Almost finished powered shooting machine..

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy, I like the idea of having forgiving fletchings. I have been told, in the distant past, that low strand count strings are very unforgiving. I have special nocks made to accommodate the 8mm string I use. I use a standard d-loop so that my ordinary release aid can be used. It's a very forgiving set up; string slap on my forearm hardly hurts at all.
Seriously, though, it would make an interesting thread to find out how many different items can be used to forgive our archery sins.
 


Mark31121

Member
Ironman
Ok you didn't like the word automated (which you clearly don't understand) , so fairy powered or whatever - I only skim read your posts as they're not that interesting and it's not particularly new, however, whatever you call it, it doesn't stop it being a lethal weapon one a bow is mounted and an arrow nocked.

I also said change for a longer cable blah blah for remote control so the words pot and kettle spring to mind.

Anyway I'm out, I can't be ##### to argue with condescending twats who clearly hail from dipshitville.
 


Andy!

Member
Andy, I like the idea of having forgiving fletchings. I have been told, in the distant past, that low strand count strings are very unforgiving. I have special nocks made to accommodate the 8mm string I use. I use a standard d-loop so that my ordinary release aid can be used. It's a very forgiving set up; string slap on my forearm hardly hurts at all.
Seriously, though, it would make an interesting thread to find out how many different items can be used to forgive our archery sins.
The entire concept of forgiveness depends on three factors:
Confirmation bias, which is the human tendency to look for information which supports what they want to believe. It effects every single one of us pretty much every single day.
The fact that the vast majority of archers are dealing with heaps of varied information which they don't accurately record and don't have the technical skills or incentive to correctly analyse.
Vendors who will take advantage of the other two factors in order to encourage sales.
 


Andy!

Member
Ok you didn't like the word automated (which you clearly don't understand) , so fairy powered or whatever - I only skim read your posts as they're not that interesting and it's not particularly new, however, whatever you call it, it doesn't stop it being a lethal weapon one a bow is mounted and an arrow nocked.

I also said change for a longer cable blah blah for remote control so the words pot and kettle spring to mind.

Anyway I'm out, I can't be ##### to argue with condescending twats who clearly hail from dipshitville.
Oh.
I see.
I apparently don't understand a description which clearly doesn't apply in any way, because YOU can't be bothered to read and comprehend.

So you'll quickly throw in another two straw man arguments, then follow up with a couple of words that vaguely indicates an idiom that you can't seem to correctly apply. Apparently they spring to mind. Well, points for remembering words.

My favourite bit is how you're leaving because apparently it's not worth your effort to continue.

I'll just point out that in this thread as a single thread that I'm condescending to people who I think deserve it.

You might note that I've been like this for the last ten years on this forum, so there's nothing new.

I've had twenty five years of being called a lot worse things as people decide to justify why they decide to disengage.
I will elect to believe that you have managed to convince all future people who CAN read and comprehend posts that my arguments have been soundly thrashed, so that's the end of it.

I guess you may have missed the obvious point that even with a bow mounted at full draw and with an arrow in this "automated" device, it needs someone to actually operate the release? I guess if you ran into the arrow point enough times, that could be lethal.

No. Don't bother writing again. It's clear that I will continue to write uninteresting, old and pointless posts which you can effortlessly counter.

Moronville population updated to 2.5 on reconsideration.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy, Nice post and helpful, too.
One example of this idea of forgiveness, seems to me to be logical. (Most of the ones I have heard about seem to be advertising jargon which almost seem to be telling lies.)
The logical one is about vane size.( not vane type)
No one shoots bareshafts for competitions, which I believe is because they are not so easy to get groups with.
My logic may be wrong, but tiny vanes, I think, will reduce the variations by small amounts( compared to bareshafts) and bigger vanes will reduce variations by larger amounts. And extra large vanes can be helpful at short range.
To my way of thinking the vanes are "forgiving" some of the variations that would show up more clearly if we used bareshafts.
 


Andy!

Member
One of the biggest ######## terms I've seen in modern times is "Shootability".
Sounds good. I have even seen people online echoing the term.

The only problem is that it doesn't actually mean anything because it can't be defined. As far as can tell, all bows have the same level of shootability if you can pull them back and let them go. Maybe one super weak one might be more shootable because you can pluck that string all day. You may consider it has greater shootability then.

