RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

That is sort of where I was coming from with the issue of static versus dynamic testing SA.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Like I said above: "You're more than welcome to stop by to see a demonstration and analyze the results of comparable tests."

My data is detailed from baseline to final analysis. I don't mind sharing it, as I've done with a lot of my customers. You'll have to stop by and be the judge of it. Many from a lot of forums have done just that. I've got my way of collecting data and others have theirs. That's, in part, the problem.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Len,

I am guessing you were responding more to Straightarrow than myself. However, just to clarify, I am not questioning the validity of your results but rather the applicability compared to other testing styles. Even then it is not so much questioning but rather trying to compare it with what others have shown using different techniques.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

I wish it was a matter of simply "stopping by", but it would be more like a 400 mile road trip, and I'm not sure it's that important to me.;)

With all the notoiety given to S&LNT in bow ads and wesbite info, I have to wonder why some archery magazine hasn't had an engineer detail the proper way to test this. Or has one?

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Straightarrow,

I think that is the issue in question. What is the "proper way"? Some folks in the industry believe that both the riser and limbs need to flex during an actual physical shot sequence in order to accurately depict how nock travel trully is on any given bow. Others feel that nock travel should be measured simply by drawing the bow back (via a machine ofcourse) and letting it down without actually "releasing the string".

Even if Norb were to post his opinion on one style of testing or the other then would that be enough to satisfy everyone? Probably not. :)

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Course not. Everyone simply likes to argue nowadays--look at all of the messageboard systems everywhere and you'll find that to be true no matter the issue. Even tho what Norb would detail would be solid technical/engineering data in this case, it would still be slammed by someone just looking to stir up the chaff or those loyal to something else. Sad but true.[&:] Pinwheel 12

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

If Norb were to do it the correct way, it would satisfy me. ;)

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Black Frog, I was referring to repeatable nock travel. BTW, congrats on some fine shooting lately.
Nearly anything that is repeatable can be adjusted in some way to be acceptable and useful. Obviously the more issues there are to correct, the more work there will be involved. Some may not be adjusted to total satisfaction, or the particular form of an individual may not meld well with a certain setup. But, regardless of nock travel, single cams, dual cams, and hybrids can be made to shoot better than we can. Hasn't this been shown by bows with everything against them putting arrow after arrow into the same hole, when shot from a machine?

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Good, at least we'll always have something we can argue about. ;) Thinking about it, I wonder if there is a single topic where every expert agrees? First, we'd have to define expert and I'm sure we couldn't even agree on the definintion of that. :D

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

EXACTLY

Apparently it's ok to disagree as long as you're an expert???? But it's not ok when you choose one experts opinion over another:eek:;)