# Long rods, extenders, and overall stabilization system length



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

Hi folks,

I've been shooting olympic style recurve for approximately 10 months now, after shooting a one piece wood recurve for about 5 years. Currently using a SF Forged+ 25" riser with Medium limbs at 36 pounds OTF, 28" draw. I mostly shoot NFAA 14 Hunter/14 Field rounds at my local club, with my personal best score being 425/560 on our high difficulty (lots of hills) course. I also shoot some 3D, and am hoping to get into 900 rounds and more next year.

I currently use a 29" Easton ACE stabilizer with 4.5oz up front (no v-bars).

I managed to get a good deal on a Doinker Avancee 24" long rod and am wondering if it's worth switching over. I know I can just add a bit more weight to get a similar balance. I also figure if it seems too short that I can always get a 5" extension to push it out to the 29" I'm used to, but would I even be better off than with what I've got now? Should I just resell the Avancee? Try to trade it for a 30" model?

Another concern is - if I add V-bars and an extender later, is there any disadvantage to having a 24" long rod + 5" extender? The normal recommendation for a starting point is a 28-30" long rod. But most people using v-bars seem to start with a 28-30" long rod, then add the extender on top of that. Does adding the v-bars require a longer long rod for proper balance? Why not keep the overall stabilization system length at ~30"? 

Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

the longer the stab, the less weight on the end to do the job. The shorter the rod, the more weight needed. The more weight our front, the harder to control. 

Personally i find the avancee to be a starter stab, not something you upgrade to. The damper end and weight has its limts and is not going to grow with you. The ACE stab i would stay with. It is a better stabilizer. 

Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't think there is an inherent disadvantage to using any particular length stabilizer. The purpose of the stabilizer is to stabilize the sight picture. I've tried lots of them and really, I don't think there is any one stabilizer which is clearly better than another. The Avancee is a fine stabilizer and will not hinder you in any way. You can pay up for the Estremo, or perhaps a Fuse, but I just have not discerned any real difference. I disagree with Chris' assessment of the Avancee being a starter. It is a quality long rod. You can set up any stabilizer system poorly, or well.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

For me I usually judge stabilizer length by the person's height (and their strength to some degree). Seeing that you have a 28inch draw I'm gonna guess you're probably 5'6 to 5'10 where I would say you should try to stick to 28 to 30inch stab. (I find the 30/12/12 with a 3in extender to always be a very solid place to be). As for as the rods go, I think the Avancee is a decent rod although not stiff enough for my taste although I do find them pretty good looking hahaha


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The purpose of the stabilizer is to stabilize the sight picture.


No.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> No.


Quite insightful. Thanks for your detailed input.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I disagree with Chris' assessment of the Avancee being a starter. It is a quality long rod.


the rubber damper in it is minimal and doesnt work well with added weights on the end. It only works well with the one aluminum weight it comes with. 

Try adding 3 steel weights on the end and see how well it dampens. It is limited with the end cap to attach weights and a larger/softer/stiffer rubber damper. 

How that isnt a starter entry level rod, i dont know. Even on the Doinker website, the Avancee line is next to the bottom line of stabs. First being Quadraflex, Elite, Fatty, Avancee and lastly Alumi-komp. And if its not a starter rod, who is shooting it at a USAT, collegiate or world cup tournament? 

The ACE stab he has is a better stab. 

Chris


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

chrstphr said:


> And if its not a starter rod, who is shooting it at a USAT, collegiate or world cup tournament?
> 
> The ACE stab he has is a better stab.
> 
> Chris


Im shooting Avancees! 

Also Michelle Gilbert shot Avancees at Collegiate Indoor Nationals.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Oh and some actual feedback. The stabilizer itself wont play too much of a difference. The length will. I would suggest to stick with the longer one, however it becomes something that depends on the individual archer. You need to get a feel for it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

than i stand corrected.


Chris


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Quite insightful. Thanks for your detailed input.


Anytime.


----------



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

Thanks for your opinions. Sounds like the Avancee might not work as well if I need to add more than the 4.5 oz I'm used to to compensate for the shortened length.


