More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

The more I tune, the more quesiton I have. Now I'm thinking about level nock travel. Now I understand how the nock should initially be set up in relation to the rest, but I would think there is a theoretical optimal nocking point in relation to the wheels/cams.
If I've got a Patriot Single Cam bow, where would be a good place to tie the nock in? I'm also shooting a Drop Zone fall-away rest that is very adjustable in terms of height, so I figure I can move the rest in relation to this "best nocking point" in relation to the string.

Any theories or tests I can perform to test for level nock travel?

Thanks,

Fritz

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

With your arrow comeing off the string level and dead center of the plunger button/rest screw hole

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

I was gonna say it like "I set my arrow square to the bowstring and set the rest height so the shaft bisects the rest screw hole(s)" :)

As for at home testing of SLNT, not very bloody likely :) You could possibly set up some sort of contraption to test static travel, but in my opinion, dynamic SLNT is where it's at and for that you need high speed video equipment, I believe...

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

My thinking is that if you runt he arrow through the center of the berger hole to the string, you're nock is going to be a little high to compensate for arrow diameter. Thats if you want it perfectly level. Of course this is just theory. Let the bow tell you where it likes it.

As for level nock travel. Until this age old debate gets put to rest with a proven level nock travel bow and all the manufacturers can accomplish this, it doesn't mean too much to me. Consistant nock travel is the key.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Copy and past Rangeball's post here as I agree completely. However, some folks prefer a slightly "high" nocking point on traditional style single cam bows. I have never seen the need with the newer offerings but understood the need for it in the past.

Let me know if you want to use the level set and I will drop it off for you to play with.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Not necessarily. Look at some of the early single cam nock travel patterns that were really wild. I've posted pictures in the past of the nock travel patterns done on the Apple Tuning Machine, but I do agree that dynamic travel done with high-speed video equipment is the only real test. I shudder to think of what those early nock travel patterns looked like on high-speed video if they were THAT bad being traced on paper.

But as wild as those nock travel patterns were, the were consistent. That is, the bow did the same thing the same way every time. Just because it's consistent doesn't mean it will be easy or forgiving to shoot. ;)

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Frank, I come here cause a few short years ago, what I posted above was all gobbly gook to me... :)

Thanks for the knowledge you and others like you share so willingly and freely.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Black Frog, I think what mm88 meant was as long as nock travel is consistent, you can get a decent tune through repeatability. Forgiving or not, as long as the bow and shooter do the same thing consistently, you'll have good results. When the bow or shooter start throwing in the variables, not such good results. But I agree re: a more forgiving setup. The shooters mistakes are less a problem, as opposed to being amplified (how about the music terminology?).

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Fritz,

Your nocking point and "level nock travel" are not the same thing. There is only one optimum nocking point on your bow. You would attempt to find this by having your shaft bisect the berger button hole and then moving the nocking point up or down until you get the best horizontal grouping when tuning at a couple of different distances. With your nock in it's optimum position, you still may not have level nock travel. That has more to do with the bow and cam design.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

pdq-

Maybe the mixup is what we are meaning by the word "consistent". Do you mean consistent as in repeatable? Or consistent as in linear, or no major dips or peaks?

ANY bow will have repeatable nock travel, no matter how bad the nock travel is, the bow will repeat that same travel path every time.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Thank you for the kind words Rangeball....but you posted them in the wrong thread....:D

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

I was looking for level nock travel......and thanks for all the replies so far. Now, if you guys could, critique this technique I've been using:

Use a bow square to place the nocking point according to the rest holes with the bottom line of the arrow on level with the imaginary line drawn between the bottom of the two rest holes. The bottom of the knocking point is also level to these two lines. Paper tune from close distance with a fletched arrow by moving only the rest to eliminate vertical tears.

I can eliminate tears with ease, but that hidden variable, the distance from the cam axle that the nock is most level throughout a shot, isn't taken into consideration...........think I just pointed out what was wrong with this technique. If this technique is flawed, how does the manufacturer determine where to place those rest holes? Do they have a magical formula that states where level nock travel exists?

With the adjustability of today's rests, I would think that unless the rest holes are vertically placed where they are for a reason, that moving the nocking point would be unnecessary. Or is it?![:-]


Fritz

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

ttt

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

mrfritz44,
please proceed to wear yourself out regarding nock travel.


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showth...threadid=38710

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

I like to pay attention to the nocktravel on my bows, but i cant see it. Those arrows travel to fast for my eye. So i looked little different at the subject.
For 3d i need speed and a flat trajectory. When i place my arrow completly square and level behing my string and the arrow over the same heigt as the arrowrest bold, i make as much speed as possible, shown on a digital speed device.
My 3D bow however was not delivered as a bow with a 'strait nock travel' .
My huntingbow does.
Eventho, on this bow i choose a little high nocklocater to get as much clear travel over the rest and so, less sound.
For my huntingbow i did not need speed as much as i need silence and impact.

