Forgiveness - does it exist?

[T101]

Originally Posted by The Meggy

Is there such a thing as a more "forgiving" bow? Conventional thinking has it that a) longer axle to axle length = more forgiving b) higher brace height = more forgiving. But can a bow setup really somehow "forgive" your errors and steer the arrow back into the gold?

I suppose a "more forgiving" bow is one that gets you better scores in the end, but how useful is this concept really? A lot of the better compound archers use relatively fast bows often with lowish brace heights and quite short axle to axle lengths so presumably for them this is the "most forgiving" setup. But is this true for the average club archer also? Should someone at say 1100 FITA level buy a different bow to someone at 1200 or 1300?

What do you good folks think on this issue? Are there any other factors that affect "forgiveness"?

Cheers The Meggy

if you go on "hunters friend" website this has a review comparison chart of nearly all compounds available upto 2007, and has % ratings for everything including "forgiveness". it's not always related to the ATA or brace. i personally rate forgiveness as how twitchy bow is on release and how much it punishes a less than perfect shot. but this can be effected by other factors such as draw weight, arrow tuning etc.

[The Meggy]

Sorry guys, I started this thread and then ****ered off, very rude of me, but cheers for all the interesting responses, as usual AI does not fail to impress.

LMP I guess you're right to point out that one size does not fit all in archery, and also I would agree that we should not be afraid to go our own way in terms of bow setup if we find something that works for us. Nothing wrong with a bit of individuality I think.

As some of you have said, the term "forgiveness" in itself is perhaps a bit iffy, and I have never subscribed to the idea that a bow can somehow detect when you are pointing in the wrong direction and magically correct for that (though some adverts I've seen would seem to indicate otherwise). However, some setups may cause less variation to occur for more "subtle" form errors such as forward loosing, torquing the grip etc.

Geoff and Sambow, what you say certainly seems to show that one setup can definitely work better than another. Sambow, my bow has a high-ish brace height, and at 39" ATA also longer than some, so is of the "forgiving" type according to conventional thinking, but like you I seem to be doing better with this type of bow. Geoff you've put me off overdraws for sure, what you say makes perfect sense so the only reason to use one must be more arrow speed. For target shooting the speed vs. forgiveness trade off does not add up.

Phil and Jerry Tee, you both take an analytical, technical approach which I like a lot. Jerry, I have to agree that not enough research has been done on the vertical paradox with compounds, although James Park talks about it a bit in his book "Mastering The Compound Bow" - wonder if you've seen that? Phil, I guess from your answer you used to be involved in making bows, you certainly lost me a little bit but I think I get the jist anyway. Interesting what you say regarding high let-off cams, my bow has quite a high let-off as measured but doesn't seem too finicky to shoot. Maybe there is a balance to be drawn between ease of aim (low holding weight) and going too critical with the cam design.

Cheers for mentioning the Hunter's Friend website T101, will definitely have a look at that one as am curious to see how they manage to quantify forgiveness.

Finally, Moo-Mop cheers for pointing out that you need to be pretty good to see improvements in group size for different set-ups (albeit you were talking from a recurve perspective). I do think that we can easily get a bit too wrapped up in this sort of thing, and maybe we should just do our best and then get on with the shooting and pay more attention to improving our form. I've come across a number of obsessive "bow mechanics" in my time and they never seem to be doing very well...

Thanks again folks, The Meggy

[jmad]

There was quite a long discussion on this over on Archery Forum, when James Park looked at the benefits of one bow over another.

Torque resistance of bows - Archery Forum - Australia's archery related forum

I think the outcome was that blue was the best

[phil_r_58]

Hi meggy, yes, I began shooting just before compounds hit the UK. I was probably one of the first ten or so archers using them. The first would be Chris Jones, Then Mike Houghton, Eddie Parsons, Bob Jewel, Jon Allen, Eddie Calvert & me, all around 1974/5. Myself & Mike Houghton had no money to import bows from the states like Chris Jones, so we borrowed his bows, took measurements, drawings and photo's. Then designed and made our own. I'm a time served engineer, and biased towards the scientific, (A levels in chemistry, maths and physics circa 1976, when they were tougher to pass .)

We cast our own risers in ally, made our own limbs & wheels. Melted down motor bike pistons provided good alloy, a ships chandler provided nylon coated steel cables and turnbuckles to adjust cables. So I guess I do understand the principals intimately. We made an awful lot of mistakes on the way too. I'm passionate about shooting, but not about the kit. I see that as simply machinery to achieve my aims. And even a longbow is a machine.There has been no real research into the pure physics of archery since klopsteg & nagler, many years ago. There was a website by a guy called Joe Tarpley. Brilliant physics, tests and results, but no opinions expressed by the author. "I did this, and this is what happened, here is the data" For some reason, the website has been pulled.

I have seen some modern works, but often with a slant, "my way of shooting and tuning is the only way"

Originally Posted by The Meggy

Sorry guys, I started this thread and then ****ered off, very rude of me, but cheers for all the interesting responses, as usual AI does not fail to impress.

LMP I guess you're right to point out that one size does not fit all in archery, and also I would agree that we should not be afraid to go our own way in terms of bow setup if we find something that works for us. Nothing wrong with a bit of individuality I think.

As some of you have said, the term "forgiveness" in itself is perhaps a bit iffy, and I have never subscribed to the idea that a bow can somehow detect when you are pointing in the wrong direction and magically correct for that (though some adverts I've seen would seem to indicate otherwise). However, some setups may cause less variation to occur for more "subtle" form errors such as forward loosing, torquing the grip etc.

