An idiots guide to: the Bracing Height
christopher.petchey
for my bow?
All of the setup manuals talk about "the alignment of the node points of the
arrow in flight" and similar doubletalk. This kind of info is no good to me,
as I cant SEE the "node points of the thingy doing whatsit"
The technical theory is no good to me if I cant put it into practical
practice(?)
Can anyone tell me (in simple and practical terms) how to tell if my bracing
height is correct, or incorrect and how to tell whether increasing or
decreasing it has improved things?
Directions along the lines of:
"if X then do Y"
or
"if the arrow does X then the b/h needs increasing/decreasing/leaving alone"
My bow is a 1980 something (old) Perris Whitehart 68 inch drawing 38 pounds
at 28 inches and I draw a 30" 2016 shaft.
--
Chris Petchey
A.Ron Carmichael
course a minimum and maximum, and most people will go between these two points
in their tuning. GENERALLY, you are safe in going to the middle of the range,
and then shooting a few shafts to see if you like the sound better or worse.
I have noticed that the bow sounds differently depending on the height, and that
there is a "better" sound on the few bows that I have had hands on with at
certain brace heights. On my daughters' Aerotech, for example, we settle on a
BH of around 8 7/8", but her mounting screws are torqued in so that her 32#
limbs are actually reaching 36.5# at 28" click.
There seems to be an important relationship between brace height, tiller, and
nocking height. CHanging one usually affects the other two, albeit the tiller
seems to be more proportional. When you are using Beiter Nocking Points then
you have to be VERY careful to retain the same brace height for the duration of
the tune. Change the BH and the nocking point changes, so you end up re-serving
the BNP into new place. Adjusting the tiller changes both the BH and the
nocking point. and so on.... since we use BNPs I've come to be very observant
of these parameters.
FOR practical application for ALL newcomers (and perhaps some oldtimers who may
have forgotten things:), I'd recommend reading through first the Balbardie
Archer's guide for recurve archers to get a general idea of the dynamics of
archery. Murray Elliott did a fantastic job with that and he did the graphics
for TFT as well.
For tuning, there is a copy of Tuning for Tens (TFT), by Rick Stonebraker, TSAA
President, in the guide, and a slightly revised version available separately.
If you follow the steps of TFT implicitly you will end up with a very good tune
on a recurve bow. These are both free, of course, for the download.
http://www.texasarchery.org , and check the documents and archery links pages
for some neat stuff. Rick's personal page on the TSAA page (under boardmembers)
has a number of psychological-related articles that are pretty nifty as well.
For really technical discourse on the physics of archery, I have found none
better than Joe Tapley's pages - he frequents these forums and does a very good
job of explaining many aspects of bow behavior/behaviour<G> and arrow flight.
I rather prefer my own explanation of archer's paradox, though<G>, as I am of
limited intellect and use fewer syllables...(well, maybe I do :)
For those in the US dealing with the new JOAD regs, there are several documents
(FAQ, tables of distances, AGE/Division calculator, etc) on the JOADResources
link of the TSAA site.
PS: there really isn't any "idiot" questions or "guide for dummys"<G> in
archery - from my own slight knowledge of archery and frequenting these forums
for a few years, there are just the idiots who pronounce their own (malformed)
opinion as some kind of absolute truth and refuse to consider anyone else might
have a valid differing opinion. What I would offer as a certainity is that
there is at least two different ways to do most everything in archery, and
prolly more that are waiting to be discovered by those who don't know they
shouldn't.
And as you can tell by the free nature of all of these contributions by archers,
to archers, the sport is one of generosity and mutual assistance. All that most
ask for is mere recognition of the benefit conferred. Tom Barker of the South
Texas JOAD for example, mentioned one instance where he watched one of his kids
go out of his way to help another kid with a problem, even though the two were
in the same division and competed against each other routinely, the helper
inevitably outscoring the helpee. After helping the kid for some time, the
helped individual defeated the helper in competition, and surprisingly none
clapped louder or was more proud for the accomplishment than the loser.
Chris, sportsmanship that has not been seen for years in "all-american" sports
like baseball and football is alive and doing quite well in archery.
Happy new year, by the way....
