Level nock travel?
 

Another question prodded from the Darton bow report thread- Jeff says the CPS system gives you level nock travel. Since Darton advertises it as most others don't, I assume the majority of single cam bows have "unlevel" nock travel. How unlevel, on average? Does this present a big problem?

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Range-

Other bow companies will advertise "even nock travel" or "straight" or something to that effect. There's a difference between even and level. And Darton is the only one who can provide even AND level nock travel from a one-cam (or hybrid one-cam).

EVEN nock travel could be in a straight line, but not level- meaning no perependicular to the vertical mount of the bow. That means that as the arrow is moving forward, the back end of the arrow may be rising or falling depending on the cam configuration.

I'm sure you've heard stories of how some people have trouble getting a decent paper tear from some one-cams. They need to have a really high nock-point to accomplish this. Possibly could be from a weird nock travel pattern as the arrow travels forward.

An Apple Tuning machine will draw out nock travel patterns- I know Len has one and has played with various bows on it. I have some pics of graphs from a few bows that were put on the Apple machine- I'll see if I can dig them up and post them so you can see some of the wild patterns.

A two cam can be timed so that both cams are rolling over in sync, thereby providing level nock travel.

Edited by - Black Frog on 01/10/2002 08:58:14

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Most solos have between 1/4-3/8" dip in their nock travel at launch,(contrary to the hype) therefore demanding stiffer-spined arrows. There has been alot of debate surrounding the accuracy differential of this vs. level and even nock travel also. The overall design of twins allows for a much more detailed tuning procedure, and can be "supertuned" to help eliminate shooter error of creeping, as well as allow a more consistent nock travel. We then have to assume that if this is effective on a twin, then a solocam design with some of the same attributes will also have noticeable benefits. Unfortunately conventional solos do not carry these benefits. Dartons CPS system is a "hybrid" solocam, and utilizes it's own design which incorporates much better tuning qualities than any conventional solocam design. This is why I've stated many times that I feel the solocams will eventually evolve more towards a "hybrid" design as opposed to continuing on with the conventional design, which IMO has just about run it's course. Once the public realizes this and stops spending mucho money on the conventional solo designs, the manufacturers will then get on to building a better product. But they won't do it until the well is starting to run dry. Just my own thoughts, P12

RE: Level nock travel?
 

I shoot Pearson. They advertise Perfect Horizontal Delivery, and the cam on my bow is a PhD. Has anyone had one of these on one of thier machines. I'd be interested to know if nock travel is truely perfect or they are in fact liers :o.
The only thing I noticed in papertuning my Diamondback was a tail left (I think) which I'd guess was probably a result of string feed from the cam not being continuously inline with it's track in the idler. As you draw the bow the string track moves from left to right on the cam.
Anyone?

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Thanks guys. BF, would love to see those graphs, hopefully they'll also include the name of the offender...

RE: Level nock travel?
 

I see three things:

Level nock, means to me the nock follows a line perpendicular to the string at rest position - Who cares? Obviously if it was really angled it would be a problem, but a degree or two has been with us ever since cavemen tried not to bang their nuckles with the arrows from stickbows.

Straight line, means the nock point doesn't rise and fall, or S curve. This may not matter, but neither does it sound like an advantage to have an S curving arrow.

Angled, the nock moves in a straight line, but it isn't square to the string at rest. Should work as well as Level Nock.

I respectfuly don't discount the posibility that one or the other configuration may result in a higher spine requirement. But i will ignore that possibility until they start to put a different collum for that effect on the Easton chart. {:)}

I have said before that this whole issue was invented to get traction on Mathews at a time when they were a rapidly rising company because of their single cam. Of course this involves imputing motives, so I can't know. What I do know is I had been shooting single cams for a few years thinking they were great, when all of a sudden there were ads all over the place saying they didn't work. They call it cognative disonance.

The only thing I wonder about CPS is the degree to which it re-invents so called dual cam problem (which I admit may be nonsense also). Whenever I see the CPS system on the rack, my first reaction is "great, a dual cam". It just seems that the system would reintroduce the very timing "problems" the Single cam system was designed to eliminate (Is this the case?). So why bother for a nonexistent nock travel problem?