Geoff and Sambow, what you say certainly seems to show that one setup can definitely work better than another. Sambow, my bow has a high-ish brace height, and at 39" ATA also longer than some, so is of the "forgiving" type according to conventional thinking, but like you I seem to be doing better with this type of bow. Geoff you've put me off overdraws for sure, what you say makes perfect sense so the only reason to use one must be more arrow speed. For target shooting the speed vs. forgiveness trade off does not add up.

Phil and Jerry Tee, you both take an analytical, technical approach which I like a lot. Jerry, I have to agree that not enough research has been done on the vertical paradox with compounds, although James Park talks about it a bit in his book "Mastering The Compound Bow" - wonder if you've seen that? Phil, I guess from your answer you used to be involved in making bows, you certainly lost me a little bit but I think I get the jist anyway. Interesting what you say regarding high let-off cams, my bow has quite a high let-off as measured but doesn't seem too finicky to shoot. Maybe there is a balance to be drawn between ease of aim (low holding weight) and going too critical with the cam design.

Cheers for mentioning the Hunter's Friend website T101, will definitely have a look at that one as am curious to see how they manage to quantify forgiveness.

Finally, Moo-Mop cheers for pointing out that you need to be pretty good to see improvements in group size for different set-ups (albeit you were talking from a recurve perspective). I do think that we can easily get a bit too wrapped up in this sort of thing, and maybe we should just do our best and then get on with the shooting and pay more attention to improving our form. I've come across a number of obsessive "bow mechanics" in my time and they never seem to be doing very well...

Thanks again folks, The Meggy

[The Meggy]

Cheers jmad, have just had a quick look at that thread on Archery Forum. It's really good stuff, and I am a bit of a fan of James Park's anyway. Also I am delighted to discover that I bought the right bow last year (i.e. a blue one!).

Phil, am most impressed, can't imagine making my own compound with all the difficulties that involves, but I feel respect is due. Did you ever market your compound bows? A fascinating bit of compound archery history anyway. I'd also be interested to know your views on present compound design... Do you think the design is going to change much in the coming years, or have we arrived at something close to the ideal?

[Jerry Tee]

I have just remembered. We have been this way before, do a search on 'Thoughts on Stability"

[Marcus26]

I don't think 'forgiving' is a good term, I also do not believe it is related to group size.
If it did then you MUST assume this
More Forgiving = Better Grouping
If Brace Height is larger + Axle is longer + Holding weight is higher = More forgiving AND more forgiving = better grouping and less mistakes, then I will automatically score more with a Mathews Ovation than a Bowtech Allegiance.

In head to head extensive testing I proved this was not the case. I scored more with the Allegiance.

While I agree with what Jim Park's has said in his study, I think some important factors need to be kept in mind.

1) Execution. Most people execute poorly. This is the #1 factor to forgiveness. The better I execute, the more forgiving my bows are.

2) Steadiness. If you can't hold that 41" 65% letoff bow still then you simply won't score well. If you execute correctly the arrows will go where they are aimed. If you execute well but can not hold that bow in the gold you just won't score well enough.

3) Fix the problem at the source. Yes you can maximise your equipment to minimise torque and thus make it 'forgiving' to torque issues. Or you can simply spend some time learning not to torque and the problem will be reduced.
Torque is a sympton of poor technique. Mask poor technique all you like, but it will still rob you of points.

4) Specs don't shoot scores. On paper a Mathews Apex may appear to be better than a Switchback. But the paper isn't shooting. Many people buy bows for 2 reasons
a) Because some 'pro' told em that one is more forgiving
b) Because some 'pro' shot well with said bow

While there is merit to these, it's important to remember, you most likely are not a pro. Many of the top target bows are actually difficult to shoot for the average person. Many hunting bows are actually easier to shoot well with because that market doesn't practise. So while you may need a 65% letoff heavy massed bow if you want to get to 1400 from 1380, for the average person a lighter setup with a lower holding weight that they can learn to shoot well with is more beneficial. If you need to learn to hold still and execute well then do it on a bow that lets you do so without extra stress.

[Marcus26]

Here is another thing to remember.

In the early 90's the most common target bows around my way were
Hoyt ProMedallist: 48" Straight riser
Hoyt ProVantage: 48" Deflex riser
Hoyt Spectra 5000: 46" Deflex riser
PSE MagnaFlight: 48" Straight riser

All used round wheels.

Even as a 13/14 year old I used a Hoyt Spectra 5000. I was a 1340-1350 shooter (Intermediate round for U15's. 55m max)

One day I picked up a bow my dad had bought. He shot it a few times and didn't like it. It was a PSE Fire Flight Elite which Hoyt energy wheels.
This was a speed bow. It had a short riser, short recurved limbs and was simply too radical for target shooting.
This bow was 41" long. Brace height about 8.5" (instead of the more reasonable 10")
The results were incredible. 1400 off the bat (the day before I moved to Ladies FITAs ) and I never looked back. A few weeks later I beat the then world field silver medalist at a field shoot (I was 15).
By the thinking at the time this just should not have been. I should have been shooting worse with this unforgiving short bow.
Now days that same bow is considered a long and forgiving setup.
So how can we use these statistics for forgiveness when they don't actually show differences in reality and also seem to change from year to year?

[Rik]

Originally Posted by phil_r_58

There was a website by a guy called Joe Tarpley. Brilliant physics, tests and results, but no opinions expressed by the author. "I did this, and this is what happened, here is the data" For some reason, the website has been pulled.

Not pulled, just moved. I asked Joe about it and he says it's being hosted by his club now:
Topics on Archery Mechanics

[Erika]

I agree with Jim Park. Blue bows are definitely best... and since my black one shot a 1393 today, there had better be a 1400 in the other one