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

No advantage to the shorter doinker, I would stick with the ACE also


----------



## leschrader (Jun 26, 2012)

The stabilizer system on a bow is primarily used to "stabilize" the movement of the bow at the full draw/aim portion of the cycle. Each person has their own set of requirements based on the physiology of the individual. The objective is to achieve minimal "float" of the sight on the target. In doing this, the individual must find the combination of weights, lengths, moment arms, etc that works for them during the shot cycle. The secondary purpose of the stabs is vibration dampening, balance and follow through. The reason that these are secondary is that before any of these can have an effect, the arrow is already gone. In answer to your question, it's an experiment and you have to try different combinations to see how they effect the "float" on target. Don't give up or sell a set of stabs just because of the "name brand" or price level. The best stab I ever had for an old Tamerlane target bow was an old broken golf shaft that I made adapters and weights for.....better than a set of fancy Eastons I had bought for the bow. Not because it was better looking, gave better follow through or adsorbed all vibration......it was because it gave minimal float to my sight picture, reduced the effort to hold on target and gave me better scores.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

leschrader said:


> The stabilizer system on a bow is primarily used to "stabilize" the movement of the bow at the full draw/aim portion of the cycle. ......The secondary purpose of the stabs is vibration dampening, balance and follow through. The reason that these are secondary is that before any of these can have an effect, the arrow is already gone.


No.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

theminoritydude said:


> No.


Troll.
Provide your insight or STFU.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Compose yourself, ThomVis.


----------



## Neo888 (Feb 4, 2009)

As soon as you appear in a topic theminoritydude it gets me off from reading it further, shame, because there are so many good discussion around here.
Please do a favour for many readers here, and join the discussion in a manner that helps others, rather then just showing your arrogancy.

Thanks:
Attila


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Discussions are actually quite rare here. I don't know if you have noticed, most of the stuff here is about reinforcing deeply held beliefs.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

And a whole lot of personal attacks.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

Provide your insight on the topic at hand (stabilization) or if you have nothing to add, refrain from posting. Just adding "No" is not helpful, inspiring or necessary. And that's not attacking you personally, that's commenting on your posts.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I never said you were attacking me personally. You were merely calling me names. That's not really a personal attack. Kids do that all the time.

I sense that you were worked up, and I felt that you should calm down.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

ThomVis said:


> Just adding "No" is not helpful, inspiring or necessary.


I disagree. I think it is very helpful, and whether it is inspiring or necessary, is really dependent on the development of the thread, such as where we are at right now.

I said my piece. I disagree that the function of the stabilizers are as mentioned. I'm not inclined to shove my opinions upon others a, it would be a waste of time. A short and honest answer, if taken up, is usually followed by an expressed interest in finding out more, perhaps with a more detailed counter argument, or a set of deeper questions, to which we could all sit down together and try to answer.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Neo888 said:


> As soon as you appear in a topic theminoritydude it gets me off........ rather then just showing your arrogancy.
> 
> Thanks:
> Attila


Erm......


----------



## leschrader (Jun 26, 2012)

theminoritydude,
Enlighten us as to why you use stabilizers.......we would really like you to share your knowledge. If you not willing to share your knowledge or ask a question, then why are you here?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

For stabilizing the shot!


----------



## Neo888 (Feb 4, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> Erm......


If you quote somebody rather quote the full text or do not do at all.


----------



## leschrader (Jun 26, 2012)

theminoritydude,
"The shot" is composed of a sequence of events. Please explain the basic physics of "the shot" where stabilization has an effect and to what purpose. We are really interested to hear this.......


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The shot is an event distinct from the "aim". Stabilizers were not built for holding steady to help in aiming, at least that's not its primary purpose. If holding the bow steady for the aim was the main goal, then one would quickly find that whatever advantages that came with such an aid, is immediately diminished by the effort required to fight any crosswinds, defeating the purpose of engineering a high modulus carbon set of stabilizers.

There are other ways to stabilize the bow without using stabilizers. Properly calculated weights and poundages can reduce the effort required to keep a bow steady (at least in the vertical sense) which should be more than enough to produce a steady aim, without forking out a few hundred dollars to fix carbon rods to the riser. I believe one such riser is being heavily promoted here that falls into that category.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The shot refers specifically to the process from the moment of release, right up to when the nock disengages from the string.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The goal, is to configure the stabilizers such that any lateral error inputs by the bow arm (because the bow arm is physically connected to the bow, and to a much lesser degree, the drawing hand to the bow through the string) is reduced or eliminated right up to the distance of the target being engaged, leaving the archer with one less thing to worry about, so that he or she may concentrate on a good click and release. This is done through determining the balance point of the bow, with considerations made to the unique anatomy of the archer, the poundage used, and the mass weight of the arrow.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Neo888 said:


> If you quote somebody rather quote the full text or do not do at all.