Good to see the NA guys didn't buy the CPS system the way they did with the S cam. I can just see darton folks with a perimeter weighted CPS or a zircon encrusted one in the wings ready to blow NA out of the water.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Range-

I'm afraid I must have erased those pics a year ago. A gentleman named Bill who went by the handle "WLS" owned a Apple tuning machine and emailed me pics of 4 different bow's nock travel charts. If Len may happen to know this individual's email address, please email it to me.

But is was very enlightening to see some of the wild nock travel patters of some harsh one-cam bows. There was almost an inch of up/down travel to one of the bows!

In my opinion, the most stable and consistent setup will give the most accurate results. That means that a bow that can direct all of the limb energy transfer to the rear of the arrow and send it straight forward has the best chance of being the most stable and consistent. If the rear of the arrow (nock travel pattern) is going up,down, or a combination of the two- it will not have all the energy applied to the rear of the arrow in a straight ahead launch. Granted, some of this effect may be very slight- but I look for all the help I can get to make me more accurate.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Thanks anyway BF. I emailed Bowtech to see what the nock travel of the Mighty Mite is, as my Hornet is it's clone... I'll post their response once I get it. I had also asked about their new Infinity cam...

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Ossage: I certainly do invite you to stop by some time so that I can show you graphically the history of nock travel. Your anonymity keeps me from knowing in which part of the country you reside; so I can only hope that you're close enough to visit some day.

Some of the earlier single cams had as much as 1/2" variance. Put that on a weak spine or even a bad nock and try to tune it. Over the years they have improved the designs a lot which has made them much better but nowhere near perfect.

If the "whole issue was invented", then why did manufacturers strive to make it better?? If the nock travel were not an issue, then why did they deny the problem for so many years and then come out with a "straightline" cam (not level) that proved to be so much better. There was also denial that shock was an issue but the perimeter weight surely corrected a problem that didn't exist.

Nock travel, as it exists on most single cams today, isn't necessarily the problematic issue that it was years ago; but, it is still an issue that seems to be addressed frequently by those who understand the positives and negatives of a finely tuned system. Easton, or any other arrow manufacturer, could not add " a different column for that effect" because the effect is too variable given the variety of cams and wheels.


"The only thing I wonder about CPS is the degree to which it re-invents so called dual cam problem (which I admit may be nonsense also). Whenever I see the CPS system on the rack, my first reaction is "great, a dual cam"." First, the C/P/S is not a dual cam. It does not have a dual yoke cable system. It you take the time to compare the string/cable layout of the C/P/S verses any other single cam on the market, you'll notice that they're the same. The difference is basically a split string utilizing a dual track idler. This is exactly what Hoyt just introduced for two new single cams for 2002. BTW, I've checked these new Hoyt single cams and they look very good. Not staight, but closer than many others. Again, if you're in the area, stop by and I'd be glad to show you.

"It just seems that the system would reintroduce the very timing "problems" the Single cam system was designed to eliminate (Is this the case?)." The timing problems exist on ALL single cams. The cam synchronization problems, which are extremely easy to maintain with today's technology, is what is most often confused with timing because, for so long, many used the terminology incorrectly.

"So why bother for a nonexistent nock travel problem?" If it's "nonexistent", then why the advertising of "straightline"????

RE: Level nock travel?
 

AccuRest bows have perfectly straight and perfectly level nock travel. It increases the speed of the bow 10 FPS IBO, is smoother and more accurate. Does not need heavy log type arrows to get straight arrow flight.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

ther can be no snycronization with the CPS. It only as eccentric that is responsable for compressing the limbs as on any other single cam. it also as only on module. Try changing just one module on a two cam. I have shot for several bow companies and i have to say the Dartons are the closest to setting it and forgetting it.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Nock travel can be an issue but with the programs available today for arrow selection it becomes relatively non issue.I set up My 2001 Ultratec on my Archers Advantage last week and it told me to shoot a Redline 600 at 44#.I had some here that I was going to give my nephew so I decided to try them.Went out set the bow up and with a fallaway rest the paper was perfect at 3 feet,so I stepped back to 10 feet and the paper was still perfect.I was amazed that just eyeballing the bow with a perfect arrow that it tuned perfect.It was set a little nock high but who cares.I shot my best indoor score last weekend with it.Went out today and I was absolutely on fire but I have changed over to a 3d setup now and at 54# and 395. mags I had a 3 arrow 2" group at 60 yards before it got dark.I did it 2 times in a row.Not bragging and this is not my usuall but today it was what I was doing.The bows are better than we are.I havn't noticed the program telling me to go stiffer and even in a lot of cases with Carbon Express it will tell me to go lighter than their charts.

