Looking at it my guess (and that's about all it is) is that the rucurve of the bow would also be shorter. I'm imagining the same bow just at different scales. So the point at which the string makes the least/optimal amount of contact with the limbs would change with the size of the bow. Shorter bow, shorter curve, shorter brace height?
I'm hoping someone with the actual facts and data on that comes along instead of me lookin at a chart trying to rack my brain this early in the morning.

 

I find it interesting that people say that BH effects forgiveness.
yet here is Hoyts recomended BH.

So that follows that a 27" riser should have a 1/2" more BH.

It all gets mess for those that say a low BHs are less forgiving in my book. this post is here to challenge this coment.

So Short limbs are less forgiving?
and short risers.

So the fun starts when you think that when the limb has a small curve at brace height, the bow exhibits high vertical stability.

increase the BH too much and you get too much bend in the limb, and you get vertical movement of the NP.

too little bend in the limb, and you end up with a noodley bow. because the limbs start to bend the wrong way.

and the limb at brace height is regarded as the fadeout to the string contact area. (we call that part the mid limb)
after that you are into the recurve part of the limb.

Since all bows of the same model has the same recurve size, the difference between shorts and longs is the midlimb. so this means that its the length of the mid limb that dictates the BH.

other than that, Deflex in the riser also dictates BH.

The old addage that low brace heights being sensitive to shoot, could be based on the idea of reflexed or inline risers are sensitive to shoot, but also have low BHs.

So its a difficult idea to challenge without breaking out the different concepts. other than a blanket Low BHs = bad.

so if you have the right bend in the limb. (good vertical stability) and you have deflex in the bow riser, why else would a bow be difficult to shoot?

Seen in the Hoyt data above, you can have 7.5-9.5"

surely according to the low brace heights = bad crew. somethings amiss with 7.5,if 9.5" works...
yet you dont see 10" BHs.

 

Because there is less limb length to work with to stay within the power band of the limb.

 

here is some interest

http://www.dickwightman.com/howardhill/braceheight/braceheight.html

Bows and Brace Heights By Length:

Cheetah 69" Brace 6 1/2"
Redman 68" Brace 6 7/8"
Cheetah 66" Brace 6 1/2"
Wesley 66" Brace 6 3/8"
Halfbreed 66" Brace 5 1/2" *
Wesley 64" Brace 6 1/8"
Black Bear 64" Brace 6"
Wesley 60" Brace 6 1/4"
Tembo 60" Brace 5 3/4" *
Cheetah 60" Brace 6"
Bear Cub 56" Brace 6 7/8" **
Bear Cub 56" Brace 5 7/8"

 

I hope you are not going to say that howard hill bows are forgiving.... I have several, and also one of Dicks bows he built me when I hurt my shoulder and needed to drop poundage. The Hill bows are about as far away from forgiving and pleasurable to shoot as ...... Why do I have several, well because they are HH bows, and make nice additions to my wall as collectables.

 

I haven't noticed any accuracy difference with low BH with limbs designed for it. I have tried on limbs that the Bowyer told me to keep it around 8" and I dropped it to 7 with poor results. I think if you stay in the guidelines of the limb design there shouldn't be any degrade in accuracy. Sometimes you just need to tune a little differently.

 

Oh Sid, now the short dl guys are going to say they got both ends of the short stick. Short power stroke and unforgiving bh. :lol:

 

maybe top archers shoot high scores because thier BH is high... not because they are any good?

 

Not sure what the science says. But historically the higher the BH the more accurate the shooter is. So is it the bow or that the high BH makes it easier for the shooter. My experience has always been the later.

 

i hear what your saying.
My problem is, if higher is more accurate, why is the Hoyt manual not quoting 10"

 

Are these questions being posed because you want a serious discussion or are they being asked because you are justifying the direction your company is going? And, I'm not asking that to he rude but because these threads generally seem to have a feel that you are trying to enlighten those of us too ignorant to know better and you aren't really interested in meaningful discourse. At least, that's the perception many people have and why these threads tend to turn negative and go sideways.

In the interest of having a serious discussion you can't quantify forgiveness but if you're bow doesn't have it you know. Forgiveness is a condition of having a good tune and a bow that doesn't punish mistakes. It is generally accepted that short brace heights (relative term) are less forgiving to shoot. There are two schools of thought on this. One is that short brace heights are faster and this means the arrow is off the string quicker which results in less shooter input. The other is a short brace (relative) has a longer power stroke and the shooter's input affects the shot more because the arrow is on the string for a greater length. Which is right?