There you go.


----------



## leschrader (Jun 26, 2012)

theminoritydude,
What effect do the stabilizers have in 1 to 2 milliseconds and 2 to 5 centimeters after the release. The time vs moment of inertia of the bow doesn't allow for a measurable effect on the arrow. High speed films prove this out. If there is movement before or during "the shot" by the archer, the momentum continues into "the shot" and causes the deviation we all have. This would lead to the conclusion that the stabilizer system is more beneficial to the archer's ability to hold steady leading up to "the shot" rather than to the bow system during "the shot". As to the long carbon stabilizers, physics states that a short heavy moment arm has the same effect as a long light moment arm and the physical limitations of archer's shoulders warrants lighter weight for the same effect. Granted, in a real world, wind does effect the entire system with movement/momentum before and during "the shot", but during competition, all archers are effected and is not really relevant to this discussion.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

leschrader said:


> theminoritydude,
> What effect do the stabilizers have in 1 to 2 milliseconds and 2 to 5 centimeters after the release. The time vs moment of inertia of the bow doesn't allow for a measurable effect on the arrow. High speed films prove this out. If there is movement before or during "the shot" by the archer, the momentum continues into "the shot" and causes the deviation we all have. This would lead to the conclusion that the stabilizer system is more beneficial to the archer's ability to hold steady leading up to "the shot" rather than to the bow system during "the shot". As to the long carbon stabilizers, physics states that a short heavy moment arm has the same effect as a long light moment arm and the physical limitations of archer's shoulders warrants lighter weight for the same effect. Granted, in a real world, wind does effect the entire system with movement/momentum before and during "the shot", but during competition, all archers are effected and is not really relevant to this discussion.


1) The moment of Inertia differs between bows, as a result of the physical differences between archers. There are certain bows with moment of intertia that are so high, that the shot reaction is much less sensitive to placement of the balance point of the bow. On the other end of the spectrum, there are other bows that could only depend partially on the moment of inertia for stability because the weights are so light and the arrows so heavy, the other part, is the intelligent and intentional utilisation of the balance point to create a counter effect caused by the lateral error. 

2) The high speed films you have mentioned, if you could show me a couple that show errors being deliberately factored in and completely eliminated by the MOI across the spectrum of archers, I would be very grateful. Because I haven't found any.

3)The momentum you have mentioned, the one that occurs before the release, is indeed reduced by the length of the stabilizers coupled with the weight at the end, but a distinction has to be made here; it is not an aiming issue, but a release issue.

4)You mentioned that the moment derived from a long arm with light mass, is equivalent to a short arm with a heavy mass, and yet within the same sentence, you suggest that to the shoulder, it makes a difference.

MOMENT = FORCE (mass weight) X ARM.

Do you see the contradiction you have just created?

5)Precisely because ALL ARCHERS are affected when they shoot at the same location and time, that one must question the overwhelming reasons for using a long rod which catches wind.


----------



## Neo888 (Feb 4, 2009)

theminoritydude said:


> There you go.


You see, you can perform if you want.
If you still want to reply, please go via pm and leave this off topic from here.


----------



## leschrader (Jun 26, 2012)

theminoritydude,
1. Good statement.......

2. The film was attached to the presentation of a Masters Theasus on the physics of a bow shot on a university's web site a few years back....I didn't bookmark it and I couldn't tell you where it's at, but the films on youtube "archers paradox" show the basic concept without measurements.

3. The momuntum that is induced is normally from the archer trying to hold on target or a mistake in bow arm form (or wind). That's the reason to adjust the stabilizer/bow balance to obtain minimal sight "float".

4. Light mass vs heavy mass.....I don't know about you, but my old bone don't like holding up more weight at the end of my arm, so a few ounces physical weight on a long rod vs over a pound on a short rod is equal per your formula and a lot easier on me.