You may note that people that invent words ensure that they're never on the spot where they can be challenged as to define the term.

So forgiveness tends to lend itself to wide interpretation.

I think that people understand that you only seek forgiveness when you do something wrong, so it logically follows that you don't need to be forgiven if you're doing the right thing.

One of the other neat things that one can do with a shooting machine is deliberately torque the bow and then precisely adjust the sight bar or arrow rest so that the effect is cancelled out.

This is one absolutely legitimate demonstrations of forgiveness. You can deliberately set your bow up so that you can miss what you aim at completely or hit what you aimed at regardless if you torqued the bow or not. You eliminated or absolutely minimised one response to variation. The end result of the arrow impact will be hardly affected.
The next actual thing to do is establish that you have flat nock travel near the wall. This reduces or eliminates up and down variation if you pull with a bit of variation in tension into the wall.

The shooting machine can be adjusted to achieve an almost perfectly linear draw of the arrow because of the X,Y adjustment of the release mount. Once this is achieved, or close to it, I can look at how and if the bow rotates.

If I mount a laser on the top frame and also mount a laser on the bow, I can adjust them close to each other and watch the dots diverge at full draw to indicate any slight rotation of the riser, thus the up and down variation that goes with inconsistent hold tension can be minimised or eliminated.

Still another example of actual "forgiveness" which can be demonstrated.

We haven't got to d loop designs which don't respond to varied release holding angles. They exist because D loop torque can throw off sight alignment. Another aspect of the bow setup which can be made constant, despite variations, thus .... forgiving.

There are few others which can actually be proven to work.
 


KidCurry

Active member
One of the biggest ######## terms I've seen in modern times is "Shootability".
Sounds good. I have even seen people online echoing the term.
The only problem is that it doesn't actually mean anything because it can't be defined.
Shootability - 'the ease of which a bow can be shot from one arrow to the next without excess fatigue, unwanted deviation or constant maintenance or tuning'.
I think you mean 'hasn't' been defined, not "can't" be defined :)
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy and KidCurry,
Two thought provoking posts.
I tend to consider "forgiving" and "shootability" as vague terms used in archery when the user doesn't have to hand a word with a clear cut, well known meaning.
One of the other neat things that one can do with a shooting machine is deliberately torque the bow and then precisely adjust the sight bar or arrow rest so that the effect is cancelled out.
Andy, I am not wanting to be pedantic in any way, but I would say that deliberately setting up a bow in such a way that it reduces the effect of a known issue, is good sense. Just like raising the nocking point above square if the bow tends to shoot the arrows with their tails hitting the arrow shelf. I would not describe that as "forgiving". I am not saying I am correct but I view rational adjustments as something real and forgiveness in archery as a bit fake.
KIdCurry, I think that defining shootability will mean it is real and that many adverts will have to be changed because they used a fake or vague definition.
 


KidCurry

Active member
KIdCurry, I think that defining shootability will mean it is real and that many adverts will have to be changed because they used a fake or vague definition.
Hi Geoff
Just because something doesn't have a definition or people do not have enough clarity of thought or understanding to define it, does not mean it does not exist. For how many years did bacterial infection not have any definition in medicine just because no one understood it. It never suddenly existed the day someone described it. And definitions are not always immediately or globally accepted and are often subject to modification as understanding grows.
From today 'shootability' has a definition :). I can test my past and current bows against this definition. Modify it as you like if you think it is a poor definition, but it is a definition none the less.:)
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi KidCurry.
I think I gave you the wrong impression with what I said.
When we define "shootability" we then know what it is. Others can then understand what they are accepting, and how to make use of it.
So that the adverts that made reference to it based on fiction, would have to make sure the item actually fits the definition if they want to use the word honestly. If their adverts were based on something they could test and demonstrate, then the advert could stand.
I like your definition, by the way.... I wonder what earlier users of the word thought it actually meant??
If a bow was, in the past( pre your definition) said to be shootable and forgiving; it might have sounded like the perfect bow to use; it might sound as if it had the properties we really wanted. But we would not know if it had them or not.
 


Andy!