Look at compounds for a minute. The prevalence of low brace bows was in a large part due to the push for speed over the last decade. Guys want more speed. When 340 fps was fast one year, the next year it wasn't enough. This led manufacturers to continue pushing the envelope in both cam design, reflex risers, and short brace heights. However, in the last few years, consumers have started asking for something different. People are asking for bows that have less aggressive cams, longer brace height, and more in line or deflexed risers. Why? Because the former designs were less fun to shoot, despite being fast, and people are discovering (or perhaps re-discovering) the less aggressive designs are easier to shoot with consistent accuracy.

Now, one other question a person has to ask in deciding if a low brace bow is for them is what their end game goals are. For hunting we want to hold a single shot accurately into a small area and we choose the distance we shoot. A low brace height bow, which may be faster, may work just fine for the person who knows and sticks within their limitations. A 3D or field archer is normally shooting longer distances and doesn't get to choose their shots. They take what is presented and and the goal is hitting a small bullseye at every distance. If you are trying to win you don't get points for extra speed, you get points for delivering pin point accurate shots.

In the target world do you see short brace bows being used at big tournaments often? Generally not. Why is that? It's the same on the traditional side and compound side. Why?

Does vertical stability or lateral stiffness guarantee better accuracy, regardless of brace? If so, how much of each is needed? Is there a point where there is too much and it causes backlash in the shot? Is forgiveness solely dependent on brace or is it a combination of all factors in the system?

 

Are these questions being posed because you want a serious discussion or are they being asked because you are justifying the direction your company is going? And, I'm not asking that to he rude but because these threads generally seem to have a feel that you are trying to enlighten those of us too ignorant to know better and you aren't really interested in meaningful discourse. At least, that's the perception many people have and why these threads tend to turn negative and go sideways.

In the interest of having a serious discussion you can't quantify forgiveness but if you're bow doesn't have it you know. Forgiveness is a condition of having a good tune and a bow that doesn't punish mistakes. It is generally accepted that short brace heights (relative term) are less forgiving to shoot. There are two schools of thought on this. One is that short brace heights are faster and this means the arrow is off the string quicker which results in less shooter input. The other is a short brace (relative) has a longer power stroke and the shooter's input affects the shot more because the arrow is on the string for a greater length. Which is right?

Look at compounds for a minute. The prevalence of low brace bows was in a large part due to the push for speed over the last decade. Guys want more speed. When 340 fps was fast one year, the next year it wasn't enough. This led manufacturers to continue pushing the envelope in both cam design, reflex risers, and short brace heights. However, in the last few years, consumers have started asking for something different. People are asking for bows that have less aggressive cams, longer brace height, and more in line or deflexed risers. Why? Because the former designs were less fun to shoot, despite being fast, and people are discovering (or perhaps re-discovering) the less aggressive designs are easier to shoot with consistent accuracy.

Now, one other question a person has to ask in deciding if a low brace bow is for them is what their end game goals are. For hunting we want to hold a single shot accurately into a small area and we choose the distance we shoot. A low brace height bow, which may be faster, may work just fine for the person who knows and sticks within their limitations. A 3D or field archer is normally shooting longer distances and doesn't get to choose their shots. They take what is presented and and the goal is hitting a small bullseye at every distance. If you are trying to win you don't get points for extra speed, you get points for delivering pin point accurate shots.

In the target world do you see short brace bows being used at big tournaments often? Generally not. Why is that? It's the same on the traditional side and compound side. Why?

Does vertical stability or lateral stiffness guarantee better accuracy, regardless of brace? If so, how much of each is needed? Is there a point where there is too much and it causes backlash in the shot? Is forgiveness solely dependent on brace or is it a combination of all factors in the system?

good post well put.

How about a low Brace with lots of deflex in the riser?

That is chasing speed. but then its NOT chasing speed.
yes, speed has been regarded as unstable. but speed has been gained though several deficiencies in design. as you say. reduced deflex.

what happens then?

the increased TS being a possible downside, if the tips deflect a little, and you see archers gaining PBs with limbs with less deflection. there comes a point where the deflection is zero and you cant make zero deflect less.
limbs with high levels of TS seem to be doing well in competitions.
for our Size we punch above our weight with poduim places, and Uukha are doing just fine too.
so, IMO, we haven't gone too far yet. if there is a Too far, we dont think we have met it. This one is subject to revision as we move forward.