5. So either you have long rods and fight the wind, when it's a factor, or grow stronger and get "bowling ball" shoulders.....i'm too old, I'll take the long rod. :wink:

There.....now wasn't this better than just "No". Everybody has learned something and a good discussion has ensued. It's obvious that your knowledgeble......sharing information costs nothing and most on here will give you a good discussion if given the chance.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

leschrader said:


> There.....now wasn't this better than just "No". Everybody has learned something and a good discussion has ensued. It's obvious that your knowledgeble......sharing information costs nothing and most on here will give you a good discussion if given the chance.


That "no", gave both of us this chance.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

leschrader said:


> theminoritydude,
> 
> 3. The momuntum that is induced is normally from the archer trying to hold on target or a mistake in bow arm form (or wind). That's the reason to adjust the stabilizer/bow balance to obtain minimal sight "float".
> 
> 4. Light mass vs heavy mass.....I don't know about you, but my old bone don't like holding up more weight at the end of my arm, so a few ounces physical weight on a long rod vs over a pound on a short rod is equal per your formula and a lot easier on me.


There exists a formula to calculate the ideal mass/balance of the bow, specifically for your comfort. It's a little difficult to demonstrate here (in a short thread) and it depends on your grip style and how good your full draw is, together with your skeletal structure. It seeks to resolve two unknowns using three moment forces, one of the unknown can be predetermined to a certain degree of accuracy by the type of equipment you wish to attach to your bow, which leaves you searching for the remaining unknown - the ideal bow mass.

This ideal bow mass I talk about may not be possible for everyone. It is in fact more like an upper limit to the bow mass. Two factors decide what bow mass one ends up with, a) Static stability, which is responsible for a good and stable aim, b) The strength of the bow arm to manage the bow drop. These calculations in turn determine the ideal weight of the riser, and as we have seen today, can range anything from 1050g to 1700+g.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

theminoritydude said:


> That "no", gave both of us this chance.


You had the same chance to write your argument in post #5, you chose not to.


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

Hello
A front stabilizer rod bar. Or side stabilizer bars . 
Any weights used for stabilization of ones bow.

Stabilization for a archer and his equipment used. 
Comes down to this. Its any add on piece to offset ones weakness in any area of the shot to aim or hold steady. Or maintain a smooth vertical follow through with ones shot execution.

The weakness for one, might be his her sight picture. Some times brought on with less riser mast weight. And the archer not strong enough in that area to hold more weight up..
For me I look at the front stabilizer as a little more than a balance rod. But as a resistance front rod for resistance between the bow string at anchor and the end of the front stabilizer and its end weight. At time of making a shot with a cleaner follow through release. [ Later


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> There exists a formula to calculate the ideal mass/balance of the bow, specifically for your comfort. It's a little difficult to demonstrate here (in a short thread) and it depends on your grip style and how good your full draw is, together with your skeletal structure. It seeks to resolve two unknowns using three moment forces, one of the unknown can be predetermined to a certain degree of accuracy by the type of equipment you wish to attach to your bow, which leaves you searching for the remaining unknown - the ideal bow mass.
> 
> This ideal bow mass I talk about may not be possible for everyone. It is in fact more like an upper limit to the bow mass. Two factors decide what bow mass one ends up with, a) Static stability, which is responsible for a good and stable aim, b) The strength of the bow arm to manage the bow drop. These calculations in turn determine the ideal weight of the riser, and as we have seen today, can range anything from 1050g to 1700+g.


1) Curious about this formula you mention .. can you post it? 

2a) Fully agree, static stability is the starting point to judge a good bow balance. But, as you mentioned, you don't need stabs to reach it, just a bow with the right mass on the riser, as BB shooters know and you mentioned too.

2b) the strenght of the bow arm to mange the drop, its a quite limited definition of parameters needed to hold an heavy bow up. You have to add to it the shape of the grip, that by itself drives the bow shoulder position that is connected to the draw shoulder postion, and of course the poundage you should hold at full draw, that is the key factor in keeping a recurve bow steady up, while the pure force of the bow side of the body becomes the key factor more in compound shooting. Anyhow, also this is related to static balance of the bow, only.