So it is not really that big a deal to have a little nock travel but I do agree that the older 1 cams did have too much.

It may present more of a problem for the long draw short bow users but they already have some things to overcome.

Edited by - tfox on 01/10/2002 17:44:31

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Hands down Darton has the most innovative cure for one cam knock travel. By combining the best attributes from single cam bows(no synchronization problems and quiet operation)and twin cam bows(speed and level knock travel)they give you the best of both worlds.The "post feed" cam and large idler wheel that Pearson is using works really well controlling knock travel but its still not totally level. Black Frog is correct about conventional one cam tuning its as easy as running your nock 1/16 to 1/8" high or running a string loop seems to accomplish the same thing.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Thanks to bonecollector for addressing my question on thhis thread about the nock travel as advertised by Pearson. I'm just wondering how you came to that conclusion, what kind of equipment you used? And how far from "perfect" is it? I'm just trying to learn so, in advance- thanks for your time.
-Chief

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Chief
Was a Pearson dealer until I closed my shop last year. Had gone to the Pearson factory on a dealer hunt at the time this cam was being made. they had a prototype Accu-Max that we shot and showed us the computer graph plotting nock travel. As I recall it showed less than 1/16" through the entire draw cycle at all available draw lengths. That is such a minute amount that for tuning we were always able to run a standard nock height like a twin cam. If I had not seen the graph I would never have been able to tell.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

bonecollector: Keep in mind that "computer graph plotting" can be misleading. We had one manufacturer swear to us that his product had "perfect" nock travel. We asked him how he plotted the results and then duplicated his procedure when we got back to the shop. After we finitely measured and plotted the results, his test methods agreed totally with our equipment; which was far from "perfect". In fact, it was pretty bad.

I'm not saying anyone's information is wrong. What I'm saying is consider the source.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Heh, heh, I know which one Len is talking about, we received some info from him on his findings when discussing this particular product, and then tried similar tests ourselves and came up with the same conclusions. The bottom line is that most manufacturers will tell you anything you want to hear in order to get you to purchase product. Very, very few nowadays will tell you the absolute truth,(altho there are still a couple) therefore you must rely more on independent non-biased testing, this will provide more reliable, definitive conclusions. I've thoroughly tested MANY solocams over the past several years, and can honestly say I have yet to find a "conventional" solo system that is perfect. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Forgot that we had conversed on that subject. You're right, PW12, it is that same manufacturer. You memory is still good but mine is failing in my old age. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

RE: Level nock travel?
 

HAH! I can't even remember yesterday sometimes, Len! And unfortunately I'm not that young anymore, either! Good shooting, PW12

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Did anyone read the article recently published in Archery Focus? I beleive it was written by Larry Wise. In the article he explained how he set up a jig for holding a bow on top of a ping pong table. The bow being held perfectly perpendicular to the white lines showed that even 2-cam bows do not have level nock travel. Most 2-cam bows measured about the same but 1-cam bows varied greatly one from another. I posted on another board about the tips of my nocks wearing off the underside of my g-nocks when shot from a Mathews bow and no one seemed to know why. I think the author's desription of the downward nock travel and the resulting crash into the rest explained the problem very well.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Is level knock travel the reason why most competitive target archer's shoot twin cams?
I have heard Pinwheel talk about super tuning and how you can't do it with a single cam bow. ???????
Good shooting.
Dylan

>>>>--------o-->

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Murry and Dylan both hit on combined points. To answer both questions, yes, most competitive archers shoot twins because of their extreme tunability over conventional solo designs. The only ones that do not are the 3D Pros, and because most are simply shooting what the factory puts in their hands. BUT, for longer distance shooting, the ability to &quot;supertune&quot; a twin provides a significant advantage. Any bow can be supremely accurate in the right persons' hands, but the twins offer a distinct advantage in the tuning dept. and can only be an asset if one can tune a bow to their exact form and arrow configurations, even holding. Good shooting, PW12