TexARC
"christopher.petchey" wrote:
--
Outgoing messages scanned for viruses by Nortons AV 2002
John Grove
length, however when assembled the fixed tiller is the usual measurement
of around 1/4". As the tiller is fixed you can forget any advise on
altering the tiller. I am told the early limbs were made by Perris but
after a change in ownership later limbs were made by Border. Perris
owners who bought new limbs tell me the later limbs did not perform in
the same way as the originals.
Now to get to the idiot's guide to bracing height, there isn't one.
Most archers experiment with the bracing height within the range given
by the manufacturer until the bow "sounds right". The "sounds right" is
usually where the sound is the least. If you need to know what the
recommended range is I know one or two old Perrris shooters who can
advise.
--
John Grove
christopher.petchey
I wasusing the Easton guide.
<quote>The brace height determines the specific point at which the arrow
seperates from the bowstring and the amount of bend the arrow has when the
seperation occurs. The best brace height for your recurve bow is one that
allows the most compatible launch position for the arrow at the end of the
bows "power stroke". Locating the best brace height can significantly
improve arrow grouping and shooting consistency<end quote>
but their best explanation of the correct bracing height is <quote>The bow
feels smoothest and quietest when shooting<end quote>
This explanation seems unreasonably subjective, inaccurate and unscientific.
I was hoping for a genius who could give me a more empirical method to
define the "most compatible launch position at the end of the power stroke"
Is a "feel" and "sound" the best that the whole archery world can give me?
Does the US olympic team use "feel" and "sound", or high speed lazer
digitizing thingumy technology?
Thanks for the other resources. I will look!
Chris Petchey
Grimsby Archers England
http://grimsbyarchers.tripod.com
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3C2B3E5B...@arcarmichael.com...
christopher.petchey
Thanks
Chris Petchey
Grimsby Archers England
"John Grove" <ARCH...@sherwood3.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aUfXKDAi...@sherwood3.demon.co.uk...
A.Ron Carmichael
newbie<G>) I was certain that there was a scientific method for everything. I
couldn't understand, for example, why it wouldn't be better to use a machine to
set up the basic tune for each bow, then everything would be perfect.
Thanks to the help from others and the education I've received from various
sources, such as the NAA JOAD coaching courses 1 & 2, as well as reading
everything I could get my hands on, I have a much more "real" perspective in
archery.
There ARE some things that can be defined and described using scientific
terminology. Brace Height is merely one small component of a closed system that
has a number of parts that together confer a wide latitude of adjustment without
causing a profound change in that system.
Any one component generally can be changed "some" without preventing accuracy of
the entire system.
There are anecdotes of archers showing up with a piece of mal-aligned, untuned
crap with bent arrows and STILL winning tourneys. Few and far between, perhaps,
but I think they indicate that the mental awareness and experience gained
through consciously shooting many many arrows is more important than absolute
numbers.
While much of archery CAN be measured and gauged, at the end of the day it is
still a mental sport, more one of art than science.
Joe Tapley
christopher.petchey wrote:
> Thanks A. Ron
> I wasusing the Easton guide.
> <quote>The brace height determines the specific point at which the arrow
> seperates from the bowstring and the amount of bend the arrow has when the
> seperation occurs.
IMHO the above statement is the important bit as far as arrow groups go
with respect to bracing height. Added to it should be that the design of
the nocking point groove is also important. However unless you have all
the necessary high speed video kit available to look at the arrow-string
separation point the above is not a lot of help.
A suggested ABC to setting bracing height for ordinary mortals might run
something like the following:
1. Set the bracing height towards the lower end of the recommended range.
2. Tune the bow based on minimising groups.
3. Without changing anything else play about with increasing/decreasing
bracing height around the original setting and look for the BH that
gives you the minimum group size.
Any other approach is likely to take a month of Sundays.
The manufacturer gives you an upper and lower BH range. If the BH is too
low then the arrow will be leaving the string too late and it puts
unwanted stresses in the bow limbs. If the BH is too high then the bow
will probably start to 'stack' and the bow efficiency drops. In days of
yore a high bracing height was sometimes used to improve arrow
clearance. This should not be an issue with modern bows, lean towards
the lower recommended BH.