When you go to the release and travel of the arrow between it and the nock detach from the string, it is intuitive that (side) MOI of the entire system comes in to effect in relationship tot the (release) speed of the arrow. An here again you have a big difference between compound and recuve, and between release styles. Pure mass close to the riser helps "static release" compound shooters, pure "pullers" in Recurve Olympic and even more in recurve BB shooters. But a clever stabs distribution can give the same dynamic balance effect (based on MOI) with different levers and much less static weight. And here lies the secret of an efficient stab set up. 
Comparisons of differencies in bow balance : 
Reo Wilde and Sergio Pagni in compound
Brady Ellison and Kim Woojin in recurve


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

jegeig said:


> ......
> 
> Another concern is - if I add V-bars and an extender later, is there any disadvantage to having a 24" long rod + 5" extender? The normal recommendation for a starting point is a 28-30" long rod. But most people using v-bars seem to start with a 28-30" long rod, then add the extender on top of that. Does adding the v-bars require a longer long rod for proper balance? Why not keep the overall stabilization system length at ~30"?
> .....


As moment = length times (end) mass, the longer the long rod then for the same "stability effect" you should end up with overall a lighter long rod + mass. However the stiffness of the long rod (which ultimately determines the dynamic stabilization) decreases with the cube of the rod length so as you increase the rod length you end needing more expensive materials/construction so the price rapidly goes up. Around 30-35" is the practical physical (and probably cost) limit. The extender (which basically doesn't bend) effectively increases the overall effective maximum rod length you can use (up to 6" more say). You can either have an overall longer rod or use a shorter rod with has the same moment as the longer rod with no extender, but because of the extender section is overall stiffer.

Static bow balance is determined by the overall bow mass (riser + end weights mainly) so the actual rod lengths aren't relevant as such. However the rod lengths do determine how efficiently you use the mass for stabilization. Compare the recurve stabilization setups for the US archers (low efficiency) with the Koreans (high efficiency).


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Vittorio said:


> 1) Curious about this formula you mention .. can you post it?


Certainly.

This method assumes the wrist as the pivot point instead of the grip. Its approximate position lies just below the palm just before the thumb assembly. At full draw, draw a straight line from that point to the ball joint of the upper arm that connects it to the scapula, the exact position rather difficult to determine, but could be estimated by the position of the clavicle, and the centreline of the outstretched arm. Let's call this LINE A.

Find the centre of mass of your bow. Connect this line to the ball joint of the shoulder. This is LINE 2.

Take the perpendicular intersect of a line joining the bow hand wrist to the finger separator and join that to the ball joint of the shoulder, this will be LINE 3.

Now lie face down on a platform, bow arm free to swing freely just over the edge of the platform. With the arm stretched out horizontally and thumb pointing downwards and elbow facing upwards, grip the string connected to a bow scale or luggage scale, relax the arm, and weigh the arm right there. Let's call this value Y, the mass of the bow Z, and the poundage X.

(LINE 1 + 2")x(Y) + (LINE 2)x(Z) = (LINE 3)x(X) 

As you can see, some of these values can be predetermined, and depending on the setup, 2 values can be adjusted simultaneously for the formula to be balanced on both sides. If you're adventurous enough, you could try manipulating 3 or 4 values all at the same time.

While this equation takes care of the aim, it does nothing for the dynamic stability of the shot. I have up till now only determined the approximate values based on empirical data, close enough to tune a bow in 20 minutes or less.

I've had some level of success, but not all will like the feel of the bow after that. But "feel" is not my objective. Efficiency is.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

theminoritydude said:


> The shot is an event distinct from the "aim". Stabilizers were not built for holding steady to help in aiming, at least that's not its primary purpose. If holding the bow steady for the aim was the main goal, then one would quickly find that whatever advantages that came with such an aid, is immediately diminished by the effort required to fight any crosswinds, defeating the purpose of engineering a high modulus carbon set of stabilizers.
> 
> There are other ways to stabilize the bow without using stabilizers. Properly calculated weights and poundages can reduce the effort required to keep a bow steady (at least in the vertical sense) which should be more than enough to produce a steady aim, without forking out a few hundred dollars to fix carbon rods to the riser. I believe one such riser is being heavily promoted here that falls into that category.


No.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

First off what is usually meant by balancing an *Olympic recurve* (for aiming stability) is equating the vertical weight (gravity) on the bow hand to the vertical (upwards) component of the draw force. If you hold out your bow arm horizontally and aim your thumb at a distant object then you your aiming is going to be more stable than if you do the same with a 3Kg weight hanging from your wrist.

