# Dampeners on barebow?



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

World Archery 54th Congress in Yankton bulletin, lots of good reading, but this in particular: 

Page 21:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldarcheryamericas.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F10%2FBoletin-WAA-Agosto-Septiembre-2021.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2zC6chtFfK0gujkdPoWxE7tgyScnH4Ps5wxBubixIRwjPilAWnZ4tlWO4&clen=3139888&chunk=true

"The Board passed a bylaw allowing the combination of vibration dampeners and weights in the barebow provided that they pass through a ring with an inside diameter of 12.2 cm without having to flex the dampeners to fit in. They can be used below and above the riser’s grip but must not aid the athlete in aiming or ranging in any way."


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

The old rule 11.4.62 "Weight(s) may be added to the lower part of the riser. All weights, regardless of shape, shall mount directly to the riser without rods, extensions, angular mounting connections or shock-absorbing devices." 
So the change is you can have a top weight and a damper between a weight and the riser. Hopefully the full rule will be released soon and will clarify whether multiple weights can also now be stacked and whether alternating weights and dampers are allowed. 

It's accompanied by 
"A bylaw specifying that sleeves and undershirts must match the predominant color of the archer / team’s shirt (and not necessarily the pants) was also passed by the board."
so no more of those white arm sleeves unless your team shirt is white, going to be fun for some teams with more niche colours.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> World Archery 54th Congress in Yankton bulletin, lots of good reading, but this in particular:
> 
> Page 21:
> 
> ...


'bout damn time.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I’m good with this. Anyone know what size, if any, Matthew’s dampeners would fit in the Gillo GT holes?


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

Wow, I've been complaining from day 1 of shooting BB about the seemingly arbitrary rules on dampers when you got things like the Gillo GT and GX risers running around that were legal and yet if I put a small damper with a weight on my bow its suddenly illegal.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

This appears to only be on WA Americas' site. It's nowhere to be found on the regular site, including the rules, interpretations, or executive committee sections.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

fango0000 said:


> Wow, I've been complaining from day 1 of shooting BB about the seemingly arbitrary rules on dampers when you got things like the Gillo GT and GX risers running around that were legal and yet if I put a small damper with a weight on my bow its suddenly illegal.


Agreed. And no weights above the grip. Just foolish. Just make it fit through the ring and be done with it. I'm good with that.


----------



## geocarr (Oct 14, 2013)

The industry will like that too because it gives them another accessory to sell. Win win for archers, manufacturers and pro shops. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> They can be used below and above the riser’s grip but must not aid the athlete in aiming or ranging in any way."


How would this be enforced, i.e., how would someone know if the archer is doing this?


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Arcus said:


> How would this be enforced, i.e., how would someone know if the archer is doing this?


Not visible from the rear of the bow would be my guess. Most normal diameter weights in the top bushing wouldn’t be an issue.
I think this is specifically to allow for the W&W riser.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> How would this be enforced, i.e., how would someone know if the archer is doing this?


Just like the string serving rule, they would have to show it's in the field of vision of the archer.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Just like the string serving rule, they would have to show it's in the field of vision of the archer.


I've tried a few weights on the top damper hole of a Xceed and GMX riser. It seems standard 1.25inch stack weights will spill over a tiny bit into the sight window at the very top. I wonder if judges are gonna throw a fit about that being an "aid." I'mma be pretty disgruntled if they claim that is an aiming aid.


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

fango0000 said:


> I've tried a few weights on the top damper hole of a Xceed and GMX riser. It seems standard 1.25inch stack weights will spill over a tiny bit into the sight window at the very top. I wonder if judges are gonna throw a fit about that being an "aid." I'mma be pretty disgruntled if they claim that is an aiming aid.


