Once again, David is spot on. I don't doubt Bernie's skills or knowledge...but I know Eric Krewson normally uses wood overlays on his selfbows, and HMPE (usually Dynaflight '97, I think) strings.

I know my own favorite bow, that I pull [email protected]" on, that I've never shot more than 10 gpp on and generally less, that I draw to 30", that I get well over 180 fps with, that I've shot tens if not hundreds of thousands of times over the past 12-15 years....has wood overlays on the limb tips, and it's doing just fine even though it's NEVER had a dacron string on it.

Back to the discussion on speed.....I accidently ran across an interesting tidbit about picking up 6-12 fps just with a proper anchor and release (it's on the safari tuff site under "tips and trophies). That's as much or more than you'll typically pick up by changing strings.

This has been very interesting and enlightening, even if there hasn't been any real testing done. Thank you all for your input, and the civil way you presented it.

When it come to tip overlays, I go by the books. None of my bows, that I have built have ever suffered from limb damage. The bows I have repaired, due to string damage, have all followed along the lines of what I have read and studied. Personally, I have never pushed it. It is much easier to make a bone, phenolic,etc tip, than to risk other materials for the simple purpose of testing the limits. So I assume that is why I have never had any tip failure. I have yet to have a bow returned or brought back due to damage, and knock on wood, i wont. But I do insist that if a person is going to use a ff string, that I will use materials suggested for said string. Actually, most every bow i have ever sold has had tips made for any string. Like I said, it is much easier to just make a tip that can handle it. No need in pushing it.

After reading my reply's, I noticed I did not get across my point very well. To sum up what I was trying to say, and more so forgot to mention, is that ff strings do not stretch. The inertia created by the limb is stopped by the tips more violently, which lead to tip failure in softer material. I guess thats more along the lines I was trying to get at. This concept is one of the reasons, regardless of string, for tip overlays.

Think of it this way. Take a stick and strike a tree with it, the tree will not give and snap the stick. Hit a bail of hay with a stick and the hay will absorbed the strike and not break the stick. Dacron is hay and ff is the tree. After thinking about it, I get what you were saying about hand shock. I was not quite thinking right when I read your post. Sorry.

That makes sense (tree and stick). FF materials do have some stretch, just not nearly as much as dacron. The amount of stretch in dacron (or really any material) will vary with draw weight, draw length, strand count, etc.

I agree on not pushing the limits--that's why the latest "fad" of tiny strings makes me very nervous. There's quite a few advocating 4-6-8 strand strings. To me, that's nuts. Same fad went around some 12-15 years ago, but then it didn't get as low in strands as now. Thankfully, that one passed and I expect this one will also.

I'm not going to be the one that does any limit testing--I'm in the "better safe than sorry" crowd. I will constantly be looking for more information on strings though. If someone can show that HMPE strings will cause damage to certain bows, and why, then maybe we can figure out how to modify the string to avoid that and get the best of both.

There's some things about strings which may be counter-intuitive.

Handshock. An elastic string promotes vibration after the shot, because the string stores energy (like a rubber band) that has to go somewhere once the arrow has left the bow. Back to those flight shooter boys, the math indicates string mass is important, for maximizing cast, but also elasticity. When elasticity is set to zero (for modeling purposes), arrow goes faster. If the arrow goes faster, less energy is left in the bow, less handshock.

Low strand count strings. They have MORE elasticity, but less mass. If you don't offset the less mass by adding arrow mass, it's in effect the same as using (too) light arrows from the bow's pov. Also, when a strands breaking strenght is 150#, compared to inside of 50# for Dacron for example, you can, obviously, use 1/3rd less strands and still have the SAME breaking strenght. Elasticity is directly related to breaking strenght, one goes up so does the other. You do have to be careful about diameter, around the string loops, as a tiny string will obviously focus the strain on a smaller area. But if a 12 strand Dacron (600#) is "enough" string, so is 4 strands of 450+, for example.

The Walk the Talk boys found the more efficient (as differentiated from simply "faster") bows also had in common the least handshock, the least noise. Kinda counter intuitive, until you think about it. Energy leaving the bow by way of the arrow beats energy being absorded by the bow, for longevity, performance, quietness, everything. A bow can be faster because it stores more energy (a recurve), or because it delivers more of it's stored energy (an optimized r/d longbow). Of the two, the recurve is frequently the louder... because while it stores more energy and even though it puts more energy into the arrow it also wastes more energy slinging around that extra limb mass, which has to be consumed by way of noise and handshock. That recurves typically have such massive risers, in comparison to the more efficient r/d longbow shape, the handshock difference is frequently masked, not always obvious in the comparison.

Here's some of what bothers me with the tiny strings. On paper, it makes sense that a strand that is 3 times stronger would let you get away with using 1/3 the number of strands...but paper doesn't take other things into account.

Load testing. I hope I get my terms correct here....the breaking strengths are tested under static weight (stationary), not shock load--I think that makes a big difference.

Flexing. Every string material I know of that has been removed from the market (removed, not upgraded) was due to failure at a flex point--usually the nock-set. Some materials act like a wire--when they get flexed at the same point over and over, it breaks down the fibers and consequently the string breaks. I don't know how the load strength correllates here, but I do know the strongest material on the market today is the one I've heard about breaking the most--by far. It's also the one that has been used the most in tiny strings to date--450+.