The thing that makes you thinking about nocktravel is papertuning.
How much do we all want those perfect bulletholes while nobody sets up his/her bow for shooting on a piece of paper.
Papertuning is handy for adjustments on spine.
Nock travel is a thing that comes with your choice in setup.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

I don't care about level nock travel. Just as the others have posted. Grouping is more important. I go to the extremes on this but it pays big dividends on the 3-d range. I was having problems with my 30 yrd groups being better than 20 until I started group tuning. Bare shaft tuning is said to be used just for finger shooters. I have found it to be a big part in my group tuning with a release, I will do this at 20 yards. I adjust my rest until the bare shafts hit with my fletched arrows. After acheiving this I will then adjust my sights as needed. After going back to the paper I have found that the arrows shoot bullet holes. This is tough until you have your form down. If you do this and your form is shakey ,discount your flyers and it will give you a good idea. Using this method I have confidence that the arrow is spitting out straight and the fletches are just stabilizing the arrow and not correcting it. This will give you a flatter shooting arrow with more room for errors. It also pays off in the field as it makes it easier to get broadheads to tune at higher speeds.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Yea, after reading all the hubbub about nock travel I'm not overly concerned about it. Could someone critique my tuning procedure and explain the disadvantages to performing a "move-nock-free" paper tune? This works in terms of eliminating the tears, but I have reservations about it since the bow may be nocked higher or lower than the manufacturer intended it to be.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Straightarrow said

I agree and think you are getting the two issues confused . In my first reply I answers your first question .

I would not atempt to answer your second question , nor would I trust what the manufactures say .

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

You should stop worrying about trying to 'fix' nock travel because it can't be done. It is inherent in the design of your bow/cam.

The straighter the nock travel, the easier it is to tune and allows a wider range of spine.

Testing nock travel can be done in many different ways. I choose machine that fixes the riser so that I can SEE the cam(s) at work and realize how they influence the string. Video observation does not 'fix' the riser and is therefore not see how the cam(s) affect the string movement. In other words, in the hands of a standard archer (unlike a machine used with video) the bow's riser will become more 'fixed' and bad nock travel will become more prevalent.

I recently had a bow that showed bad nock travel. My techs were very skeptical and asked my opinion because it tuned beautifully. I noticed that the nock travel had a cancelling affect similiar to a subject called "noise cancellation". I asked them to shoot a fixed BH. The fixed BH hit in the same hole as the FT with an expert shooter behind the bow. The nock travel variation did in fact have a cancelling effect and subsequently acted like straight and level nock travel.

Studying nock travel, unless you have the equipment and expertise, if a mind-blowing task and is not definable via this medium.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Len,

If I may ask you a question on this subject? I understand your reasoning for wanting to see how the cam(s)' work in relation to the string/nock travel with a fixed position riser but do you think a fixed position riser trully represents what a bow does when it is actually shot? What I am trying to say is that don't we have to take into account that the riser and limbs flex quite a bit when the bow is fired. Wouldn't this affect nock travel?

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

http://www.dartonarchery.com/Nock%20Travel.htm

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Dave Barnsdale has started making some awesome new twin cams where the upper and lower cams wheels are slightly different diameters. And this is with a shoot-through cable system. The different diameters in the cams account for the upward slope of twin cam nock travel. I got to play with one a bit this past weekend, awesome bows.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

FranK:

What video is showing you is how the system operates under the 'BEST' conditions. That is, shooting a bow out of a machine. The loose mechanical 'grip' will have a minimal affect and allow the rest of the bow to 'float' to compensate for nock travel problems. We all know that a shooting machine will shoot 'absolutely' better.

Now take into consideration the human element. Do you really think even a small percentage of archers shoot like a machine?

This is why I will stay with the test method I use. It compares bows, one to the other, and it therefore doesn't necessitate the interpolation of the human elements.

Don't get nock travel and nock positioning confused. Nock positioning is something that Dave Barnsdale is addressing when BF talked about different diameter cams. He is trying to get a TRUE center shot bow in both the 'X' and 'Y' axis. This will enhance overall performance and tuning.

Although the outcome of nock positioning can really be construed as nock travel, what we have always addressed as nock travel has been the added affect of caming.

I hope this helps you understand my reasoning better.;)

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Len, you're correct.

Dave's new wheels seem to compensate for the difference between the true vertical center of the bow and the placement of the grip, but don't provide the level travel. My mistake! [:o]

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Len,

Thank you for the response. Thank you c903 for the link.

I do have a question about this quote though. Wouldn't the loose mechanical grip more closely emulate what actually occurs when a person is shooting a bow as compared to a more fixed riser position device? I would think this would demonstrate a more realistic representation of what a typical shooter can expect in terms of how nock travel may affect accuracy.

