Solo vs. Twin
 

What is the biggest difference in twin cam and solo cam bows. Is accuracy, quietness, forgiveness better with one than the other? Thanks

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

The main difference, in my opinion, is timing of the cams. Twin cam bows must roll over exactly at the same time to shoot their best.

Nock travel used to be a concern when the single cam bows came out, but I believe they fixed that problem.

I also don' t think that the twin cam bows have the speed advantage anymore. There are some very fast single cam bows out there.

I do know that the twin " hatchet" cam bows were alot more stout to draw, and had very narrow valleys, and required almost perfect form when combined with short brace heights.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

:D:D......LOL........:D:D Sorry Danny - I am not busting on you:)

You just made me laugh:D:D

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

You mean they haven' t fixed it??? LOL I didn' t know.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

When you get past all the advertising hype, myth and misconceptions, I think the biggest difference between solo' s and duals is that the single cam is quieter. You get the speed of a hard dual cam with the quietness of a round wheel bow.

I still like duals better though.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

My thoughts exactly! Well , sort of. I' ve shot solo cams that were just as loud or louder than most dual cams. But the majority of them are quieter.

I prefer duallys myself!

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

I prefer duals over singles cause I am greedy:D
Why have one when you can have 2;)

But seriously you can tune a dual cam better than you can a single cam
You can creep tune a dual but you cant creep tune a single.

Pinwheel 12 had a good post on this subject a while back you could try and do a search for it.
It was very good reading and made a lot of sense.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

I have to disagree slightly.
#1 Singles have won Vegas (LOTS of people ate crow that day....then the next year when they did it AGAIN) poor shooting bows do NOT win Vegas. Singles have one on the 3-D range often enough as well (not that it' s just good at 20 yards). As far as creep tuning goes, it' s been a LONG time since I have creep tuned a bow. PERSONALLY, I don' t find it usefull for bows with a solid back wall.
#2 Level nock travel is both over rated...and NOT found on a 2 cam bow...dualies are normally a smoother line, but NOT level.
I have always said that there is NO inherent advantage to EITHER style that makes it THAT much better. TRUE, MOST single cam bows have a narrow valley, making it less forgiveing if you creep before the shot...but as mentioned, some 2 cam bows are the same way. It' s just a question of cam profile.
With modern strings, keeping a dual cam bow synched is getting easier than ever...these strings also make keeping your nock height adjusted just as easy.
Solo cam bows DO seem quieter.
All in all, BOTH will shoot better than most archers (as will the various cam & 1/2 bows) Shoot what works for YOUR style.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

I strongly suggest you do a search on solo vs twin, and maybe another on nock travel. You will get some good feedback on stuff that has already been discussed in detail.

Twins are better than solos in practically every technical area, and 20 yds is no true measure of accuracy to be honest--try the same at 80 yds and see what happens between the two. If I could learn how to move posts around on this messageboard I' d paste the reasoning why here for you. They have now upgraded conventional solos to the new wave of hybrids, already up to " cam .5" , etc., eventually they will re-invent the twin cam... In 2004 virtually every manufacturer will be offering a hybrid of some sort, and conventional solocams are destined for extinction now matter how much Matt McPhereson crys foul. Hybrids are simply that much better. Especially ones that DO offer straight and level travel. (cam.5 does not, but probably will for 2004)

This is what the crystal ball says. Technology moves forward. JMHO Pinwheel 12

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

My opinion:

As stated, each and every cam style has their advantages and disadvantages. The key is to knowing what they are and applying it to what you are looking for in any given bow. In my experience, dual cam bows are

1. easier to fine tune which can potentially lead to...
2. slightly increased levels of accuracy
3. faster now that string materials have improved
4. generally offer a smoother draw cycle when equal speed ratings are compared


On the other hand, single cam bows are....

1. Quieter
2. Have a harder back wall and thus tend to aim better at full draw
3. Have less recoil/vibration
4. Do not have the issue of synchronization to worry about

Those are the major points that I think most people want to know about when comparing the two cam styles on any given bow.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Fun topic as always.

