Speaking of physics - STS thought

quiksilver · 04-17-2007, 09:34 AM

I see these String suppressors are all the rage right now. Everybody's gotta have one. Ok.

Watch the video on this thread before responding. It's maybe 1/3 of the way down the page...
http://forums.mathewsinc.com/viewtopic.php?t=29975&highlight=slow++sts

Now, let'stalk about symmetry and shock. To totally eliminate vibration, every force must be equally offset by an equal and opposite reaction. Simple enough, right.

Take your bow, hold it in your hand, and use your free hand to jar the bottom limb. The whole bow jumps and twists and torques, right?

Okay, now imagine that you had three arms. One holding the bow, and the other two jarring both the top limb and the bottom limb at the same time with the exact same amount of force. Now, you'll just feel a uniform recoil, pushing the bow backward, right? It's all about symmetry.

Apply this to the STS. Watching this video, it's really clear that the whole STS concept is asymmetrical. You have a string slap on the bottom half of your bow, with nothing to mirror that impact on the top half.

The point is: for a perfect vibration dampening system, you need TWO STS's, not ONE. You need one placed on the bottom, and a second one placed at the TOP.

I know that none of the new '07 models are tapped for an STS mount on the top half of the string, but why not?

Watching the video, you can clearly see that the bottom half of the string is quickly arrested, while the top half continues to flap.

I just think that if you had two string suppressors, both placed equidistant from the top and bottom cam, that you would achieve the most optimal shock/recoil reduction.

What do you guys think?

HuntingBry · 04-17-2007, 11:45 AM

QS, I agree with what you are saying, but most guys shoot with a peep so even with the top STS it will not be completely symmetrical becasue of the unbalanced weight. However, I believe that having a second STS would do a great deal to eliminate even more shock as you have said. The question now is how to mount it in a way that is would not interfere with the sights or aiming, because it would almost have to be in the same area as the sights to be equidistant from the limb tips. Very interesting concept though.

quiksilver · 04-17-2007, 01:51 PM

I found a picture of a homejob double-sts, and dang if I can't post the pictures.

Matt/TN · 04-17-2007, 04:03 PM

well all this flapping is done so fast. That video elapses in less than .03 of a second I think

davepjr71 · 04-17-2007, 04:25 PM

Fran,

The point you are making is the same one that Len from Maryland made to me when I asked him what he thought of the STS on the Vectrix.He stated that you would need 2 spaced equally on the string to get the full benefit.

The Vectrix I shot did not seem to vibrate any less than the Trykon, Allegiance, or the 2 Matthews I shot.

archer58 · 04-17-2007, 08:37 PM

It is obviously not possible to dampen ALL the motion of the string with just 1 STS. However thinking in terms of other vibration dampening accessories, it does not do thewhole job.The designers probably knew this.I think their intention was to improve , not totally eliminate string oscillation.
That's a good thought abouta top STS.
I would suggest you RUN to the patent office w/ your design.

gibblet · 04-18-2007, 05:18 AM

arrows gone mate - doesn't matter what happens after that. i do also notice its gone about 1" after brace height, and if you watch closely the nock doesn't get thrown up or down at all - i'd say that's pretty good. what you're saying may be even better if it can be accomplished.

Len in Maryland · 04-18-2007, 06:53 AM

Had a customer comein Monday who wanted to buy a new bow. He asked the age-old question, "What do you shoot?" As usual, I refused to answer that question and wanted him to try as many as he wanted and make that decision on his own. I do, however, answer technical questions about all the bows/designs.

I explained in detail about the Hoyt design and in particular the STS style string dampener. I told him the positives and negatives of the dampener and he especially was concerned aboutmy statementsconcerningnoise generation which has been experienced on some bows. He asked if the unit could be removed and I immediately did so.

When he shot the bow without the unit, the difference in vibration wasjustslightly more,but the noisechange was noticeable. He couldn't hear it that muchwhile shooting, but when I shot the bow with him listening, he said it was much more quiet with it off.

He bought the bow and wants it off. He then asked me why I didn't take it off all the Hoyts since it was definitely more noisey with it on. Good question.

Is the answer that some people want a littleless vibration but are willing to accept more noise???

newman1 · 04-18-2007, 11:14 AM

I say most of new bows today are quiet enough already.Unless they can make a bow absolutely quiet,I say forget about all this aftermarket crap.Get a decent weight arrow and go hunting!!!!!PROBLEM SOLVED.

quiksilver · 04-18-2007, 12:00 PM

Archer - you can't patent that. All it would be is an extra hole tapped into the upper riser so that a shooter could install a second STS if they so desired. Obviously, the manufacturers would have to reconfigure their riser so as to have a second hole tapped without compromising structural integrity.

Since no bowsareconfigured toaccept a second STS unit, it's a roadblock to testing it out. Just a design change that I think would benefit a lot of people.