One of the likely consequences of too low a BH is that the string hits
the limbs (thwack!)and this is the basis of the 'nice sounding bow'
principle. The manufacturer can only give a guideline to the lower BH
setting so its a case of playing about and listening to the sound. I
also suggest a final check of the bow sound with all vibration dampers
removed - not much point listening to sound while wearing ear protectors.
Rob Randall
>
> A suggested ABC to setting bracing height for ordinary mortals might run
> something like the following:
>
> 1. Set the bracing height towards the lower end of the recommended range.
> 2. Tune the bow based on minimising groups.
> 3. Without changing anything else play about with increasing/decreasing
> bracing height around the original setting and look for the BH that
> gives you the minimum group size.
>
> Any other approach is likely to take a month of Sundays.
I've fooled with this a bit, and found that changing the brace height can affect
whether an arrow flies stiff or weak -- so, although you try to start off with
arrows as closely matched to your bow as possible, as you change the brace
height to one that gives you the best string/arrow separation, the arrows may
no longer match the bow spinewise, so you need to change arrows (or change arrow
points to make them stiffer or weaker) which of course means that you have to
start over again with your brace height. That is, seems like you don't set
brace height for a bow -- you set brace height for a bow shooting a particular
weight and spine of arrow.
Any tips for closing this loop more quickly would be appreciated.
Rob
Rob Randall
that increasing the brace height by half an inch changed my arrow flight
drastically: from just a few inches stiff to so stiff the shaft curved around the
target and hit a tree broadside -- breaking shafts this way makes me feel very much
the irritated idiot :')
A.Ron Carmichael
Joe Tapley wrote:
--
Joe Tapley
Rob Randall wrote:
Curious (and expensive)behaviour. Normally increasing bracing height
would weaken an arrow. It wasn't a low FOC arrow by any chance?
I still claim the world record for shooting arrows in a curve. Some
years ago I tweaked a carbon arrow so its flight direction swung through
around 60-70 degrees over a 30 yard distance. Hit the 'catch' target but
inevitably the arrow was a write off as it had so much rotation.
Joe Tapley
Rob Randall wrote:
>>
>> A suggested ABC to setting bracing height for ordinary mortals
>> might run something like the following:
>>
>> 1. Set the bracing height towards the lower end of the recommended
>> range. 2. Tune the bow based on minimising groups. 3. Without
>> changing anything else play about with increasing/decreasing bracing
>> height around the original setting and look for the BH that gives
>> you the minimum group size.
>>
>> Any other approach is likely to take a month of Sundays.
>>
>
> I've fooled with this a bit, and found that changing the brace
> height can affect whether an arrow flies stiff or weak -- so,
> although you try to start off with arrows as closely matched to
> your bow as possible,
> as you change the brace height to one that
> gives you the best string/arrow separation
**** Nobody so far has come with a simple way of doing this. However if
you have a suggested approach I would be interested to hear it. I don't
see any percentage in say minimising groups with bracing height
adjustment before sorting out the nocking point and presure button
because when you tune you change the nock-string separation
characteristics***
> the arrows may no
> longer match the bow spinewise, so you need to change arrows (or
> change arrow points to make them stiffer or weaker) which of course
> means that you have to start over again with your brace height.
> That is, seems like you don't set brace height for a bow -- you set
> brace height for a bow shooting a particular weight and spine of
> arrow.
>
> Any tips for closing this loop more quickly would be appreciated.
>
> Rob
>
I suggested the above approach *because* it was a closed loop.
When you tune the bow in step 2 one of the things you're doing is
adjusting the arrow behaviour to match the existing bracing height.
At this point you forget all about the weak/stiff arrow idea and just
see if you can improve the arrow groups by fine tuning of the bracing
height. We're talking millimetres not inches of BH variation here.
gwynn
christopher.petchey wrote in message ...
>Does anyone have a fool proof guide to finding the correct bracing height
>for my bow?
>All of the setup manuals talk about "the alignment of the node points of
the
>arrow in flight" and similar doubletalk. This kind of info is no good to
me,
>as I cant SEE the "node points of the thingy doing whatsit"
bracing
>height is correct, or incorrect and how to tell whether increasing or
>decreasing it has improved things?
