Stabilization - Beiter Centralizer
Stephan Melin
This is mainly for my fellow techno geeks in the realm of archery...
Last weekend I had the opportunity to test one of the new Beiter
stabilizers (they are called Centralizer): the 41" long rod with
4 moveable weights.
I have tried the following setups on my Stylist Supreme:
- my usual one: 29" ACE UHR, AGF V-Bar, 12" ACE side rods,
10" No-Name top rod with TFC, Carbofast SD 630 hydraulic extender,
Schwabbel (a.k.a. doinker) on the long rod
- Beiter Centralizer 41" with 4 weights, nothing else
- my usual setup with the ACE long rod replaced by the Beiter one
The third setup turned out to be almost unshootable for me. It felt
much too heavy and had a huge forward torque. In fact I was afraid, that
due to the torque the extender might shear off after too many shots.
While my usual setup works quite well damping the vibrations it
is quite heavy (about 1030 g). On the other hand the centralizer
alone is quite light (about 350 g) but is a bit more sensitive to
changes in brace height. With the Centralizer 1 cm made a significant
difference in noise after the shot; my usual setup is quite insensitive
to these changes. The bow without stabilizers has a mass of about 1850 g.
My observation is that with the lightweight Centralizer it is easier
for me to "get onto the target" and stay there while aiming. But that
might be related to the fact that I just recovering from a 2 month
break in archery and/or my physical appearance (there would be not
enough steroids world wide to make me even look remotely like Mr.
Schwarzenegger ;-)). What I found a bit difficult to get used to is
that the Beiter stabilizer is far from being as stiff as the ACE
stuff. I have the impression that during aiming (which currently takes
too much time btw.) the end of the Centralizer "wobbles" quite a bit.
However I have been unable to perceive this wobble until it got into
my field of vision when shooting at the 90m target - in fact this
has been a bit annoying (maybe this stabilizer is a bit too long).
So in the pre-shot damping the Beiter stabilizer has a slight edge
for me.
After the shot my usual setup damps all vibrations quite well (the bow
is rather quiet) including the high frequency ones which made me add
more mass by replacing my ACE extender by the Carbofast one. The Beiter
setup is definitely noisier (also see above) but is still comfortable
to shoot. So in the after-shot damping my usual setup has an edge for
me.
Being a techno geek I have of course been bitten by the new equipment
bug and plan to upgrade or replace my stabilizer setup. At least now I
know that also my old setup works quite well there might be room for
improvement...
However since the single Beiter Centralizer worked amazingly well I
have started wondering:
Why do we usually use so many stabilizers?
To be more precise:
What is the use of V-Bars and side rods all together?
The bow has three canonical rotational axes: the vertical one (Z),
the "bow arm" (X) and the other horizontal one (perpendicular to the bow arm)
(Y).
The long rod is mainly used to increase the moment of inertia for the Z-axis.
It also has an effect on the torque acting on the Y-axis (most archers
prefer a little forward torque) and also increases the moment of inertia
for the Y-axis.
Common "wisdom" now tells us that we need the side rods for the moment of
inertia for the rotation around the X-axis. However I think that does not
make sense, since the main moment of inertia comes from the bow itself.
The same effect could be achieved by just adding weights to both ends
of the riser. So I don't see any significant benefit of adding stiff
side rods.
So it is not surprising that I have not found anything in the literature
about how to properly setup a stabilizing system (except: try until you shoot
the tightest groups). That includes George Tekmitchovs excellent article
about stabilizers in the Glade...
Interestingly enough the target compound archers usually only use a
long rod - or is there a specific reason why target recurves should
be shot with a completely different stabilizer geometry?
Good shooting
Stephan
--
Stephan Melin
Email: Stepha...@neuss.netsurf.de
Phone: (+49)-211-551563
Stretch
Stephan wrote:
> This is mainly for my fellow techno geeks in the realm of archery...
That sounds like me.... :o)
<SNIP ...toys!>
> - my usual setup with the ACE long rod replaced by the Beiter one
>
> The third setup turned out to be almost unshootable for me. It felt
> much too heavy and had a huge forward torque. In fact I was afraid, that
> due to the torque the extender might shear off after too many shots.
You don't surprise me there! 41" longrod on a six inch extender with 1"
of v-bar inbetween! That's a 48" extension! Not too mention the fact
that the Beiter rod is heavier than the ACE all be it distributed mass.
> With the Centralizer 1 cm made a significant
> difference in noise after the shot; my usual setup is quite insensitive
> to these changes.
Bit of a wild guess here but with the Centraliser only you only just
have enough damping to quiet the system. With all your rods you have
more than sufficient damping so minor changes to brace height has little
effect? It may make it easier for you to determine the correct brace
height! I have to admit that I have owned several Stylists and none of
them have ever been noisey!
> My observation is that with the lightweight Centralizer it is easier
> for me to "get onto the target" and stay there while aiming.
