Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

This is somewhat of an offshoot of Kevin’s “tech experience” thread.

As most of you know, I’m a gearhead…a tech-head, whatever you want to call me (that the naughty language filter will allow). Over the years I’ve tried to learn and absorb as much about the technical” aspects of bow, arrow, & accessory design as I could. I think that’s it’s very valuable information in that it allows us to make informed choices instead of being at the mercy of the large percentage of incompetent Archery Shops, Manufacturers claims, or our “buddies” who have been shooting for 6 months.

But as I get older, I wonder just how much of this technical info, in the grand scheme of things, is of major importance. Not that it’s unimportant, but just that it’s not as important as we may feel..especially when it comes down to hunting, or the casual target shooter (i.e. the vast majority of archers in this country)

There are many subjects where the Archery “tech” community is divided mostly based on Manufacturers who’ve draw a line in the sand as to what is “best”: importance of Nock Travel, Single vs. Dual vs. Hybrid, Dropaway vs. launcher vs. Whisker Biscuit, Molded vs. Laminated limbs, Extruded vs. 100% machined risers, plastic vs. metal limb pivots, Roller guards vs. standard cable guards, etc, etc., ad nauseum….

I certainly have my own thoughts on these things based on what I have learned from the technical testing, but oftentimes I find for all the technical proof of why something is or isn’t better, my practical shooting & shop experience shows just the opposite or not enough proof to make any absolute conclusions one way or the other.

e.g.

Nock Travel: While certainly some bows exhibit poor nock travel, and should be harder to tune due to it, Some of my most accurate, easy tuning bows, showed the worst nock travel :shrug:

Limbs: Again like nock travel issues, I’ve had the absolute most expensive limbs on the market, and the least expensive…yet I have not been able to draw any conclusions one way or another over which is truly “better” when it comes down to putting that arrow where I want it. At least I could not single it out to the limbs themselves…

Hybrids/Singles/Duals: Theoretically the hybrids and duals should be more accurate and/or more forgiving, but again my practical experience shows that I shoot more consistently and comfortably with the single-cam design, though it took me awhile to warm up to them (or perhaps, the improvements made in the past 4 years have brought them up to the same level or better of previous cam technology)

Build Tolerances: Like limbs, I’ve had some bows that were absolutely pristine for tolerances..limb pockets, limbs, axles, machining, etc, etc…Yet some of the best shooting bows I’ve owned had horrible build tolerances (and some had very good or pristine tolerances too)

I think only in arrow shafting have I personally been able to draw any solid conclusions that proves the technical “theory”.

Certainly some leeway will have to be given to the technical side of things when we include some of the more “extreme” areas of our sport..Olympic level shooting, any other LONG distance event, etc…where the difference between winning and losing can indeed come down to a technical issue…(yet still often comes down to the jerk jerking on the string)

However, while I think all the technical info is excellent for education,knowledge and for discerning from one end of the quality spectrum to the opposite (i.e, from $hit to shine-ola); assuming a decent piece of equipment, what it all boils down to is the individual…fitting that decent piece of equipment to that individual, and achieving our own “personal tight tolerances” in tuning our form and the bow itself (and using a quality set of arrows ;)).

Not to ruffle any feathers here (honest), but I'm starting to wonder if subjective tests like the ones we’ve heard about on the BowFight (errr..BowSite), Hunters Friend, or in Outdoor Life/F&S magazines are ultimately the “best” tests there are: meaning that “practical experience” is more important than the “theory” (I’m not concerned with what name is on the limbs, I mean the test itself). The “tech” reports can show us that Bow X’s nock travel and limb to pocket finish or whatever is clearly superior to Bow Z….but if Bow X does not “fit” the archer and he shoots it poorly or at the least not as well,, then does it really matter what the technical tests prove/disprove?


OK Class, discuss..and no flaming! :D

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

If one of the Yanomami people of the Amazon basin (yes they still do it the old fashioned way) were to be asked, he would likely tell you that if the Bowyer didn't say the proper prayers over the wood while shaping it the bow would be useless. His practical experience tells him that those prayers are a necessary part of building a proper bow, the technical testing would likely come in the forest where he would attempt to bring down a Tapir or other game. Failing to kill on the first attempt or on successive attempts would find him back at the Bowyer demanding additional prayers.
Not much has changed in the thousands of years bows have been in production. The engineer/village bowyer design and build them, the end user blames all failure on the engineer/bowyer and demand additional prayer.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Great post Jeff, and like most things, 99% seem to be pretty much the same, and we argue over the 1% until the cows come home...

