At what point does the amount of riser deflex contribute to perceptible forgiveness?
What would be the range of riser deflex which would produce the most perceptible forgiveness in conjunction with merely a nominal loss in performance?
Particular designs could likely establish themselves as a significant determinant.
Some peritinent feedback would be most welcome.
i would offer feedback if i had a clue what you are saying/asking.
i do have a reflex/deflex longbow, and it never asks me to say i'm sorry...
joe
I think it is when the dish in the grip is forward of the fade outs in the limbs for a reference. It also depends on limb angles and riser design. So it is difficult to make a general statement that covers all designs.
Please click on 'X' for clarification.
(http://images.imagelinky.com/1341965528.pptx) (http://images.imagelinky.com/1341965528.pptx)
I think when your deepest part of the grip a bit in front of the fade as mentioned. This removes most of the possibility of torqueing the bow.
Yup... once the deepest part of the grip is forward of the fades the bow is more forgiving in the torque department. But only if the crown of the shelf where your arrow rest is located is in the same spot....
There are a lot of deflex risers with the shelf coming clear back over your hand that acts like an over draw. these are not any more forgiving that a straight riser. actually they are worst.
This also brings up the subject of the difference between a "Defex riser" and a riser with a forward placed grip.... this has to do with the angle of the fades, not the fade tips.
a deflex riser is typically more forgiving, but it's a trade off on performance. A heavily deflexed bow typically runs a higher brace to maintain the proper preload. you are loosing stored energy and power stroke.
A forward placed riser with a reflex built into the fades is the ultimate in forgiveness and performance.
Here's a good example. look at the string angle
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u301/kirkll/Bow%20building/Paul%20s%20Sasquatch/PaulsBow007-15-1.jpg)
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u301/kirkll/Bow%20building/Paul%20s%20Sasquatch/PaulsBow002-14-1.jpg)
Kirk ....Much thanks for the detailed and clear explanation.
Much thanks to all who positively contributed.
Ahhhhh the unseen secrets of great bows. Who said this is not rocket science?? It certainly requires a bit more than slapping wood and glass and glue together to make a really good bow.
I especially found Kirks skill with the pen and his explanation very informative.
I believe that when you look at the limb design of his top mounted bows that you will see a lot of thought has been put into this very subject.
This is why you see so many curved wedges . You have to get that limb down low and then curve it back up fast in order to get good preload.
The Bigfoot limb does that most excellently.
In my bows I use the same limb for both top mount and belly mount. With the belly mount My straight wedge is still well below the bottom of the grip but is in line with it as per Kirks drawings.
On the top or back mount I have to increase the angle of the pad considerably in order to get the angle and I still must maintain proper brace tension. this takes a lot of adjustment in the r and d department to achieve that. Even then you lose a small bit of control compared to the belly mount limb. This is true even at the same string tenison and even when the brace is same. The belly mount is just a bit better shooter control wise using the same limbs. You really need that curved wedge and heavy limb pad angle to get to the same place with a top mount bow.Kirk has accomplished and so have a few other designs like the Wapiti to name one. I believe that Brandon Stashl has also done this if my memory serves me correctly.
God bless you all, Steve
God bless you all, Steve