Physical weight

spdixon

New member
I belong to a club which has a very strong compound section. Having run a survey of the top six shooters it was noticeable that the physical weight of their bows weighed considerably more than the norm. These ranged from 7 to 9 lbs. Is there a connection between physical bow weight and high scores? and if so why?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I would say that physical weight of the bow helps to steady the bow during aim and during the power stroke. But only so long as the archer is able to hold the weight all through a competition. Top archers are fit. Being fit also helps with steadiness at full draw.
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
I would say that physical weight of the bow helps to steady the bow during aim and during the power stroke. But only so long as the archer is able to hold the weight all through a competition. Top archers are fit. Being fit also helps with steadiness at full draw.
Have you applied this theory to your recurve archers too? or more interestingly your longbow archers ( I say more interestingly because; a) I prefer longbows. b) Longbows are extremely light compared to other bow types.

Also another thought were you weighing just the bow or were you weighing the counter weights too?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I'm not clear about how to answer that.
I was assuming that we were talking about bows that were heavy because of all the stabiliser weights added to them.
When I mentioned physical" weight of the bow" I was meaning with everything on the bow, not just bare bow.
IF the OP was talking about weight of the bow with nothing added, then my answer would be different.
My answer then would be that perhaps weight is a coincidence. Maybe they buy bows with long ATA to give a better string to nose contact, plus a better feel in the hand; so they end up buying those. They weigh more because of the extra metal in the longer risers. Longer bows are often advertised as better for target shooting.
 

spdixon

New member
Hello Geoff,

I am not questioning in any way what you say. But I am looking for evidence and science that heavy means steady so to speak. Why also are manufactures such as Hoyt developing compound bow advertised at being 'light'. Just need to get my head around what the trends are.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I can't give you the science as in documents. I can say that light objects are easier to shake around than heavy ones.

Longer compounds have more metal and weigh more, and the string line at full draw fits against the face and nose, giving two reference points. For some, those are aspects worth buying into. For top archers who are fit and strong, the mass works in their favour.
Light bows are also on sale, I shoot one as I have not got much strength or fitness. They are often shorter,which gets the weight down and that can also attract younger/shorter archers. The lack of mass does mean ,for some, that more stabiliser weight can be placed where they feel it can be put to better use. If you start heavy, you have fewer options with stabilisers before you reach a maximum for your strength.
 

spdixon

New member
Hello Geoff,

I understand completely what your saying but we can't just wing it. We must/should know how the weight affects all things affecting scores. There must be graduates in universities dying to start a project like this.

PS We did know each other in our past lives. Foden Bowmen.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Are you thinking along lines something like; Action and reaction are equal and opposite? Move on from that to the way inertia will have some part to play on the" Reaction" side of things.
I know that Joe writes about the uplift force acting on the bowarm being produced by one component of the draw force. That can balance the downforce from gravity acting on the bowarm. Weight can be added or taken off the stabs to bring about that balance and make it easier to hold the bow up while on aim.
PS We did know each other in our past lives.
So, what is the connection? Archery?
 

spdixon

New member
Hello Geoff,
It seams that it has become the norm to add more and more weight. What i call the Rio Wilde syndrome. Not saying that It is not better by adding more weight or that Rio Wilde is wrong (who would). I am seeking to understand the science behind all of this.

It was in Archery.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I'm not sure if this will help but this is how I see it.
The recoil of a bow is quite powerful. Joe says it's about twice the draw weight of the bow. That is all aimed at the bow arm ,pushing it back to the chest and right, as in a collapse.( recurve)
If the bow is very light, the recoil will be faster and further. Weigh the bow down a bit and the recoil slows and reduces in distance.
The bow also tends to flick back, so the long rod lifts. That is because the recoil isn't through the hand but above it.(pistols are another example of recoil above the grip causing the barrel to kick up.)
Stabilisers are just weights in the right places to reduce the effects of these kicks.
Adding more weight makes the bow steadier. If the archer struggles with the weight, it becomes self defeating.
I think archers at the top are getting fitter and stronger so can handle more weight. I think sportsmen/women at top levels are all getting stronger and fitter than they were and performances improve. They are able to manage their equipment better if they use any. Tennis racquets, golf clubs, poles for vaulters.