Dual cam bows and Singlecam bows IME, require slightly different shooting “attitudes”. A singlecam seems to shoot best w/ “aggressive form” similar to a longbow, you make the shot happen. A dual cam on the other hand seems to benefit from a more relaxed “let the bow shoot itself” type form.

I’ve been on both sides of the fence over the years. Singles have really improved. Especially with the advent of recent “straightline designs”. I have enjoyed very good accuracy w/ the straightlines even out to my “extreme” ranges, and have seen much better shooters than I hold some impressive groups out to 60 and beyond (witnessing a perfect behind the shoulder lung shot on a live ground hog @ 83 measured yards w/ an MQ32 constitutes “accurate enough” to me)

The horrible nock travel issues have been ironed out and even now, some of them are getting very close to level (close enough IMO, as Mahly commented, not all duals offer level nock travel either). Even the models that still have some travel have been fine tuned with the bow designs they are mated to for very accurate shooting, ala Bowtech’s Infinity cam: address the arrow spine and rest carefully, and this cam will shoot with the best of them.

The major problem I still see with Singles is one of torque. This IMO is where they can mess with you and why many folks prefer hybrids and duals. The angled string path (especially on shorter singles) can give you some really goofy lefts and rights (usually the term “single cam flyer” is thrown around). Hoyt’s system last year showed that a DTI greatly helps reduce those errors, (though it did create some other issues) and I wish more manufacturers would jump on that. If you anchor a bit too hard or soft, or torque the string or grip in any way, that angled string path magnifies your error more-so than a straight string path. High letoff (70% AMO plus) furthers these problems.

A straight-line type cam ala Mathews HP cam w/ a dual track idler would make one hell of a good shooting system. Although many people claim they are “spent”, IMO the folks at Mathews are really getting the tack driving accuracy down, but doing it very subtly. I don’t think anyone should count them out yet. My (now sold) Legacy with it’s straightline cam system (not quite level but pretty good), narrow valley and lower letoff that helps curb those torque issues I mentioned is one of the most accurate bows I’ve owned. If Mathews was to apply those features to a target style bow ala the Rival pro or Conquest 3, I think even the one-cam nay-sayers would re-think their position at least in part.


All that is well and good, but as Frank mentioned you have to match the bow to the application. For the majority of bowhunting applications, assuming a bow fits correctly and the archer is comfy with the particular design, I lean towards singles and hybrids. They are quieter, produce good speed, generally are more maintenance free than a dual, and more enjoyable to shoot w/ less recoil & vibe. Smooth draw can be risky to generalize. We have duals that pull like mack trucks and have some very smooth drawing singlecams.

For pure target applications (3D or Spots) I would lean towards a hybrid or a dual in a general sense however I would not have a problem w/ the right singlecam but it would have to be an exceptional model. My 2000 Hoyt Defiant Redline for instance was such a heavy mass weight bow (and had a good AtoA) that it held like an absolute rock, and practically shot itself: you had to goof up REALLY bad to pull a shot far off your mark w/ that bow. It was, in my hands my best shooting bow ever, and I sure wish I’d have never sold the damn thing. I’ve had faster, I’ve had lighter, I’ve had more maneuverable, I’ve had quieter, and I’ve had higher brace heights than that bow gave me, but I could put that bow down for 6 months, re-set it up from scratch and be shooting that bow more accurately than I could imagine. THAT bow made me feel like a Pro at times. I just couldn’t miss (by much) with it.

I think though, that Hybrids are the wave of the future, and they are my favorite cam design overall. I’d been hoping beyond hope for years that Hybrids ala Darton’s CPS would finally start to get mainstream, and Hoyt has managed to make it so w/ the C.5. Hopefully this will spill over into many other brands, including my personal fave, Bowtech. Hybrids really do have many advantages with very few disadvantages of their parent systems. The C.5 has hit some bumps, but they are still easier to work with than a Dual, and the seriousness of the issues brought up have been blown way out of proportion.

