Trad Talk Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
One of the things that has always irritated me about 'designated' barebow risers is that they invariably roll back in the hand and hit me in the head with the top limb. On Sunday I had the privilege to play with one of Stolid Bull's Vanquish series. Although it is actually designed and promoted as an Olympic riser this riser was the best I've had to hold vertically as a barebow. If I went to a high wrist hold it seemed to do this naturally. Having a play and a look one of the things I noticed about the design is that the pivot of the grip seems to be set further back than usual. So when I got home I dragged out the Luxor and had a long look at it. I decided to make a grip that pivoted half an inch further back to me the archer. Finished last night and tried it down the club today. Lo and behold it now balances with a mere 8 oz in the stab hole, and it actually rolls forward slightly on the shot like an Olympic riser. Before to get it to balance vertically I had to hang about 1.5 lbs of weight off it. I am now holding up 70 oz instead of 90 oz, which is a relief for the old bones. It seems to be shooting all right. I have not finished playing with the grip shape yet. At the moment I've got it very fat, which I think is what Holger recommends. I'm going to try to do it to my Nilo next. Is it really that simple? Or am I missing something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,389 Posts
Your decreasing deflex and making the bow more sensitive to torque. It is that simple, but you pay for it. Try a Best Moon, it balances very nicely with no weight.
 

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,511 Posts
If the plunger is not over the pivot point of the grip there may be implications in that too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Your decreasing deflex and making the bow more sensitive to torque. It is that simple, but you pay for it. Try a Best Moon, it balances very nicely with no weight.
Still trying to make sense of this balance alignment. Had a PSE Xappeal arrive yesterday after a 4 month wait. Running a vertical line from the base of the limb bolts the pivot of the grip is three quarters of an inch in front of this. Unweighted the bow balances almost horizontally. Needs a 15 oz weight in the lower stab hole to almost get it vertical. On the Stolid Bull Vanquish the pivot of the grip is in line with the vertical through the base of the limb bolts. On the Sky Advantage the pivot of the grip looks to be an inch behind the vertical limb bolt line. The Sky riser looks to be very straight compared to the others. It is also claimed to balance vertically without additional weights. The Sky TR 7 on the other hand goes the other way, more like the PSE. Records have been shot with all these bows apparently. Seems to me a quality archer will achieve with most anything. I'm not convinced about the idea of torque. Seems to me that the grip could be more the key to eliminating that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
If the plunger is not over the pivot point of the grip there may be implications in that too.
I see on the Vanquish the plunger hole is directly in line with the pivot of the grip and the base of the limb bolts. I presume that is deliberate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
For me, it is important to make sure the bow is balanced until the arrow has left the bow. Which way the bow tips, and by how much, after the arrow has left and the bow is sitting in the bow sling, is irrelevant I believe.

In the vertical plane I think that the cg of the bow should lie in line with the pressure point of the grip. In that way the hand imparts no torque on the bow (in the vertical plane) during the draw and release cycle.

Another way of thinking about it is if you push through the cg of a body it will not rotate. If the line if force is displaced from the cg there will be a resultant rotational force on the body; in our case this is the bow, and we don't want that.

A simple test is to rest the bow horizontally (string down) on a finger at your own center of pressure on the grip. Everyone's will vary. The cg should be straight above the finger position. The bow will probably be a little unstable, but you will be able to figure out if the cg is in the right place.

Ado
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,497 Posts
Barebow balance seems to be a matter of personal preference. Is there one right way? Absolutely, whatever works best for the archer. Stringwalkers tend to be an experimental and innovative bunch and we see all types of Barebow weight configurations. I have certainly tried them all.

On my 27" Max I have stabilizer points front and back, high and low. By far, the best for me is 24 oz on the bottom (8, 3oz tungsten weights) . With a totally open bow hand the bow balances on the pressure point with a very slight top back lean, or straight up and down depending on my wrist position. There is a very strong pendulum feel when aiming and the bow reaction and recovery is straight forward and back.

For me the bow reaction and recovery is an important conclusion / follow through to my shot. I have gone back and forth with the bow tipping forward after the shot and have settled on the bow coming back to rest vertical on my open hand. How the sling is configured plays a role in making this happen.

Rasyad
 
  • Like
Reactions: blakey

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,889 Posts
I take it none of you are gonna carry this on an Elk hunt? Just kidding,,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,304 Posts
I like a low of weight as low and forward as possible. I want to bow to be self leveling so that I don't have to worry about accidentally canting when my foot position is compromised. Also this seems to give the best post-shot reaction and steadiest aiming.

Judging by the weight configurations seen at the World 3D and Field championships it seems that I'm not alone in my preference.

-Grant
 

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,511 Posts
I getting a little shy of the BB risers. I like the look of some, for example the Luxor/Nilo. I like the tidy integrated weights, the Spigarelli and Best.