Vertical stability doesn't seem an issue either for the same reasons above.
we haven't come across a bow with more than others that hasn't been doing well. so for us, the jury is still out on the idea or more is not always better.

the user input into the arrow, seems an oximoron. long draws have more time on the string, 32" = 9.5" is more time than 26-8" yet longer draws do well.

yet high brace heights reduce the time the user can have input into the shot. is the concept into why its more forgiving.

I simply see wholes in the arguments put forward as to why a low BH cant be tuned to the same degree as a higher BH.

on the flip side. everyone has shot the same geometry of bow for decades. there are rules of thumb established that are now law in bow tuning.
untill someone makes a bow that not conventional those laws remain unchallenged, rules such as centreshot, GPP, etc.

so my question still stands. If higher BHs are more forgiving why is the most competitive brand which is shot by the highest levels of the sport, not shooting a 10" BH.
its only 1/2" more... yet never done?

 

Sid the better question is how many Hoyt shooters are running outside of Hoyts recommendations and shooting over 10" cause they think its more forgiving?

 

my question is what assumptions are being made that 8-9" is right.

What design concepts have not been challeneged?

in the past getting light enough arrows was a challenge. so Cast was a problem
now, its not today, but we are still running the same geometry bows.

why?

if why is a valid question, what features are available to bow designers to make bows more forgiving...
deflex is said to be forgiving, yet we have just seen an attempt to run 0.7" less deflex.

but that also reduces the BH by 0.7"

when infact, if you look at the BH chart, BH seems to be dictated by mid limb length, and mid limb curvature. drop the BH and loose stability. or reduce deflex and loose stability.

so what happens when you reduce mid limb length, and increase deflex?

 

Proper BH is a function of proper arrow tuning. Yes manufacturers should give you direction base on preloaded design. Not enough poor clearence/nock travel. To much poor clearance and performance. I have learned to tune backward from my compound days. Kind of like JP video.
Dan

 

I tune brace to how my bow sounds and feels

Where it lands it lands

If I can go to the lower side of this range I do so '

As Dan mentioned I don't tune bows to arrows I tune arrows to bows

Arrows are cheap and all bows work best shooting with in their design parameters

 

There has to be a point of diminishing returns, that is why you do not see any 10" brace heights. Performance is effected by a very high brace height. I myself need a higher brace height with all my bows. I have huge forearms and get string slap no matter what I do once a bow gets down to 7.5"s or so. Shawn

 

have you ever seen the shim in the grip of a hoyt riser?
you can move the grip left or right?

 

Compared to your brace limit, or restrictions, Hoyt is higher across the board, and therefore they start more forgiving. Because like Chris mentioned above, the longer the arrow is on the string, the more "perfect" an archers overall form must be. It's a law of physics that no one can work around. I mentioned all the facts Chris has layed out in another post of yours not long ago. Nothing has changed since then. Now I have a question, are you looking to replace the feel of a 70" bow when shot, since your 70" model is 64" at rest, how do you plan to replace that comfortable stable length we all know and love?

That's why we choose those, stability and feel. Are you expecting your limbs unfolding from 64" to 70" to provide that feeling? Using a long bow as an example for your plight, as you are clearly trying to shed favorable light on a low brace height that no target shooter desires in a recurve bow. A long bow moves in one axis not two like SR, so the long bow will always and forever be more forgiving by its design.

 

Compared to your brace limit, or restrictions, Hoyt is higher across the board, and therefore they start more forgiving. Because like Chris mentioned above, the longer the arrow is on the string, the more "perfect" an archers overall form must be. It's a law of physics that no one can work around. I mentioned all the facts Chris has layed out in another post of yours not long ago. Nothing has changed since then. Now I have a question, are you looking to replace the feel of a 70" bow when shot, since your 70" model is 64" at rest, how do you plan to replace that comfortable stable length we all know and love?

That's why we choose those, stability and feel. Are you expecting your limbs unfolding from 64" to 70" to provide that feeling? Using a long bow as an example for your plight, as you are clearly trying to shed favorable light on a low brace height that no target shooter desires in a recurve bow. A long bow moves in one axis not two like SR, so the long bow will always and forever be more forgiving by its design.