The other thing that bothers me is durability. I can break an anvil with a feather, and I've had folks with similar luck contact me needing a string "right now", because of a mishap. Usually a case where broadhead meets string (like putting an arrow back in a bow quiver at dark), but there's also fences, sharp rocks, etc. One or two cut/broken strands might end a hunt, or might not. Three or four might require a new string, or might get you slapped upside the noggin by your bow limb. Either one depends on how many strands you have to begin with.

That's how I look at it, and what makes me wonder how dacron can be "easier" on a bow when it resonates all that vibration down the limbs at every shot. Another reason I don't care for tiny strings, is they can act the same way. All materials have some amount of stretch/creep. The lower the strand count, the more you increase the stretch/elasticity. Getting away from that is one of the main reasons I prefer HMPE materials to begin with. That, along with increased durability are pretty much the ONLY reasons--I'd use them if they were a little slower than dacron. Going with a tiny strand count takes away the two main reasons for using HMPE materials to begin with. That's why it puzzles me so much when I hear people brag on them....I just don't get it.

To be honest I don't know the relationship between breaking strenght (static) versus under shock load, but I'd imagine directly related. I found a fair bit of reading a while back on the topic of comparing materials in the context of rope, marine applications. Seems like I read Dacron stretches 5% compared to the HMPE stuff closer to 1%-2% as a function of breaking strenght (eg. size). They are all about stretch, shock load too, I'd be surprised if that testing didn't get done as well.

You make an excellent point about work fatique. Linen suffers from this, as you describe typically at the nock point. And I read with interest your thoughts about Vectran (I think, aka 450+) being particularly brittle.

I don't shoot enough to be overly concerned with plain durability. I've had two strings on that bow I bought from you (what 6 - 8 years ago). But risk of failure from calamity, intimacy with broadheads is certainly a legit argument.

I don't favor skinny strings, unless it's for a tiny little bow like wife or dotter. But I don't begrudge them either. I think folks generally delight in doing, proving from their pov, they can do what they've been told they can't, hence the brag, although it might be more tactfully label "enthusiastic sharing of information." ;-)

I like FF-like materials for the low noise, low handshock. In the selfbowyerin game it can be quite dramatic, the difference. And also in that game having even just a few fps more cast counts for a lot, since in effect you use up your bow, like a battery, with every shot. The more "overbuilt" it is the longer it lasts sure, to the point it's not necessarily relevant. But the more wood you sling (being overbuilt), the slower the bow, the more the handshock. It's a match made in heaven for selfbows.

I'm the kinda guy, although I got my wings clipped a fair bit lately, I got two speeds: off and fast as is legal. I'm the last person to leave performance on the table for a promise of a relatively insignificant amount of longevity. I've shot that Kings Pawn for what, 6 - 8 years, almost exclusively and if it blew up today (I've been rough with it, and modified it a fair bit), I'd feel I got exceptional value. It's had two strings on it, your d97 which is my backup string, and a 450+ (8 strand) I made maybe 3 year ago. I didn't like it with FF. If I'd had a spool of d97 I'd a put back on it. The idea of using B50 for anything but string puffs just doesn't enter into my thinking.

This is why you have so much differences in opinion on this topic. Folks have a wide range of expectations, experiences, knowledge, requirements, what-have-you.

You can safely use FF on any trad bow.The important thing is you have to use fewer strands than you would with Dacron (to allow/match safe stretch of the string) and build up the loops to prevent the thin FF from cutting into the bow.The safest easiest way is to double serve the string loops and the serving area where you draw and contact the bows builder to determine how many strands to use.Theres info on all this in one of the three "Trad Bowyers Bible" series of books.

450+ is 30% Vectran and 70% Dyneema. The Vectran is the cause for concern--I think there's been one or two 100% Vectran, or similar, materials put on the market that caused a lot of grief for the manufacturer.

I hadn't even thought to look at the TBB (I have all three)...but those have been out for several years, and a lot of materials have come out and/or been changed since then.

Using fewer strands so you get more stretch makes sense in a way, but on the other hand that's the reason I prefer HMPE materials to begin with. Seems pointless to me to modify an HMPE string so it will act like a dacron string.

The biggest problems I have with promoting skinny strings are, IMO, a lot of "information" purported about them that just isn't so (i.e., "I had to go up two spine groups because I got so much more speed")--at least not in my experience; and that makes people curious and they want me to make them. I will only go so low in strand count, due to the liability involved. Well, that and my concious--I'd feel awful if someone were to be injured because I made them a string I knew was not safe.

There's been too many challenges put out for folks to prove these things--like Ken Beck's offer of a free bow for proof of a gain of...2 fps, I think? 'Course there was a flip-side of forfieting your bow, or having to order a new BW at retail if you lost. I believe that challenge was out for a full year, with no takers. That says a lot to me.

The reason FF is faster is because of it's thinner/lighter strands so you will gain a few FPS all else equal.Reducing the number of strands also reduces weight increases speed more and allows some give in the string so it will transfer more energy to the arrow rather than over-stressing the limbs causing them to delaminate.