Solo vs. Twin
09-12-2003, 09:30 AM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Solo vs. Twin
Fun topic as always.
Dual cam bows and Singlecam bows IME, require slightly different shooting “attitudes”. A singlecam seems to shoot best w/ “aggressive form” similar to a longbow, you make the shot happen. A dual cam on the other hand seems to benefit from a more relaxed “let the bow shoot itself” type form.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence over the years. Singles have really improved. Especially with the advent of recent “straightline designs”. I have enjoyed very good accuracy w/ the straightlines even out to my “extreme” ranges, and have seen much better shooters than I hold some impressive groups out to 60 and beyond (witnessing a perfect behind the shoulder lung shot on a live ground hog @ 83 measured yards w/ an MQ32 constitutes “accurate enough” to me)
The horrible nock travel issues have been ironed out and even now, some of them are getting very close to level (close enough IMO, as Mahly commented, not all duals offer level nock travel either). Even the models that still have some travel have been fine tuned with the bow designs they are mated to for very accurate shooting, ala Bowtech’s Infinity cam: address the arrow spine and rest carefully, and this cam will shoot with the best of them.
The major problem I still see with Singles is one of torque. This IMO is where they can mess with you and why many folks prefer hybrids and duals. The angled string path (especially on shorter singles) can give you some really goofy lefts and rights (usually the term “single cam flyer” is thrown around). Hoyt’s system last year showed that a DTI greatly helps reduce those errors, (though it did create some other issues) and I wish more manufacturers would jump on that. If you anchor a bit too hard or soft, or torque the string or grip in any way, that angled string path magnifies your error more-so than a straight string path. High letoff (70% AMO plus) furthers these problems.
A straight-line type cam ala Mathews HP cam w/ a dual track idler would make one hell of a good shooting system. Although many people claim they are “spent”, IMO the folks at Mathews are really getting the tack driving accuracy down, but doing it very subtly. I don’t think anyone should count them out yet. My (now sold) Legacy with it’s straightline cam system (not quite level but pretty good), narrow valley and lower letoff that helps curb those torque issues I mentioned is one of the most accurate bows I’ve owned. If Mathews was to apply those features to a target style bow ala the Rival pro or Conquest 3, I think even the one-cam nay-sayers would re-think their position at least in part.
All that is well and good, but as Frank mentioned you have to match the bow to the application. For the majority of bowhunting applications, assuming a bow fits correctly and the archer is comfy with the particular design, I lean towards singles and hybrids. They are quieter, produce good speed, generally are more maintenance free than a dual, and more enjoyable to shoot w/ less recoil & vibe. Smooth draw can be risky to generalize. We have duals that pull like mack trucks and have some very smooth drawing singlecams.
For pure target applications (3D or Spots) I would lean towards a hybrid or a dual in a general sense however I would not have a problem w/ the right singlecam but it would have to be an exceptional model. My 2000 Hoyt Defiant Redline for instance was such a heavy mass weight bow (and had a good AtoA) that it held like an absolute rock, and practically shot itself: you had to goof up REALLY bad to pull a shot far off your mark w/ that bow. It was, in my hands my best shooting bow ever, and I sure wish I’d have never sold the damn thing. I’ve had faster, I’ve had lighter, I’ve had more maneuverable, I’ve had quieter, and I’ve had higher brace heights than that bow gave me, but I could put that bow down for 6 months, re-set it up from scratch and be shooting that bow more accurately than I could imagine. THAT bow made me feel like a Pro at times. I just couldn’t miss (by much) with it.
I think though, that Hybrids are the wave of the future, and they are my favorite cam design overall. I’d been hoping beyond hope for years that Hybrids ala Darton’s CPS would finally start to get mainstream, and Hoyt has managed to make it so w/ the C.5. Hopefully this will spill over into many other brands, including my personal fave, Bowtech. Hybrids really do have many advantages with very few disadvantages of their parent systems. The C.5 has hit some bumps, but they are still easier to work with than a Dual, and the seriousness of the issues brought up have been blown way out of proportion.
In the end though it all boils down to this:
The most important thing is really just getting a bow that fits and feels right to each individual. Proper poundage and exacting draw length, grip comfort, and a sound overall design are much more critical to consistent accuracy than what power system it has. A comfy medium length single-cam bow that fits and feels right is going to shoot a whole lot better for someone than a long axle to axle, high brace dual cam that doesn’t fit, and vice versa.
Dual cam bows and Singlecam bows IME, require slightly different shooting “attitudes”. A singlecam seems to shoot best w/ “aggressive form” similar to a longbow, you make the shot happen. A dual cam on the other hand seems to benefit from a more relaxed “let the bow shoot itself” type form.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence over the years. Singles have really improved. Especially with the advent of recent “straightline designs”. I have enjoyed very good accuracy w/ the straightlines even out to my “extreme” ranges, and have seen much better shooters than I hold some impressive groups out to 60 and beyond (witnessing a perfect behind the shoulder lung shot on a live ground hog @ 83 measured yards w/ an MQ32 constitutes “accurate enough” to me)
The horrible nock travel issues have been ironed out and even now, some of them are getting very close to level (close enough IMO, as Mahly commented, not all duals offer level nock travel either). Even the models that still have some travel have been fine tuned with the bow designs they are mated to for very accurate shooting, ala Bowtech’s Infinity cam: address the arrow spine and rest carefully, and this cam will shoot with the best of them.