With a lightweight arrow, a riser on the short side, and split finger under chin anchor, some people end up with their sight pin covered by the sight window unless they use a long riser for recurve.
Weights come in different diameters and shapes which adjusts how much it shows at full draw, so someone could accidentally or on purpose have an adjustable aiming point that's attached to the bow, aka a basic sight.
Maybe in a few years barebow will include rules that an adjustable sighting point is allowed as long as it passes the 4" rule. 65 years ago the fita rules for recurves changed to allow sights in the first place, maybe the same will happen to barebows eventually.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

cerelestecerele said:


> With a lightweight arrow, a riser on the short side, and split finger under chin anchor, some people end up with their sight pin covered by the sight window unless they use a long riser for recurve.
> Weights come in different diameters and shapes which adjusts how much it shows at full draw, so someone could accidentally or on purpose have an adjustable aiming point that's attached to the bow, aka a basic sight.
> Maybe in a few years barebow will include rules that an adjustable sighting point is allowed as long as it passes the 4" rule. 65 years ago the fita rules for recurves changed to allow sights in the first place, maybe the same will happen to barebows eventually.


Don't be ridiculous. The use of a sight would defeat the entire purpose of the barebow class. Across all orgs and rulesets, "no sight" is the defining feature.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Adjustable sighting point? what are you talking about?


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

limbwalker said:


> Adjustable sighting point? what are you talking about?


If you have an weight that can be positioned eccentrically or isn't to begin with, and it sticks out, then you have some choice about where the edge of the weight is and can use it as an aiming point. 
The weight I use for barebow normally is a lead bar with a large washer in the long rod hole, which would be terribly impractical as a top weight, but the photos illustrate the idea.


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Don't be ridiculous. The use of a sight would defeat the entire purpose of the barebow class. Across all orgs and rulesets, "no sight" is the defining feature.


Indeed - hence not permitting weights to be visible behind the sight window, as they could become a useful sighting device.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

sigh. I guess there's always one...


----------



## psnguyen (Jun 15, 2018)

geocarr said:


> The industry will like that too because it gives them another accessory to sell. Win win for archers, manufacturers and pro shops.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Would you say it's a win win for Win & Win?


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

fango0000 said:


> I've tried a few weights on the top damper hole of a Xceed and GMX riser. It seems standard 1.25inch stack weights will spill over a tiny bit into the sight window at the very top. I wonder if judges are gonna throw a fit about that being an "aid." I'mma be pretty disgruntled if they claim that is an aiming aid.


I don't think this should be allowed. If they're visible when drawing the bow, they could be an aiming aid, especially at short distances. 


cerelestecerele said:


> If you have an weight that can be positioned eccentrically or isn't to begin with, and it sticks out, then you have some choice about where the edge of the weight is and can use it as an aiming point.
> The weight I use for barebow normally is a lead bar with a large washer in the long rod hole, which would be terribly impractical as a top weight, but the photos illustrate the idea.


This should not be allowed, and explicitly is not under the current rules or apparently approved new bylaws.


----------



## geocarr (Oct 14, 2013)

psnguyen said:


> Would you say it's a win win for Win & Win?


I see what you did there. Clever, very clever. And yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sky713 (Mar 3, 2020)

> This appears to only be on WA Americas' site. It's nowhere to be found on the regular site, including the rules, interpretations, or executive committee sections.


Any indication that this is actually a rule change? I've yet to see a second source, but this has big implications for barebow setups so you'd think there would be more of an announcement.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Wonder what I could get away with regarding the whole "aiming aids in the sight window" thing...


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

I had a bow with a 23” riser/xl limbs. If I put my ACEs in my box and shot 2213 xx75 without changing anything else, no clicker, no sight, no stabiliser - so effectively barebow but split finger - I could use the corner or the sight window to wrap the yellow and break 500 on an 18m (5doz) having not shot BB before (And with chronic where the hell is my clicker quasi-target-panic). Unquestionably it was an aiming point so I don‘t really see how a visible weight is any different (And less likely to be useful). Any archer could shoot a shorter riser and tweak arrow weight to work that way.

