Hey guys,

After the test, I decided to e-mail the guys who did the test and ask them a few questions.

First, I asked them why the Diablo was still given a 9 when its strings were so terrible. The response I got was funny. They said that they had just given up the test at that point because they were so ashamed of the strings. I guess that the thing had TERRIBLE string stretch, and, the guy who e-mailed me back said it should have been less points than what was given.

Now the funny one

I decided to ask them about Mr. Parks and his "opinions". They said that they knew he was entirely out to give the Liberty a bad name, but, they didn't question any of the other guys opinions, so, they couldn't question his. They said that it was most obvious in the vibration test. I guess that the Diablo wasn't even close to being in the same league, and when Mr.Parks was the only one who said that it had more than the Diablo, their suspicions were found true.

Also, I guess that they have been bombarded with e-mails asking why Mr.Parks opinions were submitted, it seems that his opinions had ticked off owners of every bow manufacturer out there

The was more then one guy who said the difference was only "slight". It seems to me, that the ones saying there "was no comparison" may have been just as guilty of prejudice. Or is it possible that subjective tests are a poor way to rate a bow? I'd go with the latter.

I had a feeling this was the guy you were talking about.

Whatchoo takin' bout Jason?? What test?? Where can I find it?

http://www.huntersfriend.com/shootout/shootout.htm

Opinions are like holes, everyones got 'em. What I like to see is all of the technical stuff, rather than the banter. Why? Because that doesn't lie or offer 'opinions'-- heck I can listen to everyone on this board and others claim about how great our individual preferences are, why do we feel the need to write"reports" (not,LOL) about them?![8D]

The quiteness/low recoil/vibration factor is big for hunting bows, and the Liberty definately seemed to dominate there between the two in actual "testing", no question. Having said that, the nock travel testing left alot to be desired for the Bowtech fans however--- that is some nasty travel, bubba! Yikes!

Overall I thought the test was "typical" and filled with biasm on both sides, per usual nowadays. Subjective testing as stated here many times does little other than stir the pot, IMHO. However it does make good bathroom reading material.

I'll take the full tech writeups any day, thanks. Like I said true factual data doesn't lie and isn't opinionated. JMHO, Pinwheel 12

So in saying that, are you agreeing with the way the nock travel was measured?


Seriously, this test was a joke. Serve in a sharpie in front of the nock and attach a 25' rope. LMAO Was the Sharpie plumb and square in both instances? Doubt it very much. Did it remain that way through out the draw cycle? Doubt it. Was the 25' rope pulled exactly the same in both instances? In the exact same lines? Exactly square off the risor or string? Were they both clamped in the vise exactly the same?

I also thought the "method" of testing nock travel on the two bows was rather "cavemanish" myself. I've never tested for nock travel but my idea would be to put the bow in a drawing devise that would position the low point of the grip against a solid and padded post. I would then have a very straight guide for the "hook" that attaches to the bow string, to follow and inline with the grip post. There would be a winch to pull the bow to full draw and what would determine nock travel would be a lazer secured to the riser of the bow, in line with the grip post and the string hook. When drawn, the lazer would project a point on a distant wall where a travel path of the lazer could be marked during the draw cycle. Different points of grip placement and hook location could be tried to simulate that of where you actually grip the bow and nock the arrow. Since your bow will never be "held" in place at more than one position while shooting, I don't think your nock traveling is the only thing that is "traveling" during the shot. I believe that the riser can "pivot" at your grip point also, reducing some of the effect of a particular bow's poor nock travel. A long stabilizer may actually help to reduce "riser pivot" if infact that this does occur and promote poor nock travel. Just an idea and I'm sure someone can shoot holes in it but be warned,,, it won't bother me HEHE...

Some would argue that the best way to show correct nock travel is on all planes and with high-speed photography combined with a hooter shooter. I personally do not trust a hooter shooter to impart torque such as an individual will that can affect both the vertical and horizontal planes depending upon their individual style and stature. Secondly, very few techs and even manufacturers themselves for that matter have such photographic equipment because of it's expense, therefore most nock travel tests are usually a simple and effective static test done on a machine such as an apple tuning machine or other similar design. I happen to have a machine very similar to the apple that I built a few years ago with which I do generalized nock travel testing and other technical work. It works quite well. Lazer or fixed pencil, both will work fine if setup correctly.

