Level nock travel?
01-17-2002, 08:59 PM
#31
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 144
RE: Level nock travel?
Len I am just too dense to get the picture . I guess the only way I might understand it is to find someone with one of the machines and watch it being used. Couple of more questions, When doing the tests is the riser secured loosely and allowed to move like a shooter with a relaxed grip should have or is the riser/grip bolted down solid? Also is the datum line on the graphs a straight line from the nock at full draw through the rest prongs/shelf as in where the arrow should pass?
01-17-2002, 09:41 PM
#32
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Level nock travel?
8Pt: We usually like to secure the riser because it allows us to get more information from the bow. It can also be done with the riser moving as it would in your hand. The line runs from a static state at the string to full draw. If you were to continue the trace of the line through the rest, the one cam bows would usually be much worse.
01-18-2002, 09:14 PM
#33
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 520
RE: Level nock travel?
Len you raise as always some interesting points:
I'm no expert on Japanese bows, but they have to be consistently tillered or one limb will take over. At this point I am not sure what the original idea of dissimilar lengths was about.
On performance you mention that the older bows were "horrible". Do you mean severe degree of nock travel, or a severe degree of being affected by nock travel? That's the key. The fact that they "fixed it" proves little. It has always been my contention that this was mostly a marketing gang up on Mathews.
Mathews for me is like a boat: a hole I pour money into. I really could care less about them, but I have to say their early single cams were the best bows I had shot to that point, and they have kept me coming back. Their single cam was so horrible that it revolutionised for better or worse an industry. And in the early days few companies, even those using very derivative cams were getting any traction on them, The first really telling assault was the nock travel thing. I have never seen the problem, in terms I could understand (missed deer or x-rings). Now whether bows without serious nock travel "problems" are better is an interesting question. It seems to me that part of what you are saying is that a lot of bows (that regularly harvest game and win national championships) still have significant nock travel issues. Your own testing proves this. Whatever one thinks about Mathews, they don't make a bow that is incapable of performing at the highest levels, and they have been foot draggers as far as I can see about rushing in to solve the nock travel problem. If the CPS or 2 cams are the only systems that really deal with the issue. Then to what extent have they (the industry) "fixed it".
I raised this issue with Mathews a few months ago, and after a long delay in responding and a reminder (if memory serves) they asked that I phone them about it...
I'd like to make it down your way, I am axious to take on the lordly SIKA.
I'm no expert on Japanese bows, but they have to be consistently tillered or one limb will take over. At this point I am not sure what the original idea of dissimilar lengths was about.
On performance you mention that the older bows were "horrible". Do you mean severe degree of nock travel, or a severe degree of being affected by nock travel? That's the key. The fact that they "fixed it" proves little. It has always been my contention that this was mostly a marketing gang up on Mathews.
Mathews for me is like a boat: a hole I pour money into. I really could care less about them, but I have to say their early single cams were the best bows I had shot to that point, and they have kept me coming back. Their single cam was so horrible that it revolutionised for better or worse an industry. And in the early days few companies, even those using very derivative cams were getting any traction on them, The first really telling assault was the nock travel thing. I have never seen the problem, in terms I could understand (missed deer or x-rings). Now whether bows without serious nock travel "problems" are better is an interesting question. It seems to me that part of what you are saying is that a lot of bows (that regularly harvest game and win national championships) still have significant nock travel issues. Your own testing proves this. Whatever one thinks about Mathews, they don't make a bow that is incapable of performing at the highest levels, and they have been foot draggers as far as I can see about rushing in to solve the nock travel problem. If the CPS or 2 cams are the only systems that really deal with the issue. Then to what extent have they (the industry) "fixed it".
I raised this issue with Mathews a few months ago, and after a long delay in responding and a reminder (if memory serves) they asked that I phone them about it...
I'd like to make it down your way, I am axious to take on the lordly SIKA.
01-18-2002, 10:21 PM
#34
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Level nock travel?
Ossage: If you're this hard-headed doubting, brand loyal, and confused, I do certainly feel for your family! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Len you raise as always some interesting points". What I've stated is fact and has been proven many times.
"On performance you mention that the older bows were "horrible". Do you mean severe degree of nock travel, or a severe degree of being affected by nock travel?" A severe degree of nock travel directly affects the performance of a bow due to such things as arrow spine, vibration, and especially broadhead/arrow performance. There was a BIG complaint back in the mid '90s about not being able to get fixed broadheads to tune properly. Voila, the advent of mechanical broadheads. Tournaments can be won with problematic equipment. An error, as long as it's a consistent error, will yield consistent results. I've seen it happen way too often. It's when you put the "rudder" on the front of the vessel that you need excellence in equipment. I know this will "P" off a lot of tournament shooters; but, think about it. If the arrow is half the system, a more delicate arrow (with a broadhead) requires better restrictions on certain other parts of the component.