Wouldn’t work at any other distance of course…

I guess if you are stringwalking with arrow point aiming you could use a visible top weight to line up with something on the ceiling of the hall… 🧐 … no, not really.

Sigh, sometimes we have rules that are over implemented to avoid idiots trying to take advantage and sneak an advantage. And some judges are over zealous in application. Best way to sneak an advantage is to practice more.

Stretch


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stretch you're right. 

This idea that some kind of aiming "device" could be the magic someone needs to shoot 30 points higher is just silly. Scoring well with a barebow is not about aiming better. It's not a person's ability to aim better that makes them a better barebow archer.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Stretch you're right.
> 
> This idea that some kind of aiming "device" could be the magic someone needs to shoot 30 points higher is just silly. Scoring well with a barebow is not about aiming better. It's not a person's ability to aim better that makes them a better barebow archer.


In many (most?) televised archery events that feature a barebow competition, the commentators usually over-emphasize the importance of the lack of a sight, but the bigger factors are the lack of a clicker and a stabilizer. Maybe that's because the commentators are not barebow archers.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Arcus said:


> In many (most?) televised archery events that feature a barebow competition, the commentators usually over-emphasize the importance of the lack of a sight, but the bigger factors are the lack of a clicker and a stabilizer. Maybe that's because the commentators are not barebow archers.


The lack of a sight is the biggest factor differentiating the category. For experienced archers, lack of a clicker is probably the biggest difference/hardest thing to overcome if switching to barebow. Stabilization matters most outdoors, but I'd say it's the biggest visual difference and the smallest practical one. Not that it doesn't matter, but it matters less than the sight or clicker.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

FerrumVeritas said:


> The lack of a sight is the biggest factor differentiating the category. For experienced archers, lack of a clicker is probably the biggest difference/hardest thing to overcome if switching to barebow. Stabilization matters most outdoors, but I'd say it's the biggest visual difference and the smallest practical one. Not that it doesn't matter, but it matters less than the sight or clicker.


I still think that adding a clicker to a barebow has a bigger impact than adding a sight. Actually, barebow archers do have a sight, and it's called the arrow point.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> In many (most?) televised archery events that feature a barebow competition, the commentators usually over-emphasize the importance of the lack of a sight, but the bigger factors are the lack of a clicker and a stabilizer. Maybe that's because the commentators are not barebow archers.


You saved me more typing. I was going to say the same thing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Clicker, stabilizer, sight - in that order for the better barebow archers (the ones who would have any chance of winning with some sort of sight contraption anyway).


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Clicker, stabilizer, sight - in that order for the better barebow archers (the ones who would have any chance of winning with some sort of sight contraption anyway).


Most definitely that order, especially for shooters with tendencies of target panic, there the clicker can completely alleviate that issue. And removing draw length variations to a large degree automatically (e.g. due to creep or overdraw).

The arrow point is precise enough for aiming that you can stack arrows in the 10 all day if you were so good that you could execute the shots well enough (e.g. Erik Jonsson - https://worldarchery.sport/news/200033/erik-jonsson-completes-unbeaten-season-impressive-finale ) - The 7 low shots would possibly have yielded 6-7 more points if he had shot (and were used to) a clicker. Don't think stabiliser nor aiming played a big part there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The weights we are allowed aren't as good as a full stab. system, or even as good as the NFAA 12" stab., but they are good enough.


----------



## lameduck (Jul 24, 2019)

cerelestecerele said:


> Indeed - hence not permitting weights to be visible behind the sight window, as they could become a useful sighting device.


Is this the main reason why those weird attachments are only allowed below the grip of a BB riser?


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Arcus said:


> I still think that adding a clicker to a barebow has a bigger impact than adding a sight. Actually, barebow archers do have a sight, and it's called the arrow point.


That is what I said, actually


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

lameduck said:


> Is this the main reason why those weird attachments are only allowed below the grip of a BB riser?