In the end though it all boils down to this:

The most important thing is really just getting a bow that fits and feels right to each individual. Proper poundage and exacting draw length, grip comfort, and a sound overall design are much more critical to consistent accuracy than what power system it has. A comfy medium length single-cam bow that fits and feels right is going to shoot a whole lot better for someone than a long axle to axle, high brace dual cam that doesn’t fit, and vice versa.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Jeff mentioned something that got me thinking again...Why doesn' t Mathews use the latest version of their straightest nock travel cam in the target bows???
My guess....it doesn' t matter.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

They are saving that for next year' s innovation.;)

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

OUCH Frank thats a low blow but IMO you are right;):D

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Actually my guess, would be that the straightline cams only would provide the best nock travel w/ a parallel limb design. The SL cams seem to rely on very little limb tip travel so they can precisely control the feed and take up to offer straight nock point travel. On a bow design such as the Conquest (or Rival) that has much more limb tip travel and longer limbs, this might not be the case.

It is my speculation that at least up to this point Mathews has not been able to figure out how to design a long axle to axle parallel limb bow that supplies the wanted/needed speed for 3D and also provides the nock travel benefits of the straight-line cam design. The cam would “need to worry” more about loading the limbs over a greater distance (utilizing more aggressive sharper angled cable/string tracks) which could keep it from being as precise as it needs to be to control nock travel. Case in Point: The Q2XL. A fine shooting bow, but it has failed in this regard due to lack of top-end performance (and most Mathews Pro’s have rejected it in that respect) as is the case with the Icon, too.

Other manufacturers have approached the problem by using the hybrid design that uses an eccentric (instead of an idler) to control nock travel while letting the power cam handle the bulk or all of the energy storage; or simply used a proven dual cam design to curtail performance loss; or have ignored the nock travel issue and just slapped a max-cam style single on the longer bow (as Mathews and some others are doing).

Furthermore, if the standard max-cam was “good enough”, why worry about bringing out the SL type cams in the first place? If they just wanted a smoother drawing cam, they could have gone back to the designs prior to the max-cam. Why would Mathews also consider nock travel into the mix, when they had dismissed it as a non-issue in advertising prior to the SL cam design in 1998? Mathews furthers this argument in admitting (with the Icon in 2002) that for the most consistent accuracy a bow needs not only eccentrics (or in this case idler/eccentric) of similar size in diameter, but also they should be similar in shape (which, as we know of course, promotes better nock travel). With the current advertising denouncing Hoyt, they have made it an even bigger issue. They have certainly changed their advertising tune in the past 6 years.;)

The answer clearly is that there is something to it, but I also think both sides have blown the severity of the effects of nock travel issues way out of proportion.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Mahly, I wonder if you really know how much truth is in that little comment.

My view:

Which has more effect, nock travel or paradox?

You tune the bow so the end result is each arrow leaving the bow exactly the same way and stabilizing their flight as rapidly as possible. No matter the paradox or nock travel, shot to shot repeatability is more important to accuracy than nock travel. That goes for any bow, regardless of cam type - or even no cams at all.

As long as the nock travel isn' t EXTREME, it' s not that big of a deal.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Leave it to Jeff to get all " technical" on us when we actually joke around on a thread....:D[:p]

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

" Nock travel or paradox" ? Well, when you have perfectly straight and level nock travel, overall paradox is reduced significantly, and thus makes for much easier tuning and also allowing a wider range of spine, even when shooting fixed blade heads.Early conventional Solos prompted the deluge of mechanical heads into the market, simply because of their horrible nock travel. Couldn' t tune a fixed blade to save your skin on the earlier ones. Eventually the solos evolved to a point where you could realistically shoot a fixed blade out of ' em without pulling your hair out, and the reason behind this is due to better nock travel and little else. Guys couldn' t figure out why they had to " bounce up a couple of boxes" on the charts with early solos, and there are two reasons for this---one, the manufacturers had to increase the draw force curve in an attempt to bring the solos into competitive speed with the twins, and two, because of their horrible nock travel. As stated, they' ve come a long ways, but with the hybrids there is now simply something much better within the industry that offers unmatched nock travel and easy tuning for all. JMHO. Pinwheel 12

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Art:

You cleaned that mess up....and with a very small broom. :)

For 39 years I have stayed realistically progressive with my bowhunting equipment. I have yet to sense or know that the close contact sport (5-25 yards) of deer hunting now requires technology that rivals the space shuttle.

