WTT3 bow photos and FD curves (images on page 3)

[jwillis]

Jim, thanks so much for doing this ----almost like being there, but didn't get to eat none of the "Hickory smoked piss chicken"
BTW i knew this would happen----what you're calling the "zebra" bow of mine----is actually persimmon
sure looks like zebra, don't it

I had to call it something so I could recognize it in the photos...lol. While handling the photos and data sheets so much the past two weeks, I kinda made nicknames for all of the bows, like "buzbee_zebraglass" and "kenro_reaper_carbon" and "kirkll_sastd"... I used these nicknames for the filenames and named them starting with 1, 2, 3...etc, so all of the data sheets and photos would post in the correct order automatically out of photobucket. Jim

[Hornseeker]

Well...from looking at numbers and graphs and such... I think I've got a few things figured out (and from talkinga bit with Ken and Kirk on pm's...)...

Once again...bravo to everyone involved... this is reall y cool chit!!!

[tjdeerslayer37]

Why is the fd curve so different on the acs? Are the two spots where it "bounces" maybe where the cross section is flattening out? Maybe first in the tips then the second time by the riser?

[jwillis]

Why is the fd curve so different on the acs? Are the two spots where it "bounces" maybe where the cross section is flattening out? Maybe first in the tips then the second time by the riser?

I think those are errors in reading the bow weight from the scale. Jim

[jwillis]

Well...from looking at numbers and graphs and such... I think I've got a few things figured out (and from talkinga bit with Ken and Kirk on pm's...)...

Once again...bravo to everyone involved... this is reall y cool chit!!!

So, you gonna share your conclusions already...or just want us to know you figured it out? Cough it up, dude!

I'll start...did you notice that the "faster longbows" have about 3" net reflex, whereas the fastest longbow bow has about 2-1/2" net reflex but higher efficiency?

Jim

[BK in TEXAS]

Once again...bravo to everyone involved... this is reall y cool chit!!!

So, you gonna share your conclusions already...or just want us to know you figured it out? Cough it up, dude!

No chit...start sharing.

I'll start...did you notice that the "faster longbows" have about 3" net reflex, whereas the fastest longbow bow has about 2-1/2" net reflex but higher efficiency?
Jim

Are you talking about the normal hunting setup or the hot-rod setup.....maybe we can start specifically naming the bows when talking about them? It gets a wee bit confusing when there are so many that were so close in speed and 3 different set-ups (10gpp,9gpp,hotrod)

I'm having a hard time seeing any patterns in this stuff myself....

[wantoknow]

There appears to be something wrong with these numbers when only 2 of the bows that have numbers entered gain weight on the last inch. The rest loose weight and as much as going from 4.3 lbs to 1.9 lbs from 27" to 28". Unfortunately this is causing some significant error in the efficiency and stored energy areas. This also causes the total draw weight of each bow to be in question. Not sure what happened but I'm sure you're checking it out.

[marc]

The last measurement is not from 27 to 28 amo but rather 27 1/2 to 28 amo. All bows were braced at 6 3/4 inches and pulled and inch at a time. The last 2 measurements we at 25 3/4 and 26 1/4. I just wanted to clear up the minor weight gain at the end.

[BK in TEXAS]

The last measurement is not from 27 to 28 amo but rather 27 1/2 to 28 amo. All bows were braced at 6 3/4 inches and pulled and inch at a time. The last 2 measurements we at 25 3/4 and 26 1/4. I just wanted to clear up the minor weight gain at the end.

Ken might have to clear it up how the tree was marked, but I thought the last number was only 1/4" more. Either way, the peak draw weight is dead on because of the stop collar @ 28", but the FD curves and such will be off a tad. No big deal.

[wantoknow]

If it is a case of not being 1" for the last number it still will cause the graph and conclusions to be off. Hopefully this can be corrected. I hate to think that all of the work invested in these charts isn't of true value. BTW I hope everyone understands I'm not saying this in a hard a$$ way. I just work a lot with statistics in my job and I know how much a small error can ruin the results.