Request for those who are starting a new bow.

[Selfbowman]

Will probably leave bow one as is Steve. The guy has 29.5 in. draw and gaps. I will monitor it as he shoots it this year. Oh and he is a south paw. Left handed bows are not my favorite bows cause I can't shoot them ! Arvin

[PatM]

No Willie, I am trying to keep the broadhead shoot at 28" and give a reason why I feel that way. I should have said that at the beginning of the thread.

 I thought you'd already decided that it was 28"?

[Badger]

No Willie, I am trying to keep the broadhead shoot at 28" and give a reason why I feel that way. I should have said that at the beginning of the thread.

 I thought you'd already decided that it was 28"?

 Oh! Ok Pat, then I guess I don't know why I started the thread.

[PatM]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Badger]

    Pat you seem to have a problem comprehending that things can have multiple reasons for having relevance . # 1. I wanted to show a relationship between set, longer draws and loss of efficiency. 2. I wanted to demonstrate instead of argue that a formula for leveling the playing field cannot really exist. 3. I was hoping this would be a more educational experience than simply winning an argument.

[PatM]

    Pat you seem to have a problem comprehending that things can have multiple reasons for having relevance . # 1. I wanted to show a relationship between set, longer draws and loss of efficiency. 2. I wanted to demonstrate instead of argue that a formula for leveling the playing field cannot really exist. 3. I was hoping this would be a more educational experience than simply winning an argument.

    But in a real world scenario number 1  apparently isn't really true.  Number 2 could be done but then it would be unrealistic to use in a real world scenario.

 I hope this was an educational experience  in that way.

[Badger]

 Pat #1 is true in the majority of bows made, it will always be true to some extent but hopefully as little as possible. A small sampling taken here is not necessarily representative of more typical results.

[PatM]

But not in a practical way.  I don't see how you expect that to change with more samples unless you hope a whole bunch of overbuilt hinged bows skew the data in your favor.

[Badger]

But not in a practical way.  I don't see how you expect that to change with more samples unless you hope a whole bunch of overbuilt hinged bows skew the data in your favor.

   On the contrary, very well built good performing bows will still demonstrate this. They won't be operating at their full potential.

[PatM]

  That IS their full potential in the real world. That's the whole point.

[Badger]

  That IS their full potential in the real world. That's the whole point.

  Not a point I am will to expect. Archery had a lot of areas of discovery when we first got in a few decades ago. A lot of good information had been lost or forgotten. I think in recent years the bowyers have reached a very high level of achievement and efficiency. New frontiers to go after are getting fewer and farther between and the gains are smaller when we find something. I see set and hysteresis as one of those new frontiers that can be studied in more depth for substantial gains. Thst just how I see it and even you can't argue about how someone sees something.

[sleek]

Pat, I imagine this is done in large part to illustrate a point to me about the formual I have been pushing. Im watching closely and enjoying this.  Im waiting to see more and do it myself before making a conclusion.  Thanks Steve. 

Pat, im sure there is a badgering jome to be made, but you sure are loud right now. Why?

[Bayou Ben]

It's not my place to argue, but I'm confused as to why this test is controversial.  I'm sure learning a lot.

[Badger]

  i don't think the test itself is controversial because it's only purpose is to demonstrate the potential loss of power we have in the later stages of the draw if not designed and tillered out properly. To some degree the formula being used is controversial only in that could it act as a formula to allow shorter draw bows to compete with longer draw bows on a level playing field. If someone does not accept the premise I guess that could also be considered controversial. 

[PatM]

  That IS their full potential in the real world. That's the whole point.

  Not a point I am will to expect. Archery had a lot of areas of discovery when we first got in a few decades ago. A lot of good information had been lost or forgotten. I think in recent years the bowyers have reached a very high level of achievement and efficiency. New frontiers to go after are getting fewer and farther between and the gains are smaller when we find something. I see set and hysteresis as one of those new frontiers that can be studied in more depth for substantial gains. Thst just how I see it and even you can't argue about how someone sees something.

 That's all just rediscovery.  I'm not arguing about how you see it but how you are pushing it as already done and restricting things to try to arrive at your conclusion too soon.