No, that is my experience with multi-rod longrods too. They just sort of
float on the yellow. The bow is a lot more difficult to torque.
> What I found a bit difficult to get used to is
> that the Beiter stabilizer is far from being as stiff as the ACE
> stuff. I have the impression that during aiming (which currently takes
> too much time btw.) the end of the Centralizer "wobbles" quite a bit.
I would certainly expect this, although the shorter the stabiliser the
stiffer it will be! My rod is 26" long + 2" schwabel and a couple of
weights, all in about 29". It uses AFC 2400 shafts (as does the Beiter)
but I have 5 rods (to Beiters 4). You may find that you can get an
effective full draw balance with a shorter Centraliser (say 33" or so)
then the rod will be stiffer and may not wobble so much. Having said
that I tried a 22" rod identical to mine and it was unshootable for me,
way too stiff and felt horrible!
> However I have been unable to perceive this wobble until it got into
> my field of vision when shooting at the 90m target - in fact this
> has been a bit annoying (maybe this stabilizer is a bit too long).
Yeah that would be my suggestion. I used to have a 30" AGF on a 3"
extension and a 53# bow watching the longrod wobble was most
disconcerting!
> The Beiter
> setup is definitely noisier (also see above) but is still comfortable
> to shoot. So in the after-shot damping my usual setup has an edge for
> me.
This is interesting. Could it be the total mass of your normal system
doing more damping? Maybe the Centraliser just changes the pitch of your
tuning fork?
> Being a techno geek ....
Nothing wrong with that as long as *we* admit it ;o)
> However since the single Beiter Centralizer worked amazingly well >..... <snip>
> What is the use of V-Bars and side rods all together?
It's a good question, you're the Physicist! ;o) But remember not
everyone does! Butch Johnson is still just shooting a longrod and a back
weight. Denise Parker, Ed Eliason and Rod White have all shot pretty
good scores with the same kind of setup.
<SNIP a little physics... very restrained Stephan!>
<V-bars>
> The same effect could be achieved by just adding weights to both ends
> of the riser. So I don't see any significant benefit of adding stiff
> side rods.
Well that is probably true but will it feel the same? Can you get the
same inertia generated with the same mass? If you set your twins up so
that the centre of mass is in line with the riser then probably yes. But
what if you have the mass well back?
It's an interesting and cheap prospect. The main problem being that most
manufactures only bush the front of the riser and at best 1 rear slot.
How about a bow with say 4 threads in the back? Then you could really
tweak to your hearts content ;o)
> Interestingly enough the target compound archers usually only use a
> long rod - or is there a specific reason why target recurves should
> be shot with a completely different stabilizer geometry?
You have to remember that compounds are firstly heavier than recurves so
therefore inherintly more stable on "hold". They have a lighter holding
weight (ditto) and they are shorter (dense mass)? So for these reasons
you *need* less stabilisation as it is allready stable? Just
suggestions.
> Good shooting
Good thinking more like it!
As I've siad before I've been shooting one of these rods for around 4
months and here is what I have found.
1) Compared to *normal* parallel stabilisers it holds on target far
easier and is therefore easier to aim and commit to the shot.
2) It doesn't shoot any better but it does help you to shoot more better
shots
3) V-bar extensions over 4" are a no-no!
4) Shooting without the V-bar I find that the bow is a bit wobbly at
full draw BUT on release the shot is very clean and a good shot goes in
the ten however it is not forgiving (Maybe due to the shortness of the
rod).
5) I am currently shooting with a v-bar but no extender at all (I have
even removed the 2" I was using). I have added about an extra 15g to the
longrod weight (around 80g). The v-bar has no angle (45 degree flat) so
mainly is just adding back weight but it feels different from just
adding a big back weight! I also have a Metal cupped Gizzmo (Schwabel)
screwed into the back of the riser with about a 50g weight. (Also tried
100g without the schwabel and with/without the twins.)
With the gear I have that is what works best. I am however pepared to
believe that a longer Centraliser with just a variation in back weight
may feel as good. So Stephan, are you going to drill holes into the back
of your Supreme? I'd volunteer my old Stylist but I have no limbs for it
;o)
John
--
John Dickson,(aka Stretch) Hoyt Avalon MkII, Carbon+ 70" 47#
Multimedia Guru? Robinson Gattling-Gun, Gemini twins.
Heriot-Watt University BCY Dynaflite 20str, Shibuya RX965
Edinburgh, Scotland. Beiter Button, Easton X10 .410.
Steve Ross
Folks,
I'm looking for recomendations for binoculars for target
archery. What size/power do you need to spot an arrow
at 60-70 yards away? I'm getting tired of not seeing where my
arrows are landing at these distances. Then again I don't
want anything to heavy so it's a real pain to carry.
thanks, Steve
Peter Dillard
For FITA archery the big issue is being able to clearly see your arrows
vs. the others. This means a need to have good color clarity to pick
out your nocks vs. others that might be close in color.