The majority of equipment restrictions in barebow in any org are to prevent archers from having a sight, or something that could be used as a sight. It’s the defining feature of the category, even if it’s not the most important factor in competitive success.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> The weights we are allowed aren't as good as a full stab. system, or even as good as the NFAA 12" stab., but they are good enough.


But dampeners don’t make the bow more stable (I think we agree on this). They just reduce vibration. That doesn’t make the shot better, really. It just means you’re not tightening things back down as often.

I think all of the people opposing this work for Loctite.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

When I first read the thread title I tho't the OP was talking about the rubber stick on limb dampeners. Those I assume are legal and they do dampen the vibration, if that is a big concern.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Found on Facebook:





WorldArchery


Archery Content




extranet.worldarchery.sport


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

So, a weight mounted above the grip is now permitted. What should I expect to experience by doing this?


----------



## geocarr (Oct 14, 2013)

Arcus said:


> So, a weight mounted above the grip is now permitted. What should I expect to experience by doing this?


I’m kind of new to barebow but I was wondering that too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> So, a weight mounted above the grip is now permitted. What should I expect to experience by doing this?


Easy enough to try and find out for yourself.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Just tried a top weight, and for me, it helps make the bow feel more evenly balanced upon firing. The buzzing is much reduced. I'm also using Ramrods' tungsten powder weights on either end, for those who care to know.

I'm also using an ILF/non-barebow specific riser, so I bet that these olympic risers are meant to have weight up top: the sight. Adding that weight back into the equation gets the bow closer to shooting as it was designed to.

Adding the weights and dampers also helps reduce vibration, which may not be a concern for everyone, but for me, it helps on the wear and tear of the bow side elbow and shoulder.


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

geocarr said:


> The industry will like that too because it gives them another accessory to sell. Win win for archers, manufacturers and pro shops.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bingo!!


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

geocarr said:


> The industry will like that too because it gives them another accessory to sell. Win win for archers, manufacturers and pro shops.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah just sitting and watching the slow burn towards BB becoming OR lite...with some kind of sight and more stabs and more paraphernalia to hang on to limbs -- then the beginning of a new category BB trad and we begin again.. Barebow really isn't any more it has stuff hanging all over it...I wonder who the rule committees serve industry or archers... we already have OR- How about BB with no wts, no stabs just a bunch of archers pointing arrows and letting them fly...


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

woof156 said:


> Yeah just sitting and watching the slow burn towards BB becoming OR lite...with some kind of sight and more stabs and more paraphernalia to hang on to limbs -- then the beginning of a new category BB trad and we begin again.. Barebow really isn't any more it has stuff hanging all over it...I wonder who the rule committees serve industry or archers... we already have OR- How about BB with no wts, no stabs just a bunch of archers pointing arrows and letting them fly...


So the existing Instinctive category or the Trad category that is replacing it?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

woof156 said:


> Yeah just sitting and watching the slow burn towards BB becoming OR lite...with some kind of sight and more stabs and more paraphernalia to hang on to limbs -- then the beginning of a new category BB trad and we begin again.. Barebow really isn't any more it has stuff hanging all over it...I wonder who the rule committees serve industry or archers... we already have OR- How about BB with no wts, no stabs just a bunch of archers pointing arrows and letting them fly...


Oh for pete's sake already.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Easy enough to try and find out for yourself.


Have you tried it, yet? If so, what change did you notice?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> Have you tried it, yet? If so, what change did you notice?


I haven't had a reason to try it yet. Why rely on my opinion when it takes less than a minute to find out for yourself?


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> I haven't had a reason to try it yet.


Since you said "it's about damn time," regarding the rule change, I just figured you might have tried it.


limbwalker said:


> Why rely on my opinion when it takes less than a minute to find out for yourself?


Sheesh, I'm just curious what people are discovering with this. Whatever I find for myself doesn't mean others will experience the same thing.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)




----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> Since you said "it's about damn time," regarding the rule change, I just figured you might have tried it.
> 
> Sheesh, I'm just curious what people are discovering with this. Whatever I find for myself doesn't mean others will experience the same thing.