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Ossage, your contention that &quot;...this whole issue was invented to get traction on Mathews at a time when they were a rapidly rising company because of their single cam.&quot; is really reaching. If you can make that statement then one could then say that timing (synchronizing) of a 2 cam is not really necessary (to an extent) because when they are not timed, the major effect is the nock travel gets that rise/fall thing going on. Hmmmm. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> That then blows the whole premis of why the single cam is so good out of the water. Needless to say, nock travel is important, for both types.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

They still haven't got all of the kinks out of twin cams, I wonder how longer the &quot;wonder drug&quot; single cam will take to get all the problems, like nock travel ironed out. As I see it, with a twin cam you have the advantage. You can super tune, The travel of the bow itself is better, straight foward rathers then bottom end kick outs, smoother draw cycle, can be more forgiving.
Good shooting.
Dylan

>>>>--------o-->

RE: Level nock travel?
 

I was recently attempting to tune a fiend's Mathews MQ1 and wasn't having a great amount of success. No matter what spine I tried what kind of rest or rest and nock position The thing would not make a decent hole in the paper (yea I know, but it's important to this friend). Finally I told him that the only fix was to twist the string to bring the cam back into proper time. That's correct, timing was the answer even on a one cam. He resisted because his draw length was exactly what he wanted and he did NOT want to shorten it. Even though I recommended the opposite he is now shooting a shorter draw length and making good holes in paper.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Murray: The way Larry apparently did his test is typical of many. I have talked to Larry and highly respect him and his opinions; however, on this style of testing, I must respectfully offer some criticism.

When we do the testing on an Apple Ultra Tuning Machine, we pull from the absolute center of the axles. This is done so as to establish a datum that can/will be the exact same test method no matter what the design of the riser.

There is a lot more set-up to getting the bow positioned properly for the nock travel test. It is done with precision so that the results can be compared using the same set of standards. If you pull a recurve bow from the center, you will get straight and level nock travel. If you pull a crossbow from the center, the same results. If you pull a two cam bow of any design cams from the center, ditto. If you pull a single cam (except for one particular design), the results will be quite different. Not only will it vary in both the level and straight modes; but, it will vary extensively from one manufacturer to another.

My criticism of anyone who pulls from the nock position is that they have no &quot;datum&quot;. The nock position, if they use a bow square, will vary from bow to bow. It also becomes somewhat of an assumption as to specifically where that nock position must be.

Good work on your friend's MQ1. I have corrected many times this same problem with customer's bows. BTW, the timing issue can also affect the centershot positioning when a marginally spined arrow is being used.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Len, I am curious about something. If you take an average single cam bow and pull it from the center point axel to axel (as you do)and trace the nock travel then take that same bow and pull it from a point in line with the center of the berger button/rest mount hole 90 deg.(nock point) to the string what will the difference be in the nock travel path trace? I hope I asked this right and it makes sense.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Len I am in Ontario, and look forward to being down your way some day.

From what I understand of parts of your explanation of level nock travel, one of those Japanese bows with essentialy radicaly dissimmilar limb lengths would be guilty of unlevel nock travel. If so, that kind of gets to the point that the issue is a non-issue, at times. Of course with compounds we aren't in Kansas any more, so I don't know what happens there.

Len in addition to your extensive testing of nock travel as to where it is present, and by how much, have you been able to track any corelation to performance, and to what degree? So for instance on spine, is material.

One thing I hadn't thought about in years was that the early Mathews ads used to make a big deal about where they located the handle. I can't remember the point, but as a guess I would say they put the arrow at the middle, and the grip low, contrary to the then comon practice. Do you recall Len? Is this placement of the handle, which I would guess is comon on short bows today (and certainly not a &quot;novel treatment as the IP lawyers say), also part of the nock travel issue?

RE: Level nock travel?
 

I am going on a trip right now and will gladly address all your questions when I get back. Please allow me some time to respond.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

8Pt: &quot;If you take an average single cam bow and pull it from the center point axel to axel (as you do)and trace the nock travel then take that same bow and pull it from a point in line with the center of the berger button/rest mount hole 90 deg.(nock point) to the string what will the difference be in the nock travel path trace?&quot;

It actually looks worse as you get away from the center of the string towards the nock position. The higher you would go, the worse it would get. Determining that exact point on the string where the nock would cross the berger hole is more difficult and wouldn't yield data as repeatable/comparable by using the same datum on all bows. Also, while it is on the machine, we can do many other things like check for weak limbs. I hope I have answered your question correctly.