I have found that anything over 8 power is difficult to hold steady
enough to get a clear view. This aspect is also aided by having a wide
field of vision.
The best binoculars that I have used are Zeiss 8X30 Marine. Leitz 7X42
are close. Both of these are now VERY expensive. My wife uses Nikon
8X30 Marine and I also have Steiner 7X50. The Steiner 8X30 are also
good (at under $200).
The best advice I can give is to get a good pair the first time. I went
through a number of binoculars before finding ones that REALLY worked
for archery spotting.
Peter Dillard
John Stuart
In article <334378...@hw.ac.uk>, j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk wrote:
-> Stephan wrote:
->
-> > This is mainly for my fellow techno geeks in the realm of archery...
->
-> That sounds like me.... :o)
->
I must meekly raise my hand to that one as well.....;-)
-> > Interestingly enough the target compound archers usually only use a
-> > long rod - or is there a specific reason why target recurves should
-> > be shot with a completely different stabilizer geometry?
->
-> You have to remember that compounds are firstly heavier than recurves so
-> therefore inherintly more stable on "hold". They have a lighter holding
-> weight (ditto) and they are shorter (dense mass)? So for these reasons
-> you *need* less stabilisation as it is allready stable? Just
-> suggestions.
->
Remember also, most compound shooters use a release, and bubble level
scopes are legal in that division. They have little need for V-bars due to
the lack of side-to-side torque caused by the fingers. The string follows
a much straighter path upon release.
The bubble level shows the archer a level place and the release allows it
to stay level during the shot.
--
John Stuart
john...@atl.Mindspring.com
brewer, archer
HOYT Radian 36# Carbon Plus
Easton ACE Stabilizer & V-bars
Cavalier & Beiter Accessories
Perry A. Ratcliff
Man, have you opened a can of worms. This thread is going to go on
forever. First, you should specify the price range you are
comfortable working in. Without that, I will put in my two cents
worth in the "A Little Expensive" department.
I have experience with <$100 up to approximately $750 binoculars.
At $400 I believe that the Pentax 12x42 binoculars are an excellent
choice for target archery. The 12x magnification is very good for
spotting arrows while the 42 mm objective lens give good light
gathering capabilities.
These binoculars are superior to my 7x50 Swarovski for spotting arrows
and at a much lighter weight and about 1/2 the price. I would never
carry the Swarovski binoculars around my neck, but am comfortable with
the Pentax binoculars around my neck all day.
The Pentax are a good choice for glasses wearers also because of the
long eye relief. If you wear glasses, be sure that you take eye
relief into account.
Good Shooting!
Perry
Dave McDougall, Ont. Canada
For the money you can't beat the Brunton 10x50's. They are very
bright, have excellent eye relief for glass wearers and the cost is
verily reasonable. I've had mine for 2 years now and the only thing
that has happened to them is the eye cups cracked. After a phone call
I had a new set of cups from the very pleasant people at Brunton and
even got some spares. The only downfall with these binoculars is that
everyone else wants to use them and they are a little large but I
still would rather carry the 10x50's around rather than my Pentax
10x24's which are also an excellent glass in the affordable category.
>>>>>---------------------------------->
Dave McDougall
zo...@sympatico.ca
Terry Trier
In article <5i65o8$1ga$1...@news1.sympatico.ca>, zo...@sympatico.ca says...
and say that I'm a proud owner of a new pair of Leica 10x42 trinovids, which
would be an excellent choice for what you want (but pricy). However, I just
read that the recent issue of Sky and Telescope has an article on buying
binoculars and rates the Nikon Superior E 10x42 porro prisms as the best all
purpose pair of binoculars that can be bought. Big claim, eh? Eagle Optics
in Madison, WI (1-800-289-1132) has these puppies but you have to call for
the price. Somewhere around $500-600, I'm guessing. A nice thing about
them is that they only weigh 26 oz. My Leica's are 31.4 oz but seem pretty
comfortable around the neck. And they are everything I expected for $1018.
But that's cheap for a lifetime of viewing. I've used 'older technology'
Leica's that simply blew the doors of $300 priced binos with newer coatings
etc.
Call Eagle Optics and get their catalog. They have some excellent info in
their catalog on buyin binos and scopes, the people are courteous and
informative, and their prices are competitive. I just ordered a Fujinon
spotting scope from them with the zoom eyepiece and the price was pretty
good at 1/2 list price.
--
Terry M. Trier, Michigan State University, tr...@pilot.msu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The flow of energy through a system acts to organize that system.
---Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology---
Terry Trier
In article <5i8dun$9uh$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, tr...@pilot.msu.edu says...
>Let me be elitist here (since I rarely have the chance (move over George!))
>and say that I'm a proud owner of a new pair of Leica 10x42 trinovids,
which
Given the nature of the beast (newsgroups, that is) and my recent 'dressing
down' for 'flaming' George R., the George referred to above was not George
R. but George T. Please flame me for 'flaming' George T., not George R.
Thanks,
Stretch
John Stuart wrote:
<SNIP why Wheelies use different stabs>
> Remember also, most compound shooters use a release, and bubble level
> scopes are legal in that division. They have little need for V-bars due to
> the lack of side-to-side torque caused by the fingers.