I am so pleased I shoot a Longbow ! The distance from the belly of the bow
to the string in a brace is a palm and two fingers (Fistmele) done, sorted.
Joe Tapley
christopher.petchey wrote:
> Thanks A. Ron
> I wasusing the Easton guide.
> <quote>The brace height determines the specific point at which the arrow
> seperates from the bowstring and the amount of bend the arrow has when the
> seperation occurs. The best brace height for your recurve bow is one that
> allows the most compatible launch position for the arrow at the end of the
> bows "power stroke". Locating the best brace height can significantly
> improve arrow grouping and shooting consistency<end quote>
>
With my American/English dictionary in hand <G> I'll have a go at
translating the above. (at least my interpretation)
When the nock separates from the string you want the string to travel
down the axis of the nock and not to 'hit' the sides. If it hits the
sides then the string 'flicks' the arrow (rather like the fletchings
hitting the bow). That's why nock grooves tend to be short and 'V'
shaped, less chance of a collision. To get good string-nock groove
clearance then, at the end of the 'power stroke' when the string starts
to decelerate you need the arrow bent in the right direction and just
the right amount so the axis of the nock is lined up with the direction
the string separates.
In practice the separation point is around the point where the string
crosses the 'bow line' travelling away from the bow in its archer's
paradox 'S' pattern. At this point the arrow mid point is bent away from
the bow (though the arrow is straightening). The nock groove (pointing
away from the bow) is, hopefully, lined up with the string travel
direction. If the arrow is bent too much the string will flick the nock
for the arrow to act 'weak'. If the arrow is not bent enough the flick
will act to make the arrow act 'stiff'. The orientation of the nock at
separation will vary from shot to shot and the varying resulting flick
will affect the arrow groups.
All the best for the New Year!
A.Ron Carmichael
newbie<G>) I was certain that there was a scientific method for everything. I
couldn't understand, for example, why it wouldn't be better to use a machine to
set up the basic tune for each bow, then everything would be perfect.
Thanks to the help from others and the education I've received from various
sources, such as the NAA JOAD coaching courses 1 & 2, as well as reading
everything I could get my hands on, I have a much more "real" perspective in
archery.
There ARE some things that can be defined and described using scientific
terminology. Brace Height is merely one small component of a closed system that
has a number of parts that together confer a wide latitude of adjustment without
causing a profound change in that system.
Any one component generally can be changed "some" without preventing accuracy of
the entire system.
There are anecdotes of archers showing up with a piece of mal-aligned, untuned
crap with bent arrows and STILL winning tourneys. Few and far between, perhaps,
but I think they indicate that the mental awareness and experience gained
through consciously shooting many many arrows is more important than absolute
numbers.
While much of archery CAN be measured and gauged, at the end of the day it is
still a mental sport, more one of art than science.
"christopher.petchey" wrote:
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: "A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2BDF89...@arcarmichael.com>
Control: cancel <3C2BDF89...@arcarmichael.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 01:02:54 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2BD...@arcarmichael.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773571 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:31 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Unac4ncel: yes
X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10 and the Sandblaster Cancel Engine Build 74 (19 March 1999)
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
A.Ron Carmichael
TexARC
"christopher.petchey" wrote:
--
Outgoing messages scanned for viruses by Nortons AV 2002
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: "A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2B3E5B...@arcarmichael.com>
Control: cancel <3C2B3E5B...@arcarmichael.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 01:51:33 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2B3...@arcarmichael.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773580 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:40 GMT
Joe Tapley
christopher.petchey wrote:
> Thanks A. Ron
> I wasusing the Easton guide.
> <quote>The brace height determines the specific point at which the arrow
> seperates from the bowstring and the amount of bend the arrow has when the
> seperation occurs.
IMHO the above statement is the important bit as far as arrow groups go
with respect to bracing height. Added to it should be that the design of
the nocking point groove is also important. However unless you have all
the necessary high speed video kit available to look at the arrow-string
separation point the above is not a lot of help.
A suggested ABC to setting bracing height for ordinary mortals might run
something like the following:
1. Set the bracing height towards the lower end of the recommended range.
2. Tune the bow based on minimising groups.
3. Without changing anything else play about with increasing/decreasing
bracing height around the original setting and look for the BH that
gives you the minimum group size.
