minor modifications to your aim after the release opens. Those shots that you feel are less than perfect end up just outside the line. The forgiveness that an ultra stiff rod can afford can keep those “just out hits” - “Just in”.


----------



## trumankayak (Dec 28, 2011)

i will say this :
i just cut down a limbsaver 34 inch target stablizer. inside was the thickest inside diameter carbon ive ever seen. its also probably the stiffest front bar ive ever used. definitely a bar people overlook as they are pricey.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## duc (Jul 18, 2009)

I find my positively ancient x-10 stabilizer and side rods have not been improved on. Stiffness to weight is amazing.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Longlost said:


> Thing is stabilisers aren't loaded with force halfway along there length. Hold one end in a vice and see how much weight you can put on the other end.


The thing is, stiffness is a property that can be measured in a number of ways. And if you know anything about linearity of forces, it doesn't take much to extrapolate how much force can hang off the end of this stick with minimal bend. It distorted the screw in mount we tried to make for it when I hung 5kg (11 lb) off the end. Light weight rods make zip amount of difference when you are loading up heavy in terms of Center of Mass. 

You can measure these things. 


What you can't measure and must assume is true is that a flexible rod is doing you so much harm that a stiff rod will sort out. 

And just when you think that someone tells you some amazing fact, someone else will point out that incredible scores have been shot with wobbly Beiter Centralisers. So it all comes back to being a good archer. 

It's a bit pointless holding onto a belief that you're going to be shooting two points better with your new stabiliser, but you can't break 600 for a 50/720. 

If this is a real intermediate archer forum, you'd be best adopting professional archer attitudes rather than promoting the beginners search for the magic bow or piece of kit.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

I've made stabilizers for a while now and have experimented with different stiffness's, wall thickness, etc. You may find differences in feel but there is always a weight price to pay when going stiffer. With a lighter bar you can get the same effect with less weight over the length of the bar. A bar only needs to be stiff enough to be stable while aiming. Most mid-range bars will accomplish this with no issues. Since last August I've been dealing with a shoulder issue which has required me to shoot as light as possible for mass weight. This required that I make a set of the lightest stabilizers possible and still do the job. They aim just fine. That said; there's nothing wrong with the more rigid bars if that's what makes your boat float. Keep in mind that every archer's makeup is different and what feels good to one may not for another. Finding the correct stabilization is a difficult task for most as they do not have the luxury of having a collection of bars to try out.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Good one, EPLC. I asked early here that you be contacted....

Yes, it's difficult to get the chance to try different stabilizers. We most speak of what we had. Me, my old Cartel gets the job done so long as I don't over weight the end, 4, maybe 5 ounces tops. I had the stabilizer to be had, a Doinker Fatty Supreme, and it turned my bow upside down without any weights on it. My Bee Stingers seems very nice whether weighted light or heavy.


----------



## thawk (Mar 11, 2003)

Are there any slow motion videos out there that show a stabilzer flexing with the shot in relation to the arrow leaving the bow? 
I have a hard time believing that any stabilzer regardless of stiffness or weight attached affecting accuracy due to the rod flexing during the shot. I think the arrow would be long gone before the stabilzer will move.


----------



## JF from VA (Dec 5, 2002)

Beiter has a series of slow motion videos featuring their Centralizer stabilizers: http://www.wernerbeiter.com/en/informations/videoclips.php


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

thawk said:


> Are there any slow motion videos out there that show a stabilzer flexing with the shot in relation to the arrow leaving the bow?
> I have a hard time believing that any stabilzer regardless of stiffness or weight attached affecting accuracy due to the rod flexing during the shot. I think the arrow would be long gone before the stabilzer will move.


World Archery records in 4K now and they often replay slowmo while the arrows are being retrieved during the matches. Here's a few. 






I think they pretty much show (including the Beiter vid above) that there isn't very much going on with the bow, or the stabilizer until the string goes taught as the string and nock disengage, so I agree that within reason, the "differences" between stabilizer bars of similar length have little, (if anything), to do with accuracy.