Member
So now that we've defined "Shootability" we have a problem. We didn't coin the expression, so we don't know if the company that first started promoting it agrees with what you have defined.
I have no issue with your definition, but it does actually rely on your personal comparison.
This same interpretive issue goes with any mention of "forgiveness"
Once you cannot demonstrate the physical relationship with actual cause and effect, you are firmly on the side of opinion. If you're selling something, the likelihood is almost certain
If you are unable to test a claim or even design a test, then you may as well assume that it is false.

However, a basic but firm understanding of physics or even just the the ability to ask the question "How can this inanimate object sense my intent?" should be enough to discover that nobody can justify their claim.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy, I agree with all of that.
I think Kid Curry's definition did have some merit, but seemed to be defining reliability. I think his definition was partly tongue in cheek, and partly to help me out with his reasoning that "no definition doesn't mean the idea does not exist".
"Shootability" might, for some people, give an impression that the bow is nice to shoot, well balanced and no horrid recoil. I am not suggesting that is a good definition.
"How can this inanimate object sense my intent?"
I just love that idea. It contrasts very much with the idea that shootability might have something to do with how the user feels about the bow. A touch of halo effect
 


KidCurry

Active member
However, a basic but firm understanding of physics or even just the the ability to ask the question "How can this inanimate object sense my intent?" should be enough to discover that nobody can justify their claim.
So I guess you have the same issue with the definition of 'driveability'

Dictionary.com said:
drivability
[h=3]or drive?a?bil?i?ty[/h][drahy-vuh-bil-i-tee]

noun Automotive.
  • the degree of smoothness and steadiness of acceleration of an automotive vehicle: The automatic transmission has been improved to give the new model better driveability.
 


Andy!

Member
I think you've got two examples that don't compare. You want shootability and drivability.

I just put shootability firmly into a ######## term which can't be confined to a brand name, based on personal interpretation of what the components of shootability actually comprise of.
It's a marketing term used to vaguely discriminate one brand from another because there's not enough difference to do it any other way.

Drivability also has several vastly different definitions and meanings, so take your pick.
The car with the best drivability in the world instantly has the worst if it has no fuel. We could also point out that a bow described as "highly shootable" isn't at all, if you have no arrows.

Anyway, as the topic is incredibly nebulous, feel free to make an entire new thread dedicated to it and I will achieve ignoring it with very little effort on my part.
 


KidCurry

Active member
SORRY! ... I thought you raised the issue of 'suitability'
One of the biggest ######## terms I've seen in modern times is "Shootability".
Sounds good. I have even seen people online echoing the term.
...and I will achieve ignoring it with very little effort on my part.
not sure what I said to deserve that response. I shall leave this thread now so I don't insult anyone else.
 


Andy!

Member
SORRY! ... I thought you raised the issue of 'suitability'

not sure what I said to deserve that response. I shall leave this thread now so I don't insult anyone else.
Hey! I only meant that discussing the definition of terms is pointless. I have to deal with too much pointlessness at work, so if it's in one spot where I can avoid it, I will absolutely do that.
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hey! I only meant that discussing the definition of terms is pointless
I am not sure that I agree with that.
Discussing what is meant by certain terms can be very useful.
Bringing up the idea of "Forgiveness" in archery can help others to understand what is real and what is fake.
I have really enjoyed reading the " meaty bits" of this thread.( shame about the the unkind bits)
I have learned a bit more about archery by following it.
Your approach to archery is quite different from mine. You have a background that helps you to explain things in ways that draw me into the topics and clarify things that I was unsure about. That is a powerful asset.
KidCurry has similar abilities and his posts are also worth reading.
 


Andy!

Member
The entire idea of science is that it takes into account the tendencies of humans to be lead by all of our cognitive biases. Archery is one big confirmation bias trap, helped by marketing, pop culture that's been fed to us by every depiction of archery we've ever seen and halo effect.

A shooting machine can be used for many things. Demonstrating that people will not believe something that has happened right in front of them is another fascinating aspect of how misinformation penetrates the online archery community.

I know of one demonstration where a compound in a shooting machine had a range of arrow spines put through it. Higher and lower than the recommended spine rating.

All the arrows of the same spine rating grouped nicely in similar sized small groups. That's to say for example that the six 400's grouped nicely together. The six 470's grouped nicely together and the six 380's grouped nicely together.

Someone approached the operator of the hooter shooter and said that it was not possible for this to happen.

This is the level of stupidity that exists. Even when logical simple physics says that it should happen exactly like this, some clown will ignore evidence.
 


Top