Any other approach is likely to take a month of Sundays.
The manufacturer gives you an upper and lower BH range. If the BH is too
low then the arrow will be leaving the string too late and it puts
unwanted stresses in the bow limbs. If the BH is too high then the bow
will probably start to 'stack' and the bow efficiency drops. In days of
yore a high bracing height was sometimes used to improve arrow
clearance. This should not be an issue with modern bows, lean towards
the lower recommended BH.
One of the likely consequences of too low a BH is that the string hits
the limbs (thwack!)and this is the basis of the 'nice sounding bow'
principle. The manufacturer can only give a guideline to the lower BH
setting so its a case of playing about and listening to the sound. I
also suggest a final check of the bow sound with all vibration dampers
removed - not much point listening to sound while wearing ear protectors.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: Joe Tapley <joet...@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2C4769...@ntlworld.com>
Control: cancel <3C2C4769...@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:14:07 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2C...@ntlworld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773556 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:16 GMT
Rob Randall
that increasing the brace height by half an inch changed my arrow flight
drastically: from just a few inches stiff to so stiff the shaft curved around the
target and hit a tree broadside -- breaking shafts this way makes me feel very much
the irritated idiot :')
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: Rob Randall <bran...@synopsys.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2C9345...@synopsys.com>
Control: cancel <3C2C9345...@synopsys.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:49:21 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2C9...@synopsys.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773544 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:04 GMT
A.Ron Carmichael
Joe Tapley wrote:
--
Outgoing messages scanned for viruses by Nortons AV 2002
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: "A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2CA56D...@arcarmichael.com>
Control: cancel <3C2CA56D...@arcarmichael.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 02:51:22 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2CA...@arcarmichael.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773541 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:01 GMT
Rob Randall
>
> A suggested ABC to setting bracing height for ordinary mortals might run
> something like the following:
>
> 1. Set the bracing height towards the lower end of the recommended range.
> 2. Tune the bow based on minimising groups.
> 3. Without changing anything else play about with increasing/decreasing
> bracing height around the original setting and look for the BH that
> gives you the minimum group size.
>
> Any other approach is likely to take a month of Sundays.
I've fooled with this a bit, and found that changing the brace height can affect
whether an arrow flies stiff or weak -- so, although you try to start off with
arrows as closely matched to your bow as possible, as you change the brace
height to one that gives you the best string/arrow separation, the arrows may
no longer match the bow spinewise, so you need to change arrows (or change arrow
points to make them stiffer or weaker) which of course means that you have to
start over again with your brace height. That is, seems like you don't set
brace height for a bow -- you set brace height for a bow shooting a particular
weight and spine of arrow.
Any tips for closing this loop more quickly would be appreciated.
Rob
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: Rob Randall <bran...@synopsys.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2C8FF5...@synopsys.com>
Control: cancel <3C2C8FF5...@synopsys.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 04:22:19 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2C8...@synopsys.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773547 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:07 GMT
Joe Tapley
Rob Randall wrote:
>>
>> A suggested ABC to setting bracing height for ordinary mortals
>> might run something like the following:
>>
>> 1. Set the bracing height towards the lower end of the recommended
>> range. 2. Tune the bow based on minimising groups. 3. Without
>> changing anything else play about with increasing/decreasing bracing
>> height around the original setting and look for the BH that gives
>> you the minimum group size.
>>
>> Any other approach is likely to take a month of Sundays.
>>
>
> I've fooled with this a bit, and found that changing the brace
> height can affect whether an arrow flies stiff or weak -- so,
> although you try to start off with arrows as closely matched to
> your bow as possible,
> as you change the brace height to one that
> gives you the best string/arrow separation
**** Nobody so far has come with a simple way of doing this. However if
you have a suggested approach I would be interested to hear it. I don't
see any percentage in say minimising groups with bracing height
adjustment before sorting out the nocking point and presure button
because when you tune you change the nock-string separation
characteristics***
> the arrows may no
> longer match the bow spinewise, so you need to change arrows (or
> change arrow points to make them stiffer or weaker) which of course
> means that you have to start over again with your brace height.