:)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Good post Jeff! I'm gonna make a comparison...short but sweet, cause I am bustin out to gloat a little!:D

Sometimes practicality is more logical than logical thinking[8D], for instance..........my Cardinals were projected to finish 3rd behind the almighty Cubs pitching and the Astros. But 30 games from the finish of the regular season..............my Cardinals are 15 games in front!!!!!:D:D:D

What may seem or should work best on paper does not always work the way its projected, archery or baseball!!!;) Thats the human element which is very unpredictable from shooter to shooter.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

This is a very good point Jeff, and I'm surprised to hear it from you honestly. After all, in my opinion you ARE the arrow man. And like you said, very technical oriented.

I will agree whole heartedly with you. I have not really been doing this that long, compared to you and others. I am already seeing how little some things really matter. Especially in target type archery. After some of my own playing, reading a few books and talking to some hard core target archers I have come to my own conclusions. I tell people these things at times that I know, but don't say it too often here for fear of being chastized by all those except the older wiser people. I think about 98 percent of archery is the archer. Form, mental type stuff and how the bow fits you. The other 2 percent is having good arrows. And I don't mean the most expensive target arrows you can get, just arrows that are not messed up crap.

You hand a really great archer an old beat up bow that is out of tune and adjusted wrong and I bet he will group arrows together at 20 yards as long as the arrows match. They don't even have to be the right arrows for the bow, just match. On the other hand, give a bad archer a $2,000 dollar bow with every gizmo and gadget on it and $20 dollar a piece arrows, and he's still going to suck! He will just look good doing it is all. I could be wrong about this, but I believe most if not all of the acuracy records have been set with older 2 wheel type slow bows. Heck I have seen video of a guy shooting things out of the air and nailing pills with a traditional bow instinctively! Now tell me how much more accurate that 120 dollar drop a way rest is really making me? You want the truth, I don't shoot any better with my drop a way than I did my 15 dollar TM hunter. It's more fun to play with though.

One of the books I read said that if you put a bow in a shooting maching it will shoot arrows into groups all day no matter what you do to it. Tiller, nocking point, centershot, fletch contact, doesn't matter, as long at the arrows match in spine and weight. They will hit in different spots when you change something, but they will still group. I have proved it with my bow shooting way underspined arrows and still being pretty accurate with it. As acurate as I can be anyway.

I agree with you on the cam and nock travel thing as well. I have a darton with the cps cams. Excellent cams, very well designed. I could shoot this bow at virtually 90 degrees nocking point. My new bowtech is pretty nock high compared to what i am used to, just doesn't look right at rest. Guess what, I shoot it better than I did my darton!? Like I said, I think it's the narrower grip, just fits me better. Does it tune well? I don't know, I robin hooded a fletched shaft into a bare shaft the other day when bare shaft tuning it, broke a nock on another one. Does that sound like nock travel effects anything? And that was at 30 yards, not 10. I don't normally shoot that well actually, I was having a very good day that day. It happens from time to time with me.

I'm not saying none of this stuff works and it's all BS. Some of it has it's merits and certainly helps the average archer like myself. I don't think I could shoot nearly as well without a release and the amount of let off I have. And I couldn't hit anything without sights, I'm sure of it. And most of this applies to target type stuff at closer ranges. When you screw a broad head on the arrow some things change a bit. Better more adjustable rests and stuff like that come in handy. They sure help give some leeway for poor or odd form, or less than optimal spine arrows.

In the end I think some of this stuff just makes you think you shoot better, so you do, at least for a while anyway. This is a very mental game we play. If you are more confident and enthused about what you are doing, you will do better.

Great thread Jeff.