Hmmm, while I am prepared to accept that there is little side to side
movement in the string of a compound I am not convinced that a V-bar
will affect the side to side motion of the string in a recurve. (Am I
getting the wrong end of the stick here?)
Simce the arrow is out of the bow in thousandths of a second (or
thereabouts :o) ) I don't believe that the reaction time of any
stabiliser is fast enough to affect this. IMHO of course.
The torque which a V-bar is so effective against is poor hand position.
The existence of bubble levels and peeps will aid the compound archer in
the erradication of hand position errors. <Note i said AID!>
Mind you there are a lot of wheelies on the line nowadays using a v-bar
and 1 twin or short-rod to counterbalance the off-centre balance of the
bow (overcut, sight, rest etc) it seems to work pretty well.
So what do you reckon?
Stephan Melin
In article <3348DB...@hw.ac.uk>, Stretch <j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk> writes:
|> John Stuart wrote:
|>
|> <SNIP why Wheelies use different stabs>
|>
|> > Remember also, most compound shooters use a release, and bubble level
|> > scopes are legal in that division. They have little need for V-bars due to
|> > the lack of side-to-side torque caused by the fingers.
|>
|> Hmmm, while I am prepared to accept that there is little side to side
|> movement in the string of a compound I am not convinced that a V-bar
|> will affect the side to side motion of the string in a recurve. (Am I
|> getting the wrong end of the stick here?)
The side to side motion of the string depends mainly on the release
technique (finger shooting)... So I guess you are quite right.
|> Simce the arrow is out of the bow in thousandths of a second (or
|> thereabouts :o) ) I don't believe that the reaction time of any
|> stabiliser is fast enough to affect this. IMHO of course.
I think that depends mainly on the speed of sound in the materials of
the bow. And e.g. in aluminum it is 5110 m/s, in rubber only 54 m/s,
"hard rubber" is 1570 m/s . Most solid materials have speeds of sound
exceeding 1000 m/s... Any mechanical disturbance will travel
with the speed of sound through the bow.
Let us do a very conservative "back of the envelope" calculation:
Suppose we have a fast bow: 70 m/s as the initial speed for the arrow.
The stroke of the arrow is about 55 cm (that is quite much btw.).
Now the arrow stays at least for about 8/1000 s in the bow, since
it has to be accelerated it is more (I could also calculate that,
but I promised in another post: no more physics for today ;-)).
So let us say: 1/100 s.
From the limb tips to the end of the long rod it is less than 2 m
(this is a very long bow and a very long long rod btw.).
Let us assume that the overall speed of sound in the bow is about
1000 m/s. So the sound can travel 5 times the distance between limb
tips and the end of the long rod.
So the disturbance created through the movement of the limb tips
(we can disregard the string in this case) reaches the end of the
rods before the arrow has cleared the bow. In fact it is reflected
and travels back into the bow...
Oh - I promised no more physics in my previous post: I lied ;-)
<SNIP>
Btw.:
I wrote that with my current setup it doesn't matter if my bracing
height varies about 1 cm. I think it is due to the fact that my
current setup is overdamped - but I am going to experiment a little
bit this weekend.
All to the gold
Stephan
--
Stephan Melin
Email: Stepha...@neuss.netsurf.de
Phone: (+49)-211-551563
PGP public key available upon request
George Ryals IV
Terry,
For a second there I was thing of dragging out my old flame suit.
Yikes!
Geroge Ryals IV
George Ryals IV
Terry,
George Ryals IV
Parrish999
Ok I'll open a bucket of worms. I've looked through all of the mentioned
binocs at local shoots. I was looking at a Sportsman guide catalog two
weeks ago and saw Fully coated Tasco rubber covered 16x50 binocs for
39.95 and ordered them. these things are awesome for the price. A guy
that i was shooting with, who has Brunton 10x50's kept borrowing mine and
was going home to order some. You should too.
Perry A. Ratcliff
One of the biggest problems with inexpensive binoculars is their
inability to keep water out. I went through a two-day tournament once
without being able to use my inexpensive Nikons after the sixth target
because of fogging. For the price, I had considered these an
excellent choice for over a year. Following that experience however,
I have never walked onto a range without sealed binoculars.
Inexpensive binoculars provide 90% of the capability of even the most
expensive binoculars. Its largely a matter of how much that extra 10%
is worth to you. Improved reliability, better clarity, and lighter
weight make the premium binoculars "worth it" for me. But then again,
when it comes to archery I have never been accused being particularly
frugal.
Good Shooting!