But as far as getting the job done, I'm beginning to think that any properly weighted/balanced riser will far exceed my capabilities.

I can appreciate the steadiness of a heavy riser and I like the lively reaction of a lighter (but well-balanced) set up...............

Very much on the fence here.

If I were thinking about another riser (I'm not!) then the grip would be the major factor, followed by weight (you can always add on weight but can't remove it from the riser, as long as there's bushings, not threaded holes) then ............. colour/looks (will it look good with my arrows, club colours etc).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Still trying to make sense of this balance alignment. Had a PSE Xappeal arrive yesterday after a 4 month wait. Running a vertical line from the base of the limb bolts the pivot of the grip is three quarters of an inch in front of this. Unweighted the bow balances almost horizontally. Needs a 15 oz weight in the lower stab hole to almost get it vertical.
For me, balance is linked to overall bow weight. Some time ago I raised that issue and Aidan posted a link to this thread where the formula given for determining the weight of the bow was to divide the bow's draw weight by 6.5. Interestingly, a number of people (including myself) found that they'd added that exact proportion of weight just going by the "feel" of the bow when shooting. There's an interesting discussion about weight in this thread "How much is too much mass weight for a recurve?"

I started thinking about that, and still am, because I wondered if dedicated barebow risers using inline weights are as effective as weights on the front. My thinking was that olympic style shooting has been around a long time, so if a bow functioned better with weight built into the riser, why haven't olympic riser designers done that? Is it because the way a bow reacts during a shot is better balanced by weight up front?

I chose the PSE X-Appeal based on that thinking, and after weighting it properly I have come to really like it. The X-Appeal's little problem is the limb bolt being in the way. Here's how I've tried to get around that:



I used a headless screw I got from Lancaster to put through the 4 oz weight (under the limb bolt) and screw into the 6 oz weight on top of it, and then attached the flatter 6 oz weight on top of that with a screw to bring the balance forward (same idea on the upper weight). That scheme measures 12.1cm in diameter, and puts the total weight of the bow right on formula for my DW. It shoots solid as a rock too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,428 Posts
For me, balance is linked to overall bow weight. Some time ago I raised that issue and Aidan posted a link to this thread where the formula given for determining the weight of the bow was to divide the bow's draw weight by 6.5. Interestingly, a number of people (including myself) found that they'd added that exact proportion of weight just going by the "feel" of the bow when shooting. There's an interesting discussion about weight in this thread "How much is too much mass weight for a recurve?"

I started thinking about that, and still am, because I wondered if dedicated barebow risers using inline weights are as effective as weights on the front. My thinking was that olympic style shooting has been around a long time, so if a bow functioned better with weight built into the riser, why haven't olympic riser designers done that? Is it because the way a bow reacts during a shot is better balanced by weight up front?

I chose the PSE X-Appeal based on that thinking, and after weighting it properly I have come to really like it. The X-Appeal's little problem is the limb bolt being in the way. Here's how I've tried to get around that:



I used a headless screw I got from Lancaster to put through the 4 oz weight (under the limb bolt) and screw into the 6 oz weight on top of it, and then attached the flatter 6 oz weight on top of that with a screw to bring the balance forward (same idea on the upper weight). That scheme measures 12.1cm in diameter, and puts the total weight of the bow right on formula for my DW. It shoots solid as a rock too.
Really nice looking riser that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I started thinking about that, and still am, because I wondered if dedicated barebow risers using inline weights are as effective as weights on the front. My thinking was that olympic style shooting has been around a long time, so if a bow functioned better with weight built into the riser, why haven't olympic riser designers done that? Is it because the way a bow reacts during a shot is better balanced by weight up front?
I chose the PSE X-Appeal based on that thinking, and after weighting it properly I have come to really like it.
I too have wondered about that. It seems to me that Olympic risers are designed to balance almost horizontally, because the intent is for the bow to roll forward on the shot with the long weighted stabiliser. Inline weights would interfere with that process, where the end weight on the stabiliser is the pendulum swinging the bow down. I love watching Olympic recurvers, with that amazing roll of the bow in the hand. Some of our compounders do it too. I tried shooting with the bow tipping backwards, and did not like it. It's a short movement, where errors can get magnified exponentially. To get consistency I found it best to add weight so the bow is at least near the vertical. I think Stolid Bull has the right idea with all that mass in the riser; dead on the shot. Unfortunately I have not the stamina to hold up that weight for the duration of a competition. I bought the X-Appeal because of a recommend off this forum, and I really like the look of the curves. The grip seemed well forward of the limb bolts, which I thought would help. I would like to get a slight forward roll on the shot if I could. I'm hoping to play with it next week, where I'll get a better idea of what I can do. I am very optimistic. Love the look of yours with weights. At the moment mine is coming in at 70 oz all up including the limbs.
 