Paul

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

All the technical advances may make a difference if the shooter is really good enough to tell the difference. I am not that shooter. I have shot most of my good scores this year with a mid-nineties 2 cam bow with steel cables, no peep sight (not a NO PEEP), and no moving parts shoot through rest. For most of the summer, I shot better with a put-together bow with somewhat out-of tiller limbs and a B2 Whisker Biscuit than I did with a brand new factory bow that a few guys at Edersbow are braggin' on like it's the best ever made. I FINALLY this week shot a better average score with my new hybrid cam bow than I ever have with anything else (122/130), but was it the bow, or did I just have a good day. Maybe I am just starting to judge distance better.
The really tecnical analysis is interesting to read, and may make a difference for that guy who can consistently hit Xs out to 45 yards, and can tell when he's on the X, and his equipment caused a miss. One of those guys may be able to tell you what a difference it makes. For me, the subjective is important, things like the force-draw curve, valley, feel of the shot, etc. But, I find I have to shoot a bow for a while, maybe a month or at least a few weeks, before I really know what I am able to do with it. I have been disappointed with bows that others rave about, and very happy with bows that most guys seem unimpressed with. Sometimes a little thing that most people wouldn't notice or could overlook will be the straw that broke the camel's back for others. For me, one thing that is like that is the total lack of a valley. I know that if you shoot off the wall with back tension, it souldn't matter at all, but if I can't feel relaxed at full draw, I don't shoot well. Someone else could pick up a bow like that and shoot lights out with it.

Right now, I have about a month before the season starts, a co-worker who has invited me to hunt her property (she's been seeing 2 respectable bucks almost nightly), and a few bows, all of which are shooting better than I can. It's time to stop worrying over trivialities, and get some quality practice time in.;)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

too much reading makes my head hurt jeff
if you think all that techno weenie mumbo jumbo is a bunch of nonsence simply do it how you like.
I am probably one of the biggest techno weenies on this site I Paper tune
weigh all of my arrow components the whole deal, really not that important hunting white tails, turkey and wild hogs but when it comes high scores on the 3d course I think it is very inportant to know as much as you can about your equipment and how to make it work to it's optimal peak preformance otherwise I will embarass you at the stake[8D]:D

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Please let me make clear that my "argument" is based on the assumption of well tuned and matched equipment..this is key. Let me also reiterate that some of these things are not unimportant , but simply less important than the weight given to them at times.

Good discussion..keep it up! :)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I consider myself a "techno-junkie" as well and yet also do concur with your point of view. I love buying a few dozen arrows to see not only which is the best for my setup but also how they compare from a tolerance standpoint. Yet, I realize that most of that is done because of my obsession (or interest if you like) for the gear itself and not necessarily because it is absolutely necessary for me to successfully hunt and shoot.

Bravo on this post Jeff. I have to talk to Matt and see if I can get him to dig up that HRAOP icon to stick in your post. You definitely deserve it with this one. :)

Oh, and you really need to stop watching those Lord of the Rings DVDs over and over again Jeff. ;):D

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Not familiar with this? Explain please?

It's practically incoherent in FotR (barring the Extended edition Council of Elrond where Gandalf recites it)..so it's more of a "book thing" (I still prefer the books). :) Maybe I'll google around for the entire passage and put that in my sig, seeing as how you like it so much :D

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Honorary Rack Award for Outstanding Post...if memory serves me correctly.

It must have been somewhat coherent as I have only watched the DVDs in recent years. It has been at least 5 or 6 years since I read one of the books....Silmarillion not withstanding. :)

Personally I think you should go with one of Tom Bombadil's merry songs....:D....better stop now before I really get off topic. :)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I totally understand where many of you are coming from and I certainly respect your points of view---I hope you respect mine as well---

IMHO one cannot honestly believe that a bow with terrible nock travel or inconsistent limbtip travel will be as accurate or forgiving as one with perfect nock travel and balanced limbtip travel, or even feel as good at the shot in hand---the bow with both perfect travel and balanced travel will ultimately be much easier to shoot and immediately noticeable from anyones' perspective if looked at with an OPEN mind. If anything, Pros will find the LESSER amount of differential between the shooting characteristics of such above mentioned bows, or bows with differing brace heights, etc, while average and even beginners will find the differences much more than neglible between them due to imperfected form structures.

I have personally tuned a bow with a straight limb and round wheel on one end, and a recurve limb of different length and hard cam on the other, just for an example that anything can in fact be tuned--yes it can be done. BUT, the bow handled like garbage and shot TERRIBLY, with much shock and kick. Could I set it up to kill a deer at 20 yds? Probably. WOULD I?? No way! Awful! This is what I'm getting at.