----------



## thawk (Mar 11, 2003)

Judging by that video it looks like there might be some accuracy from a stiffer rod. It's hard to tell but it looks like the stabilzer starts to flex just as the arrow passes the rest. Is it something any of us could see? I doubt it, but it can't prove it either way.

Thanks for the videos


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

SonnyThomas said:


> George Ryals, aka Griv;
> Good, well made, stabilizer setups most effectively raise your MOI. Your stabilizer needs to be as light as air and it needs to separate the most of its mass as far away from the bow as possible. The stabilizer also has to be rigid with almost no flex. *Limber rods allow the bow to move through the flexible range of the rod before the mass of your stabilizer weights can have their greatest effect on rotation*. There are many rods out there that are pretty stiff. The best way to check your rig is to just grab the rod in each hand and give it a bend.* If you feel flex at all, it’s likely that your rod is allowing minor modifications to your aim after the release opens. *Those shots that you feel are less than perfect end up just outside the line. The forgiveness that an ultra stiff rod can afford can keep those “just out hits” - “Just in”.


Again. You know, I don't anyone in here that knows as much as Griv..........


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Sonny I don't think anyone is arguing that a well made, stiff and light stab isn't a good thing. What we are saying is that buying a brand based on its prestige isn't necessarily getting you something better than a less well know but equally well built, or even DIY product.
There is no magic in that tube and fittings which makes it hold better.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

nestly said:


> I think they pretty much show (including the Beiter vid above) that there isn't very much going on with the bow, or the stabilizer until the string goes taught as the string and nock disengage, so I agree that within reason, the "differences" between stabilizer bars of similar length have little, (if anything), to do with accuracy.


The problem is that a lot of people here have immediately assumed that any movement after the shot is a terribly bad thing. They even will quote opinions which they don't understand, from people with names you're going to recognise, in order to appear to understand what actually goes on when a bow is shot. 

The single golden rule of accuracy is consistency in all things. 

If a bow moves consistently after the release, it's still going to be accurate. A stabiliser isn't going to magically change consistency from shot to shot. 

Archers move their sights to where the arrow ends up. 

It does help to have an understanding of the basics. It does make a lot of claims people make a little bit easier to dismiss as wishful thinking.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

I have built very flexible stabilizers. The biggest problem with them is that when you come to anchor you then have to wait until the oscillations stop.

I have a 32" shadow stabilizer and I have not found it to have any problems. I have 8 ounces of weight on the tip. The stabilizer is not flexing or oscillating when I hit my anchor. I have a hard time believing that the difference in the shadow stabilizer and the best stabilizer in the world be less that 1/8" at 20 yards or maybe no difference in accuracy. 

If you are a fantastic shooter then get sponsored and shoot the most expensive equipment made.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

grantmac said:


> Sonny I don't think anyone is arguing that a well made, stiff and light stab isn't a good thing. What we are saying is that buying a brand based on its prestige isn't necessarily getting you something better than a less well know but equally well built, or even DIY product.
> There is no magic in that tube and fittings which makes it hold better.


For my own information, last evening I bolted 4 different long stabilizers with no weights on them to a rigid fixture the same way they'd be screwed into a riser, then I zeroed a dial indicator on the end of them before adding 12oz to each. They all flexed/drooped when the weight was added but the "stiffest" deflected only about 1/16" less than the "weakest" Not surprisingly, the Easton A/C/E rod was the stiffest conventional stabilizer and the cheap Axiom was the weakest, but honestly if someone tried to flex them in their hands while blindfolded, I doubt they could have identified the "stiffest" from the "weakest". The stiffest of the group was not a conventional stabilizer, it was an older Specialty Super Stick that uses 4 thin carbon rods, and it's the only one that I never liked... lol


----------



## Longlost (Jan 26, 2015)

whiz-Oz said:


> The thing is, stiffness is a property that can be measured in a number of ways. And if you know anything about linearity of forces, it doesn't take much to extrapolate how much force can hang off the end of this stick with minimal bend.


Why not just measure it the right way? the way it will be used? 



whiz-Oz said:


> you'd be best adopting professional archer attitudes rather than promoting the beginners search for the magic bow or piece of kit.