If the arrows time on the string is particular to forgiveness, why do 32" draws not get punished?

I never said I planned on replacing a 70" bow with a 64" bow. that's just stupid. string angles allow your fingers to release the string easier.

Why would I try and replace a 70" bow then spend 2-3 years developing a 25" riser...

why do we offer XL limbs. so XL limbs on a 27" riser = 74" bow.

your making some big assumptions. We also make a 25" covert hunter and a 25" ILF Wood riser.
and when you click on the "target" Tile of our web site it delivers 23 and 25" riser. yet click on hunting and it delivers 17 and 19"

 

A high brace, outside of the correct range, doesn't necessarily equate to more forgiveness or accuracy. A given design has a working envelope where the limb functions correctly and has its optimum amount of stability. Operating outside this range, on the high side, compresses the limb more and can reduce vertical stability. In a recurve it also opens the curves earlier which can reduce smoothness and speed.

So, comparing a 70" Hill style which is designed for a lower brace vs a 70" Olympic recurve with a much higher brace isn't really valid comparison. You have to compare like for like. If you want to compare longbows compare a Hill to a stealth D bow which normally presents a higher brace.

Now, with the more aggressive recurves things are a little different. The curves sit further forward at brace which means the limb will want to jack knife more (bigger lever). Ever wonder if people shoot out of spec (higher brace) on aggressive curves because it makes it behave more like a conventional recurve? Food for thought...

 

A high brace, outside of the correct range, doesn't necessarily equate to more forgiveness or accuracy. A given design has a working envelope where the limb functions correctly and has its optimum amount of stability. Operating outside this range, on the high side, compresses the limb more and can reduce vertical stability. In a recurve it also opens the curves earlier which can reduce smoothness and speed.

So, comparing a 70" Hill style which is designed for a lower brace vs a 70" Olympic recurve with a much higher brace isn't really valid comparison. You have to compare like for like. If you want to compare longbows compare a Hill to a stealth D bow which normally presents a higher brace.

Now, with the more aggressive recurves things are a little different. The curves sit further forward at brace which means the limb will want to jack knife more (bigger lever). Ever wonder if people shoot out of spec (higher brace) on aggressive curves because it makes it behave more like a conventional recurve? Food for thought...

not everyone. there are plenty of target archers that are not part of the online community that shoot lower BH.
http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f127/show-us-your-set-up-target-ilf-12261/index56.html

have a look at these.

but your right about the limb not working well outside of its BH.

that was the reason for this thread.
how come others don't operate conventional limbs outside of the recommendations but seem to think that all limbs work the same.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Str8 Shooter View Post
Are these questions being posed because you want a serious discussion or are they being asked because you are justifying the direction your company is going? And, I'm not asking that to he rude but because these threads generally seem to have a feel that you are trying to enlighten those of us too ignorant to know better and you aren't really interested in meaningful discourse. At least, that's the perception many people have and why these threads tend to turn negative and go sideways.

In the interest of having a serious discussion you can't quantify forgiveness but if you're bow doesn't have it you know. Forgiveness is a condition of having a good tune and a bow that doesn't punish mistakes. It is generally accepted that short brace heights (relative term) are less forgiving to shoot. There are two schools of thought on this. One is that short brace heights are faster and this means the arrow is off the string quicker which results in less shooter input. The other is a short brace (relative) has a longer power stroke and the shooter's input affects the shot more because the arrow is on the string for a greater length. Which is right?

Look at compounds for a minute. The prevalence of low brace bows was in a large part due to the push for speed over the last decade. Guys want more speed. When 340 fps was fast one year, the next year it wasn't enough. This led manufacturers to continue pushing the envelope in both cam design, reflex risers, and short brace heights. However, in the last few years, consumers have started asking for something different. People are asking for bows that have less aggressive cams, longer brace height, and more in line or deflexed risers. Why? Because the former designs were less fun to shoot, despite being fast, and people are discovering (or perhaps re-discovering) the less aggressive designs are easier to shoot with consistent accuracy.

Now, one other question a person has to ask in deciding if a low brace bow is for them is what their end game goals are. For hunting we want to hold a single shot accurately into a small area and we choose the distance we shoot. A low brace height bow, which may be faster, may work just fine for the person who knows and sticks within their limitations. A 3D or field archer is normally shooting longer distances and doesn't get to choose their shots. They take what is presented and and the goal is hitting a small bullseye at every distance. If you are trying to win you don't get points for extra speed, you get points for delivering pin point accurate shots.