> That is, seems like you don't set brace height for a bow -- you set
> brace height for a bow shooting a particular weight and spine of
> arrow.
>
> Any tips for closing this loop more quickly would be appreciated.
>
> Rob
>
I suggested the above approach *because* it was a closed loop.
When you tune the bow in step 2 one of the things you're doing is
adjusting the arrow behaviour to match the existing bracing height.
At this point you forget all about the weak/stiff arrow idea and just
see if you can improve the arrow groups by fine tuning of the bracing
height. We're talking millimetres not inches of BH variation here.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: Joe Tapley <joet...@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2CF5E0...@ntlworld.com>
Control: cancel <3C2CF5E0...@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 01:13:16 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2C...@ntlworld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773524 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:38:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:38:44 GMT
Joe Tapley
Rob Randall wrote:
Curious (and expensive)behaviour. Normally increasing bracing height
would weaken an arrow. It wasn't a low FOC arrow by any chance?
I still claim the world record for shooting arrows in a curve. Some
years ago I tweaked a carbon arrow so its flight direction swung through
around 60-70 degrees over a 30 yard distance. Hit the 'catch' target but
inevitably the arrow was a write off as it had so much rotation.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!uunet!osa.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: Joe Tapley <joet...@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2CEB06...@ntlworld.com>
Control: cancel <3C2CEB06...@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:02:17 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2C...@ntlworld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773517 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:38:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:38:37 GMT
Joe Tapley
christopher.petchey wrote:
> Thanks A. Ron
> I wasusing the Easton guide.
> <quote>The brace height determines the specific point at which the arrow
> seperates from the bowstring and the amount of bend the arrow has when the
> seperation occurs. The best brace height for your recurve bow is one that
> allows the most compatible launch position for the arrow at the end of the
> bows "power stroke". Locating the best brace height can significantly
> improve arrow grouping and shooting consistency<end quote>
>
With my American/English dictionary in hand <G> I'll have a go at
translating the above. (at least my interpretation)
When the nock separates from the string you want the string to travel
down the axis of the nock and not to 'hit' the sides. If it hits the
sides then the string 'flicks' the arrow (rather like the fletchings
hitting the bow). That's why nock grooves tend to be short and 'V'
shaped, less chance of a collision. To get good string-nock groove
clearance then, at the end of the 'power stroke' when the string starts
to decelerate you need the arrow bent in the right direction and just
the right amount so the axis of the nock is lined up with the direction
the string separates.
In practice the separation point is around the point where the string
crosses the 'bow line' travelling away from the bow in its archer's
paradox 'S' pattern. At this point the arrow mid point is bent away from
the bow (though the arrow is straightening). The nock groove (pointing
away from the bow) is, hopefully, lined up with the string travel
direction. If the arrow is bent too much the string will flick the nock
for the arrow to act 'weak'. If the arrow is not bent enough the flick
will act to make the arrow act 'stiff'. The orientation of the nock at
separation will vary from shot to shot and the varying resulting flick
will affect the arrow groups.
All the best for the New Year!
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: Joe Tapley <joet...@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F2A59...@ntlworld.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F2A59...@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:45:21 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F...@ntlworld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773413 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:36:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:36:53 GMT
christopher.petchey
I wasusing the Easton guide.
<quote>The brace height determines the specific point at which the arrow
seperates from the bowstring and the amount of bend the arrow has when the
seperation occurs. The best brace height for your recurve bow is one that
allows the most compatible launch position for the arrow at the end of the
bows "power stroke". Locating the best brace height can significantly
improve arrow grouping and shooting consistency<end quote>
but their best explanation of the correct bracing height is <quote>The bow
feels smoothest and quietest when shooting<end quote>
This explanation seems unreasonably subjective, inaccurate and unscientific.
I was hoping for a genius who could give me a more empirical method to
define the "most compatible launch position at the end of the power stroke"
Is a "feel" and "sound" the best that the whole archery world can give me?
Does the US olympic team use "feel" and "sound", or high speed lazer
digitizing thingumy technology?
Thanks for the other resources. I will look!
Chris Petchey
Grimsby Archers England
http://grimsbyarchers.tripod.com
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3C2B3E5B...@arcarmichael.com...