·
Barefaced tightropewalker
Joined
·
8,511 Posts
Olympic risers are designed to balance well when all the kit has been added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adoadam

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Olympic risers are designed to balance well when all the kit has been added.
Makes sense. But that still leaves the fact that olympic riser designers choose to put weight out front when they don't have to in order to reach the desired weight of the riser.

With my set up, I am lucky that my DW is about 36 lbs. because I can weight my bow to that using the stabilizer slots. If I were pulling 50 lbs., then I'd be grateful for internal weights. The question I'd nonetheless have is . . . would it be advantageous to only include part of the weight inline, but save enough for out-front counterbalancing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,799 Posts
Just to add confusion, or help clear things up...???...How much does riser Centerline and bow grip location have to do with this??...it seems to me that for a Barebow riser, it would make sense to have the riser be longer/heavier below the grip, but it looks to me as if most Oly. risers are the opposite, or close to it....Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
Makes sense. But that still leaves the fact that olympic riser designers choose to put weight out front when they don't have to in order to reach the desired weight of the riser.

With my set up, I am lucky that my DW is about 36 lbs. because I can weight my bow to that using the stabilizer slots. If I were pulling 50 lbs., then I'd be grateful for internal weights. The question I'd nonetheless have is . . . would it be advantageous to only include part of the weight inline, but save enough for out-front counterbalancing?
I'm not sure that Olympic risers are designed to balance with all the accessories added. I think they are designed to roll forward with the shot. If you held an Olympic in your hand loosely without drawing the string you would find that it goes horizontal with the stabiliser pointing at your toes. I feel that the riser mass weight has more to do with manufacturing/design constraints, i.e the minimum for strength to avoid twisting. Most aluminium risers seem to come in at about 2 and a half pounds +. It is easily possible to load on another 3 pounds or so in stabilisers and weighted side rods. The Fiberbow is the great exception to this, coming in at about one and a half pounds from memory. And it has been shot extremely well by experts. For barebow I did not like it though. Too light and twitchy, even with added weights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,304 Posts
I too have wondered about that. It seems to me that Olympic risers are designed to balance almost horizontally, because the intent is for the bow to roll forward on the shot with the long weighted stabiliser. Inline weights would interfere with that process, where the end weight on the stabiliser is the pendulum swinging the bow down. I love watching Olympic recurvers, with that amazing roll of the bow in the hand.
Olympic recurves roll forward as a consequence of the stabilizers being set-up to produce the best stability while aiming. With the holding weights of most archers that means the center of gravity is quite far forward.
Because compounds don't have nearly as much holding weight they tend towards much less forward roll upon release.
Some Olympic archers are using a system which is balanced more rearward but they are the exception and generally are using much greater amounts of mass to achieve stability. (Just look at Brady's most recent set-up gives me a hernia).
Unfortunately us barebow archers are limited to using mass alone rather than moment of inertia to steady the bow. Generally getting this mass as far forward as possible is ideal but we are limited by the 4.4" rule.

Just to add confusion, or help clear things up...???...How much does riser Centerline and bow grip location have to do with this??...it seems to me that for a Barebow riser, it would make sense to have the riser be longer/heavier below the grip, but it looks to me as if most Oly. risers are the opposite, or close to it....Jim
Indeed it would. Unfortunately what we get is Olympic geometry with some weights attached to the bottom. The Best Zenit and Moon do place the grip throat slightly above center which is part of their popularity. Likewise Border risers are available with either Olympic or Barebow geometry. I've heard a rumor that the X-appeal does this as well but I haven't measured one.

-Grant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Indeed it would. Unfortunately what we get is Olympic geometry with some weights attached to the bottom. The Best Zenit and Moon do place the grip throat slightly above center which is part of their popularity. Likewise Border risers are available with either Olympic or Barebow geometry. I've heard a rumor that the X-appeal does this as well but I haven't measured one.

-Grant
I measured the X-Appeal and the pivot of the grip is exactly halfway. On the Nilo and the Luxor both the risers are one inch longer below the pivot. The Sky Advantage also looks to be exactly in the middle. Interestingly (for me) the distance between the pivot of the grip and the line of the limb bolts on the Luxor with the modified grip is now the same as the X-Appeal. So it looks as though I've got better balance by moving the grip back without losing too much deflex. Seems to me that the risers that balance best for barebow, the Vanquish and the Sky Advantage, do have this pivot more inline. In the case of the Sky it is well back of the line. I think the Stolid Bull Black Thunder might be the same too, though it's hard to see exactly where the base of the limb bolts are from fotos. I'm going to persevere with the back modified grip and see how I go.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top