Byron Ferguson and brace height tuning

[slowbowjoe]

Interesting and entertaining thread, at once. many good theories and perspectives.
I used to go with Byron's idea; more recently my experience has been different. Not saying right or wrong here; but as is so often the case: whatever works for you and your set up.

[BWallace10327]

Byron's theory works on my PL, I am not surprised that I'm not more surprised.

[Tedd]

Ken Beck says in his tuning video that in his experience and against what logic says…increase the brace height for an arrow that is too stiff for a Widow. Decrease for a an arrow that is  too weak.
… unless I'm remembering that wrong. Anyone recall seeing that video?

[olddogrib]

One caveat, I don't recall whether the author was dealing with a recurve or a long bow.  As I think we can all agree that the former are generally cut past center and the latter cut shy of or to, it may at least partially explain why "our mileages vary".

Even with hill style bows, different things will get different things, depending on the bow.  John Schulz suggested a very low brace and only 1/16" above 90 degrees for the nocking point for his reflexes glass backed bows.  You may find that will not be right for a Hill Archery bow.  For a mild R/D bow like a Robertson, you may find something different as well. In another video about tuning, Byron suggests going with setting the brace towards the high end of the brace suggested tolerance for getting the most forgiveness in a hunting bow.   John Schulz also stated that running a higher brace height with his bow could sacrifice a fair amount of cast.  I find that with a bow that is more whip ended than average that I get a loss in cast.  With other bows, I cannot tell that it makes all that much difference from going from the middle of the span to the lower end.  As far as what spine arrows work out of a Hill style bow, I find that there is more of a difference when a bow is shot with dynamic form versus dead form as long as the brace heights and the nocking point positions are within suggested tolerances.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"dynamic form versus dead form"

Are you referring to using a solid anchor vs a floating anchor?  or snap shooting vs holding at anchor?   I'm just curious Paven... never heard that terminology before.

I have noticed some of the guys that I shoot with will plant their thumb knuckle behind their jaw bone and lock their bow shoulder against their head.  When they release their fingers come forward infant of their anchor, then after the arrow is long gone they have an artificial after the fact follow through.  That is dead form.  What I call dynamic is when the release at the very least, maintains the draw length, or even better springs back a bit, with the bow arm having a sprung resistance against the bow keeping the bow shoulder off the side of the head.  When I shoot a Hill style bow, the bow hand jumps a little bit forward and the release hand jumps a little bit back.  At least, that is what I try to do.

[BowDiddle]

I think it's a typo, because I know he knows better.

[McDave]

These are the differences between a dynamic release and a dead release:

A dynamic release is a "pull through" release, meaning that movement, however slight, never completely stops.  There is never an actual "hold" where the arrow stops moving during the draw.  As a result of this increasing tension during the draw, the drawing hand typically ends up behind the neck or on the shoulder after release.

A dead release is a release where the back muscles are locked off at full draw, similar to the way someone doing a pull-up may lock off at the top of the pull-up, before starting the next pull-up.  There is an actual hold in a dead release, where all movement stops, and aiming takes place.  There is no increase in tension through release; the arrow is simply let go.  Since there is a balanced pulling during the hold, where the force of the archer pulling back is equal to the force of the bow pulling forward, there should be some slight movement of the string hand back on release, although not as vigorous as in a dynamic release.

Alignment and posture in a dynamic release and a dead release should be exactly the same.

I have studied under Rod Jenkins, who teaches the dynamic release, and Rick Welch, who teaches the dead release.  My impression is that the dynamic release works best for most people.  Being contrary, the dead release works best for me.

You can have a dynamic release and still have a hold, one just has to resume pulling and expanding during the release.

[McDave]

I think one of the wonderful things about traditional archery is that, though you try to define things, no two people actually shoot the bow the same way.

One of the best longbow shots that I have ever seen on still targets, besides my son, would draw and slow to a near dead stop at anchor and then do a slow spread for about a second and a half.  My son picked up that, I would have needed my Hoyt target bow to beat either one of them.  I could out shoot either one on fast shots and moving targets, but that slow drag was impressive when they had an idea how far the shot was.  I have never seen two Hill shooters do things the exact same way, everyone has their own little quirks that make things work.

[Steelhead]

Both types of dynamic releases described by McDave and Paven would be considered dynamic.Its all about the string hand moving back naturally.Expand and pull through with the back muscles.

The other release can be called a dead release or static release.

You will see good shots with either style.Most Olympic shooters will have a dynamic release.

The bow seems to behave very well with a dynamic release and I think it may increase arrow speed a tad and it seems to promote a quieter shooting bow in my experience.

[Bowjunkie]

Sometimes I'm amazed that after all this time spent with these incredibly simple weapons we make and use every day, that we can't come to a proper comprehensive understanding on such things.

My experience is that lowering the brace height makes an arrow act stiffer. And I always thought those effects were due to the angle, AND that the lower brace height kept the arrow on the string longer, which meant the arrow's tail end wasn't released by the string until 'later' and allowed to begin trying to clear the bow until it was closer to the bow... so, with a lower brace, the arrow has to be weaker in order to clear the bow.

Conversely, if an arrow is acting too stiff and isn't flexing around the bow, rather is smacking it, kicking off of it, raising the brace height will give it more room and time to get around the bow... i.e. 'act weaker'.