The major problem I still see with Singles is one of torque. This IMO is where they can mess with you and why many folks prefer hybrids and duals. The angled string path (especially on shorter singles) can give you some really goofy lefts and rights (usually the term “single cam flyer” is thrown around). Hoyt’s system last year showed that a DTI greatly helps reduce those errors, (though it did create some other issues) and I wish more manufacturers would jump on that. If you anchor a bit too hard or soft, or torque the string or grip in any way, that angled string path magnifies your error more-so than a straight string path. High letoff (70% AMO plus) furthers these problems.
A straight-line type cam ala Mathews HP cam w/ a dual track idler would make one hell of a good shooting system. Although many people claim they are “spent”, IMO the folks at Mathews are really getting the tack driving accuracy down, but doing it very subtly. I don’t think anyone should count them out yet. My (now sold) Legacy with it’s straightline cam system (not quite level but pretty good), narrow valley and lower letoff that helps curb those torque issues I mentioned is one of the most accurate bows I’ve owned. If Mathews was to apply those features to a target style bow ala the Rival pro or Conquest 3, I think even the one-cam nay-sayers would re-think their position at least in part.
All that is well and good, but as Frank mentioned you have to match the bow to the application. For the majority of bowhunting applications, assuming a bow fits correctly and the archer is comfy with the particular design, I lean towards singles and hybrids. They are quieter, produce good speed, generally are more maintenance free than a dual, and more enjoyable to shoot w/ less recoil & vibe. Smooth draw can be risky to generalize. We have duals that pull like mack trucks and have some very smooth drawing singlecams.
For pure target applications (3D or Spots) I would lean towards a hybrid or a dual in a general sense however I would not have a problem w/ the right singlecam but it would have to be an exceptional model. My 2000 Hoyt Defiant Redline for instance was such a heavy mass weight bow (and had a good AtoA) that it held like an absolute rock, and practically shot itself: you had to goof up REALLY bad to pull a shot far off your mark w/ that bow. It was, in my hands my best shooting bow ever, and I sure wish I’d have never sold the damn thing. I’ve had faster, I’ve had lighter, I’ve had more maneuverable, I’ve had quieter, and I’ve had higher brace heights than that bow gave me, but I could put that bow down for 6 months, re-set it up from scratch and be shooting that bow more accurately than I could imagine. THAT bow made me feel like a Pro at times. I just couldn’t miss (by much) with it.
I think though, that Hybrids are the wave of the future, and they are my favorite cam design overall. I’d been hoping beyond hope for years that Hybrids ala Darton’s CPS would finally start to get mainstream, and Hoyt has managed to make it so w/ the C.5. Hopefully this will spill over into many other brands, including my personal fave, Bowtech. Hybrids really do have many advantages with very few disadvantages of their parent systems. The C.5 has hit some bumps, but they are still easier to work with than a Dual, and the seriousness of the issues brought up have been blown way out of proportion.
In the end though it all boils down to this:
The most important thing is really just getting a bow that fits and feels right to each individual. Proper poundage and exacting draw length, grip comfort, and a sound overall design are much more critical to consistent accuracy than what power system it has. A comfy medium length single-cam bow that fits and feels right is going to shoot a whole lot better for someone than a long axle to axle, high brace dual cam that doesn’t fit, and vice versa.
09-12-2003, 12:35 PM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Solo vs. Twin
Actually my guess, would be that the straightline cams only would provide the best nock travel w/ a parallel limb design. The SL cams seem to rely on very little limb tip travel so they can precisely control the feed and take up to offer straight nock point travel. On a bow design such as the Conquest (or Rival) that has much more limb tip travel and longer limbs, this might not be the case.
It is my speculation that at least up to this point Mathews has not been able to figure out how to design a long axle to axle parallel limb bow that supplies the wanted/needed speed for 3D and also provides the nock travel benefits of the straight-line cam design. The cam would “need to worry” more about loading the limbs over a greater distance (utilizing more aggressive sharper angled cable/string tracks) which could keep it from being as precise as it needs to be to control nock travel. Case in Point: The Q2XL. A fine shooting bow, but it has failed in this regard due to lack of top-end performance (and most Mathews Pro’s have rejected it in that respect) as is the case with the Icon, too.
Other manufacturers have approached the problem by using the hybrid design that uses an eccentric (instead of an idler) to control nock travel while letting the power cam handle the bulk or all of the energy storage; or simply used a proven dual cam design to curtail performance loss; or have ignored the nock travel issue and just slapped a max-cam style single on the longer bow (as Mathews and some others are doing).