Much like the above scenario, I think what we see here is the conviction of brand loyalty/what's popular taking precedence over the reality of what is honestly the better designed equipment and what will honestly shoot better in a persons' hands. Closer than that scenario above maybe, but still far enough apart to be noticeably apparent. For instance, it has been proven time and time again that a dual cam bow can be balanced (solocams cannot) and even creep-tuned to perfection for each individuals' form/shooting style and thus if done correctly are far easier to shoot/ score higher with, especially at distance---that is why most top Pros shoot twins (or now symmetrical hybrids as the next generation) in formats such as NFAA and FITA. But yet here we are looking at overall sales numbers and many bowhunters still choose a solocam. Why?? IMHO because they see that some have racked up many wins with bought Pros in the 3D game and that company along with others advertise heavily and target hunting with solos. All about popularity and flash and what one sees in the mags and hears about online, and little else IMO--- certainly nothing technically outstanding if honestly compared apples to apples or what people would truly choose if they did not already have these subliminal visions repeatedly stuck in their minds.. all about the numbers....If these companies were to put total emphasis/advertising on twin cams or hybrids (which is admittedly starting now and will really take off soon as the next step forward) or even go as far as to start another craze to let's see-- 4 wheel bows with longer ATA and deeper brace heights that do 400fps, or whatever, I guarantee their popularity and sales would jump to the top also over the course of a couple of years. This is one of the best examples I can give on this. The marketing alone controls the Archery industry in the USA , leads us all around like sheep and convinces us that whatever they want you to believe is great is the cat's butt, even if some (or many) parts of it may not be. Thus subjective testing follows suit due to this popularity and general overall acceptance of these products, and those who are doing it at the time honestly believe what they are reporting because they have no definitive technical equipment/formulas to honestly determine otherwise, and thus others follow when they read these subjective findings, etc, etc, and so it continues.

Moral of the long-winded post:

Only the true technical data can tell you the honest to God truth about products as it cuts through all of the popularity, biasm, and what you may believe you are feeling that our minds have generally obscured due to this popularity and general "If it's good enough for my neighbor, it's good enough for me" syndrome. True technical comparative info does not have any such individual bias/popularity illusions and thus is not obscured in any way, shape, or form. That's how I see it.;)

Just my two cents. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Was that comment directed at Jeff's original post or something else?

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Jeff... You're right, of course, on each and every point you raised. My #1 tournament bow in the late 80's was a Hoyt ProVantage Tracer. The Tracer was the budget bow in the ProVantage line. I won half the tournaments I shot with that bow. If I'd been shooting one of the high end models, would I have won more tournaments? I doubt it. I've got a Super Slam Legacy, basically the same exact bow as the Tracer only with different camo and high end Carbon Plus limbs. I can't tell any difference.

Frankly, I shot both bows better than the high dollah, high tech, ProTec I've got now. Although, I must admit having replaced the E-wheels on the SuperSlam with modern Accuwheels. Very nice! ;) But don't try that at home, kids!

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I just wanted to add, that back in the day, that meant something entirely different...

:)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Frank-

That comment was a generalization, and was not directed at anyone in particular. :)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Except it leaves out the most important variation: the human element.

If we all had machines shooting our bows for us, then things would be different.

And that's the whole point of this thread.....where does the line blur?

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Not always so, Jeff. Only when shooting the bow out of a machine does this hold true. Otherwise the tester is still doing the testing, only instead of "winging it" they are utilizing comparative graphs, charts, and formulas that will work regardless and give exacting/honest comparative results as opposed to "opinion", which can certainly be obscured as stated in my above post. Bows can be compared for speed and decible readings while shot by humans, the only tests that need to be measured by machines are shock/kick at the shot readings and even those differences can be felt by humans if honestly tested, but the machines will always read true on this.. The rest can all be formulated/graphed and compared apples to apples by humans if the time is taken to do so (or is known how to do so)---unfortunately few have the knowledge and/or take the time to do so, or even have the equipment needed for such comparative testing. Over the past several years with the increase of internet exposure everyone wants to do a report online,(why I don't know, but they do) so we see more and more of these subjective reviews popping up everywhere by virtually everyone. Yes, the line certainly "blurs" as you put it....

Does subjective testing help anyone?? Maybe to an extent but then again maybe not IMHO---- again as stated I feel that most of these subjective reports are based upon popularity and/or brand loyalty if not done of a true technical nature, and thus as stated, will be obscured, whether intentionally or not. JMHO. Pinwheel 12

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Kevin,

Cool with the first issue I had with your post. Now how about this....