I'm just saying why I bought the stabiliser I did. Nothing to do with magic, the design makes sense and that is pleasing and adds to my confidence.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

I just wanted to mention that you can get some tungsten carbide weights that are denser than gold and use them for stabilizer weights. I think the cost will be around $300 for a nice set of weights. That is a great deal when compared to the cost of gold. I went with lead flashing which is not quite as dense but costs a lot less.


----------



## Longlost (Jan 26, 2015)

jim p said:


> I just wanted to mention that you can get some tungsten carbide weights that are denser than gold and use them for stabilizer weights. I think the cost will be around $300 for a nice set of weights. That is a great deal when compared to the cost of gold. I went with lead flashing which is not quite as dense but costs a lot less.


what benefit is there over a normal steel weight?


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Longlost said:


> what benefit is there over a normal steel weight?


I do the technical drawings and weight calculations for a local guy that makes stabilizers and weights. Materials denser than steel/stainless steel have a minimal benefit as a percentage of the overall size of the stabilizer profile, while significantly increasing cost. Tungsten and brass were among the alternative materials he considered and dismissed as impractical.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## Longlost (Jan 26, 2015)

nestly said:


> I do the technical drawings and weight calculations for a local guy that makes stabilizers and weights. Materials denser than steel/stainless steel have a minimal benefit as a percentage of the overall size of the stabilizer profile, while significantly increasing cost. Tungsten and brass were among the alternative materials he considered and dismissed as impractical.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


Its no brainer - I'm surprised your guy wasted his time evaluating Tungsten for stab weights. I just want to hear why jim p is such a fan. Maybe he knows something we don't.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Longlost said:


> Its no brainer - I'm surprised your guy wasted his time evaluating Tungsten for stab weights. I just want to hear why jim p is such a fan. Maybe he knows something we don't.


Actually he was approached by the staff of a well known JOAD program who were looking for a way to reduce the length of the back bars for their young archers without reducing the effectiveness of the back bar. 

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

nestly said:


> Actually he was approached by the staff of a well known JOAD program who were looking for a way to reduce the length of the back bars for their young archers without reducing the effectiveness of the back bar.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


How much weight are those juniors running?


----------



## Longlost (Jan 26, 2015)

nestly said:


> Actually he was approached by the staff of a well known JOAD program who were looking for a way to reduce the length of the back bars for their young archers without reducing the effectiveness of the back bar.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


Was it too obvious to stay with stainless but increase diameter?


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

grantmac said:


> How much weight are those juniors running?


I didn't ask. They only said that shorter back bars would help alleviate a problem some of the young archers were having with long back bars, so they were looking for a way to shorten them without changing the balance.




Longlost said:


> Was it too obvious to stay with stainless but increase diameter?


No, we did present that option and explained the 4:1 weight to diameter ratio. AFAIK, they haven't followed up on it after the initial meeting... I assume they came to the same conclusion I have, the length reduction for denser (or larger diameter) weights is fairly minimal.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

Tungsten carbide weights are magic pixie dust just like the very expensive stabilizers. The advantage is that you get to pay more money and feel good that you have the most expensive equipment that you can buy.

But theoretically the tungsten carbide weights allow you to have a greater moment of inertia with a shorter length of total stabilizer. I think that I remember that the density of tungsten carbide is about 1.7 times the density of gold. What is another $300 when you are wanting to be the world champion?

Oh another advantage will be the great decrease in wind load.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Plus tungsten is VERY shiney.

My 1.5" diameter weights are about 8oz per linear inch. They don't get long until you are running waaaaaaay more than a junior needs.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

jim p said:


> I think that I remember that the density of tungsten carbide is about 1.7 times the density of gold.


Negative, Tungsten is slightly less dense than gold, Tungsten/Carbide is less dense yet.



jim p said:


> Oh another advantage will be the great decrease in wind load.