True, but it only really matters what you think when it comes to setting up your bow.

Yes, it's about damn time they just went with the "fit through this ring and go shoot" rule. That's what I meant by that. In a way, it actually gets to the topic that woof was complaining about although I'm not sure he sees that.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> True, but it only really matters what you think when it comes to setting up your bow.


I do intend to experiment with it. Unlike many people on this and other forums, I cannot shoot in my yard. So, I'll carve out some range time and slap on a weight above the grip and see what happens.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arcus said:


> I do intend to experiment with it. Unlike many people on this and other forums, I cannot shoot in my yard. So, I'll carve out some range time and slap on a weight above the grip and see what happens.


Be sure to report back once you do. And you don't need to shoot in your yard if you hang a block target in your closet.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

https://www.doinker.com/products/2-1oz-1-1-2-flex-doinker-5-16-24-m-f-thread ordered.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Says it is only for a 4oz weight. Something like this is likely better for most barebow weights. Kryptós Pro Adjustable Vibration Dampener - T.R.U.Ball®/AXCEL® (truball.com)


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

SBills said:


> Says it is only for a 4oz weight. Something like this is likely better for most barebow weights. Kryptós Pro Adjustable Vibration Dampener - T.R.U.Ball®/AXCEL® (truball.com)


Yikes, I think I'd just get the Gillo adjustable damper or Beiter VBox for 1/3 the price. You're not going to get a heavy weight on a damper to pass through the ring. A damper will be your secondary weight, with a few oz on it.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I've tried an old school Doinker with 1.25" steel stacks, and around 4 ounces, the ring doesn't pass on the Chaser riser (this is at the pocket). I think using those Shrewd plate weights (because they get wider and wider as they get heavier) may be the best bet for clearing the ring, with a damper. Alternatively, for those who are well-heelded, tungsten weights would work, as they are a lot smaller than steel weights.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

You’ve basically got about 4.5” including the riser, so you won’t be adding a ton of weight to the damper itself.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, it's about damn time they just went with the "fit through this ring and go shoot" rule. That's what I meant by that. In a way, it actually gets to the topic that woof was complaining about although I'm not sure he sees that.


BTW if a sight could fit thru the ring should that be allowed?? My point was why allow any of this stuff in the first place?? Why call it BB when it has stabs, dampeners, wts. etc. Suppliers love it, cause now people will put a bunch of this stuff on the bow- great for sales. That "stuff", without a doubt, makes it easier and more accurate to shoot that way but it is trending toward OR lite. They keep allowing rule changes allowing more stuff on the bow- where does it all end?? Maybe they should call the category BB+ or something to indicate it has a bunch of stuff stuck on it...sure isn't bare bow any more. Now a small laser sight that would be handy...


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

woof156 said:


> BTW if a sight could fit thru the ring should that be allowed?? My point was why allow any of this stuff in the first place?? Why call it BB when it has stabs, dampeners, wts. etc. Suppliers love it, cause now people will put a bunch of this stuff on the bow- great for sales. That "stuff", without a doubt, makes it easier and more accurate to shoot that way but it is trending toward OR lite. They keep allowing rule changes allowing more stuff on the bow- where does it all end?? Maybe they should call the category BB+ or something to indicate it has a bunch of stuff stuck on it...sure isn't bare bow any more. Now a small laser sight that would be handy...


Woof. Barebow has always allowed a rest and plunger, since it’s initial inception in 1969. IIRC weights were allowed around the same time as aluminum risers became popular. The placement of those weights was not regulated until roughly 20 years go, due to concerns of top weights being used as a sighting aid. Vibration dampening was always allowed if built into the riser (“Torque Flight Compensators”). Limb savers were allowed in order to reduce wear on limbs (or maybe because people shooting next to barebow wanted them to be quieter).