"That's the key. The fact that they "fixed it" proves little." The fact that they "fixed" it proves a lot - sorry. Think about the number of newer bows that incorporate this design.
"It has always been my contention that this was mostly a marketing gang up on Mathews." Maybe you've been seeing the US and world market from the wrong angle. The "marketing gang up" was to join the design craze, not to condemn it.
"Mathews for me is like a boat: a hole I pour money into. I really could care less about them". Let's see, you've spent a ton of money and are now in 'denial'. I do understand your position
I didn't quite understand the paragraph before this. Then you said "The first really telling assault was the nock travel thing." It's a shame that you take constructive criticism as an "assault". Do we "assault" bow companies when we complain about them not giving us correct draw lengths? No, we let them know that they have a problem that we want resolved. Keeping your mouth shut and your head in the sand is a poor option.
"I have never seen the problem, in terms I could understand (missed deer or x-rings)." You may never "see a problem" if you don't look for it. Analyzing the equipment I service is my job. My customers want me to inform them about the positives and negatives of equipment they're about to purchase. They've learned in my shop not to accept everything as gospel.
"It seems to me that part of what you are saying is that a lot of bows (that regularly harvest game and win national championships) still have significant nock travel issues." You certainly don't read or comprehend very well. I said that the one cam nock travel issue has improved tremendously.
If you've ever read some of my other posts, you'd realize that I've always admired what Mathews has done for the industry. Technical issues are inherent in any new design but will sometimes be overlooked or put aside unless attention is brought to it. Do you honestly think that this issue was corrected for no apparent reason?????
"Len you raise as always some interesting points". What I've stated is fact and has been proven many times.
"On performance you mention that the older bows were "horrible". Do you mean severe degree of nock travel, or a severe degree of being affected by nock travel?" A severe degree of nock travel directly affects the performance of a bow due to such things as arrow spine, vibration, and especially broadhead/arrow performance. There was a BIG complaint back in the mid '90s about not being able to get fixed broadheads to tune properly. Voila, the advent of mechanical broadheads. Tournaments can be won with problematic equipment. An error, as long as it's a consistent error, will yield consistent results. I've seen it happen way too often. It's when you put the "rudder" on the front of the vessel that you need excellence in equipment. I know this will "P" off a lot of tournament shooters; but, think about it. If the arrow is half the system, a more delicate arrow (with a broadhead) requires better restrictions on certain other parts of the component.
"That's the key. The fact that they "fixed it" proves little." The fact that they "fixed" it proves a lot - sorry. Think about the number of newer bows that incorporate this design.
"It has always been my contention that this was mostly a marketing gang up on Mathews." Maybe you've been seeing the US and world market from the wrong angle. The "marketing gang up" was to join the design craze, not to condemn it.
"Mathews for me is like a boat: a hole I pour money into. I really could care less about them". Let's see, you've spent a ton of money and are now in 'denial'. I do understand your position
I didn't quite understand the paragraph before this. Then you said "The first really telling assault was the nock travel thing." It's a shame that you take constructive criticism as an "assault". Do we "assault" bow companies when we complain about them not giving us correct draw lengths? No, we let them know that they have a problem that we want resolved. Keeping your mouth shut and your head in the sand is a poor option.
"I have never seen the problem, in terms I could understand (missed deer or x-rings)." You may never "see a problem" if you don't look for it. Analyzing the equipment I service is my job. My customers want me to inform them about the positives and negatives of equipment they're about to purchase. They've learned in my shop not to accept everything as gospel.
"It seems to me that part of what you are saying is that a lot of bows (that regularly harvest game and win national championships) still have significant nock travel issues." You certainly don't read or comprehend very well. I said that the one cam nock travel issue has improved tremendously.
If you've ever read some of my other posts, you'd realize that I've always admired what Mathews has done for the industry. Technical issues are inherent in any new design but will sometimes be overlooked or put aside unless attention is brought to it. Do you honestly think that this issue was corrected for no apparent reason?????
01-19-2002, 03:52 PM
#35
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 520
RE: Level nock travel?
Gee Len, sorry pal that your out of your comfort zone, and its all about my family and comprehension etc...
