what is it about carbon foam?

chuffalump

Member
Well, say for example you tilt your head a little a full draw - sight "moves off line" even though the line hasn't moved...
Very clear with a compound. You can see the scope/peep centre alignment drift.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I can see how head tilt would create a different sight view of the target. It will create a different string or peep view to match, so just continue the shot??? Is that how it works?
 


Stretch

Member
I don’t really see why this is so confusing. Haven’t you had a setup where you make a small mistake and the arrow is close to, or even with your good shots? Equally, haven’t you had a setup where anything other than perfect and the arrow is way out of group? That’s forgiveness. Most often linked to limb stability but as the archer is a functional part of the dynamic system it can be other elements of the setup too.

The analogy to most other shooting sports doesn’t really work. Yank the trigger on a match rifle an it still puts the bullet/pellet in the same hole relative to the sight position (the yank affects the aiming, not the trajectory - same shot, just aimed in the wrong place). Yank the string as you release and you have moved the sight but you have also cause the arrow to leave the bow in a completely different path relative to the sight.

So what is forgiving for one person may not be forgiving for other. If you have a dodgy release you might want limb stability. If you have a weak/collapse you may find a super-fast limb more forgiving. So the concept needs to include the archer it has no relevance outside of the dynamic system.

Stretch
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
One reason why it is confusing is that there is no clear evidence to say whether the error was " forgiven" or not. I've had lots of instances where a slight change to some setting brings better groups. Next shooting session, the same set up gives me the same size groups I had before the set up change. I've watched archers tweak the bh with a twist of the string. Much better results immediately after! Next session the string is tweaked again as the last change didn't work that time. For many, me included, any changes we make require far more testing than we allow before making a decision.
 


Stretch

Member
I’m talking about setups I know inside out and have shot thousands of arrows off. Not mental tweaks. There’s a fundamental difference to baseline properties of equipment and tuning.

I do have clear evidence, it’s in the scoring patterns.

My most obvious example was a comparison between Samick Extreme and Hoyt G3 limbs. My ten count was ridiculous with the Samick. Perfect arrows were perfect. But a bad arrow could be way off, maybe a 7 at 30m. The G3 scored better. Tuned very similar. Maybe 4 or 5 tens less, and a lot fewer Xs, over 36 arrows but scored better as iffy shots caught the 9. The G3 was a comparatively dull limb. The Extreme was fast and snappy. The feel was reflective in the tuned behaviour.

Over a Fita 1440 that equated to an 1190 vs a 1250.

But in the world of elite archery I’d be pretty confident in saying the Samick was the more successful limb.

Well that is what I mean when I say something is forgiving. If you don’t see it, fair enough.

Stretch
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Stretch, Thanks for that.
there is no clear evidence
What I should have said is that "I have no clear evidence". I get no clear differences and some posts on here don't convince me either.
I can accept that your results are based on lots of shots and lots of experience and skill.
I am curious to know what can cause one set of limbs to punish poor shots while others don't punish them so much. I can imagine, in the case of different limbs, that one set could resist the tendency to twist( limbtips moving side to side on the powerstroke) better than another. A less than smooth release could upset the easily twisted limbs more and send the arrow further off to one side. My guess could easily be incorrect; but it seems to make some sense to me.
 


Andy!

Member
I am curious to know what can cause one set of limbs to punish poor shots while others don't punish them so much.
Once you can accurately quantise a poor shot, and make that poor shot repeatable, THEN you can actually assess with real evidence IF one set of limbs behaves differently to another.

Without that, you rely on human feel and estimation.

And when we talk about human feel and estimation, and look where it's used, you'll see that it's used precisely nowhere when precision and accuracy actually matters.

Every bit of modern technology relies on a history of the scientific method. The scientific method has managed to build a network so easy to use that stupid people can now virtually gather in large groups and support each others stupidity with the strength of numbers and decry the scientific method.
Keep in mind that half the population is under average intelligence. They're the ones who support human feel and estimation. Where's that spaceship with the telephone sanitisers?
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy! thanks for that. One thing I really can't stand, is not being able to understand something that I WANT to understand.
I want to understand "forgiveness" if it actually exists in archery.
I have read Stretch's post and replied, but since then my mind has been buzzing on all sorts of ideas.
One thought that is bothering me now is the number of tens and X 's being fewer with the Hoyt G3 limbs. Does that mean the G3 is diverting perfect shots from the X and ten or is the archer shooting fewer perfect shots?
 