I understand where a fixed position device like an Apple Tuning machine would be more useful when comparing two bows strictly from a mechanical/engineering standpoint but would it not loose some value when attempting to predict how any given bow would perform in the hands of a human shooter?

I apologize for the myriad of questions but this subject has me very interested lately.

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Frank-

There are many variables that CAN come into play, but most of the time the shooter is trying to emulate perfection, therefore we must have a constant with which to start and go from square one. if you put one bow in a machine that has dead-straight and level nock travel, and another that is terrible, they will both still shoot arrow after arrow into the same hole. You can take a bow that has a cam on one end, a wheel on the other, a straight limb of 50lbs on one end, and a recurve on the other at 80lbs, and still get a tune. Think about that for a minute![8D]

BUT, they hold and shoot like garbage. No forgiveness when actually held and felt by human hands. So when we come to the question of straight and level nock travel and what it can do for you as an individual, the answer is easy---it will make your shooting experience much more pleasant, regardless of your form or stature. Cam rotation is symmetrical, as is the limbtip travel back to brace. Paradox is effectively reduced to a minimum, which makes for a faster responding arrow, making it easier to tune, and more accurate downrange. Fixed blade broadheads will tune without incident when youa re not starting out high. low, or porpoising. We all remember why the mechanicals came to be so popular in the early to mid 90's, and it wasn't because they penetrate better! LOL Certain designs simply had terrible nock travel and thus it was very difficult to tune fixed blade heads.

Twin cams do not have straight and level nock travel. They have straight but not level. Solocams had terrible nock travel early on, but some designs that do not have modules or adjustments on the cam can exhibit S&LNT at CERTAIN drawlengths. Keep in mind there are few that do. Some of todays' hybrids offer the best nock travel in both planes I've tested to date, while others are really not that good. When choosing a cam design, one must take into account not just whether or not the bow exhibits S&LNT, but that it does so with everything working in tandem. Throw your preferred bow into a crankboard and run it out to full draw---pencil around the limbtips. Back it down about halfway, then pencil around your limbtips again. Let the bow down and measure between the marks. Is it the same? If so your bow is performing at it's best with everything working in tandem. Some of you may be surprised. when doing this simple test as to how some designs actually impair perfromance and accuracy by exhibiting poor dynamic balance during the shot.

That should keep you thinking for awhile.;) Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Frank:

Quote: "Wouldn't the loose mechanical grip more closely emulate what actually occurs when a person is shooting a bow as compared to a more fixed riser position device?"

Really, how many archers really use a loose grip. That's something we're teaching constantly in the shop. A "typical shooter" does not utilize a loose grip. Also, the loose grip only partially compensates for the problem and makes it appear not to exist. And, just because you can't 'feel' it or 'see' it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the mechanical world. How many bad arrows can't be seen by the average archer???;)

Quote: "I understand where a fixed position device like an Apple Tuning machine would be more useful when comparing two bows strictly from a mechanical/engineering standpoint...." Good, that's a start in truly understanding what I'm trying to convey.

Quote: "...but would it not loose some value when attempting to predict how any given bow would perform in the hands of a human shooter?" All bows "loose some value....in the hands of a human shooter." This is why I choose to analyse the basic mechanics in a bow.

This is why I made the statement above "Studying nock travel, unless you have the equipment and expertise, if a mind-blowing task and is not definable via this medium."

I really would like to explain this so that everyone understands the problem. It might be slightly possible if everyone was in a room for a live demonstration. But then you'd still have the nah-sayers who would expound on their personal feelings rather than try to understand the engineering data. It's a subject where it's so easy to arbitrarily disagree. You're more than welcome to stop by to see a demonstration and analyze the results of comparable tests.:)

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

Kevin, Len,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I am going to continue to look into this issue wherever I can find good information like that which you both provided.

I will probably be down your way again next summer Len. Logan loves your shop. :)

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

The problem I have found is there is not much GOOD information around. I have been looking for weeks now and I have found bits here and there. I would love to see a technical paper or something done by independant testers using various bows of today, but it just is not there. Also, finding unbiased and unemotional information on the internet is at best a gamble, with your odds lying somewhere between slim and nil. My search goes on......

JMAC

RE: More bow tuning - level nock travel
 

If we actually saw some engineering data, it would be much easier to understand the problem. Up until now, all I've seen are opinions and we all know how reliable opinions are and who has them. Even Darton's website info, although interesting, qualifies as nothing but a sales pitch. Unbiased engineering data would be a great start, but even then, one has to judge the validity of any concern, by real life experiences. If I was having tons of trouble tuning broadheads out of today's single cams, I'd be a lot more likely to think there was a significant advantage to one cam style over another. However, I'm not experiencing such problems. I'm willing to bet, that some day a technical report from an independent test on the importance of S&LNT will emerge and then we can all form our opinions on data, rather than on someone else's opinion.

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:;)