I realize that you used IMHO and IMO to stress the fact that it is just your opinion in this case and in that I cannot argue. However, I still must honestly say that I find it hard to believe that you still have a difficult time accepting that some of us just actually prefer the shooting characteristics of a conventional single cam bow. The draw cycle....the feeling of the bow's back wall and the physical reaction of the bow during the shot all do appeal to some shooters. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with marketing hype.

Comments?

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Since when did a single cam become conventional?? Now I KNOW I'm getting old. [&o]

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I can really flub a chronograph reading by pulling super hard into the wall or creeping or torquing the bow. Again there is that human element.

Certainly taken on it's own merits we can say bow X will be "better" than bow Y from a graph or machine testing. That's not my argument. My argument is, when adding the human element do these "machine tests" prove nearly as valuable as far as the end result (hitting what we aim at) is concerned?

Even for the paid pros who are winning year in and year out with "inferior" equipment..they ARE winning...even against shooters with "superior" (as technically tested) equipment. They've done it indoors @ Vegas/AC, and at marked yardage as well. Would they win more with "superior equipment"? Hard to say one way or another until they tried. The fact remains, they still win quite a bit. Does it mean that one company has all the best shooters? They have alot of them for sure, but given the superiority of the "non winners" equipment, should they not be winning instead all the time?

Again it points back to the individual's skill to put the arrow where it needs to go. As I said in the first post..for some of the more "extreme" archery competitions, little things CAN make the difference...for maybe perhaps 1% of the Archers who are the pinnacle of the sport. But "the proof is in the pudding" as they say, and for the rest of us the human element is the factor that needs the least variation or most consistency, no?

BTW: Changed my sig for you Frank :)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Frank---

To each their own is the answer to that one--- ;) Being on "the inside" I can give you a pretty good look at what is happening technically within the industry, give insight and viewpoints, and even give a pretty good indicator on what will come down the road if you guys wish-- but much like leading a horse to water but not making him drink I cannot force anyone to listen or believe, or shoot what you do not want to, simply due to your own beliefs--- and honestly if solocams float your boat that's fine with me, have fun, at least you are shooting something!! Some people still love recurves too.;)

I go by technical attributes and experiences along with personal preferences, (yep, human too believe it or not;) ) and altho I could go on all day long about the pros/cons of one system versus another, the bottom line is you guys will believe what you want, whether I or anyone else can prove otherwise technically on certain issues.

So, in essence we are all just pi$$ing into the wind here aren't we??Because we are all individuals and will believe whatever we want to anyway. Some like Ford, Some like Chevy, Some like Dodge. Same thing here. So enough of this stuff for today---have a great weekend-- I've got to go get some work done and then hit my Bear stand this afternoon! :) Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

Edit---Missed your post Jeff, maybe I can get back to it later this weekend.;)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Kevin,

I am not challenging the fact that duals or hybrids may be technically superior to single cam bows nor am I contending the fact that the industry may be headed in that direction. I also believe that this is not an issue of "beliefs" but rather one of personal preference as you made mention to in your last post.

I think that is what Jeff was trying to point out with his original post. If a shooter has a personal preference for a bow's feel and shoots better because of it then is that not more important than what the bow should "technically" be capable of?

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and wish you luck with you luck with your bear hunt.

Arthur,

You are old but....:)...."conventional" is a term that Kevin prefers for idler wheel style single cam bows. It seemed appropriate.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I'll second what Frank said about the cams. I own a CPS cam darton, it's what I learned to shoot on. I also own an older martin target bow with daul speed cams and a low let off. When I went looking for a new bow I shot a few, all kinds. Looked real hard a hoyt with the cam and half system. In the end I bought a bowtech mighty might. Why, because I liked it better. I like the way single cams draw if set at the right poundage and the right draw length. I like that quick build up and severe drop at the end. Don't ask me why, I just do. My martin has like 60 or 65 percent let off and dual cams. I HATE it, can't stand the big ole grip either. Sure looks cool hanging on my wall though. Any wants to take it off my hands, 100 bucks and it's yours.

In my above post I didn't mean to imply none of the bow specs are important or tuning just doesn't matter. To the average archer they are important, just not worth obsessing about at times. And to a pro target archer it may make the difference between cutting the line and not cutting the line. So it could get you points and be worth it. Certainly a well tuned bow with the right characteristics is more forgiving. That doesn't really mean accurate though. I still stand by my statement, you give a poorly tuned bow to a good pro and it will still shoot good. People have won tournaments this way. How the bow "feels" doesn't effect anything, the arrow is gone already. With proper shot execution it doesn't matter. It's mostly a mental thing, like shooting a high powered rifle. First shot may be great, but the next may not. The gun isn't any less accurate, you were just anticipating the recoil and messed up the shot. Not the equipments fault is it.

