I dont know what the green lines are, couldn't get them off. Notice the two columns, one is draw weight let down, used the same numbers as the pull weight.

its peak draw weight is 56# and decreases at 22" looks like it has a smooth roll over and a good solid wall

what exactlyis ityou want to know?

Just wondering how smooth it looks to you.

very smooth
looks like when it gets in the valley will have the tendancy to jerk a little because the sudden drop in poundage but over all it looks pretty good.

Smooth is what I thought too. No humps or bumps in the curve. Is that a Monster bow DK?

The graph doesn't match the raw data. Raw data ends at 29" with no indication of the valley or wall, yet the graph shows the wall in green. Also, you would expect the let down numbers to be slightly lower than the draw numbers. Given they are the same then static hysterisis is zero which is of course impossible. Also, imo 1" incrementsare to large. IMO you need at least 1/2" increments through the valley area in particular to acurately determine draw length and to acurately sumfor stored energy.

Yes, that is the new Monster Bows Pheonix. This bow puts an end to the old anti-Oneida arguments. Too long, too many moving parts, blah blah blah. 38 inch tip to tip, sure, its still kinda long, but not much. Only two moving parts, no cams.

I saw this curve somewhere else before and the zero noted hysteresis jumped out at me. I think ther is actually some as I find it odd that at every inch the draw weights are whole numbers (no decimals or fractions of a #), so I believe the numbers are all rounded. Still looks good.

This bow definitely has my interest as it is a very solid design.

Note that the outboard curved limbs act just like a combination of very large binary and X-cams -- i.e. shoot thru design down the center track with the cables being let-out and taken up on each cam.