Furthermore, if the standard max-cam was “good enough”, why worry about bringing out the SL type cams in the first place? If they just wanted a smoother drawing cam, they could have gone back to the designs prior to the max-cam. Why would Mathews also consider nock travel into the mix, when they had dismissed it as a non-issue in advertising prior to the SL cam design in 1998? Mathews furthers this argument in admitting (with the Icon in 2002) that for the most consistent accuracy a bow needs not only eccentrics (or in this case idler/eccentric) of similar size in diameter, but also they should be similar in shape (which, as we know of course, promotes better nock travel). With the current advertising denouncing Hoyt, they have made it an even bigger issue. They have certainly changed their advertising tune in the past 6 years.
The answer clearly is that there is something to it, but I also think both sides have blown the severity of the effects of nock travel issues way out of proportion.
It is my speculation that at least up to this point Mathews has not been able to figure out how to design a long axle to axle parallel limb bow that supplies the wanted/needed speed for 3D and also provides the nock travel benefits of the straight-line cam design. The cam would “need to worry” more about loading the limbs over a greater distance (utilizing more aggressive sharper angled cable/string tracks) which could keep it from being as precise as it needs to be to control nock travel. Case in Point: The Q2XL. A fine shooting bow, but it has failed in this regard due to lack of top-end performance (and most Mathews Pro’s have rejected it in that respect) as is the case with the Icon, too.
Other manufacturers have approached the problem by using the hybrid design that uses an eccentric (instead of an idler) to control nock travel while letting the power cam handle the bulk or all of the energy storage; or simply used a proven dual cam design to curtail performance loss; or have ignored the nock travel issue and just slapped a max-cam style single on the longer bow (as Mathews and some others are doing).
Furthermore, if the standard max-cam was “good enough”, why worry about bringing out the SL type cams in the first place? If they just wanted a smoother drawing cam, they could have gone back to the designs prior to the max-cam. Why would Mathews also consider nock travel into the mix, when they had dismissed it as a non-issue in advertising prior to the SL cam design in 1998? Mathews furthers this argument in admitting (with the Icon in 2002) that for the most consistent accuracy a bow needs not only eccentrics (or in this case idler/eccentric) of similar size in diameter, but also they should be similar in shape (which, as we know of course, promotes better nock travel). With the current advertising denouncing Hoyt, they have made it an even bigger issue. They have certainly changed their advertising tune in the past 6 years.
The answer clearly is that there is something to it, but I also think both sides have blown the severity of the effects of nock travel issues way out of proportion.
09-12-2003, 12:49 PM
#16
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Solo vs. Twin
My guess....it doesn' t matter.
My view:
Which has more effect, nock travel or paradox?
You tune the bow so the end result is each arrow leaving the bow exactly the same way and stabilizing their flight as rapidly as possible. No matter the paradox or nock travel, shot to shot repeatability is more important to accuracy than nock travel. That goes for any bow, regardless of cam type - or even no cams at all.
As long as the nock travel isn' t EXTREME, it' s not that big of a deal.
]
09-12-2003, 01:30 PM
#18
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: Solo vs. Twin
" Nock travel or paradox" ? Well, when you have perfectly straight and level nock travel, overall paradox is reduced significantly, and thus makes for much easier tuning and also allowing a wider range of spine, even when shooting fixed blade heads.Early conventional Solos prompted the deluge of mechanical heads into the market, simply because of their horrible nock travel. Couldn' t tune a fixed blade to save your skin on the earlier ones. Eventually the solos evolved to a point where you could realistically shoot a fixed blade out of ' em without pulling your hair out, and the reason behind this is due to better nock travel and little else. Guys couldn' t figure out why they had to " bounce up a couple of boxes" on the charts with early solos, and there are two reasons for this---one, the manufacturers had to increase the draw force curve in an attempt to bring the solos into competitive speed with the twins, and two, because of their horrible nock travel. As stated, they' ve come a long ways, but with the hybrids there is now simply something much better within the industry that offers unmatched nock travel and easy tuning for all. JMHO. Pinwheel 12
09-12-2003, 02:53 PM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,862
RE: Solo vs. Twin
Art:
You cleaned that mess up....and with a very small broom.
For 39 years I have stayed realistically progressive with my bowhunting equipment. I have yet to sense or know that the close contact sport (5-25 yards) of deer hunting now requires technology that rivals the space shuttle.
Being that my buddies and I will be hunting with our recurves this season, I really feel like we should wear a loin cloth and walk like an ape.
You cleaned that mess up....and with a very small broom.
For 39 years I have stayed realistically progressive with my bowhunting equipment. I have yet to sense or know that the close contact sport (5-25 yards) of deer hunting now requires technology that rivals the space shuttle.
Being that my buddies and I will be hunting with our recurves this season, I really feel like we should wear a loin cloth and walk like an ape.