My point is if most people would spend half the time they spent worrying and trying to get thier bow tuned "perfect", and concentrated on practice and a better shot sequence they would shoot better. Myself included. There is a guy locally than runs a shop. He holds a few titles and was on the olympic archery team at one point. He can shoot better at 100 yards then I can at 20. Is it because he obsesses about tuning, or because he shoots a better bow? No, it's because he is a better archer then I am, pure and simple. There are people that can shoot off the shelf with fingers better than some of us can here. What does that say? Our bows still need some more tuning? I don't think so, with the proper spine and fletching an arrow will stabilize. Obviously you don't want it to work harder than it needs to though, that's what tuning does in my opinion. And besides, you can't tune a bow better than you shoot. You may be able to make it more forgiving though, there is that word again.

Paul

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I can tell you exactly where the line is for me in two disticnt and seperate arenas.

1. How well can I shoot it. How it feels comes ina distant second here but is a factor.

2. Efficiency. This is why I prefer duals or hybrids. These are "theories" that are tangible in the field for me. Faster, harder hitting, flatter shooting arrows for the poundage.

Now I don't understand much of Norb's efficiency ratings but I do understand this...I can get a bow that draws 64lbs to GENERATE 72lbs of KE.

That, to me, is a beautifull machine. Now if it doesn't sound liek a .30-06 going off and doesn't stop my watch with the vibration shooting down my arm AND shoots straight....that's a bow I want to look at.

I seriously wonder if the bows that "feel" best to many of us actually shoots the best for us. I guess confidence goes a long way but I try to be as objective as possible.

I've shot bows that I hated the grip on, were loud and ugly and "not Kelly's kind of bow" and shot the freakin' lights out with them. But I'd never buy one because no matter how well I shot it it wasn't comfortable or fun to do so.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I think alot of things have to do with what it takes for an individual to reach a comfort threshold.

For Kevin, knowing he holds in his hand what he's proven to himself is the best technical advantaged bow gives him superior comfort. Nothing wrong with that. For others, just being able to close enough to the mark on a set up they can take deer with and more importanly afford provides this comfort threshold.

I like learning the ins and outs, and hearing the pro's and cons. I truly appreciate Kevin's and other's insights into the tech and R&D side of the manufacturers. I like trying to learn something new about archery every day. Such knowledge makes me WANT a new bow, but I have confidence knowing the bow I have is more than proficient enough to do the task at hand, and most importantly, it's paid for... :D

A small percentage will always have the edge in knowledge gained to formulate their comfort level. For what I perceive as the vast majority, "Well, it's good enough to kill that _________ I shot last year" suffices just fine...

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Is it me or did this site come alive all of a sudden. Hope everyone is having a good summer. I agree that all this tuning and techie info we gather is to some extent over the top but my obsessiveness draws me to it. I have found I can weed threw it and find what works for me. As far as loyalty goes if I find a manufacture that puts out a good product I have a tendency to stay with it untill it stops working for me dispite what others think or do. Right now I'm on Merlin kick.

Here's something that happened to me this summer. I'm constantly tinkering with my equipment almost to a falt. The past few months I got so busy with work and other things I didn't have time to shoot or tinker. So when I found time to attend a 1/2 dozen or so 3-d shoots I went without much preperation. I scored some of my highest scores I ever shot. My average score increased by 30-40 points. Right now I'm shooting the best I have ever shot just by leaving it alone. So like I said in another thread a little info can be dangerous at times. I was always trying to tweak my equip thinking I can get it shooting better and doing more damage then good. Jerry

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Exactly Kelly. "Feel" is not what I'm getting at per-se, unless "Feel" makes it "easier" to shoot well for you. If Bow X is "technically superior" but does not hold as steady for you as "inferior" bow Y, and therefore you don't shoot it as accurately..then it all comes back to that Human element. If the bow beats the $**** out of you, and you do not enjoy shooting the bow and your accuracy suffers, what good is the "technical superiority" doing for you?

