Paper Tuning

pwiles1968

New member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Anyone tried paper shoot through tuning for compound bows, I know it is not the be all and end all WRT tuning just interested in opinions and experience.
 

Marcus26

Well-known member
Paper tuning is useful, but not in the way most people think.
Up-down tears indicate a high or low nocking point
A left-right tear indicates either poor centreshot. If moving the centreshot does not change the tear then it is likely hand torque. Get a good shooter to try also in this case.
It can show up other issues in teh cam areas as well, but this is rare.

It won't show arrow spine.
 
R

rgsphoto

Guest
Marcus26 said:
Paper tuning is useful, but not in the way most people think.
Up-down tears indicate a high or low nocking point
A left-right tear indicates either poor centreshot. If moving the centreshot does not change the tear then it is likely hand torque. Get a good shooter to try also in this case.
It can show up other issues in teh cam areas as well, but this is rare.

It won't show arrow spine.
Marcus, will paper tuning show up a weak or stiff arrow? is there such a thing as a stiff arrow with compound?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Using bare shaft tuning, I noticed that the softer spines shoot left and stiffer ones go right. This is the reverse of what you get with recurve shooting.
If you suspect the spine is wrong, altering the poundage will indicate the direction to go in.
 

Marcus26

Well-known member
I have shot bareshaft ACE's ranging from 720 up to 430 and put them all in the 40cm 10ring at 18m.
Bareshaft testing on a compound is useless.

Remember, compound arrows don't flex left-right due to spine.
 

joetapley

New member
There's an old story (which if I sort of remember) involves a philosopher, a physicist and a mathematician travelling on a train to Scotland and through the window they see a black cow standing in a field.

The Philosopher says "Look - cows in Scotland are black!".
"No" says the Physicist "Some of the cows in Scotland are black"
"No" says the Mathematician "In Scotland there is one field in which there is a cow which is black on one side"

The moral is that one needs to be careful about what conclusions you reach from observations or experiments.
 
R

rgsphoto

Guest
joetapley said:
There's an old story (which if I sort of remember) involves a philosopher, a physicist and a mathematician travelling on a train to Scotland and through the window they see a black cow standing in a field.

The Philosopher says "Look - cows in Scotland are black!".
"No" says the Physicist "Some of the cows in Scotland are black"
"No" says the Mathematician "In Scotland there is one field in which there is a cow which is black on one side"

The moral is that one needs to be careful about what conclusions you reach from observations or experiments.
I like that one Joe! Something we can all forget sometimes:thumbsup:

Soz it won't let me give you any rep points:boggled:
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Thanks Marcus and Joe, I'm clearer on that now. It makes good sense. Can you throw some light on the situation when the bare shafts go to one side of the fletched groups? Does that happen as the result of torque issues or centreshot or something I've not mentioned? Several archers I know use bare shafts. They start off getting the nocking point sorted and notice the bare shafts are always one side. In the past I've said it was spine or torquing the bow( I won't mention spine from now on). If it's not torque, I don't want to carry on saying that either.
Thanks
Geoff
 

joetapley

New member
Geoff

Historically (as far as I know) there have been two suggestions put forward as to what this "tuning" thing essentially is. The first suggestion was by Don Rabska in the Easton Maintenance/Tuning Guide. The suggestion was that it was to do with the launch alignment of the arrow i.e. you tried to minimise the airflow angle of attack on the shaft at launch. The second suggestion was put forward by me several years ago. I hopefully showed that while the arrow launch alignment idea was going in the right direction it didn't really "fly" and the underlying issue of tuning was to do with the rotational energy that the arrow had at launch. This concept mechanically/aerodynamically agrees with "tuning experience" as regards explaining how the various tuning methods work, why tuning is a function of target distance and predicts that tuning is also a function of wind (the latter idea according to the Heretic Archer has now received some verification by testing).