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: "christopher.petchey" <christoph...@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.archery
Subject: cmsg cancel <HcMW7.53044$4z5.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Control: cancel <HcMW7.53044$4z5.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:14:14 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.HcMW7.53044$4z5.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009773574 6178 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:39:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:39:34 GMT
Joe Tapley
A.Ron Carmichael wrote:
> I rather prefer my own explanation of archer's paradox, though<G>, as I am of
> limited intellect and use fewer syllables...(well, maybe I do :)
I'll probably regret reopening this discussion <G> but maybe worth
putting forward one point to ponder. Your discussion of Paradox talks
about the string sliding under load over the tab/fingers. It follows
that all tabs will show significant scratch/wear marks from the initial
string position out to the edge. Ever see any, even with a magnifying glass?
Archers generally don't have steel fingers and a death grip on the bow
enabling them to push the string sideways.
A.Ron Carmichael
"load" to "no load" instantaneously, they get totally out of the way and the string
does NOT move in a lateral direction during initial acceleration? This does not
seem to me to be possible from viewing the high speed photography. These best
archers filmed by Beiter are fast on the release, but not that fast.
My explanation on the website was intended to focus on the paradox of the arrow NOT
being pointed at the center of the target when the aim is "correct" and it's always
possible I am wrong....but....I'm going to need your help in believing that<G>.
My deductions were/are based on a mechanical release not having to "aim off", and
finger releases having to "aim off". Trying to figure out what is different, I
decided that the primary difference was that the string has to slide off of the
finger tab to enough degree to introduce or permit the lateral flexing of the arrow
inherent in a finger release bowshot. Once the sideways motion happens at the
fingers, the bow accelerates the back of the shaft, and the shaft reacts to the
force by flexing further until the inertial resistence of the shaft and tip are
overcome and the whole arrow leaves. The arrow system continues chordal
oscillations down to the target, of course. But how else does one explain the
introduction of the side-to-side flexion of the arrow from a finger release
recurve?
In my very , very limited experience, I have found that finger tabs DO begin to
show wear and tear and do eventually wear out, particularly if the serving is not
baby-butt smooth<G>- I find that saunders nocks, if not carefully compressed, will
leave a sharp edge showing, and that can greatly accelerate degradation of the face
of the tab. Leather finger tabs are made of a very durable substance that holds
up extremely well to wear and tear and I suppose that the fact that the finger is
extremely well padded and soft as the interface between bone and string also
permits long life of the finger tab.
Am I understanding your arguements well enough to make sense with mine?
Joe Tapley wrote:
--
A.Ron Carmichael
many of you have corresponded with the NAA via email, here goes.
The National Archery Association (NAA) offices were infected yesterday (or earlier) by
a virus. I myself received a copy of the virus relayed through the original recipient
who was fortunate enough to be unable to trigger it (though he tried) solely because he
was using his MAC instead of his windows PC. They use the USOC computers for their
email service and it is apparent to me that they haven't YET bothered to install any
virus filters. Perhaps now they will.
The virus is a virulent and nasty contagion, according to the information on the Norton
Symantec website
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.magi...@mm.html .
This virus spread from their computers via email to people on their address books.
The virus uses MS Word documents from the infected computer to create the outgoing
message, in effect sending out confidential information. When the message arrives it
looks VERY OFFICIAL. If you are running a windows-based pc (as opposed to say, LINUX
or MAC) then if you click on the attachment you will trigger infection. Clicking on it
doesn't appear to do anything, but in the background it is doing a lot.
ONLY if you have an up to date copy of a good antivirus software such as Nortons AV or
McAfee, will you spare yourself the PITA effects. This virus not only wipes hard
drives, but also overwrites your computer's BIOS (iow, wipes chips on your freaking
motherboard!), of course it does this only after it has first infected all of your
friends.
Click on ANY attachment in an email, even from a friend or today, the NAA, and you may
end up rebuilding your entire computer.
Since we are a fairly close community, the message you get may not be directly from the
NAA. One of your friends may have gotten it, and now his or her computer is trying to
infect you, so the address of the sender will not be the NAA but instead will be your
friend's address.
Good luck.