The last 3 Hybrids I had (all 2004 modeld) apples to apples would not hang with or were equal to similar or "worse" spec singles I had speed and energy-wise. (and BT duals are off the scale, no fair ! ;)

My point here is not that singles are superior or inferior, but that here is one of those situations I mentioned in my first post where the evidence in question does not prove anything one way or the other...Extreme amount of variables. Some Hybrids and duals are more efficient, some singles are more efficient than some duals and hybrids. And while BT dual cams are really fast and pretty darn efficient, they also store a TON more energy than most cams of similar draw weight, so once you factor in speed for effort, the efficiency percentage would be lower than the much softer Freedom cam (i.e. the F-cam doesn't store nearly as much energy, but utilizes what it does store more efficiently).

I don't really want to get too far into bow brand specifics in this thread (in fact I'd like to avoid it) but my point in posting is to simply make folks think about where the line between technical tests and practical experience blurs. IMO, and IME, it's once the bow gets in the hands of a human. I'm not basing my experience on being "sheep", or falling prey to marketing either. I'm talking about SHOOTING the darn things. I personally have never let marketing hype sway my decision one way or the other to buy a bow (it may very well have gotten me to LOOK at the bow in question however)...If I have bought a heavily marketed bow brand, it's because I LIKED the bow, not because the ad told me it was the best thing since sliced bread.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I think I took your post the wrong way. Oh well. I do however look for an effecient bow. Mainly because of my size. I want something that will get me closer to the average hunter energy wise with my smaller set up. Not my utmost concern however. I almost bought a lower end hoyt just because I liked it. It wouldn't have been nearly as fast as my bowtech was. And I didn't by the bowtech because of the speed. That was something I discovered after having the bow. Every bow will feel different to every archer. I think size and shooting style has something to do with it. A magazine or an add can't tell you what bow you will like, you need to try them out.

Paul

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I am just glad that no one told all those deer that I have killed over the years that I have been shooting inferior equipment:eek:;):D

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Talk about inferior, Silent, you would laugh if you saw one of the bows I was shooting this morning. Looks like a Sims ad gone wrong![8D] BUT, I wrecked another arrow ACC at that, cause I thought I could shoot two broadheads at the same spot at 30 yards. The Slick Trick (second arrow) did a slice and peel on some of the carbon layer of the first ACC. Now I am down to 6 until my local shop gets some more in.

Still think (assuming good arrows and good tune) that feeling comfortable and confident in your choice of equipment is at least as important as exactly what that equipment happens to be.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Well, the only thing I can add to all this is...
I've said it before and I'm saying it again.
If you're not shooting the equipment Ol'Sag is shooting, you're not shooting the best!


Sag.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Hey Sag....what did that 'curve come walking by your bow blind or what?? Kinda looske like you took the picture while sitting in box as if hunting.

And here I thought "Bowhunting" was USING a bow to kill stuff....not actually HUNTING for bows:D;)

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

I think I completely took this post the wrong way! For some reason I didn't see the "testing" part of the "technical testing" line. Ooops. I suppose you are comparing the reviews we do compared to the high tec reviews you see in magazines or on the net.

Well I like to see both to be honest. I like reading the onese in magazines and on the net, they are interesting and let me get an idea for what the bow may be able to accomplish. However I am just as concerned with what "bubba" thinks of a bow also. As well as people like you and Frank, or the local shop if they can be trusted. You will get a more honest opinion out of that than you may get out of a magazine or something that has to worry about sponsers. If we think something sucks, we don't have a problem saying so.

It also gives someone an idea of how something will perform with the kind of set up they intend on using. I mean that's great if a bow will shoot a certain speed or do a certain thing in an IBO configuration shot out of a machine. I however will never see anything close to that and like to get feed back from people more like me or closer to my size. I am very interested when I see comments and advice from women or smaller people like myself. That is why when I get the chance I will post something about a piece of gear or a bow I might try out or purchase. That is why I did the one on my Mighty Might. I may not know every thing about testing a bow, or how all of the phycics work, but I know what works well and feels good to me. And I would think other people my size would like to know this as well.

I would also like to see of the tests done a little better when comparing bows. IBO tests are not very standerdized it seems (is that a word?). Some will test the bow with a 30 inch cam, or module on it. That doesn't always mean it is really 30 inches draw length though does it. They will test them with nothing on the string, who really shoots like this, c'mon. Others will test the bow at 30 inches of draw using a maching to draw it back to a measured distance. With no regards to where the cam is at that distance or whether it's the optimum timing for that set up. I would like to see them test the bow at a specific draw length using what ever cam or module it took to get it there, then make sure it was timed correctly, and list what it took to get it there and what the results were. How hard is that to do? We do it, right. I personally would rather like to see AMO tests myself, they tend to be more accurate. They just don't look as impressive is all.