Acting like this is a big change that diverges rapidly from the intent of the division is absurd. You are nostalgic for something that you’ve imagined, perhaps based on your own misunderstanding of the category. Barebow is about shooting without a sight. That defines the category. Other aids like a clicker aren’t allowed because they would radically change the way the bow is shot. Vibration dampening does not.

It reduces injury, reduces wear on equipment, and makes features that were otherwise the purview of specially designed risers accessible to more people. This doesn’t hurt anyone. In fact, it makes the playing field more even (you don’t need a Gillo GT with hammer weights, for example). Now it doesn’t feel like some ideas are sneaking though a loophole while functionally identical ones are banned.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Woof. Barebow has always allowed a rest and plunger, since it’s initial inception in 1969. IIRC weights were allowed around the same time as aluminum risers became popular. The placement of those weights was not regulated until roughly 20 years go, due to concerns of top weights being used as a sighting aid. Vibration dampening was always allowed if built into the riser (“Torque Flight Compensators”). Limb savers were allowed in order to reduce wear on limbs (or maybe because people shooting next to barebow wanted them to be quieter).
> 
> Acting like this is a big change that diverges rapidly from the intent of the division is absurd. You are nostalgic for something that you’ve imagined, perhaps based on your own misunderstanding of the category. Barebow is about shooting without a sight. That defines the category. Other aids like a clicker aren’t allowed because they would radically change the way the bow is shot. Vibration dampening does not.
> 
> It reduces injury, reduces wear on equipment, and makes features that were otherwise the purview of specially designed risers accessible to more people. This doesn’t hurt anyone. In fact, it makes the playing field more even (you don’t need a Gillo GT with hammer weights, for example). Now it doesn’t feel like some ideas are sneaking though a loophole while functionally identical ones are banned.


that was a more patient response than I would have offered.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

Those hammers are still fugly...and don't seem anything barebow to me


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

woof156 said:


> BTW if a sight could fit thru the ring should that be allowed?? My point was why allow any of this stuff in the first place?? Why call it BB when it has stabs, dampeners, wts. etc. Suppliers love it, cause now people will put a bunch of this stuff on the bow- great for sales. That "stuff", without a doubt, makes it easier and more accurate to shoot that way but it is trending toward OR lite. They keep allowing rule changes allowing more stuff on the bow- where does it all end?? Maybe they should call the category BB+ or something to indicate it has a bunch of stuff stuck on it...sure isn't bare bow any more. Now a small laser sight that would be handy...


Do you shoot competitively in barebow recurve?


----------



## Greg r (Oct 18, 2021)

New to barebow and all the rules adding dampener of were and what size please also if anyone has a setup pic that maybe helpful as well thank


----------



## geocarr (Oct 14, 2013)

Greg r said:


> New to barebow and all the rules adding dampener of were and what size please also if anyone has a setup pic that maybe helpful as well thank


The limbs, riser and anything attached to the riser such as weights and dampeners have to be able to pass through a 12cm diameter ring. No sights or clickers. Nothing attached to the bow can be visible in the sight window that could in any way possibly be used as a sighting aid. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PNWMaker (Feb 7, 2019)

Talked to a judge today at a tournament to get his opinion, he's been a barebow shooter a long time and he thinks the change was mostly to make life easier on judges. Now nylon washers and leather wrist slings aren't up for debate as "Dampers". In his opinion, anything that fits through the ring is good to go, as long as any weight extensions don't articulate. But weight stacking, weights on short rods, even weights on the top mount are good. He doesn't think there's a viable way to aim with a top weight unless it's very wide and sticks very low into the window, so he isn't worried about people using normal 12oz weights to aim. He did warn me not all judges will know what they're talking about, but it was good to hear it from the judge I actually see at my tournaments.