If you understand the mechanics/aerodynamics of arrow flight behaviour it becomes obvious why with a compound bow at 18m that whether shooting X10s or broom handles all the arrows will go in the ten ring. It does not discredit the bare shaft tuning concept.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Thanks for your last post,Joe. In my mind, I'm working along lines of thought that I guess are now out of date. I need help! Please!
I know that the arrow gets bent by the energy from the string at launch and inertia holds back the front( I assume that's still correct)
I have imagined the tuning exercise was to try to select the best spined arrows if possible and work from there. If the arrows were less than best spined, then things could still be done to get the best from them.
Using bare shafts would allow the up and down to be optimised so the arrow wasn't diving or soaring. ( I think I can see that as airflow or angle of attack)
Left to right tuning,using arrow rest position and button pressure on recurves, I imagined was a means of optimising the bending of the shaft to create a situation where the arrow was travelling in a direction that, I would call "straight ahead." Again, I imagine this as the arrow is travelling in a direction that is as near straight(viewed from above) as possible and with as little bend in the shaft as possible.
I have been believing that with compounds the release aid puts the string forces into the arrow in a way that creates vertical bending when the point is held back by inertia. This, makes me think that nocking point position is not only responsible for reducing the diving or soaring but is effected by the spine at the same time in the same plane. Is that why compound rests are sprung in the vertical direction?

Thanks for listening
Geoff
 

Adam

Active member
Don't waste your time with paper tuning (or, in my opinion, bareshaft tuning) with a compound.

Personnaly I pretty much follow Chris White's mantra, so my tuning sequence goes:

1. set the launcher as low as you can get it, with just enough spring pressure to hold the arrow up at rest

2. set the centre shot. Walk back tuning works best for me.

3. go to 70m and shoot for groups. Adjust the knock height up and down until you achieve the best groups.

4. enjoy shooting arrows

Actually, with most modern launchers you can set them up with the arrow running though the centre of the button hole (height-wise that is) and then, rather than move the nocking point (which is a bit of a pain), just adjust the launcher height fractionally to improve groups.

Adam
 

simon m

New member
Ironman
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaahhhhhhh I see!...

Thats what the strange metal fing with a piece of paper in it was at chiltern archery!.

You live and learn
 

pwiles1968

New member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
What Have I started, All I really wanted to know was it a good method to get a decent centre shot, I have done it by eye but my arrows are still fishtailing a bit and it is annoying me I wanted to sort it or reduce it, don't really want to spend ages tuning and it seemed like a quick first step (ok building a frame may take a while) I would rather be shooting and working on form than fiddling at the moment.

Walk back seems like a good idea and quick, need to look up which way to adjust the rest dependant on the direction the arrows move :boggled: .
 

Marcus26

Well-known member
Adam: That's how I tune, and how top shooters I have talked to do it as well. Mid and low level shooters spend hours paper and bareshaft tuning. There is a correlation.

Joe: Clint Freeman bareshaft tested his compound for years, till he worked out it didn't shot up anything at any distance.

Geoff: The release aid doesn't induce vertical bending, the cams do and the shape of the cam will effect the amount of nock travel on the draw and thus the amount of flex induced on the shaft.
For example a poorly designed cam system will have a nocking point that moves up and down on release causing massive arrow flex. This will mean that tuning becomes far more difficult with these bows. A straight nock travel means there is minimal flexing so tuning, regardless of spine, it easier.
 

joetapley

New member
IMO bare shaft tuning a recurve at 18m is a waste of time let alone trying it with a compound. For me with a recurve 30m is the minimum distance, for a compound you probably need an aircraft hanger :).

The bareshaft approach works but you have to do it sensibly to get an acceptable result. Bareshaft at 1 metre distance anyone?
 

Marcus26

Well-known member
Sorry Joe, incorrect.
18m is cetrainly sufficient for tuning a recurve bow and will achieve excellent results at 70m with that level of tuning.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Marcus,
Thanks for the info on why the cams induce vertical bend on the arrow.Does that explain why some compounds are easier to tune than others?
 
R

rgsphoto

Guest
geoffretired said:
Marcus,
Thanks for the info on why the cams induce vertical bend on the arrow.Does that explain why some compounds are easier to tune than others?
Hi Geoff. I reckon this bit from Marcus explains that "For example a poorly designed cam system will have a nocking point that moves up and down on release causing massive arrow flex. This will mean that tuning becomes far more difficult with these bows. A straight nock travel means there is minimal flexing so tuning, regardless of spine, it easier"

I'm still coming to terms with the thought that paper tuning is a wast of time. have a look at my Journal entry:boggled: However it may be a good way of checking bow hand torque as I find a poor hand position shows up as a bad tear.
 
Last edited:
Top