Perry
Stretch
Stephan Melin wrote:
<SNIP some physics but VERY reserved for Stephan> :o)
Ah, so we are talking about the stabilisers doing work from the moment
of the release? I guess, as your calculations show, this may be true but
how effective is a rod wobbling going to be in smoothing out a snaking
string? Not a great deal I fear.
I *think* (no physics ;o) ) that the rod will only really begin to do
practical work (other than bowhand torque) once the limbs are at least
at brace height if not as late as the bow recoiling ie when the power
stroke is no longer smooth eg stopping and recoiling?
So much as you have proven that a rod could do work on the moment of
release, I'm not convinced that it does do any pratcical work until
launch and recoil.
I would also tend to believe that at the point of release there is very
little *sound* (shock, whatever you wnat to call it) relatively
speaking. You don't hear the bow from the moment it comes off your
fingers, nor do you see the limbs wobbling. So I *reckon* ;o) (am I just
being troublesome and gagging for more physics?) that all *sound* at
this stage would be disappaited by the limbs and riser before it ever
got to the stabilisers?
Any thoughts?
John
PS Stabilisers aren't there to make you shoot better, they are there to
look cool ;o) Sort of....
Stretch
Sorry didn't notice the error in the Newsgroup line of this thread
earlier (rec-sport.archery)
Stephan Melin wrote:
> That leads me to an even more general question:
> I am convinced that no one ever researched the effects and the usefulness
> of the stabilizers in systematic way. So how do I setup the stabilization
> of a bow in a systematic way?
^^^^^^^^^^
Well Stephan first you need a lot of time. Second you need a lot of
stabilisers. You've read the stuff from Easton about micro tuning? Well
stabilisers is exactly the same except you have many more variables!
So you have longrod, twin, extender, v-bar, top rod, bottom rod, counter
weights. For each stabiliser component you have length, weight (in the
case of rods, number of weights) and worst of all manufacturer (so that
could be six or seven (or more) possibilities straight off!)
However, I believe firmly that stabilisers are not about accuracy they
are about feel. There are 3 components of feel.
1) At full draw
2) During the shot
3) After shot vibration
So now you have to shoot every possible setup mixing all the components
on at least a few different days for each setup (to allow for variation
in your form from day to day) and then rank them out of 100% for each of
the categories. Now as you have just tried a few thousand combinations
of rods you are not likely to have an outright winner but then you
repeat with say the top twenty ...... ;o)
Silly huh?
If you pick a stabiliser setup that feels good then you will get the
results you expect with tuning.
What I do? Well I gather as much gear as I can muster (which is usually
way too much). I start with just a longrod. (well actually I shoot the
bow with nothing first!) I'll try all the longrods I have and choose
one. (It's the most important). Then I'll add v-bars. Usually I start
with 45 degree flat (it's what I normally shoot) but I will try the
others too. I'll go for the one that feels best. Then I'll try an
extender short to long. Choose one (or none) and maybe change the v-bar
again. By this time intuition begins to play a large part. By the feel
of the bow you what you want to try next. At the very last stage I may
try doinker/gizzmo schwabel things. This may also involve comparing say
an 8" rod with gizzmo to a 10" rod without. Etc etc... you get the
picture?
BTW Once I have reached an initial decision on Longrod, v-bar, twins and
extender then I will decide on top rod or counter weight depending on
how the bow is aiming and how the bow is reacting in the shot.
It doesn't actually take that long as the feel component comes in really
early in the process. Once you get there you know it's right because the
other options don't feel so good!
If by systematic you mean *academic*/physics rather than feel? No Way!
Lets face it archery is frequently a sport where theory does not work
out!
John
PS All my opinions of course. ;o) Is this what you were talking about???
Murray Elliot
In article <3355F7...@hw.ac.uk>, Stretch <j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk>
writes
>Stephan Melin wrote:
>
> <SNIP some physics but VERY reserved for Stephan> :o)
>
<SNIP stabilisers are ineffective between release and recoil argument>
>
>PS Stabilisers aren't there to make you shoot better, they are there to
>look cool ;o) Sort of....
Hey John,
As for looking 'cool' - that long rod of yours does look extremely high-
tech, and almost 'cool' (until that rubber 'thingy' on the end becomes
bent - like David Cowieson's - then it just looks ridiculous) -
but I have to say that the hat I saw you wearing at the training day at
Lasswade on Saturday spoiled the whole thing... ;-)
Justin Huish made the same 'cool' mistake at the last olympics - mirror
shades and his hat on backwards (*snigger*)... couldn't fault his
shooting though...
On a more serious note, I have to agree with you that I *believe* that
there is very little serious use for a long rod other than damping post-
nock-clearance shock - i.e. when, as you say, the power stroke is no
longer smooth (nice turn of phrase that).
I'd love to see some graphs of velocity and acceleration measured at
various points on the bow during the release - surely Hoyt, if not
others, must have done some measurements on this?
So - we add a long rod to provide non-essential damping, stabilisers to
balance the long rod - and now we've got a much heavier bow, for a lot
of extra bucks, but with very little in terms of performance improvement
(unless you count the 'confidence' factor from having a cooler longer
rod than the next guy... ;-) (or girl))
- I'm off to dust down my flame-proof nightie...