"great decrease?" A typical 5/8 Dia x 30 inch stab is going to have about a 19 square inch profile, and 16 ounces of Stainless Steel weights have a profile of about 4 square inches, for a total of 23 square inches for a conventional rod and SS weights. 16 oz of Tungsten carbide on the same long rod would reduce that to 22 square inches. Using a 29" rod instead of a 30 is a bigger benefit with regard to wind than using tungsten vs steel weights. For reference, a typical target sight bar has a profile that's greater than 4x larger than the difference between steel and tungsten weights, and a 23/64 arrow shaft has a side profile between 10 and 12 square inches depending on length. Oh, and then there's the side profile of the bow, the bow arm, and in fact the whole person holding the bow. Yeah, it's at the end of a stabilizer, but the difference between the surface area of long rod with SS vs Tungsten weights is about only about 4% difference on the stabilizer, and less than 1/1000th of the surface profile that the archer and bow present to the wind.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

grantmac said:


> Plus tungsten is VERY shiney.
> 
> My 1.5" diameter weights are about 8oz per linear inch. They don't get long until you are running waaaaaaay more than a junior needs.


I didn't get the impression that the weight stack length is what presented the problem. I believe they were hoping to be able to use shorter back bars with more weight, but not huge stacks. As I said, after they were made aware of the actual differences, they have apparently decided not to pursue it.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

My mistake. You are correct. Gold is a tiny bit more dense. Both gold and tungsten carbide is denser than steel. So you could use gold if you can afford it.

Disc are used on some stabilizers so that you can get the maximum moment of inertia with the shortest length of stabilizer. These are popular in hunter class where the total length of the stabilizer is limited to 12" or so.



nestly said:


> Negative, Tungsten is slightly less dense than gold, Tungsten/Carbide is less dense yet.
> 
> 
> 
> "great decrease?" A typical 5/8 Dia x 30 inch stab is going to have about a 19 square inch profile, and 16 ounces of Stainless Steel weights have a profile of about 4 square inches, for a total of 23 square inches for a conventional rod and SS weights. 16 oz of Tungsten carbide on the same long rod would reduce that to 22 square inches. Using a 29" rod instead of a 30 is a bigger benefit with regard to wind than using tungsten vs steel weights. For reference, a typical target sight bar has a profile that's greater than 4x larger than the difference between steel and tungsten weights, and a 23/64 arrow shaft has a side profile between 10 and 12 square inches depending on length. Oh, and then there's the side profile of the bow, the bow arm, and in fact the whole person holding the bow. Yeah, it's at the end of a stabilizer, but the difference between the surface area of long rod with SS vs Tungsten weights is about only about 4% difference on the stabilizer, and less than 1/1000th of the surface profile that the archer and bow present to the wind.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

SonnyThomas said:


> Again. You know, I don't anyone in here that knows as much as Griv..........


What you're actually saying is "I really hope that nobody in here contradicts what George has said, because there is no way of proving one way or another, and I don't understand it well enough to do it myself."

This is quite shakey ground.

When you're talking absolutes that logically should be correct, based on someone else's opinion, you'd better hope like hell that nobody questions it. 

Real actual science with stabilisers is done with statistical analysis. Opinions are done with bluff and supposed truth. 

Stabilisers are done largely with bluff. 

But if you fix a tiny laser to a stabiliser and track the motion of the dot with a calibrated distance using motion tracking software, you can get actual results and values of acceleration, time, distance and values overall that can be compared. 

I know how well archers can tell the difference in hold.
It's the same as humans can for most things of this nature. It's why we have speedos in our cars and instruments in planes.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> What you're actually saying is "I really hope that nobody in here contradicts what George has said, because there is no way of proving one way or another, and I don't understand it well enough to do it myself."
> 
> This is quite shakey ground.
> 
> ...


Well, Griv is as human as any other man. He, with others, gives note to all bows aren't the same as with people aren't the same. So I don't have to hope for no one questioning him... Watched another video the other day. The speaker, a shooter, was giving claim of 1 to 3 ratio for weights on front and back stabilizers. Stopping the video I got to count the weights on his front stab and back bar. 11 ounces on the front and 14 on the back is not a 1 to 3 ratio. So I figure he was blowing off or more to giving the correct when his set up was not. I particularly liked the accident fire at the last and he followed through as if nothing was wrong...