----------



## styks n stryngs (Jan 6, 2015)

woof156 said:


> Yeah just sitting and watching the slow burn towards BB becoming OR lite...with some kind of sight and more stabs and more paraphernalia to hang on to limbs -- then the beginning of a new category BB trad and we begin again.. Barebow really isn't any more it has stuff hanging all over it...I wonder who the rule committees serve industry or archers... we already have OR- How about BB with no wts, no stabs just a bunch of archers pointing arrows and letting them fly...


If you can add a top weight to your riser and increase your score with that one change by a statistically significant amount I will eat my neon pink Flemish twist strings.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

PNWMaker said:


> .... He doesn't think there's a viable way to aim with a top weight unless it's very wide and sticks very low into the window, so he isn't worried about people using normal 12oz weights to aim. He did warn me not all judges will know what they're talking about, but it was good to hear it from the judge I actually see at my tournaments.


I have a hard time to understand why someone will go for a weight in the sight picture when you actually have the arrow tip as sight. Yes, some who shoot 80m can use it instead using the plunger or the shelf as aiming device, but vast majority of barebow shooters are 50m and below - and very few are out of string to get to 50m.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

If you shoot NFAA you still have to follow the old rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

styks n stryngs said:


> If you can add a top weight to your riser and increase your score with that one change by a statistically significant amount I will eat my neon pink Flemish twist strings.


Well, I can at least say that changing from a typical recurve riser A to a Barebow-optimized riser B with significant weight close to each limb pocket (where overall total weight was the same between the systems) and having identical arrows, plunger, grip, arrow reset and string configuration (and tuning with BS in group @ 18m) gave me 5 points on average for 30 arrows when comparing 1000 shots trailing. The change kept over time as well. I sold my riser type A (all 3 of them...) and got a couple of additional riser type B when I had that experience. Does that mean that adding a top weight to the type A riser would have given the same result? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out.


----------



## styks n stryngs (Jan 6, 2015)

liquidator4711 said:


> Well, I can at least say that changing from a typical recurve riser A to a Barebow-optimized riser B with significant weight close to each limb pocket (where overall total weight was the same between the systems) and having identical arrows, plunger, grip, arrow reset and string configuration (and tuning with BS in group @ 18m) gave me 5 points on average for 30 arrows when comparing 1000 shots trailing. The change kept over time as well. I sold my riser type A (all 3 of them...) and got a couple of additional riser type B when I had that experience. Does that mean that adding a top weight to the type A riser would have given the same result? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out.


Yeah, that's a pretty major change.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I think the big thing is that most risers aren't stiff enough to handle weights on the extreme ends (top and bottom bushings). You get a weird thumping vibration that is unpleasant. CD and Border have approached that solution different ways.

I'm of the opinion that most bows behave the best with a lot less weight than most barebow shooters add to the bow. But "behaving the best" (here meaning reacting optimally with minimum torque after a shot) and holding the best aren't the same thing. For indoors especially, the latter has a greater effect on score. 

Sid Ball had an interesting video about the effects of bottom heavy risers on extreme uphill and downhill shots. It got me thinking that barebow weight setups should probably be different for indoors (most bottom heavy, negative tiller, most forward?), outdoors (somewhat lighter, more neutral balance, more even tiller), and field (very neutral balance, less forward). It would take some trial and error to figure out though.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

FerrumVeritas said:


> It got me thinking that barebow weight setups should probably be different for indoors (most bottom heavy, negative tiller, most forward?), outdoors (somewhat lighter, more neutral balance, more even tiller), and field (very neutral balance, less forward). It would take some trial and error to figure out though.


To give you one data point, accidentally that is quite close to how my indoors and field setups end up in terms of weight and balance. The indoors have significant negative tiller (5-10mm usually after tuning), the field has zero tiller. Also run a compound-style grip on the field one, while using a more standard recurve grip on the indoors rig. The indoor is at 3.2kg while the field is 2.9-3.0kg.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Something like this in a 5/16x24 should work. https://www.amazon.com/Rubber-Absor...hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584345016376531&psc=1


----------