-------------
Murray Elliot
Bryan Kimsey
Bowhunting opportunities on a 30,000 acre ranch in New Mexico-
I have space for two bowhunters on a ranch in NE New Mexico
that is jammed with antelope. Limited to a total of 5
bowhunters (I'm one), with 2 slots already taken. Until last year when
we had a lot of rain, success was 100% with the largest buck being a
16+". Terrain is very mixed with most hunting done from stands
in windmills. I supply a large comfortable barn with cots,
shower, cooking gear, walk-in cooler, refrigerator, maps and
advice. You supply your stand (tree or ladder stands) and
transportation. Trespass fee is $400 for 5-day hunt, plus license
($210 out of state). Special license is due by May 24th, so
don't wait too long. A guide is NOT required for antelope
hunts. Prairie dog and coyote hunting included- bring your
varmint rifle.
Contact me via e-mail at: BAKi...@worldnet.att.net for more
information.
--
Bryan Kimsey
Note new address: BAKi...@worldnet.att.net
Stretch
This was tending towards a personal message sorry if it bores anyone.
Murray Elliot wrote:
> As for looking 'cool' - that long rod of yours does look extremely high-
> tech, and almost 'cool' (until that rubber 'thingy' on the end becomes
> bent - like David Cowieson's - then it just looks ridiculous)
As it happens rubber *thingies* are possibly the best form of damping
available to an archer at the moment. Damping excess vibration protects
the archer form injury and also provides more comfort through the shot,
post-shot comfort= pre-shot relaxation. As for bent Gizzmos, they should
be replaced or made of stiffer rubber in the first instance. The one on
my longrod is over a year old and still pretty rigid and definitely
straight.
> but I have to say that the hat I saw you wearing at the training day at
> Lasswade on Saturday spoiled the whole thing... ;-)
The Zimbabalooba baseball cap? (not worn backwards I might add!) Tie
dyed and printed in Zimbabwe? Bought in Cape Town? I guess some people
can't help their ignorance ;o) I guess the yellow and blue check
trousers were OK then???
> Justin Huish made the same 'cool' mistake at the last olympics - mirror
> shades and his hat on backwards (*snigger*)...
That really is quite an unpleasant remark to both myself and Justin
Huish. I think you would find that if you shoot archery tournaments you
find yourself wearing some totally rediculous clothing for the sake of
the sport. Justin has a lot of hair, wearing a baseball cap is a good
way of getting it under control!
Ever tried shooting with a normal baseball cap forwards? Peak = string =
oops? As for shades I'm strictly a Rayban Wayfarer man. I'm sure Justin
would get a giggle out of watching you *let fly* with a Border Comet
too. ;o)
I spent all day Sunday wearing green flares! OK so they were actually
Gore-tex ski trousers and perhaps the best bit of archery clothing I
posses.... not trendy though. Mind you it's kind of tough shooting in a
Blazer, Oxford shirt, Loafers and chino's!
> So - we add a long rod to provide non-essential damping, stabilisers to
> balance the long rod - and now we've got a much heavier bow, for a lot
> of extra bucks, but with very little in terms of performance improvement
This is not what I said at all. In fact it's utter rubbish. A longrod
provides after shot damping which it turn gives comfort of shock and
injury reduction which is IMO essential. (see above) All stabilisers
balance the bow, now that is a matter of taste BUT the performance
improvement of a bow that feels just right compared to one that does not
is significant! 50-100 points on a FITA for quite fine adjustments. As
for hi-tech stabilsers, well yes there are still a few idiots out there
who think taper tube aluminium is *as good as anything*. (see Teks Techs
in the last Glade for a better understanding) I don't really think you
have the experinece to draw such sweeping conclusions. Sorry, but it's
true.
I myself prefer the look of a Gemini rod. At the moment the multi-rod
feels better though so I am stcking with it.
It is 100% acceptable to make a decision regarding your own equipment be
it stick bow, recurve or compound but you should never slag off others
for making the decisions they make. Especially if the others are
shooting dramatically better than you. I presume you will be the one
shooting the border Comet with no stabilisers at St Andrews and winning
the Silver arrow with a 900 St George?
> - I'm off to dust down my flame-proof nightie...
Quite right too? Did you type this in your sleep? ;o)
John
--
John Dickson,(aka Stretch) Hoyt Avalon MkII, Carbon+ 70" 47#
Multimedia Guru? Robinson Gattling-Gun, Gemini twins.
Heriot-Watt University BCY Dynaflite 20str, Shibuya RX965
Edinburgh, Scotland. Beiter Button, Easton X10 .410.
To E-mail please remove anti-spam "X" in address, sorry :o(
Scot Mould
I saw this, and had to add my comments, hope you dont mind.