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

1:3 would depend on lengths of forward and aft stabilisers. 
More correctly called moment arms. 

So much of archer is rule of thumb that anyone who actually quotes a rule without specifically statingn that, deserves all the negative feedback that they get.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

Do you have any laser analysis of how different stabilizers work. I am interested in this. It seems that this would be a great selling point for manufacturers.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Jim, if a video were to be made I'd like to see a laser mounted on the bow and the stabilizer. Probably one of the, not finest, but amazing videos was of Chance B. holding his bow on target with a laser mounted. And it does look like one noted; "someone would have to push Chance to make the laser move off the target (bull's eye). 
In the nut shell, relaxed bow hand, relaxed person and one can hold on target with probably different stabilizers.

Hey, you have to be tough minded to set up and weight stabilizers. I don't think you can do it in one day. You might like it to start and then find something needs a adjusted, changed angle, move, remove or add weights. You don't shoot to start. 15/20 yards. You try holding on target. Can you relax? Can you focus? How's the bow feel? Does the pin drift low? Does the bubble stay in the center? Does the bubble stay in the center and the bow still feeling like it's tilting? At the shot can you see the pin somewhat staying on target? How does the bow react at the shot? Start all over at a longer distance. 
All done, check bow for tune.....


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

jim p said:


> Do you have any laser analysis of how different stabilizers work. I am interested in this. It seems that this would be a great selling point for manufacturers.


What I find incredibly interesting is that you assume that the stabiliser would make the difference on someone's ability to hold it steady.

If manufacturers were able to sell you a stick that you were able to hold steadier, don't you reckon that they might have already done that?

OR, 

Do you think that it might be likely that it would show no difference entirely, so can't be used to show anything that is easily proven to people looking for a magic stick?

Humans are incapable of accurately assessing statistical information. 

That's why so many baseballers wear titanium necklaces that do nothing but make them think that they are better in some fashion. 
This level of scientific assessment is totally applicable in archery as well. Start using the scientific method in archery and all of a sudden, people who are able to put arrows more regularly in the middle are shown to know no more about what actually works than the average person who can't. 

Stabilisers are tubes with fittings and the tubes vary in stiffness. People can tell when stabilisers are too flexible because of the way that they feel. Once they get to the point that they can't tell, there is no science yet, which proves that this automatically translates to higher scores. 

Because it is a logical assumption, people are happy to proclaim it. 
They can do that because that they know full well that there is no way of proving it without a lot of investigation and that archers who think that something is better will improve in two ways. 
They'll think that they're doing better and find evidence to support it because they look for it and expect to find it. 
They'll feel better about their shooting, so for a while, they'll actually shoot better. 

The placebo effect works in sports too. 
It's important that you buy a stabiliser, bow and arrows that your peers agree with, but it's most important that you buy what you think will make you better.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

Have you ever heard of pilot induced oscillation?

I have built very flexible stabilizers and these stabilizer greatly affect your shooting ability. You come to anchor and then have to wait 10 seconds or so before the movement stops.

No magic stick is going to make you hit all x's but I can guarantee that I can make a stabilizer that will make it more difficult for you to hit an x. So if I can make a stabilizer that makes shooting more difficult then maybe someone can make a stabilizer that makes hitting an x easier.

It seems to me that a very stiff and light stabilizer which oscillated at a very high frequency and low amplitude and responded to the archers input would be all that an archer could ask for.

So again if you have any info on laser testing which shows the oscillation patterns of stabilizers I would like to see them.

Golf clubs are now using FLO Flat Line Oscillation on some of their highest quality clubs.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

The example of a very flexible stabilizer is valid but the frequency that the bow oscillates while being aimed is pretty slow, so above a certain point, additional stiffness isn't going to provide additional steadiness/dampening.

If you mount a rigid long bar to a very rigid fixture and give it a twang, it will also vibrate quite noticeably for well past 10 seconds before it settles out, but if you mount it to a handheld bow and give it a twang, it will settle "immediately".


