Joined
·
1,672 Posts
Below is a republished notes in reply to rossing6. It was over at NFAA professional forum, for some reason. It was not posted, so I decided to move it to general archery discussion....
Originally Posted by rossing6
I like the theory of what they do from the aspect of getting the arrow off the string sooner (if that is your problem) but I don't like them unless you have two, one above and one below, as if you bare shaft tune your bow without them through paper and then install one you can see for yourself the affect they have on the arrow, it's quite a change in the way the arrow is being pulled down at the nock during the arrow release from the string. As a new archer (way back when) I used one as the shop set me up with way too long a draw length and I had form issues that resulted in string contact with my forearm. Once I learned about what correct draw length and form should be (a starting place anyway) I took them off. I like the cleanest arrow release from the string that I can get. I also found that all launcher blades seem to kick the back of the arrow upwards, resulting in a tear through paper, so at the time when I was using launcher blades, the string tamer yanked the nock down and then the blade kicked it up, definately not clean. No matter how light you tune the blades, they all do it. I put some on a quick tune 3000 and there is just no way to tune it so this doesn't happen, so I dropped both the launcher and the string tamer. But this is me and how I choose to do it, what is most important is that you get your arrow leaving the bow as cleanly as you can where it shoots straight and put your time into correct practice, shoot only good arrows, not high numbers of so-so shots. Good luck and aim hard...relax.
No a pro, but I am a professional design engineer and consider myself an above average archer and I have been a ballistician and also working archery vibration issues for over 20 years. My interest on STS started when my daughters are doing 580 scores during practice on Vegas Faces until they switch the bows. And the hell broke loose.
So I set up highspeed camera on the range to record the mechanical movements on the new bow, this is the first time I have high speed camera on a bow with STS (mounted on the rear stabilizer 5/16 adopter). What I observed is nothing short of facinating.
If you imagine the bow string acting as a whip, when the part of the whip impacts the STS, the string below the impact area and the string above still kept on moving forward well past the STS shock absorber while the string below STS forming a small sinocoidal wavelet, and the string above the STS forms a larger one. And on my daughter's bow, the larger wave's peak (the furthest point reached) is reaching as far as the rest! In this case a few inches above the rest, so luckily the string did not damage the bow.
For readers don't quite grasp the visual aspect of this. Please remember that if the arrow is launched at 360fps, it is the bowstring that is going 360fps to make the arrow going at that speed. So a bow shooting 360fps arrow without the STS is having a 360fps whip cracking at the archer entire bow arm as well as the bow itself. Without the STS, only the timely retrovertion of the limbs and the cams would stop the whip (the fast moving bowstring) from hitting the riser.
So what does this all mean ?
1. So much for the theory that the low mounted STS's would ensure the timely separation of nock and the bowstring.
Since the 5/16" rear stabilizer adopter have been the most popular location to mount the STS, breaking down the whip at that location does nothing to ensure precise separation of the arrow and the bowstring.
2. the STS does break down a holistic energy (in the form of a fast moving bowstring 'whip') into two segments, in my daughter's case, the low mounted STS creates a major segment (the large whip wavelet above the STS), and a minor segment (the smaller wavelet below the STS). So it does contribute to the 'taming' aspect of absorb the residual energy from the bowstring.
Based on this finding, my wife and I started experimenting with Sounders as well as Darton's string stop, instead of rear stabilizer adopter mounted, both of them are cable rod mounted. In other words, the new STS is much closer to the D-loop/nocking-point, and also much closer to the center of the 'whip'. Using same high speed camera, empirically, we found out that the arrow and the bowstring almost always separates within half an inch of travel from the center-mounted STS, because of the Saunders STS or Darton STS. We even tried to have nocks of different tension, different sizes, different arrow weights as well as velocity. And then we tried on Allegiance as well as Monsters. We have not measure the contribution of such precise separation to the accuracy. But I suspect it could only be beneficial.
With the STS mounted closer towards the center of the riser, the resulting wavelets are also much more balanced between the top 'whip' wavelet and the bottom 'whip' wavelet. With the peaks of both waves advanced no more than 3 inches past the STS, a major improvement.
I think the real incentive to mount an STS on the 5/16 rear stabilizer adopter, is to prevent the high speed whip from hitting the archer's wrist. This says that most STS today are meant to resolve liability issues than to improve accuracy. So in reality, it would be practical for speedbows to have two STS's, one mounted on the rear stabilizer adopter to protect the shooter's forearm and wrist. and the other closer to the nocking point to ensure a precise timing on the separation of arrow and the bowstring during the shot.
So what is the problem with my daughter's bow, well, it was out of tune and the upper limb was moving 1/6 of a phase slower than the lower limb. Once the problem was corrected, their Vegas score went up to 590. Nevertheless, we are getting both of them Saunders as well as Darton cable rod mounted STS.