Archery connection??? In Dorset perhaps?
 

spdixon

New member
Hello Geoff,

I understand what your explaining too me. But. As I observe or compound archers it is all trial and error. I have asked why put the weight in that spot etc. the answer: The bow feels right and my scores improve. Nothing wrong with that but nothing set in stone as to why. Are there any engineers on this site that may have the answers.

Cheshire :
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I think trial and error is about right, but not totally. (Unless the archer knows very little, or has lots of time to experiment.)
First off, the bow recoils from the shot going off. That recoil also produces a backwards tilt of the upper limb. Place a weight in a position that will need to be lifted when the recoil acts upon it. One option is well out in front. Some will/may add enough weight to cancel almost all the upwards tilt of the longrod.
After that, the bow might be very front heavy. That tends to make the bow feel off balance at full draw and some weight further back brings the balance point close to the bow hand.
There is usually some torque in the system tending to cause the bow to flick, which shows as the the sight moving to one side or the other.
The longrod is well placed to reduce that, so it's a dual purpose stabiliser.
The stronger and fitter the archer, the heavier draw weight they tend to manage. That creates more recoil etc, and requires more weight to help control it. The archer is stronger and fitter so more mass can be added before they are beyond their best set up.
Running alongside those ideas, there are other options that control in a similar way. I could control the recoil back flick with a longrod pointing vertically down. That doesn't give the front heavy results so the bow doesn't roll forwards on release. Some go that way as they like the feel of that. I guess they would go back to a normal long rod if the vertical one felt great but didn't reduce groups.
I think "feels right" can be a very over used term. Some say that and know what they are talking about. Others say the same and have no idea what "right" means. I think they really mean it feels better than with no long rod at all. Some fit stabilisers and copy what they see others doing.
I am not blaming anyone for any of these things. It happens.
Cheshire?????
I think I visited an archery shop in Cheshire many years ago, I bought a carbon long rod.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Nice picture.
The reflex riser would need a long rod on each side,I guess. Older straight risers could have one centrally down from the normal bushing.
Cheshire is bugging me. I think I picked up a longrod from a shop there many years ago.
 

spdixon

New member
Hello Geoff,

Shot this setup. 40" drop down rods. 31" front rod. weights added to produce balance with negative lean in all directions. Shot remarkable.

I think we knew each other in the 70's . RDM and Ted Gamble era. Maybe your too young to remember.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I'm too old to remember where I left my glasses!
Ted Gamble! I think I remember him. Was he president of the Grand Western Archery region?
My archery has all been done within GWAS region.
 

Exarcher

Active member
I'm too old to remember where I left my glasses!
Ted Gamble! I think I remember him. Was he president of the Grand Western Archery region?
My archery has all been done within GWAS region.
Ted was West Midlands (RLSAS) before emigrating to Canada and shot internationally for both GB and Canada
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Cheers, Exarcher. My memory is worse than I thought, I got the names mixed up. The guy I was thinking about was Ray Gallop.
 

Whitehart

Well-known member
Some of the weight is because compounds have to cover a wide range of draw weights a 50lb bow for target needs less metal than a 80lb hunting bow but most bows do both jobs and can have limbs fitted from say 40 -100lb. Carbon allows the weight to come down.

I agree trail and error because top archers set up their bows to suit them, for example some deliberately set up the bow to always fall away (left or right depending on RH/LH) in a set direction and the weight and length of rods required to do this is different. What you don't want Compound or recurve is that feeling that the bow arm wants to float upwards at full draw.

Sometimes maths is not the answer - I have had people spend hours modelling stabiliser configurations and two independent results came up that a short long rod with lots of weights was better than a longrod with less weight - both tested their results and guess what the length their longrods are now.....
 
Top