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

jim p said:


> Have you ever heard of pilot induced oscillation?




Yes. Aviation and aerodynamics is my professional background. Have you ever heard of hysteresis and aeroelasticity?





jim p said:


> I have built very flexible stabilizers and these stabilizer greatly affect your shooting ability. You come to anchor and then have to wait 10 seconds or so before the movement stops.
> 
> No magic stick is going to make you hit all x's but I can guarantee that I can make a stabilizer that will make it more difficult for you to hit an x. So if I can make a stabilizer that makes shooting more difficult then maybe someone can make a stabilizer that makes hitting an x easier.




Yes. They're already here. They hold greater mass rigidly so that someone with the training to resist the effects of fatigue and utilise the properties of greater mass dampening can do so. 

It comes back to the archer. 



jim p said:


> It seems to me that a very stiff and light stabilizer which oscillated at a very high frequency and low amplitude and responded to the archers input would be all that an archer could ask for.
> 
> So again if you have any info on laser testing which shows the oscillation patterns of stabilizers I would like to see them.
> 
> Golf clubs are now using FLO Flat Line Oscillation on some of their highest quality clubs.




Yes. Golf is a much bigger market than archery and they too, try to extoll the virtues of equipment, rather than obtaining a higher skill level. 

When your target audience isn't actually very smart, you need to find a way of differentiating your products. 
There's not much you can do with a club, so you bring in some technology that incorporates lasers to impress the plebs. 

This implies that something is better, without the ability to actually prove it and you can say this, safe in the knowledge that it will be virtually impossible that it's better, however it would require intensive double blind investigation which will prove that it is identical to other products. 

The oscillation patterns of stabilisers are totally irrelevant. 

The oscillation pattern of the archer is what I have measured. 
I have compared that to what they think is better or worse. 

They comprehensively can't tell until things get incredibly bad. 

So trying to make a "better stabiliser" than the stiff sticks that are already out there is largely just making people happy that they've spent their money.


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

whiz-Oz said:


> Yes. Aviation and aerodynamics is my professional background. Have you ever heard of hysteresis and aeroelasticity?


Yes and Yes, theoretical or experimental? 



> Yes. Golf is a much bigger market than archery and they too, try to extoll the virtues of equipment, rather than obtaining a higher skill level.


True, every time I buy a new set of irons, I ask myself; "Will I be $1000 better after buying these?" My answer is usually, "No", and I get the $750 set.


How's the OP doing with his stabs? Heard nothing but crickets for a while.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Practical examples of aeroelasticity aren't generally funny. Mass dampening of flight control surfaces requires a certain degree of control to stop actually contributing flutter. 

This same positioning of the center of mass in relation to the support is a useful thing to consider when you're balancing a bow. You can have a flexible stabiliser which can have no dampening ability within it's range of supportable weight or you can have lots of intertial dampening and you can try compensating positions of balance, neutral or antagonistic balance points. 

People have opinions about what they like and that's where the actual assessment ends. 

But they're typically not depending on falling out of the sky if bad things happen.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Rick! said:


> How's the OP doing with his stabs? Heard nothing but crickets for a while.


Usually the case here, the OP not replying... 

The thing is, for most it seems one never needs long stabilizers and back bars until they've used them....


----------



## Laars (Apr 26, 2015)

SonnyThomas said:


> Jim, if a video were to be made I'd like to see a laser mounted on the bow and the stabilizer. Probably one of the, not finest, but amazing videos was of Chance B. holding his bow on target with a laser mounted. And it does look like one noted; "someone would have to push Chance to make the laser move off the target (bull's eye).
> In the nut shell, relaxed bow hand, relaxed person and one can hold on target with probably different stabilizers.
> 
> Hey, you have to be tough minded to set up and weight stabilizers. I don't think you can do it in one day. You might like it to start and then find something needs a adjusted, changed angle, move, remove or add weights. You don't shoot to start. 15/20 yards. You try holding on target. Can you relax? Can you focus? How's the bow feel? Does the pin drift low? Does the bubble stay in the center? Does the bubble stay in the center and the bow still feeling like it's tilting? At the shot can you see the pin somewhat staying on target? How does the bow react at the shot? Start all over at a longer distance.
> All done, check bow for tune.....