In the target world do you see short brace bows being used at big tournaments often? Generally not. Why is that? It's the same on the traditional side and compound side. Why?

Does vertical stability or lateral stiffness guarantee better accuracy, regardless of brace? If so, how much of each is needed? Is there a point where there is too much and it causes backlash in the shot? Is forgiveness solely dependent on brace or is it a combination of all factors in the system?

In regards to the second paragraph, I've seen it argued that the point made about the arrow being "off the string quicker" associated with higher BH, not lower...i.e. the closer the string is to the riser when it detaches the later the arrow can complete the necessary gyrations required for paradox. Maybe "sooner" would be a better desciptor than "quicker". I'm obviously not a technoweenie, but I do concur with the crowd that claim lower BH will make dynamic spine of a given arrow act slightly stiffer and raising it will make it slightly weaker due to earlier release. I will concede that if you ask this question on most less-technical oriented websites you will always get near 50-50 responses from the "power stroke" adherents vs. the "release point" crowd. I think it's notable that if we were in the 1% of those whose form was good enough that we'd notice these changes the point wouldn't even be debatable, lo!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Str8 Shooter View Post
Are these questions being posed because you want a serious discussion or are they being asked because you are justifying the direction your company is going? And, I'm not asking that to he rude but because these threads generally seem to have a feel that you are trying to enlighten those of us too ignorant to know better and you aren't really interested in meaningful discourse. At least, that's the perception many people have and why these threads tend to turn negative and go sideways.

In the interest of having a serious discussion you can't quantify forgiveness but if you're bow doesn't have it you know. Forgiveness is a condition of having a good tune and a bow that doesn't punish mistakes. It is generally accepted that short brace heights (relative term) are less forgiving to shoot. There are two schools of thought on this. One is that short brace heights are faster and this means the arrow is off the string quicker which results in less shooter input. The other is a short brace (relative) has a longer power stroke and the shooter's input affects the shot more because the arrow is on the string for a greater length. Which is right?

Look at compounds for a minute. The prevalence of low brace bows was in a large part due to the push for speed over the last decade. Guys want more speed. When 340 fps was fast one year, the next year it wasn't enough. This led manufacturers to continue pushing the envelope in both cam design, reflex risers, and short brace heights. However, in the last few years, consumers have started asking for something different. People are asking for bows that have less aggressive cams, longer brace height, and more in line or deflexed risers. Why? Because the former designs were less fun to shoot, despite being fast, and people are discovering (or perhaps re-discovering) the less aggressive designs are easier to shoot with consistent accuracy.

Now, one other question a person has to ask in deciding if a low brace bow is for them is what their end game goals are. For hunting we want to hold a single shot accurately into a small area and we choose the distance we shoot. A low brace height bow, which may be faster, may work just fine for the person who knows and sticks within their limitations. A 3D or field archer is normally shooting longer distances and doesn't get to choose their shots. They take what is presented and and the goal is hitting a small bullseye at every distance. If you are trying to win you don't get points for extra speed, you get points for delivering pin point accurate shots.

In the target world do you see short brace bows being used at big tournaments often? Generally not. Why is that? It's the same on the traditional side and compound side. Why?

Does vertical stability or lateral stiffness guarantee better accuracy, regardless of brace? If so, how much of each is needed? Is there a point where there is too much and it causes backlash in the shot? Is forgiveness solely dependent on brace or is it a combination of all factors in the system?

In regards to the second paragraph, I've seen it argued that the point made about the arrow being "off the string quicker" associated with higher BH, not lower...i.e. the closer the string is to the riser when it detaches the later the arrow can complete the necessary gyrations required for paradox. Maybe "sooner" would be a better desciptor than "quicker". I'm obviously not a technoweenie, but I do concur with the crowd that claim lower BH will make dynamic spine of a given arrow act slightly stiffer and raising it will make it slightly weaker due to earlier release. I will concede that if you ask this question on most less-technical oriented websites you will always get near 50-50 responses from the "power stroke" adherents vs. the "release point" crowd. I think it's notable that if we were in the 1% of those whose form was good enough that we'd notice these changes the point wouldn't even be debatable, lo!

any occilation will even itself out. Give it long enough.
so the longer the powerstroke the less jerky the process will be.
for example imagine a 27" BH and a 28" draw length. in 1" the string has to get round your fingers and get traveling at a straight enough line to stop nock separation being at a 45 deg angle.
on the other hand. its said that a conventional bow has a 1.25 cycle. so the angle of release is MUCH more shallow. but also more inline with where you want your arrow to go.