You claim to be Mr. Quant when it suits you, but when you don't know what you are talking about it is all hey the manufacture know best, except when you want to show what a big guy you are when you talk about how superior your testing is:
"We had one manufacturer swear to us that his product had "perfect" nock travel. We asked him how he plotted the results and then duplicated his procedure when we got back to the shop. After we finitely measured and plotted the results, his test methods agreed totally with our equipment; which was far from "perfect". In fact, it was pretty bad."
The basic question you won't answer is what is the significance of either the problem or its correction. I don't care if the nock does a loop the loop if the arrow hits the target, point on. You can measure all the divergence you want, but if it doesn't affect outcomes who cares?
If you don't know the answer that's fine, I don't know it either. Just say so.
You claim to be Mr. Quant when it suits you, but when you don't know what you are talking about it is all hey the manufacture know best, except when you want to show what a big guy you are when you talk about how superior your testing is:
"We had one manufacturer swear to us that his product had "perfect" nock travel. We asked him how he plotted the results and then duplicated his procedure when we got back to the shop. After we finitely measured and plotted the results, his test methods agreed totally with our equipment; which was far from "perfect". In fact, it was pretty bad."
The basic question you won't answer is what is the significance of either the problem or its correction. I don't care if the nock does a loop the loop if the arrow hits the target, point on. You can measure all the divergence you want, but if it doesn't affect outcomes who cares?
If you don't know the answer that's fine, I don't know it either. Just say so.
01-20-2002, 05:49 AM
#37
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: Level nock travel?
Nice to see "heat" being thrown in directions other than at me for a change!<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> (sorry!) I see both sides of this one, and Ossage brings up solid questions. I'll try to get in the middle here before it gets too carried away and overheated. OK, lets start from the beginning. First, ANY twin cam bow can be made to shoot a bullet hole. You can take a bow that has a solid limb on one end, recurve on the other, cam on one end, wheel on the other, and still get that bow to throw a decent arrow out of a machine. However, try doing the same thing with a conventional solocam. Ain't gonna happen due to the fact that the bow needs specific cam rotation, idler size, and a assortment of other things to make it function correctly. It would throw it WAY out if you whipped two different limbs on it and a different idler size or cam. This means it is simply more critical due to it's design. Timing and synchronization is more crucial, simply because if a conventional solo system moves 1/32" over that 90"+ string, it throws everything out of whack. Nock travel is an issue with any system to help acheive best performance and accuracy. Yes, any bow can be consistent enough to win, but if the nock travel is "out" 1/4-3/8" or more to begin with, and THEN the timing/synch goes out even a little, you're out of the "tuned" range and then will be frustrated shortly thereafter. This is one reason why solos are so touchy when you creep slightly and you get that nasty "flyer" we've all experienced. With twins, (especially ones that are matched, LOL) the cams firing are "balanced" and therefore will not be as crucial should something give just a little, especially if it has been supertuned.
Running a stiffer spine on arrows to compensate for an out of kilter nock travel can also affect performance due to the fact that stiffer arrows are normally heavier and slower. This would only make a significant difference in 3D shooting or distance rounds such as FITA or NFAA field rounds because the lighter, faster arrow would help with trajectory and have a bigger hit window/margin of error. BUT, it is still a factor nonetheless.
I do have to agree with Len about the point that "if nothing was wrong, why did they fix it?" The conventional solo had significant nock-travel issues when it first came onto the scene. Shortly thereafter, the Straightline cam was born. Why? because they knew the nock travel issue in the original wasn't yet perfected, no other reason. Another couple of years go by, and we see the Straightline 2. Why? because it was found that the Straightline wasn't perfect either, no other reason. They would never have dumped that much R&D into something that "didn't matter". Bottom line.
We all must remember that twin cams have been around over 20 years, and we STILL are seeing new developments that make them better each year! Solos are still basically in their infancy and have been around less than 10, and each year we see the improvements upon their design, and will for many years to come. If nock travel issues were/are not really issues at all, then no-one would bother to build the newest bows with level and straight travel built into their design and tout them as such in their marketing and advertising. It would be pretty stupid to spend all that money for no reason! As stated, a person can get pretty much any bow to shoot rather consistently, but don't you think it is worth it to get what will ultimately give you the least amount of headaches and allow you to use "correct" arrows that will give you the most performance when you slap down $600-800? I know I do. It's not a question of whether or not you CAN "make it work", it is a question of whether or not you need to go to all of that trouble of trying when you can set-up a bow correctly and simply go shoot with bows that have better attributes incorporated into their design. Hope this helps, I mean no disrespect to any manufacturer or loyal follower, simply trying to cover these issues. Ossage and Len, I enjoy both of your posts, debate is healthy, but we should all not let it get carried away here, it's the last place we've got to post where people aren't dinks and fighting each other. You two guys are veterans, I know everything will be OK. Go have a brewski! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> Good shooting, Pinwheel 12
Running a stiffer spine on arrows to compensate for an out of kilter nock travel can also affect performance due to the fact that stiffer arrows are normally heavier and slower. This would only make a significant difference in 3D shooting or distance rounds such as FITA or NFAA field rounds because the lighter, faster arrow would help with trajectory and have a bigger hit window/margin of error. BUT, it is still a factor nonetheless.