Ossage: &quot;Len I am in Ontario&quot;(I really would have sworn you hailed from Missouri!<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>) &quot;and look forward to being down your way some day.&quot; Please, by all means, stop by the shop.

&quot;From what I understand of parts of your explanation of level nock travel, one of those Japanese bows with essentialy radicaly dissimmilar limb lengths would be guilty of unlevel nock travel.&quot; Not necessarily so. If I remember what they look like, they have not only different length limbs but also different diameter limbs; thereby making the draw weight different from top to bottom limb. Why don't you send me one of those bows and I'll check it for you? . &quot;Of course with compounds we aren't in Kansas any more, so I don't know what happens there.&quot; No, like I said above, I think we're in Missouri! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

&quot;Len in addition to your extensive testing of nock travel as to where it is present, and by how much, have you been able to track any corelation to performance, and to what degree?&quot; I can tell you that the earlier one cams, as I stated many times, was horrible when compared to the newer one cams. This was, in part, a major problem to good arrow flight and selection. The degree of error was a major variable, as I also said, and correlation would be impossible unless you told me to what we had to compare it. If it wasn't a problem, why then did they &quot;fix&quot; it?????

As I indicated to 8Pt above, the location of the nocking point can have an affect on the nock travel. The one cam showed a much more severe affect than did the two cam bow. For test purposes, I used a one cam and two cam version of the same model bow.

I hope this answers all you questions correctly. Let me know when you're shipping that Japanese bow. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Len I am just too dense to get the picture . I guess the only way I might understand it is to find someone with one of the machines and watch it being used. Couple of more questions, When doing the tests is the riser secured loosely and allowed to move like a shooter with a relaxed grip should have or is the riser/grip bolted down solid? Also is the datum line on the graphs a straight line from the nock at full draw through the rest prongs/shelf as in where the arrow should pass?

RE: Level nock travel?
 

8Pt: We usually like to secure the riser because it allows us to get more information from the bow. It can also be done with the riser moving as it would in your hand. The line runs from a static state at the string to full draw. If you were to continue the trace of the line through the rest, the one cam bows would usually be much worse.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Len you raise as always some interesting points:

I'm no expert on Japanese bows, but they have to be consistently tillered or one limb will take over. At this point I am not sure what the original idea of dissimilar lengths was about.

On performance you mention that the older bows were &quot;horrible&quot;. Do you mean severe degree of nock travel, or a severe degree of being affected by nock travel? That's the key. The fact that they &quot;fixed it&quot; proves little. It has always been my contention that this was mostly a marketing gang up on Mathews.

Mathews for me is like a boat: a hole I pour money into. I really could care less about them, but I have to say their early single cams were the best bows I had shot to that point, and they have kept me coming back. Their single cam was so horrible that it revolutionised for better or worse an industry. And in the early days few companies, even those using very derivative cams were getting any traction on them, The first really telling assault was the nock travel thing. I have never seen the problem, in terms I could understand (missed deer or x-rings). Now whether bows without serious nock travel &quot;problems&quot; are better is an interesting question. It seems to me that part of what you are saying is that a lot of bows (that regularly harvest game and win national championships) still have significant nock travel issues. Your own testing proves this. Whatever one thinks about Mathews, they don't make a bow that is incapable of performing at the highest levels, and they have been foot draggers as far as I can see about rushing in to solve the nock travel problem. If the CPS or 2 cams are the only systems that really deal with the issue. Then to what extent have they (the industry) &quot;fixed it&quot;.

I raised this issue with Mathews a few months ago, and after a long delay in responding and a reminder (if memory serves) they asked that I phone them about it...

I'd like to make it down your way, I am axious to take on the lordly SIKA.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Ossage: If you're this hard-headed doubting, brand loyal, and confused, I do certainly feel for your family! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

&quot;Len you raise as always some interesting points&quot;. What I've stated is fact and has been proven many times.