Here is Chance with a lazer, and he is not as steady as you would think. Go to 7.10 of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbI6z_OdLE


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

On Dial Up and would take forever and my computer will not play youtube. And 10 times forever with Firefox.


----------



## Laars (Apr 26, 2015)

SonnyThomas said:


> On Dial Up and would take forever and my computer will not play youtube. And 10 times forever with Firefox.


What's dial up? Sounds like something from the early 60s..............Just messing with you. 

It shows Chance moving all around the 5 ring on a five spot. Even goes outside it on occasion. The best shooter at my range shot 300 w /55 X or better 7 weeks in a row in our league and he has quite a bit of float as well. Not everyone is rock steady.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Laars said:


> What's dial up? Sounds like something from the early 60s..............Just messing with you.
> 
> It shows Chance moving all around the 5 ring on a five spot. Even goes outside it on occasion. The best shooter at my range shot 300 w /55 X or better 7 weeks in a row in our league and he has quite a bit of float as well. Not everyone is rock steady.


Dial Up is better during the night and smoke signals better during the day. And then, we're hoping we get a grant so we can replace the pipe line that carries sun light to us....Too far out in the country for DSL and too far down (220 feet) for Wireless and satellite is just too expensive....


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Laars said:


> Here is Chance with a lazer, and he is not as steady as you would think.


I believe and have often stated that "Pro's" don't hold as steady as most think they do, and that many here on AT overstate their ability to hold steady, but I'm 100% certain that Chance holds a bow much steadier than he was holding that draw simulator/laser device in the video, which weighs only a fraction of what his actual target bow weighs.


----------



## Laars (Apr 26, 2015)

nestly said:


> I believe and have often stated that "Pro's" don't hold as steady as most think they do, and that many here on AT overstate their ability to hold steady, but I'm 100% certain that Chance holds a bow much steadier than he was holding that draw simulator/laser device in the video, which weighs only a fraction of what his actual target bow weighs.


Chance does shoot a very heavy bow. He has 6 oz on the front and 24 oz on the back bar. Bow junky did a video from behind the pros showing how much float they each have. https://youtu.be/8Ls7xv3_0Uc some have quite a bit of movement. It seems they all move at least a little.


----------



## jim p (Oct 29, 2003)

I agree with whiz oz. I know that I can't tell the difference between a $300 stabilizer and a $50 stabilizer.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

jim p said:


> I agree with whiz oz. I know that I can't tell the difference between a $300 stabilizer and a $50 stabilizer.


This is you, Jim. Said back in this thread was most of us can't afford a stable full of stabilizers to try. Until you do have the chance to try a multitude of stabilizers you won't know what you like and don't like. And isn't just the stabilizer, it's having the stabilizer weighted for the stabilizer and also having the stabilizer weighted correctly for both you and the bow.
Another part of stabilizers is getting use to them or getting use to the being used, whether weighted correctly or not.

Again, I had a new Doinker Fatty Supreme, 30 or 31". So freaking heavy it turned my bow upside down with no weights on it. Worst piece of junk I ever bought. 

Picture; Not shown is the MarXman with just the 30" Cartel (just got to shoot once before the end of 3D season in 2012, took 2nd place). With Cartel and Bernie's fully weighted dampeners (placed and won). With Cartel and 10" Stinger and 6 ounces (2014, worst finish all year was a 4th at a ASA State Qualifier - 3rd in State Championship in Super Senior - shot with bruised bow shoulder). Full set of Bee Stingers 30" front, two 12" back bars (used once at the start of this year, said was I had a outstanding score, 288/300 - club doesn't keep scores).