Originally Posted by rossing6
I like the theory of what they do from the aspect of getting the arrow off the string sooner (if that is your problem) but I don't like them unless you have two, one above and one below, as if you bare shaft tune your bow without them through paper and then install one you can see for yourself the affect they have on the arrow, it's quite a change in the way the arrow is being pulled down at the nock during the arrow release from the string. As a new archer (way back when) I used one as the shop set me up with way too long a draw length and I had form issues that resulted in string contact with my forearm. Once I learned about what correct draw length and form should be (a starting place anyway) I took them off. I like the cleanest arrow release from the string that I can get. I also found that all launcher blades seem to kick the back of the arrow upwards, resulting in a tear through paper, so at the time when I was using launcher blades, the string tamer yanked the nock down and then the blade kicked it up, definately not clean. No matter how light you tune the blades, they all do it. I put some on a quick tune 3000 and there is just no way to tune it so this doesn't happen, so I dropped both the launcher and the string tamer. But this is me and how I choose to do it, what is most important is that you get your arrow leaving the bow as cleanly as you can where it shoots straight and put your time into correct practice, shoot only good arrows, not high numbers of so-so shots. Good luck and aim hard...relax.
No a pro, but I am a professional design engineer and consider myself an above average archer and I have been a ballistician and also working archery vibration issues for over 20 years. My interest on STS started when my daughters are doing 580 scores during practice on Vegas Faces until they switch the bows. And the hell broke loose.
So I set up highspeed camera on the range to record the mechanical movements on the new bow, this is the first time I have high speed camera on a bow with STS (mounted on the rear stabilizer 5/16 adopter). What I observed is nothing short of facinating.
If you imagine the bow string acting as a whip, when the part of the whip impacts the STS, the string below the impact area and the string above still kept on moving forward well past the STS shock absorber while the string below STS forming a small sinocoidal wavelet, and the string above the STS forms a larger one. And on my daughter's bow, the larger wave's peak (the furthest point reached) is reaching as far as the rest! In this case a few inches above the rest, so luckily the string did not damage the bow.
For readers don't quite grasp the visual aspect of this. Please remember that if the arrow is launched at 360fps, it is the bowstring that is going 360fps to make the arrow going at that speed. So a bow shooting 360fps arrow without the STS is having a 360fps whip cracking at the archer entire bow arm as well as the bow itself. Without the STS, only the timely retrovertion of the limbs and the cams would stop the whip (the fast moving bowstring) from hitting the riser.
So what does this all mean ?
1. So much for the theory that the low mounted STS's would ensure the timely separation of nock and the bowstring.
Since the 5/16" rear stabilizer adopter have been the most popular location to mount the STS, breaking down the whip at that location does nothing to ensure precise separation of the arrow and the bowstring.
2. the STS does break down a holistic energy (in the form of a fast moving bowstring 'whip') into two segments, in my daughter's case, the low mounted STS creates a major segment (the large whip wavelet above the STS), and a minor segment (the smaller wavelet below the STS). So it does contribute to the 'taming' aspect of absorb the residual energy from the bowstring.
Based on this finding, my wife and I started experimenting with Sounders as well as Darton's string stop, instead of rear stabilizer adopter mounted, both of them are cable rod mounted. In other words, the new STS is much closer to the D-loop/nocking-point, and also much closer to the center of the 'whip'. Using same high speed camera, empirically, we found out that the arrow and the bowstring almost always separates within half an inch of travel from the center-mounted STS, because of the Saunders STS or Darton STS. We even tried to have nocks of different tension, different sizes, different arrow weights as well as velocity. And then we tried on Allegiance as well as Monsters. We have not measure the contribution of such precise separation to the accuracy. But I suspect it could only be beneficial.
With the STS mounted closer towards the center of the riser, the resulting wavelets are also much more balanced between the top 'whip' wavelet and the bottom 'whip' wavelet. With the peaks of both waves advanced no more than 3 inches past the STS, a major improvement.
I think the real incentive to mount an STS on the 5/16 rear stabilizer adopter, is to prevent the high speed whip from hitting the archer's wrist. This says that most STS today are meant to resolve liability issues than to improve accuracy. So in reality, it would be practical for speedbows to have two STS's, one mounted on the rear stabilizer adopter to protect the shooter's forearm and wrist. and the other closer to the nocking point to ensure a precise timing on the separation of arrow and the bowstring during the shot.
So what is the problem with my daughter's bow, well, it was out of tune and the upper limb was moving 1/6 of a phase slower than the lower limb. Once the problem was corrected, their Vegas score went up to 590. Nevertheless, we are getting both of them Saunders as well as Darton cable rod mounted STS.