Paul

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

No, I don't think you did Paul. Just that my post/s darted around a little bit. As far as testing goes, my point is that technical testing does not hold the same weight once we put a bow in a person's hands..i.e..all the ways a bow can be technically superior are easy to prove in a controlled test (i.e. machines), however other factors (subjective) can & often do play a larger part in ultimately how well an individual shoots a given bow.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Trushot,

Yeah, I took that Recurve alive when it got too close to my blind, ;)
Hope to take a new Merlin compound if it wanders too close. :D


Sag.

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Anyone that did not know the true definition of "overkill," now knows.:eek:

RE: Practical Experience vs. Technical Testing
 

Long weekend, bear hunting,(nothing yet, no sightings even!) barbecues, family stuff.....OK, now back to the fray---

Jeff (and everyone for that matter) I respect you views and certainly see what some of you are saying. To an extent I agree that much of the basics can be tested "offhand" by individuals simply trying each bow---but only to an extent as they all need to be done on an apples to apples comparason utilizing exacting techniques for true values to become readily apparent, as opinions alone cannot be deemed a true governing factor. For instance, take a guy who has been shooting recurves all of his life-- 30-something years, then all of a sudden this new fangled piece of equipment comes out and is touted as the greatest thing since the bikini. Does anyone think he will welcome it with open arms, whether a better technology or not??[:'(] I personally witnessed this phenomenon some years ago at the introduction of the compound to the world as virtually thousands of loyal recurve/longbow fans tried their hardest to see the "intruder" away. They almost succeeded even! But here we are, 30-something years later, and the compound is still around.....

Fast forward from that first scenario to today--- now we are in the midst of the search for the next generation "perfect" compound bow. The lines are drawn on three sides---twin, solo, and hybrid as the current contenders. We also now have internet, so everyone can banter back and forth about anything whether true info or not. This stirs the pot even more. What we are seeing is a "suplex" (seems like a good term) of the same thing we saw back then with the recurve shooters who hated the thought of the compound bow. People have once again gotten comfortable with "their" bows, and will "test" them and "conclude" to others on public forums exactly what they want to, irregardless of any true and honest technical findings that may be shown to them to prove otherwise. This is what I see, same as almost 40 years ago......as they say, the Archery industry is much like everything else in life--- very cyclic. I thus must state again my point that true technical tests do not lie, they are not biased, they can be done with machines or with humans doing the testing for the most part, and if all equipment is tested equally with same brace heights, same ATA, same number of string strands, same amount of dampening doo-dads, etc, etc, etc., such results then MAY in fact and PROBABLY will be far different from those "tests" done by our buddy Bubba and friends over a six pack on a Saturday afternoon, who may or may not be just a bit biased by hype, popularity, and loyalty, or swayed by advertising towards one or another of any bows tested, sometimes without even knowing they are doing so. Even if they are not aware, I still contend that it is much like the scenario above irregardless and things are obscured by personal preferences/loyalty.

I have my preferences like anyone else, but I do base my findings for preference on much technical data that I can read and discern, as stated previously. This helps me immensely long before I ever shoot the bow as I will have a good handle on how it will shoot and feel just by looking at the info such as speed and hysteresis values, ATA, brace, Riser geometry, draw force curves, and what kind of eccentrics and limbs are on it, etc---the more I want to know, the further I read. Once a person learns how to "read" this info one can easily determine what bows will fit their "preferences" and what ones that will not.

If some feel this is "overkill", that's OK-- hey, it's America, do your own thing! Test 'em my way, your way, or whatever way. I'll do what I can to help where I can for those who want to listen. But if it makes some feel better, this will be my last post on this particular topic.;)

Remember--- As long as we're all shooting a bow,(no matter what kind) well I guess that's all that matters, isn't it? Recurve, Twin cam, Solocam, Hybrid cam, Longbow, Crossbow, Footbow, whatever. It's all ARCHERY my friends, and therefore it is all good. It has to be for us to ever survive so our kids and grandkids can enjoy it!:) Good shooting, Good hunting, Pinwheel 12