There are two approaches to producing equations describing a balanced bow in terms of the archer and bow parameters. The first method (that used by TMD above) is to take moments (force * distance) around the bow shoulder in the vertical plane. If the overall moment is zero then you are not using your shoulder muscles to hold the bow up (bow too heavy) or pull it down (bow too light). The second method is to describe the static force balance at the bow hand. You want the resultant direction of combining the bow hand gravity (weight) force and the draw forces to run through the bow arm. (see http://www.tap46home.plus.com/mechanics/bowload.htm )

At a practical level using a calculation to balance a bow is far too fiddly (in terms of the measurements required) and inaccurate (lots of approximations). 
The only useful practical calculation is to use the purely empirical 6.5 ratio approach which will put you in the bow weight ball park i.e. :

All up bow weight = draw weight divided by 6.5

The actual balancing of the bow is done by playing about with bow weight (rod end weights normally sufficient) and feeling the consequent weight/torsion on the bow hand/wrist.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

As mentioned before, resolving the moment forces gives an upper limit for the choice of bow weight, and depending on the technique at full draw, may not be practical for everyone, and sometimes outright impossible. But in the event that a near ideal technique could be used, it would be an added advantage which could be otherwise overlooked, an opportunity wasted.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

PEOPLE, people!

Why do you keep insisting on feeding the troll? Set him to ignore and then don't open his posts. Life is so much better when you don't give power to the trolls.

If you do nothing else today, just stop feeding this troll and allow the thread to get back on topic. :grin:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Joe T said:


> First off what is usually meant by balancing an *Olympic recurve* (for aiming stability) is equating the vertical weight (gravity) on the bow hand to the vertical (upwards) component of the draw force. If you hold out your bow arm horizontally and aim your thumb at a distant object then you your aiming is going to be more stable than if you do the same with a 3Kg weight hanging from your wrist.
> 
> There are two approaches to producing equations describing a balanced bow in terms of the archer and bow parameters. The first method (that used by TMD above) is to take moments (force * distance) around the bow shoulder in the vertical plane. If the overall moment is zero then you are not using your shoulder muscles to hold the bow up (bow too heavy) or pull it down (bow too light). The second method is to describe the static force balance at the bow hand. You want the resultant direction of combining the bow hand gravity (weight) force and the draw forces to run through the bow arm. (see http://www.tap46home.plus.com/mechanics/bowload.htm )
> 
> ...


I have read several times in the past your referred page and I have read it again today, and still I have nothingh to add to its content. But I'm stil curious to know why so many are looking for the holy grail in stabs set up going opposite to its content. 
Something like 40 years ago a friend of mine was shooting a very light magnesium riser, Zopft brand, made in Austria, if I well remeber. Being a very strong men and finding it too light for his 54#, he simply added two very heavy steel plates on both lower sides, and said me "now it is stable!" I could not even rise it, but after buying a Bear take down, with a very short long rod and TFC as only possible stab, I found it unstable, so I drilled 2 holes on top and bottom front of it and added two small TFC and some thin short rods with some weights on top , then I made a longer rod from a ski stick and replaced the original one with it. And, the bow was balanced and vibration free without steel plates on it! Around 1974... Can you believe it? )


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

For understanding Joe, the 6.5 ratio seems intriguing. 

Right now I am experimenting with stabilizers. 
I shoot 39 otf I think might be 40.
GMX 2.9lbs, surelock sight, beiter plunger, magnetic clicker with large plate, Spig rest, 990 limbs. All in I think the bow weighs 46+7+1+2+1+7+7=71oz. Just under 4.5lbs. 
The stab systems I'm trying are 27oz to 34 oz. 
So totals 98oz to 105oz. 

So 39 otf and 98oz(6.125lbs) system calcs to a ratio of 39/6.125=6.37
And 39 otf and 105oz(6.5625lbs) system calcs to a ratio of 39/6.5625=5.94

If 40 otf and 98oz(6.125lbs) system calcs to a ratio of 40/6.125=6.53
And 40 otf and 105oz(6.5625lbs) system cals to a ratio of 40/6.5625=6.13

This suggests I am trying systems a bit heavy to the 6.5 ratio. 