&quot;On performance you mention that the older bows were &quot;horrible&quot;. Do you mean severe degree of nock travel, or a severe degree of being affected by nock travel?&quot; A severe degree of nock travel directly affects the performance of a bow due to such things as arrow spine, vibration, and especially broadhead/arrow performance. There was a BIG complaint back in the mid '90s about not being able to get fixed broadheads to tune properly. Voila, the advent of mechanical broadheads. Tournaments can be won with problematic equipment. An error, as long as it's a consistent error, will yield consistent results. I've seen it happen way too often. It's when you put the &quot;rudder&quot; on the front of the vessel that you need excellence in equipment. I know this will &quot;P&quot; off a lot of tournament shooters; but, think about it. If the arrow is half the system, a more delicate arrow (with a broadhead) requires better restrictions on certain other parts of the component.

&quot;That's the key. The fact that they &quot;fixed it&quot; proves little.&quot; The fact that they &quot;fixed&quot; it proves a lot - sorry. Think about the number of newer bows that incorporate this design.

&quot;It has always been my contention that this was mostly a marketing gang up on Mathews.&quot; Maybe you've been seeing the US and world market from the wrong angle. The &quot;marketing gang up&quot; was to join the design craze, not to condemn it.

&quot;Mathews for me is like a boat: a hole I pour money into. I really could care less about them&quot;. Let's see, you've spent a ton of money and are now in 'denial'. I do understand your position

I didn't quite understand the paragraph before this. Then you said &quot;The first really telling assault was the nock travel thing.&quot; It's a shame that you take constructive criticism as an &quot;assault&quot;. Do we &quot;assault&quot; bow companies when we complain about them not giving us correct draw lengths? No, we let them know that they have a problem that we want resolved. Keeping your mouth shut and your head in the sand is a poor option.

&quot;I have never seen the problem, in terms I could understand (missed deer or x-rings).&quot; You may never &quot;see a problem&quot; if you don't look for it. Analyzing the equipment I service is my job. My customers want me to inform them about the positives and negatives of equipment they're about to purchase. They've learned in my shop not to accept everything as gospel.

&quot;It seems to me that part of what you are saying is that a lot of bows (that regularly harvest game and win national championships) still have significant nock travel issues.&quot; You certainly don't read or comprehend very well. I said that the one cam nock travel issue has improved tremendously.

If you've ever read some of my other posts, you'd realize that I've always admired what Mathews has done for the industry. Technical issues are inherent in any new design but will sometimes be overlooked or put aside unless attention is brought to it. Do you honestly think that this issue was corrected for no apparent reason?????

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Gee Len, sorry pal that your out of your comfort zone, and its all about my family and comprehension etc...

You claim to be Mr. Quant when it suits you, but when you don't know what you are talking about it is all hey the manufacture know best, except when you want to show what a big guy you are when you talk about how superior your testing is:

&quot;We had one manufacturer swear to us that his product had &quot;perfect&quot; nock travel. We asked him how he plotted the results and then duplicated his procedure when we got back to the shop. After we finitely measured and plotted the results, his test methods agreed totally with our equipment; which was far from &quot;perfect&quot;. In fact, it was pretty bad.&quot;

The basic question you won't answer is what is the significance of either the problem or its correction. I don't care if the nock does a loop the loop if the arrow hits the target, point on. You can measure all the divergence you want, but if it doesn't affect outcomes who cares?

If you don't know the answer that's fine, I don't know it either. Just say so.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

I think it's time for some tea!

>>>>--------o-->

RE: Level nock travel?
 