I do have to agree with Len about the point that "if nothing was wrong, why did they fix it?" The conventional solo had significant nock-travel issues when it first came onto the scene. Shortly thereafter, the Straightline cam was born. Why? because they knew the nock travel issue in the original wasn't yet perfected, no other reason. Another couple of years go by, and we see the Straightline 2. Why? because it was found that the Straightline wasn't perfect either, no other reason. They would never have dumped that much R&D into something that "didn't matter". Bottom line.
We all must remember that twin cams have been around over 20 years, and we STILL are seeing new developments that make them better each year! Solos are still basically in their infancy and have been around less than 10, and each year we see the improvements upon their design, and will for many years to come. If nock travel issues were/are not really issues at all, then no-one would bother to build the newest bows with level and straight travel built into their design and tout them as such in their marketing and advertising. It would be pretty stupid to spend all that money for no reason! As stated, a person can get pretty much any bow to shoot rather consistently, but don't you think it is worth it to get what will ultimately give you the least amount of headaches and allow you to use "correct" arrows that will give you the most performance when you slap down $600-800? I know I do. It's not a question of whether or not you CAN "make it work", it is a question of whether or not you need to go to all of that trouble of trying when you can set-up a bow correctly and simply go shoot with bows that have better attributes incorporated into their design. Hope this helps, I mean no disrespect to any manufacturer or loyal follower, simply trying to cover these issues. Ossage and Len, I enjoy both of your posts, debate is healthy, but we should all not let it get carried away here, it's the last place we've got to post where people aren't dinks and fighting each other. You two guys are veterans, I know everything will be OK. Go have a brewski! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> Good shooting, Pinwheel 12
01-20-2002, 09:42 AM
#38
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Level nock travel?
PW12: Thanks for the added explanation. As you can see, it was very late at night and I guess I was getting irritated by the lack of understanding and insight into what I was saying.
Ossage: The family comment was made in jest. Didn't you see the WINK at the end of the statement? My family knows how hard-headed and difficult that I can be at times. Sorry if you got offended.
The comprehension comment, however, was something that seemed obvious to me; but, maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. Like I said, it was late and I was tired.
I think PW12 filled in the blanks quite well. He stated the fact that it does indeed matter. The degree of the problem is much less severe with today's improved designs and does not affect the broadhead flight as much as it did.
People can sit by blind and accept what others may say. Then there are those who seem to always ask the question "WHY?". I ask the questions and, if the questions don't correlate in my mind, I do some testing.
I share my tests with anyone who wants to listen; and, as I said, you or anyone else is more than welcome to view the results. If I am wrong or my test methods don't "hold water", why hasn't someone stepped forward to show me my errors. They haven't on this issue.
Ossage: The family comment was made in jest. Didn't you see the WINK at the end of the statement? My family knows how hard-headed and difficult that I can be at times. Sorry if you got offended.
The comprehension comment, however, was something that seemed obvious to me; but, maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. Like I said, it was late and I was tired.
I think PW12 filled in the blanks quite well. He stated the fact that it does indeed matter. The degree of the problem is much less severe with today's improved designs and does not affect the broadhead flight as much as it did.
People can sit by blind and accept what others may say. Then there are those who seem to always ask the question "WHY?". I ask the questions and, if the questions don't correlate in my mind, I do some testing.
I share my tests with anyone who wants to listen; and, as I said, you or anyone else is more than welcome to view the results. If I am wrong or my test methods don't "hold water", why hasn't someone stepped forward to show me my errors. They haven't on this issue.
01-20-2002, 02:31 PM
#40
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: calgary alberta canada
Posts: 250
RE: Level nock travel?
My question was and still is, does the size of the idler wheel effect knock travel? I notice alot of bow companies using the larger idler wheel closer to the size of the actual cam.
>>>>--------o-->
>>>>--------o-->