It has been some time since I have really left a post about an issue I feel really compelled to write about. The title of this thread "an end to tuning" is not really accurate when looking at the bigger picture of what I am trying to relate but it seemed appropriate enough to get everyone's attention.

I haven't been as active postinglately across the variety of archery/hunting forumson the net but I have been spending time reading alot more of the posts and I am starting to notice a larger pattern. Tuning, in one form or another,is an issue most often debated on the forums. Some folks prefer to approach it from one perspective while others choose a different route. Some advocate an entirely comprehensive approach. Each, obviously, has its benefits.

The other side of the issue, and the one seldom openly mentioned on the forums because of the obvious reprisal, is the fact that many archers do not tune their bows, do not want to tune their bows or at least do not feel the need to tune their bows to the extent so often advocatedon the forumsby the resident experts.

Still, there is a third side to this which is connected to the first two but is rarely mentioned in the same context...that of equipment design itself. What I believe we have been seeing for quite some time now is the gradual progression towards more easily tuned equipment or, let me rephrase that,at least the attempt to create more easily tuned equipment. Case in point, lets address cam design.

We had our first big "revolution" when Mathews introduced their version of the single cam design back in the mid 90's. The selling point for that particular design was the lack of the need for cam synchronization. Without two cams one never had to worry about tuning issues related to the synchronization of cams. Ofcourse, other issues related to the original single cam design arose which caused another entirely different group of tuning issues. However, the original intent of the new design was to reduce the need for one aspect of tuning.

Step forward 6 or 7 years and we havea wave of hybrid designs hitting the market. Their selling point? The fact that they solve some of the faults of the original single cam design thus making a bow easier to tune and stay in tune. Even within the most recent crop of bows you see constant redesigns to remedy such things as cam lean, limb twist and/or synchronization issues. To what end? Well that would seem obvious...to help reduce the time and effort associated with tuning any given setup.

Need further examples? Look no further than the use of such things as bearings instead of bushings or the increased use of carbon arrows versus aluminums. Why the latter? Well, the last I checked there were only about 4 different sizes for any given carbon arrow to cover the entire typical range of draw lengths, draw weights and cam styles. Compare that with the good ol' Easton chart which had 5 different sized aluminum shafts for just one draw length, draw weight and cam style. Ofcourse, since I mentioned carbons we cannot ignore the fact that there continues to be less manufacturing consistancy than withaluminums and thus further tuning issues. However, my point still is that with even this piece of equipment the emphasis is on making it easier to utilize the correct setup for you as an individual thus making the entire tuning process less time consuming.

So where am I going with this? Well, I wanted to point out a few things that I have noticed so you would understand my next question. Are we headed towards a point where we will not need to utilize two of the three parts of Len's equation? Will we reach a stage where we will not need to tune the bow and tune the arrow but just tune the archer?

Think about it. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a bow manufacturer could get together with an arrow manufacturer and even possibly a broadhead manufacturerto produce a combination which would result in an absolutely tune-free setup with regard to the equipment?

To take that one step further, what would stop them from designing a setup that would make it possible for the archer to makesome minormistakes and yet still achieveacceptable accuracy for the intended activity?

I can hear the critics now. "We already havesomething close to that type of setup but it would never sell because it would not be fast or flashy."Possibly true,but then the challenge would then be to design such a setup while stillbeing able to make it attractive to the bowhunter and target shooter.

So here is the challenge:

Design a bow that doesn't requirea constant check of cam timing or synchronization, nock point height, centershot, et.....
Design an arrow which is consistant from shaft to shaft and perfectly matched for the bow.
Design a broadhead that requires no additional tuning and is also perfectly matched for bow and arrow combination.

Aftergiving this alot of thought I truly believe that the next step in theequipment revolution will be to design a setup from the ground up with the emphasis on making bow, arrow and point (field point or broadhead) work together so that the only issue the archer must address is himself.