But I am pleasantly surprized how closes I am to your suggestion. 
I will read your doc further.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Vittorio, in the 70s I used TFCs as well on top and bottom limbs. When very stiff they were okay, but today I'd probably not use them, they wobbled. But as a dampener they worked. 

I once, half way through an indoor shoot, took off my v bar and side rods and re-installed my short rods to the top and bottom limbs and moved the end weights off of my long rod to the back of the riser. Several archers thought I was nuts to do this in a tournament. I only said it works too. And what I didn't say was I'm tired of the archers next to me bumping me on my v bar and side rods with their monstrous side rods while on the line at full draw. I shot better in the second half.

So, more than one way works.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

cc46 said:


> Vittorio, in the 70s I used TFCs as well on top and bottom limbs. When very stiff they were okay, but today I'd probably not use them, they wobbled. But as a dampener they worked.
> 
> I once, half way through an indoor shoot, took off my v bar and side rods and re-installed my short rods to the top and bottom limbs and moved the end weights off of my long rod to the back of the riser. Several archers thought I was nuts to do this in a tournament. I only said it works too. And what I didn't say was I'm tired of the archers next to me bumping me on my v bar and side rods with their monstrous side rods while on the line at full draw. I shot better in the second half.
> 
> So, more than one way works.


You are perfectly right, and the solution you used is the one I suggest and demonstrate to my students to teach them to use it in case of problem to Vbar extender or long rod: just remove the side bars (and eventually the long rod, too) and mount them on top and bottom front holes, continuing shooting with no concerns. If John Wiliams was able to shoot >1270 in 1972 like this, itt should not be such a bad solution ....


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

cc46 said:


> For understanding Joe, the 6.5 ratio seems intriguing.
> 
> Right now I am experimenting with stabilizers.
> I shoot 39 otf I think might be 40.
> ...


The 6.5 is just a starting point and not to be taken too literally. It's the sort of value a male archer with a typical physique, draw length and draw weight might end up with on physically testing bow balance. So if the 6.5 ratio suggests an all up weight of 6 lbs and your bow without stabs weighs 4.5 lbs then you need to add 1.5+/-x lbs of stabilisers. It suggests a starting point for testing only, but is better than no idea at all.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Thx Joe, Vittorio, 

So my mind is racing.....

I was looking at some super high buildings and how they dampen earthquake loads and harmonic wind loads, there has to be a practical application to bows. 

It's a moveable mass, and soft materials and/or resistant springs. 

Through my day I looked at my riser. Why is there not a option to buy a flexible heavy mass insert to all of the voids in a riser? 

I'm thinking a hunk of mass in the triangular voids secured with soft flexible rubber. If diy, then I'm thinking a gel pack similar to the one you use in a freezer but with a heavy mass in it. 

Surely the riser makers could do this. Practically it could be an additional dampening option. Is there a market? Hmmm, how many boomer aged shooters are there that quit because of vibration related elbow pain? And how long until youth quit for the same reasons? Seem to me the upside is strong, keep your customers, don't let them quit because of pain. Yes No? 

Maybe it's a concern for me because I hurt a bit, and don't want to quit.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

cc46 said:


> Thx Joe, Vittorio,
> 
> So my mind is racing.....
> 
> ...


Sky TR7 has harmonic reducers behind each limb pocket.
After shooting barebow any Olympic bow feels smooth as silk on the shot.

-Grant


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

cc46 said:


> Thx Joe, Vittorio,
> 
> So my mind is racing.....
> 
> ...


there is also a super expensive riser that has oil compartments built in to it. 


Chris


----------



## jegeig (Dec 1, 2013)

What about affixing weights with some Sugru? Not sure it would help but it might be possible.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

cc46 said:


> Thx Joe, Vittorio,
> 
> So my mind is racing.....
> 
> ...


Remember this one? 

View attachment 2112210


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

cc46 said:


> Through my day I looked at my riser. Why is there not a option to buy a flexible heavy mass insert to all of the voids in a riser?
> 
> I'm thinking a hunk of mass in the triangular voids secured with soft flexible rubber.


Something like:


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

My Samick riser has large rubber/weight dampers built into the limb pocket. Hoyt had a shoks (spelling?) damper built into some of its riser Helix? and so it goes on and on.
Rule number one - in archery there is never anything new (3000 years of people tinkering).


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Thanks guys! Might make something on the weekend to fit into the voids.


----------