Stretch

Member
Yes, you rely on the human involved as a core to the process to provide feedback. If you don’t trust that feedback then whatever they say about the equipment will be invalid but you cannot ignore the human component. And to grind it down to numbers would need some very fancy kit... which might in itself interfere with the process. Every bow has the same level of forgiveness without the human but you get a zero score as well.

The difference between the Samick and the G3 for me, appeared to come from the force draw curve. At 32” they were at the limits. This meant the tail end of the shot had a higher pound per inch this gave a very stable hold. Hence the monster 10 and X count. Whether this also contributed to iffy shots being more iffy is impossible to say - it didn’t feel that way (same weight at the clicker). From behind the bow it simply felt that the limb construction meant that although the string deviation was the same from the release (feel) the limbs had recovered some of it in closing. But whether that is an accurate observation is irrelevant. Equally it could have been that the initial deviation was less for the same level of error. Or indeed something else. Just because you can’t measure/model/hypothesize doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

But also bear in mind I am not saying the the Samick is less forgiving for others. It was less forgiving for me and the mistakes I make. So my feedback would only be valuable to somone who makes similar mistakes.

Most sporting equipment is developed in a conjunction between the scientific design of the equipment and end user feedback. And if you don’t believe in forgiveness in an inanimate object I’d suggest reasoning some of the tennis racket review sites. If you are capable of shooting 320+ then you have the ability to subjectively evaluate the performance of the equipment. If you are shooting less than 300 at 70m then you probably aren't. But like it or not it is an equipment sport and you have to back yourself to analyse what you are seeing and make the right decision.

Stretch
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Stretch, Thanks again for your reply. I have to say, I am not convinced that there is such a thing; nor am I convinced that it doesn't exist. My real interest is in knowing how it works or why it doesn't.
I cannot get my head round the issue of far fewer tens and X's with the forgiving Hoyt. If good shots go in the middle, why does the Hoyt seem to divert them off centre. Good shots with both limbs should need no forgiveness. It seems to me the Hoyt reduces the effect on bad shots and makes things less good on the good shots. Perhaps, the Hoyt makes you feel the shots were really good when in fact they were slightly less good than that, and the target told the truth. Perhaps also, the Hoyt made some not so good shots feel much worse than that, when in truth the were not that bad, really.
I agree that because it couldn't be measured doesn't mean it never happened. I am sure you are telling me the truth; it did happen.
 


Andy!

Member
Just because you can’t measure/model/hypothesize doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Yes. But it's a logical fallacy in reasoning that therefore, something does happen.
It's very close to the same type of reasoning that because an object which is flying can't be identified, it is therefore an alien spaceship.
The only reasonable solution for most people is keeping careful and accurate records.
This then allows some basic analysis of actual data.
Absolute trust in people's ability to establish certainty, in an activity with a distribution pattern result, overwhelmingly based on an analysis of single points of data and always corrupted by confirmation bias isn't what I'd consider to lead to accurate results.
It does however lead to homeopathic medicine, apple cider vinegar and eventually coffee enemas.

Yet, for a few dollars, actual data analysis can be had by most archers and many top archers and coaches recognise the value of collecting the data.
Archery is way behind a heap of other competitive fields in doing so. When it comes to the fields of competitive money making, competitive sports are so far behind that again, that's it's barely worth mentioning. When it comes to getting your money, billions of dollars of research know with absolute percentage chances of certainty on how to exploit the human inability to process statistical data.

In terms of being an equipment sport, that's an interesting observation because at some points it's true. At the top end however, it's not so much.
Because all the top equipment can be readily obtained, at the top end of things, the competitors have figured out what makes a difference. There are no massive statistical advantages based on equipment.
Obviously, the equipment is already capable of shooting perfect scores and has been for quite some time. Yet archers regularly exceed their best competition scores in practice. That's not equipment based performance.

The single most divisive thing that you can talk about in archery is to cast doubt on people's ability to actually perceive the truth about what is going on.
They will argue that they can.
Sometimes with a lot of anger.