Nock travel 101---

A bow that offers perfectly straight and level nock travel should not start out high IMHO, because this is what starts the arrow paradox that we are in fact trying to eliminate to begin with. Therefore when correctly designed a bow with true straight and level travel will exhibit a straight line through the arrow rest holes while drawing, letting down, and during a dynamic shot sequence. Another equally important factor is limbtip travel. To alleviate any discrepencies due to the nock travel being straight and level above the true centerline, adjustments must be designed into the bow to ensure that limbtip travel remains constant and in tandem for best performance and efficiency. Unfortunately this is where many companies miss the boat---they try for straight and level travel, but one limbtip hits "the end of the road" so to speak much sooner than the other, thus creating undue vibration and poor overall balance during the shot. (A simple crankboard test will determine your favorite bows' limbtip travel---slap in into a crankboard, run it out to full draw, pencil around the limbtips. Crank it down about an inch or two, pencil again, let it all the way down, measure between your marks--are they the same on both ends? You may be pleasantly surprised, or shocked!) A bow that is designed and shoots straight and level, in tandem, will be your most forgiving setup. Conventional Solo cam designs can offer straight and level travel at certain drawlengths, but not all without changing outside cam radius (string track) due to them having a simple idler on top.This is expensive for manufacturers, and therefore most do not do it, they simply adjust drawlength with modules, but cannot acheive S&LNT at all drawlengths when they do this. Conventional Twin cams have the "mirror image" cam on both ends, therefore nock travel will be straight, but they will not be level due to the centerline being lower than the arrow rest and the cams being exactly the same diameter.(this is where the "start out high" theory came from in the "report" I think) Of the two, you see pure target shooters finding better accuracy with twins, as they have a distinctly straight travel at all drawlengths and are simple to adjust to an individual. With conventional solos it pretty much "is what it is", and what specific drawlength they actually designed the straight and level travel into (if they did at all) unless they offer different cam sizes built to specs for all drawlengths. Hybrids are now the design of the next millenium---designs such as the Darton CPS and Merlin Omega, along with the new Martin system offer the absolute best of both worlds---they offer straight and level nock travel at all drawlengths via modules and a simple control post move.(without a press!) Limbtip movement is constant and in tandem on most of them as well. Most come with simple instructions--set it, forget it, go shoot. This makes for a much more forgiving system overall, and one that can shoot a wider variety of arrow spines more readily, (even with fixed-blade heads) because paradox is negated much faster, resulting in more forgiveness. More forgiveness in turn creates higher confidence in you equipment, higher confidence in turn leads to being more relaxed, and if you are relaxed you will ultimately be more accurate. Very simple. You will see many more manufacturers with hybrids in the months and years ahead, this is fact. I predict Bowtech will also have one within the next year or two tops.

Yes, I will agree that the static test formula and devices used in Hunter's Friends' nock travel test was quite crude, but the flip side of this is that irregardless they tested both bows exactly the same. And tho very crude, one must look at the difference-- a straight line is a straight line, no matter where you draw it from of if you start it high or low. Any type of "porpoising" is not good and produces increased paradox, no matter how it is tested.

Of course and per usual we have those who are now questioning the integrity of the testers themselves. So you see, our OPINIONS, and sometimes even subjective testing simply doesn't matter---when the smoke and banter of OPINIONS and PERSONAL PREFERENCES all clears tho, the true technical data is still sitting right there in front of us, and whether good or bad THAT cannot be denied or swept under the rug altho many do try to do so. I have been guilty of that "sweeping" as well in the past, so I'm no different than anyone else as far as that goes. What I am saying however is that the bottom line here is that techincal data tells the final tale.

I was very surprised to say the least when I read the "report" and came to the nock travel test, simply because I have shot the Liberty myself and it didn't seem to exhibit the "poor nock travel" associations that I'm used to feeling/seeing with a nock travel path such as the one above-- I thought it was a well built, solid solocam design that exhibited very little handshock and vibration. But I did only shoot it into a bale and not at distance to be honest and fair, and not with a variety of arrow spines or fixed broadheads either. This will have to be included at some point as time permits so I can have a better understanding of how this bow will actually perform and how critical it is of spine.

Anyway, I just hope this post will help to explain how important nock travel is to the average shooter. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

Pinwheel 12,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to write out such a detailed explanation. Your effort is appreciated.