> Murray Elliot wrote:
>
> > As for looking 'cool' - that long rod of yours does look extremely
high-
> > tech, and almost 'cool' (until that rubber 'thingy' on the end becomes
> > bent - like David Cowieson's - then it just looks ridiculous)
>
> As it happens rubber *thingies* are possibly the best form of damping
> available to an archer at the moment. Damping excess vibration protects
> the archer form injury and also provides more comfort through the shot,
> post-shot comfort= pre-shot relaxation. As for bent Gizzmos, they should
> be replaced or made of stiffer rubber in the first instance. The one on
> my longrod is over a year old and still pretty rigid and definitely
> straight.
I have to agree with Stretch here, *thingies* are excellent inventions,
esp. for compound bows. As for looks, a nice looking long rod is good, but
if it does not do the job, bin it. Most multi-rods, apart from looking
cool, actually work!
> > So - we add a long rod to provide non-essential damping, stabilisers to
> > balance the long rod - and now we've got a much heavier bow, for a lot
> > of extra bucks, but with very little in terms of performance
improvement
Non-essential damping! I have no idea how experienced you are, but I
personally would have a very short archery career if it was not for
dampening. Elbows, shoulders etc. are all 'protected' from dangerous
vibrations by adding longrods. Indeed *thingies* help even more. As for
adding weight, this helps to steady the bow esp. in windy conditions.
--
Scot Mould, Links Archers Arbroath, Scotland
Hoyt Superstar Carbonite XL BCY 450 string 16 strand
Tri-Rod 33" Stabiliser Cascade Model 8 release aid
A/C/C 3-18 28" w/82gr red'n'gold shiny 303 spinwings
Links Archers http://www.taynet.co.uk/users/linksarchers/default.htm
Chris Christopherson
In article <335B3D...@hw.ac.uk>, Stretch <j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk>
writes
>This was tending towards a personal message sorry if it bores anyone.
>
>
>> As for looking 'cool' - that long rod of yours does look extremely high-
>> tech, and almost 'cool' (until that rubber 'thingy' on the end becomes
>> bent - like David Cowieson's - then it just looks ridiculous)
Having known Wee Davy Cowieson for some time I must say that his bent
rubber thing has brought joy to his friends and family for many years
have a nice day !!!
--
Chris Christopherson
listen for the echo
Stretch
Chris E. Jones wrote:
> A bow will produce a symphony of vibrations when shot. So here's my
> hypothesis... The low frequency vibrations cause the most bow movement and
> produce the most ammount of noise. Fortunately the arrow is clear of the
> bow before these vibrations can be reflected at the end of the bow. People
> use doinkers to clean up these low frequency vibrations.
Is this necessarily true? I would have thought that a doinker would
clean up low and high frequency vibration.
> The high frequency
> vibrations cause less movement but can take effect while the arrow is still
> "in the bow". So do the ACE stabilizers do a good enough job a damping the
> the high frequency vibrations? Or do we need to employ some other
> technique?
Presumably they don't which is why Easton came up with the X10
stabiliser and AVRS system? <That was just a joke really!>
I think one of the most important areas for getting rid of high or low
frequency vibration is string material used. I find that ASB Dyneema,
Dynaflight and even S4 give a much less vibrant after shot feel than
Fastflight, Spectra etc. You would *think* that this is a better place
to damp vibration too as you are getting *it* immediately.
Another point of comment is the new Yamaha SuperFeel handle which has a
new polymer based plate in the limb pocket which *reportedly* (as I have
never and will never be able to shoot one) cuts out a lot of vibration.
I seem to remember in the late 80's early 90's, the French manufaturer
Atletic (or was it the German company OK?) made a gadget that fitted on
the limb housing it had rubber rollers on it that sat against the limb?
Anyone remeber these? Did they work? Where can I get some ;o)
Riser design is another issue. Very stiff risers have more vibration as
the riser itself does less to damp the bow. Any physicist out there? If
you made say an Avalon from the next grade up of aluminium alloy would
it damp vibration better or worse? Ok so it would be nearly twice as
strong and approx 5% heavier but how would it affect the vibration? Is
it design stiffness or material stiffness that has the greatest effect?
I have shot a Stylist HE15 alloy and a Stylist Star HE30 alloy and a
Stylist Star made of HE15 (just to complicate things!). Vibration wise I
would say that they ranked Stylist (best) Star (HE15) Star HE30 (worst)
although all are good! Is this my imagination? Is it just the weight of
the bow (as that is the same order from heaviest to lightest)
Ramble ramble ramble......... :o) Anyone want to make me an Avalon out
of the next grade up alloy for an indepth comparison? ;o)
Stephan Melin
Sorry for taking so long to reply - but sometimes there are actually things
which are more important than archery (or usenet)...