Nice to see &quot;heat&quot; being thrown in directions other than at me for a change!<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> (sorry!) I see both sides of this one, and Ossage brings up solid questions. I'll try to get in the middle here before it gets too carried away and overheated. OK, lets start from the beginning. First, ANY twin cam bow can be made to shoot a bullet hole. You can take a bow that has a solid limb on one end, recurve on the other, cam on one end, wheel on the other, and still get that bow to throw a decent arrow out of a machine. However, try doing the same thing with a conventional solocam. Ain't gonna happen due to the fact that the bow needs specific cam rotation, idler size, and a assortment of other things to make it function correctly. It would throw it WAY out if you whipped two different limbs on it and a different idler size or cam. This means it is simply more critical due to it's design. Timing and synchronization is more crucial, simply because if a conventional solo system moves 1/32&quot; over that 90&quot;+ string, it throws everything out of whack. Nock travel is an issue with any system to help acheive best performance and accuracy. Yes, any bow can be consistent enough to win, but if the nock travel is &quot;out&quot; 1/4-3/8&quot; or more to begin with, and THEN the timing/synch goes out even a little, you're out of the &quot;tuned&quot; range and then will be frustrated shortly thereafter. This is one reason why solos are so touchy when you creep slightly and you get that nasty &quot;flyer&quot; we've all experienced. With twins, (especially ones that are matched, LOL) the cams firing are &quot;balanced&quot; and therefore will not be as crucial should something give just a little, especially if it has been supertuned.

Running a stiffer spine on arrows to compensate for an out of kilter nock travel can also affect performance due to the fact that stiffer arrows are normally heavier and slower. This would only make a significant difference in 3D shooting or distance rounds such as FITA or NFAA field rounds because the lighter, faster arrow would help with trajectory and have a bigger hit window/margin of error. BUT, it is still a factor nonetheless.

I do have to agree with Len about the point that &quot;if nothing was wrong, why did they fix it?&quot; The conventional solo had significant nock-travel issues when it first came onto the scene. Shortly thereafter, the Straightline cam was born. Why? because they knew the nock travel issue in the original wasn't yet perfected, no other reason. Another couple of years go by, and we see the Straightline 2. Why? because it was found that the Straightline wasn't perfect either, no other reason. They would never have dumped that much R&D into something that &quot;didn't matter&quot;. Bottom line.

We all must remember that twin cams have been around over 20 years, and we STILL are seeing new developments that make them better each year! Solos are still basically in their infancy and have been around less than 10, and each year we see the improvements upon their design, and will for many years to come. If nock travel issues were/are not really issues at all, then no-one would bother to build the newest bows with level and straight travel built into their design and tout them as such in their marketing and advertising. It would be pretty stupid to spend all that money for no reason! As stated, a person can get pretty much any bow to shoot rather consistently, but don't you think it is worth it to get what will ultimately give you the least amount of headaches and allow you to use &quot;correct&quot; arrows that will give you the most performance when you slap down $600-800? I know I do. It's not a question of whether or not you CAN &quot;make it work&quot;, it is a question of whether or not you need to go to all of that trouble of trying when you can set-up a bow correctly and simply go shoot with bows that have better attributes incorporated into their design. Hope this helps, I mean no disrespect to any manufacturer or loyal follower, simply trying to cover these issues. Ossage and Len, I enjoy both of your posts, debate is healthy, but we should all not let it get carried away here, it's the last place we've got to post where people aren't dinks and fighting each other. You two guys are veterans, I know everything will be OK. Go have a brewski! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: Level nock travel?
 

PW12: Thanks for the added explanation. As you can see, it was very late at night and I guess I was getting irritated by the lack of understanding and insight into what I was saying.

Ossage: The family comment was made in jest. Didn't you see the WINK at the end of the statement? My family knows how hard-headed and difficult that I can be at times. Sorry if you got offended.

The comprehension comment, however, was something that seemed obvious to me; but, maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. Like I said, it was late and I was tired.

I think PW12 filled in the blanks quite well. He stated the fact that it does indeed matter. The degree of the problem is much less severe with today's improved designs and does not affect the broadhead flight as much as it did.

People can sit by blind and accept what others may say. Then there are those who seem to always ask the question &quot;WHY?&quot;. I ask the questions and, if the questions don't correlate in my mind, I do some testing.

I share my tests with anyone who wants to listen; and, as I said, you or anyone else is more than welcome to view the results. If I am wrong or my test methods don't &quot;hold water&quot;, why hasn't someone stepped forward to show me my errors. They haven't on this issue.

RE: Level nock travel?
 

A great topic...unfortunately it always ends up in a &quot;fight&quot;, and hence my decision to stay out of this one.

C'mon guys, lighten up..this isn't the Bowsite.

JeffB :)

RE: Level nock travel?
 

My question was and still is, does the size of the idler wheel effect knock travel? I notice alot of bow companies using the larger idler wheel closer to the size of the actual cam.

>>>>--------o-->