Of course, when you can alter someone's belief in their performance by just telling them that you've done something to their bow, and you haven't, or you can adjust someone's bow and they can't tell, it does tend to make you realise why the advertising and gambling industries will never lose money.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I wish I could write posts like that!
One aspect of archery that keeps bringing me back to this forum, is the discussions of archery truths and "old wives tales".
Quite often these discussions come to an abrupt end; and an inconclusive one at that. It seems such a shame to get so far into a topic not to reach a conclusion. It would be good to explore other examples of "forgiving" in archery. Reaching a conclusion on this one would be good,too.
 


Stretch

Member
Yes. But it's a logical fallacy in reasoning that therefore, something does happen.
It's very close to the same type of reasoning that because an object which is flying can't be identified, it is therefore an alien spaceship.
...
In terms of being an equipment sport, that's an interesting observation because at some points it's true.
I’m not getting into an argument because there is no point. I have my opinion and you have yours. I’m quite happy for you to have yours. But I don’t seem to be allowed mine?

Point 1 is just stupid - doesn’t appear to align with any of your other data based arguments. You are continuing to work on the premis that an Elite (or even pretty good) archery can not provide valuable input on the quality of their shot. And yes, I do believe with the right data gathering tools you could break it down to data. But do you need to. IMHO no. You’re over complicating it.

Point 2. Well I’ll tell you what I’ll pitch any archer on the board with their equipment against you with no equipment and we’ll see who wins.

Matching equipment to the individuals style and preference is key. You do it by initial feel and long term performance evaluation. Same for pretty much any equipment support where the human is an integral part of the process.

Stretch
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
So, back to a real question; why were there so few tens and X's with the forgiving limbs, compared to the unforgiving ones?
 


Stretch

Member
I answered that. Based purely on qualitative assessment based on what I could see and feel - the Samick limbs had a very steady hold due to the harder “stop”. Less float equals more tens and Xs.

But just to be clear both sets were shooting 340+ at 30m. Less was still a good number.

Stretch
 


chuffalump

Member
A hypothetical example of forgiveness for limbs might be as follows. Limb A is fast but unstable. If you pull/release limb A along the perfect alignment axis it rewards you with a stable snappy launch. If you pull limb A off axis (riser torque, say) or perform a plucked release the limb oscillates on power stroke, giving an unpredictable nock separation, hence a wild arrow. Limb B has a chunkier construction maybe. It can handle torque/alignment issues and simply drags the string back into a decent trajectory. You can still suffer but not to the same extent.
 


Andy!

Member
I’m not getting into an argument because there is no point. I have my opinion and you have yours. I’m quite happy for you to have yours. But I don’t seem to be allowed mine?

Point 1 is just stupid - doesn’t appear to align with any of your other data based arguments. You are continuing to work on the premis that an Elite (or even pretty good) archery can not provide valuable input on the quality of their shot. And yes, I do believe with the right data gathering tools you could break it down to data. But do you need to. IMHO no. You’re over complicating it.

Point 2. Well I’ll tell you what I’ll pitch any archer on the board with their equipment against you with no equipment and we’ll see who wins.

Matching equipment to the individuals style and preference is key. You do it by initial feel and long term performance evaluation. Same for pretty much any equipment support where the human is an integral part of the process.

Stretch
I'd just like to point out that: I’m not getting into an argument because there is no point.
does actually appear to be the start of an argument or an attempt at reasoning.
Then you back up this statement with labelled points.

Your reply to the first point is, in your own words, humble.
I'm just stating what the scientific community and big business knows and has known for millennia. It's not just the opinion held by me. Is an opinion that makes billions of dollars and advance technology humble? Yeah. That's probably overcomplicated. People can't be trusted to discern the truth. There you go. It's a fact.
Do elite archers fall into the "people" category? Yep.

As to your point 2, this is called a "Straw man argument" If you're going to call my point one stupid, I'll point the same accusation at you. An archer is a person with archery equipment. Getting them to compete with someone who isn't an archer, so as to demonstrate the superiority of equipment doesn't actually prove anything when we're discussing equipment improvements rather than actually having equipment.
 


Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Play nice, you two, pretend your in the pub chatting, not getting carried away on opposite sides of the planet. Ta
 


KidCurry

Active member
I have two bow setups. Only difference is SF Fibre limbs and Xtour limbs. My SF limbs will take a wider range of arrow spines before they start to contact the riser than my Xtour. My SF limbs are more 'forgiving' on poor arrow selection.
 


Top