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

I have my own theories on stabilizers that I'd like to share with you. First off, the riser of the bow is the greatest "stabilizer" a person will be dealing with. So, with that being said, let's move on to what a stabilizer should be, in my mind. It should be light. As light as can be. So, that's what I look for first. Then I look for thinness. Indoors, this doesn't matter. Outdoors, a little bit. Your body will be more affected by wind, and the riser of your bow is a greater sail, than any stabilizer will be. So, with those first two things considered, can it support 3-5 ounces and not bounce before the shot? Most can. So...light as can be...thin as is possible...able to take a little bit of weight and not bounce around until after the shot.

The rest is voodoo to me. I think it makes more sense to have the lightest bar possible so that the weight is really doing its job where it is set. If you have a heavy bar you're distributing the weight all along the bar and the weight is having less of an impact. 

So...those are my theories. They work for me and perhaps no one else. But...if you're paying for a super stiff rod that can hold your body weight and happens to be heavier and thicker than mine...good on you. I'll take the lightest, thinnest one I can get. I've shot some of the premium rods mentioned in this thread and I keep going back to an old 30" Shrewd bar not made anymore. It has none of the rigidity of some of the rods mentioned. But I don't need 12 ounces out front. Just 3. 

Anyway, had to chime in. I see so much voodoo in stabilizers. How is it that guys in the 1970s and 80s managed to shoot incredible scores with such deficient and non-patented equipment? Makes one think...if only just briefly.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Cause they were good. Since then more things have come about, including stabilizers, and vastly more information available. More people are shooting those incredible 900 scores. Of Terry Ragsdale time the Vegas face didn't have a X ring. Check the Vegas records. Before maybe 2 or 3 made the Shoot Off and now as high as 14 (that I know of) have made the Shoot Off. Many have shot a 900 on the Vegas face, but no one as of yet has shot 90 Xs.....


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

SonnyThomas said:


> Cause they were good. ..,.
> 
> More people are shooting those incredible 900 scores. Of Terry Ragsdale time the Vegas face didn't have a X ring. Check the Vegas records. Before maybe 2 or 3 made the Shoot Off and now as high as 14 (that I know of) have made the Shoot Off. Many have shot a 900 on the Vegas face.....


There were also no 27 dia arrows back then....and maybe not even any 25's for part of that era. There also weren't any 65/70/75/80% letoff bows, and Vegas attendance is much higher now than back then. Its futile to even compare them....there's too many conditions that are different

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

I'd just like to drive the point home that there are so many conditions that must be met before bow stabilization with long and short rods even matters. The physical and mental state of the archer. The spine of the arrows and their general condition, including vanes. The grip of the bow. The tiller of the bow. The weather conditions. The lighting of the area and how it affects the ability to see the target. The condition of the release mechanism, whether it be mechanical, or tab, or gloves. ...I think you get the point. Oh...the kind of shoes you're wearing. Certainly the color...

In my particular case, getting draw length right corrected many issues more than any stabilization system could ever do. I still see wobble when I'm shooting 80 yards. It doesn't prevent me from still getting a few of them in there.

I'm sorry for the soapbox, but I see too much smoke and mirrors when it comes to stabilization. Every case is different, but if you've seen some of the wonderful pictures that nuts&bolts featured in his articles on form, there is a lot of work that many archers could do to improve their line. Following from that would be an increase in scores, a growth of confidence, a desire to continue in the same vein and even study further...and then the rewards of the foundation that has been built.

Stabilization plays such a small part of this. Important? Absolutely. Should it be the primary consideration in shooting, or warrant outlandish fees to partake in? Up to you.

Should companies patent the concept of putting a weight on the end of a tube? It's the USA. So much to love...and yet, sometimes things are kinda silly. I guess, at the end of the day, if you think its good, then it probably is. And that's cool. We've all got to find our own way somehow.

But just to end on topic: In my opinion, one should look for the longest, lightest, stiffest, and cheapest stabilization one can reasonably expect to use. Don't expect miracles. Don't deny the possibility of miracles. Put in your time. There aren't as many shortcuts as we'd like in this sport. That's what makes it so special. It's not easy.


----------



## quickshot22 (Jul 8, 2016)

Not really. They all do the same thing in my opinion. people complain about vibration and flex. Doesn't really matter.


----------