In article <335600...@hw.ac.uk>, Stretch <j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk> writes:
<SNIP, replying to my question>
|> > That leads me to an even more general question:
|> > I am convinced that no one ever researched the effects and the usefulness
|> > of the stabilizers in systematic way. So how do I setup the stabilization
|> > of a bow in a systematic way?
|> ^^^^^^^^^^
|>
|> Well Stephan first you need a lot of time. Second you need a lot of
|> stabilisers. You've read the stuff from Easton about micro tuning? Well
|> stabilisers is exactly the same except you have many more variables!
|>
<SNIP - exhaustive description of Stretch's method deleted>
Well - that is what I actually had in mind: Some sort of "receipe" for
selecting and tuning stabilizers - just like we have have for cushion
plungers.
In article <336487...@hw.ac.uk>, Stretch <j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk> writes:
<About damping properties of string materials>
<SNIP>
|> I think one of the most important areas for getting rid of high or low
|> frequency vibration is string material used. I find that ASB Dyneema,
|> Dynaflight and even S4 give a much less vibrant after shot feel than
|> Fastflight, Spectra etc. You would *think* that this is a better place
|> to damp vibration too as you are getting *it* immediately.
That is my observation too - switching from FastFlight to ASB Dyneema
had a significant impact on the "feel" of the shot. The bow (although
quite quiet) produced even less noise...
a bit later he writes:
<About riser design>
|> Riser design is another issue. Very stiff risers have more vibration as
|> the riser itself does less to damp the bow. Any physicist out there? If
I guess I'll leave that to the engineers - btw. when I was young (two years
ago) I was a physicist - now I am working for a bank ;-)
|> you made say an Avalon from the next grade up of aluminium alloy would
|> it damp vibration better or worse? Ok so it would be nearly twice as
|> strong and approx 5% heavier but how would it affect the vibration? Is
|> it design stiffness or material stiffness that has the greatest effect?
I think the most noticable difference is between the cast risers and the
machined ones. Stabilizers (or rather the whole strategy of damping) which
worked quite well for cast risers usually do not work well for machined
risers. At least it had been the case when I switched from my old Hoyt GM+
to my current Stylist Supreme. After the shot there was so much high
frequency vibration that it actually "hurt" (hurt is a too strong word,
however it did not feel well) my bow arm after a couple of dozen arrows.
In article <19970415102...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mckri...@aol.com
(MCKRICKLEE) writes:
<SNIP - about anticipation>
Very good point indeed - that is what a good damping of the after shot
vibration is all about. If it "feels good" there is no sense to counter it...
a bit later he writes:
|> IMHO I think that there are a few key points that should be considered:
|> 1. Weight. There is a certain amount of weight that each archer will
|> perform at their optimum.
|> 2. Balance. When the balance is correct...during the shot, the archer
|> will keep a more consistant follow-through.
|> 3. Feel. When you have the right stabilization the feel will be optimum
|> for you and you will maintain a smoother shot execution.
I think point 1 is often underestimated. If one is practising regularly, it
is quite easy to adopt to some excess weight as long as points 2 and 3 are
met. In fact I believe most archers tend to overdamp their bows at the cost
of shooting a too heavy bow (I am not talking about draw weight). I had to
take a two months break from archery this year - after getting back into it
the biggest problem wasn't draw weight (in fact this wasn't a problem at all)
but the weight of the bow itself. To add another data point: another archer
from our club shot for the first time after 4 months. He even could shoot
a whole FITA - but only after removing some of the weights (the top rod)
from his bow.
In article <3355F7...@hw.ac.uk>, Stretch <j.a.d...@hw.ac.uk> writes:
<SNIP>
|> I *think* (no physics ;o) ) that the rod will only really begin to do
|> practical work (other than bowhand torque) once the limbs are at least
|> at brace height if not as late as the bow recoiling ie when the power
|> stroke is no longer smooth eg stopping and recoiling?
|>
|> So much as you have proven that a rod could do work on the moment of
|> release, I'm not convinced that it does do any pratcical work until
|> launch and recoil.
I think (rather unscientifically ;-)) that this is mainly true - however
one could solve that problem only by experiment. Are there any engineers
from one of the manufacturers out there?
|> I would also tend to believe that at the point of release there is very
|> little *sound* (shock, whatever you wnat to call it) relatively
|> speaking. You don't hear the bow from the moment it comes off your
|> fingers, nor do you see the limbs wobbling. So I *reckon* ;o) (am I just
|> being troublesome and gagging for more physics?) that all *sound* at
|> this stage would be disappaited by the limbs and riser before it ever
|> got to the stabilisers?
Actually "sound" doesn't mean that you (or anyone else) can hear it. Any
mechanical vibration (be it in a solid, a fluid or a gas) is sound in some
sense. However I think that discussion would lead a bit too far from
archery - so I'll leave it now...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is enough reply for the time being...
"Epilogue"
I actually shelled out the money for a new stabilizer system and
"applied" Stretch's method for selecting one. It damps as well as
my previous one, is better balanced and weights noticably less.
I already have equalled my PB, despite being way out of practise,
being too lazy to retune the bow and still searching for my
motivation...