TexARC
webmaster,
TSAA
http://www.texasarchery.org
Joe Tapley
> Joe - It sounds like you are saying that upon click/release the fingers go from
> "load" to "no load" instantaneously, they get totally out of the way and the string
> does NOT move in a lateral direction during initial acceleration? This does not
> seem to me to be possible from viewing the high speed photography. These best
> archers filmed by Beiter are fast on the release, but not that fast.
Instantaneously? - No. I would guess a couple or three mm movement of
the string before the weight transfers completely from the tab to the
nock. In general the fingers/tab won't be completely out of the way and
the string will brush them aside as necessary - not as painful as it
sounds as the fingers are relaxed and the string is moving sideways as
well as forwards because of the Archers Paradox effect.
> My explanation on the website was intended to focus on the paradox of the arrow NOT
> being pointed at the center of the target when the aim is "correct" and it's always
> possible I am wrong....but....I'm going to need your help in believing that<G>.
>
Fair enough.
> My deductions were/are based on a mechanical release not having to "aim off", and
> finger releases having to "aim off". Trying to figure out what is different, I
> decided that the primary difference was that the string has to slide off of the
> finger tab to enough degree to introduce or permit the lateral flexing of the arrow
> inherent in a finger release bowshot.
I don't disagree, its the 'to enough degree' that is the problem area as
this tends to get exaggerated. It's not required for the string to slide
down the fingers like a long ramp for the string to move sideways (you
have one seriously bad shot if it does!).The string does slide a bit
across the tab as it is rotated and while the string load is on it (its
the inertia of the relaxed fingers that is the 'paradox trigger')but I
would guess this to be no more than one millimetre.
> In my very , very limited experience, I have found that finger tabs DO begin to
> show wear and tear and do eventually wear out, particularly if the serving is not
> baby-butt smooth<G>- I find that saunders nocks, if not carefully compressed, will
> leave a sharp edge showing, and that can greatly accelerate degradation of the face
> of the tab.
Ok the bit about the magnifying glass was just my joke. The string will
brush the tab/fingers out of the way until it 'lifts off' so there will
be some wear over time. Nothing like the wear you would get if the tab
was actually loading the string. In fact rubbing two things together
fast with a 40# load is a good way to start a fire. (just joking)
A.Ron Carmichael
it might be.. :)
Joe Tapley wrote:
--
Fred A. Miller
> I'm sorry to need to post this, but as it relates to archery and it is
> possible that many of you have corresponded with the NAA via email,
> here goes.
>
> The National Archery Association (NAA) offices were infected yesterday
> (or earlier) by
> a virus. I myself received a copy of the virus relayed through the
> original recipient who was fortunate enough to be unable to trigger it
> (though he tried) solely because he
> was using his MAC instead of his windows PC. They use the USOC
> computers for their email service and it is apparent to me that they
> haven't YET bothered to install any
> virus filters. Perhaps now they will.
[snip]
If they're smart, they'll replace all MickySoft with SuSE Linux. Note:
that MOST virus spread ONLY via "Lookout" or "Lookout Express"
(Outlook/Outlook Express) from M$. You may be infected via a Netscape
or other mailer for 'Bloze, but not infect others.
Fred
--
"The only secure Microsoft software is what's still
shrink-wrapped in their warehouse..." (Forno)
Arcangel6
I remember when I first started shooting recurve in the North East. All of
my shooting was done at 20 yards and my bow was tuned accordingly. I also
remember my befuddlement when I first attempted to shoot long distances when
my windage was radically off. It grew worse as the distance increased. I
remember asking my coach at the time, Len Cardinale what he thought. Turns
out I was burying my anchor so deep into the side of my face that the string
amplitude (side to side lateral movement) was compounded because the string
had to first come off my fingers, then my chin. He had me slightly alter my
head poisition to eliminate the chin from the equation and the windage was
dead on at distance. In shorth, what happened is that my body's interefernce
increased the amplitude of the strings movement thereby increasing the
arrow's apparent paradox. This would cause an otherwise properly spined
arrow to apparently shoot as though it were under spined (i.e. weak). While
a mechanical release does eliminate almost all paradox it can still be
present if the anchor places the string far enough into the face to cause
this type of interference. Clothing interefernce can also be a factor.
Joe