So simply don't subscribe to the idea you want rid of the arrow as fast as possible off the string.
but more importantly... 1"-1.5" really isn't going to make a massive difference to nock separation in either case. as its when the arrow is at MAX speed.
1" at 200fps. that's 2400 inches a second.

 

Uukha runs a relatively high BH . . .

"Brace height:

We recommand to respect the value in a +-10mm range.

Lower the brace height if you focus on speed, increase it for stability and comfort.

Curve and Xcurve models are already very fast, moreover you will be able to use brace height in the bottom of the range to get even more speed.

Brace height 2015 range (and Vx1000 2014) previous generation
70" 225 mm 232 mm
68" 218 mm 225 mm
66" 211 mm 218 mm
60" 192 mm 199 mm
Tiller:

Tiller is the difference between the distance top limbs / string and the distance bottom limb string.
For Uukha limbs common settings between 0 and 6 mm are correct too. "

Do they know something we don't . . . . ? ?


🏹

John

 

I'm not assuming anything... A friend just ordered a 70" ch what is its length at rest? I suppose it depends on the point you are trying to make on a certain day. All those threads about how the ch is so much shorter for a given length. I have another question... Why is it you come here exclusively to post negative things about Hoyt, and promote your product, but I never see any threads like this on the FITA forum in Archery Talk? Isn't that another audience or opportunity to promote your concepts? I have nothing personal against you Sid, and wish you great success, but I can assure you the people that inhabit this forum Are not naive or rank beginners.

 

I utterly don't understand your point then. Ive missed it.

a BH is a BH. its not a negative thing.
Its simply what it is.

 

Allow me to make an example, now this is purely target archery thinking here. Why on earth would anyone pay $900 + for a set of your limbs that are based purely in speed, and low brace height, when I can buy a $300-400 set and shoot nearly as fast? If speed were the only thing I was chasing? The simple truth is, for a decent set of arrows weighing in at 6.5 to 7 gpp complete, I can push the limbs I already own well over the 200fps mark and keep my forgiving brace height? All for about $90. The whole Hex 7 marketing the only 0.5 # gain per inch doesn't mean a hill of beans to me because holding 45# is equal across the board. Also in my example you shoot as low as 34# otf and shoot 221 fps.,. Ask me how I know. I also shot those limbs at that gpp for over a year.

 

Jeff

For me it's not just the speed it's the feel

I like the draw cycle , compactness and craftsmanship

Just like a fine custom anything no one needs it but if you like it you like it

If you like conventional limbs hopefully when we get together someday you can shoot my CV limbs on my WF 19

For feel and performance and price they are an outstanding limb

 

Jeff

Price gouged is a bit rough no ?

Porsche or Ferrari does not apologize for the pricing of their high end prouducts

Border Hex 7 series limbs are a niche market focused at those looking for something different and that are willing to pay for that difference

I have had two people in the last year to me mention this .........they said in the grand scheme of things single strings in general are very inexpensive when comparing them to custom firearms and or knives for example

We all know what a custom rifle goes for they start at 5 k

Take a look at a MS Bowie knife or a Tony Bose slip joint .... They go in the thousands

Some here do not like SIDS way of promoting his wares ..... Some do

Sid is throwing up his thoughts and the direction they are taking their co

These threads usually go long and seem to get a lot of attention so for what ever reasons they are garnering attention

I for one enjoy them .... Even thou I am not smart enough to understand all the technical mumbo jumbo I like seeing people break away from the conventional norm. I find it interesting and even though I love conventional limbs I'm sure glad I live in a world that has people like the Sids experimting and driving in different directions .... I know what I feel and I am fortunate enough to have access to a lot of different bows so these threads are valid and informative to a guy like me

I respect your opinion you know that and again I stress I think Sid uses Hoyt because they are the gold standard

Earl Hoyts designs dominate the market so it is only natural to use them as the standard of that school of thought

I hope this makes sense

 

No Sid, I didn't miss it... Remember your other thread regarding Hoyt Formula dying more so? Your words not mine. I gave you a free lesson in economics, I'm also aware of all your products. But I can tell you that may in fact have the best hunting/performance bow in existence. Kudos for that!

