Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
12-17-2006, 03:42 PM
#11
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
I am not into telling anyone how to paper tune and I am not going to tell anyone who may have years of bad habits how to shoot; but,
'heeling' the bow will definitely give you the results you're getting!!!
My grip is a relaxed open hand where I turn wrist back so butt or "lower heel" of hand rests on grip. Bow gently rocks forward after the shot.
12-17-2006, 04:42 PM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
Dave:
I sure do hope that's a spelling error:
Heeling (where it pertains to archery): Inducing random human error into the grip of a bow.
Healing (where it pertains to archery): Fixing problems to enable a more precise shooting machine.
I sure do hope that's a spelling error:
Heeling (where it pertains to archery): Inducing random human error into the grip of a bow.
Healing (where it pertains to archery): Fixing problems to enable a more precise shooting machine.
12-17-2006, 05:54 PM
#16
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
Len,you are absolutely correct.
We discussed a certain Hoyt from a few years back,some time ago.
I PERSONALLY don't shoot those bows so I can stick by my statement.I don't compromise centershot.
You can play with spine on some of those bows to get centershot very close but that is getting into that area of the very technical.
We discussed a certain Hoyt from a few years back,some time ago.
I PERSONALLY don't shoot those bows so I can stick by my statement.I don't compromise centershot.
You can play with spine on some of those bows to get centershot very close but that is getting into that area of the very technical.
12-17-2006, 06:06 PM
#17
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
Bols,according to Hoyt engineers,the Trycon center is further to the left(right handed)than most other Hoyt bows.
I never said center shot was down the center of the grip or center of the riser.
Most every bow manufacturer has a set "centershot" and it is best to shoot it where they suggest. Atleast if accuracy is your number one goal. Sometimes,grip torque will have you make a VERY SLIGHT adjustment left or rightwith the walk back methodbut that is not compromising centershot to paper tune.Usually if everything is correct,your paper will be good after the walk back tuning.
Len,I agree the centershot lazers are usually a joke.They can get some bows close but other bows are not even in the ball park with them.
I have had some luck with coming off the cams at full draw to find center but it really isn't necessary.
I never said center shot was down the center of the grip or center of the riser.
Most every bow manufacturer has a set "centershot" and it is best to shoot it where they suggest. Atleast if accuracy is your number one goal. Sometimes,grip torque will have you make a VERY SLIGHT adjustment left or rightwith the walk back methodbut that is not compromising centershot to paper tune.Usually if everything is correct,your paper will be good after the walk back tuning.
Len,I agree the centershot lazers are usually a joke.They can get some bows close but other bows are not even in the ball park with them.
I have had some luck with coming off the cams at full draw to find center but it really isn't necessary.
12-17-2006, 06:30 PM
#18
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
Todd:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hoyt centershot on the Trykon was an 'afterthought.' Hoyt always shoots for the 'groove' and missed this one for quite a few reasons. The '07 models seem to have corrected all their '06 problems. Time will tell.
There are some companies that don't even come close to what would be considered standard centershot alignment. Limb pocket tolerances, riser twist, and cam lean are culprits individually and in juxtaposition. If I'm tuning a particular manufacturer, I already know the 'fudge factor' that should be allowed. Sad but true![:@]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hoyt centershot on the Trykon was an 'afterthought.' Hoyt always shoots for the 'groove' and missed this one for quite a few reasons. The '07 models seem to have corrected all their '06 problems. Time will tell.
There are some companies that don't even come close to what would be considered standard centershot alignment. Limb pocket tolerances, riser twist, and cam lean are culprits individually and in juxtaposition. If I'm tuning a particular manufacturer, I already know the 'fudge factor' that should be allowed. Sad but true![:@]
12-17-2006, 06:36 PM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
I don't know what there reasoning was but the engineers did admit it on another forum.
I think many make a serious error in judgement when they put paper above all else.
If you are holding the bow and it is pointed one way but the arrow is pointed another,how in the world can one expect to be accurate with it.[:-]
I think many make a serious error in judgement when they put paper above all else.
If you are holding the bow and it is pointed one way but the arrow is pointed another,how in the world can one expect to be accurate with it.[:-]
12-17-2006, 07:43 PM
#20
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Paper tuning???'s . . . all over again. . .
I many times refer to it as repetative errors. If an error is consistent, itcan yield consistent results. How the error is perceived is only relevent if the path to achieve the results is properly analyzed.
In other words, the point of impact may be the same, but the path to the target may wasteenergy. This is very truewhen field tips or mechanical broadheads are used. Since there is no leading edge or a limited leading edge to adverselyaffect travel/energy loss, a decent result can be achieved while affecting penetration. The amount of penetration can be affected by loss of energy and an arrow that has an 'angular' approach to the target (which in essence causes a loss of energy at the time of impact).
What we've just talked about is 'mechanical' errors which can be consistent. Human errors, because we're not machines/robots, are rarely repetitive to an exacting science. Combine mechanical errors and human errors and you've got the receipe for disaster.[:@]
I hope I've made this clear. I could go on for hours discussing some of the idiosyncracies I've found in archery; both in the equipment and the archer. I guess that's why my ATA Seminars seem to always run 'overtime.'
In other words, the point of impact may be the same, but the path to the target may wasteenergy. This is very truewhen field tips or mechanical broadheads are used. Since there is no leading edge or a limited leading edge to adverselyaffect travel/energy loss, a decent result can be achieved while affecting penetration. The amount of penetration can be affected by loss of energy and an arrow that has an 'angular' approach to the target (which in essence causes a loss of energy at the time of impact).
What we've just talked about is 'mechanical' errors which can be consistent. Human errors, because we're not machines/robots, are rarely repetitive to an exacting science.
Combine mechanical errors and human errors and you've got the receipe for disaster.[:@]I hope I've made this clear. I could go on for hours discussing some of the idiosyncracies I've found in archery; both in the equipment and the archer.
I guess that's why my ATA Seminars seem to always run 'overtime.'