Being that my buddies and I will be hunting with our recurves this season, I really feel like we should wear a loin cloth and walk like an ape. :)

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Feelin' the call of the wild, huh C? ;) Enjoy! and good luck to all of you.[:-]

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

If that is the case then no pictures please....please...

:D

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Anyone who has ever bashed a Mathews or witnessed the bashing knows the answer to that question....MARKETING!!!

Archers are ASKING for level nock travel...they get what they ask for ( case and point....sub 32" ATA bows!?!?!?![:o])

Mathews hasn' t put on a " level" cam on the target bows YET...they won' t next year...unless we demand it! They KNOW level doesn' t mean squat!

Look at the Anti-Hoyt adds Mathews has out. BOY that Hoyt draw travel looks AWFULL don' t it? How well is Hoyt doing with the new bow? Pretty damn good as far as I can see. No mater that it DOESN' T have level nock travel (or straight for that matter) They have DAMN good ARCHERS!!!!

THAT is the key. Most ANY bow today is inherently accurate. BETTER than most archers by far!!! It' s only the archer that puts the arrow in the target...and most any bow WILL do. (within reason...it DOES need to be tuned to shoot to it' s potential).

I LOVE the idea of level nock travel....kept me from buying a couple of bows for a while...not anymore.

Shoot what works for YOU!!!

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

The Hoyt/Mathews mess is nothing more than the " let' s see who wins total sales this year" kids-on-the-playground-at-recess BS.

Hybrids that offer straight and level travel WILL take the market by storm in 2004 by virtually every major manufacturer.....

Count on it.;)

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Again, if it matters not, why would the archers be asking for it? Fact is, it does matter,but as Arthur put it, as long as it' s not extreme (like it was prior to the max-cam) it' s not hard to work around.

Also you did not read what I said thoroughly. [:' (] I said :

I did not mention level. We are mostly in agreement here. I don' t think level is as crucial as long as nock travel is straight and pretty close to level (and I used the example of my legacy in an earlier post). My quoted sentence above is exactly what I meant.

As Mathews depicts it in that ad, yes it certainly does.:D

Again, you are not understanding my points.

That I do. However this discussion is not about what I, you, or anyone else should shoot, it is a discusion of the various different cam systems as compared to one another (as evidenced by the original question posted by Nicolas):

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Yes, I DID read, and understand your points.
The point I am trying to make is that IF straight and level nock travel WAS important, the WOULD make a target bow that used it. Be it with a HUGE riser, and parallel limbs or what ever. They SAY the new HP cam is the fsatest they ever made....AND most straight/level. It COULD be put in the Conquest 3 (being it is Mathews' FASTEST cam) and in THEORY, would be one hell of a shooter. But they don' t.
Thay admitedly use a slower cam with less level nock travel...and it works dandy.
As I have stated, I don' t feel there is an inherent accuracy advantage with any of the set-ups. The Archer is the limiting factor (otherwise we' d ALL be shooting Dartons, and getting 300 60x scores).
As for quietness, the solo seems to have an edge, though I bet Art' s bow beats the best of them ;)
Hence the reason for my advice to all. It doesn' t matter...shoot what works for you.

RE: Solo vs. Twin
 

Now what guy would rather be SINGLE than have a pair of TWINS? and what' s a hybrid, anyway? I' ll take twins any day. That' s what we' re talking about, right? uh... better reread.


Seriously, after shooting my dual shoot-through (Mv2 Fury-X XRG) bow all summer, picking up my single cam (Altitude) was a bit of a shocking experience. Besides the ATA seeming incredible short, I was suprised how quiet it was. Virtually no noise. I also had more fliers than I was getting with the dual cam, and the draw felt harsher. Timing is basically a non-issue with UltraCam or 452. I was a bit scared of timing the 2cam, but after setting it 3 months ago, it hasn' t moved a bit. Creep tuning was not difficult either. I may migrate to dual for hunting next year, as they have become my favorite. I think hybrids are just a step in the right direction. Keep improving the single cam and you end up with a dual cam. :)