 

It is rough JP but true.. I'm sorry buddy... But you have to realize these limbs are not a Ferrari to everyone. I mean no disrespect to anyone here... I just call it the way I see it. Sometimes my filter breaks. It's just my opinion... Nothing personal guys, but I'm done here.

 

JP I'll pm ya buddy

 

There is more to the hex and cv limbs than bh and speed. They introduced high TS and some commented that was unforgiving, yet now other limb companys are bragging about their increased TS. Are those same people avoiding new TS limbs by others, or eating crow? What happens if Hoyt introduces a new limb with 7" BH and you try it and wow, scores didn't go down. Do you avoid it with the old unforgiving argument or eat crow?
My scores suck compared to most, but I dont notice my hex6.5 being unforgiving. The arrow goes where its pointed, if it doesnt I screwed up. Whats the most forgiving limb, Ill go try to buy some points. :lol:

If you guys arent tuning using bh and just adjusting it by sound, how is that tuning for forgiveness? Why not set it at max manufactures bh for most forgiveness?

 

Kenn, How do you know we didn't? How do you know what we did or did not try? LOL, enjoy the koolaide.

 

I have a <29" draw but shoot a 70" bow because it is more accurate and forgiving. I think that is likely due to the brace height and in fact I think the string angle is working against my face shape to some degree.
I've shot 66-70" bows with BH from 6.75-9.5", the low BH combo shot the worst consistently. Things start to get better past 8" and seem to peak at 9" but I'll merrily shoot a 9.5" BH for indoors.

Some bows are not forgiving and can make you question your abilities. No performance is free. It's when you ask for support from the manufacturer and get told that it's your abilities at fault and not a compromise in the design of the product that I have issues.

Grant

 

I have a <29" draw but shoot a 70" bow because it is more accurate and forgiving. I think that is likely due to the brace height and in fact I think the string angle is working against my face shape to some degree.
I've shot 66-70" bows with BH from 6.75-9.5", the low BH combo shot the worst consistently. Things start to get better past 8" and seem to peak at 9" but I'll merrily shoot a 9.5" BH for indoors.

Some bows are not forgiving and can make you question your abilities. No performance is free. It's when you ask for support from the manufacturer and get told that it's your abilities at fault and not a compromise in the design of the product that I have issues.

Grant

Well said.

 

Sid,
Comparing a 70" Hill to a 70" Olympic bow doesn't mean much. They are too different. How does a simple 70 " one piece longbow have anything in common to a 70" Hex 7 limbed ILF rig, in complete target regalia, other than a similar brace and length?

Anyone can go on the general archery forums and read hours worth of threads regarding brace height and shoot ability. Compound forums have these arguments crop up weekly. There are the performance guys who argue short brace bows don't give up forgiveness and the accuracy guys who claim the opposite. Wanna cook your noodle? Read about the differences in parallel limb bows and upright limbed bows and how it dynamically effects brace during the shot.

As I've said, the newer tech is interesting and exciting to see. But, just because new materials enable new designs doesn't mean it overcomes the negatives those new geometries present. A large hook is like a large cam. Large cams spool in the string faster and technically support the string longer, too. But, the large cams also magnify the effects of torque. A compound has extremely stiff limbs, steel axles, and long risers. The torque a shooter imparts doesn't move those components much. But what happens if a person torques hard enough? It's either a derail or a way off center shot. Why? The torque has to go somewhere, it doesnt simply dissapper.If the limbs, cam, etc can't absorb it it goes one place, the string and arrow. Aggressive curves function similarily.

This is maybe why the new, big hooks are so polarizing. People have tried them, tried the recommended brace height, tried higher brace heights, and still found them wanting. That's their experience. As a manufacturer it would probably be better to accept that and thank them for trying your product rather than try to say they didn't tune them right or explain why they are wrong. That doesn't get people wanting to try out newer versions, which may be more forgiving, because people won't invest significant amounts of money in a company they feel downplays their opinions. That's the downside of a company spokesperson coming onto these forums. If you ask for opinions but generally just argue you run the risk of alienating people. Probably why you don't hear of Hoyt or Win Win or anyone else doing the same.