Skinny Bowstring Experience

[Lee Robinson .]

Rob, now that post about pitch is something I agree with. Years ago I did a field called "Field Testers needed, that quiet spot." I gave directions according to a musician as to how to alter pitches in a bow's string. That musician actually PICKED UP A BOW and started PLAYING IT like a musical instrument...getting different notes from it. It was kind of neet. In further discussion, he told me where according to him to put siliencers to get the most benefit. He talked about siliencing the bowstring by actually taking measurements from where the string came OFF contact of the limbs and then placing siliecers either at 1/3rd distances for noisy bows or 1/4th distance for less noisy bows.

The field testers found "huge" results. The bows I personally shoot are so quiet that you could put siliencers nearly anywhere and the bow would be quiet...but it was interesting still.

[Rob DiStefano]

lee, a stickbow can be played like an african 'diddley bow' - a stick and string, braced like an archery bow, and by varying the string's tensile strength by pushing or pulling one end of the bow whilst the other end is on a hard surface, variations of the plucked string's pitch can be achieved.  one of the first instruments man created, and it was obviously an early cave dweller's hunting bow.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

when compared to higher count strand strings of the same fiber, lsc strings are gonna be lighter (faster?), quieter (higher pitch), and have a different "feel" upon release.

does lower string weight contribute to faster arrow speeds?  probably, but even if 5 or more fps were added (very very doubtful, perhaps more like 1 to 3 fps at the max for the average 45-60# stickbow) that's not gonna matter much at the distances most folks kill critters.  no, speed doesn't kill - well placed sharp broadheads do.

is a "quieter" bow string beneficial to hunting?  well sure, but what is "quiet"?  imo, skinny strings produce higher pitched tones at lower volumes than fatter strings, for the same given bow and brace height.  our human ears (and hands, bodies) perceive the louder low notes far better than the less volume high notes. so the skinny strings appear quieter.  what does that mean to the game we hunt?

what "different feel" on release?  i can only speak from my observations shooting and comparing a variety of same fiber lsc 8 strand strings to 14 strand strings - there's a better "stability" to the feel of the release with a smaller diameter bowstring.  from the time the string slips off the bowhand fingers to the arrow clearing the riser, the bow and overall shot "feels better".  dunno how to put it in any other words.

[LBR]

Rob, I for one appreciate the objectivity.  

Other than your comments, there seems to be a line in the sand, with one side relying on perception;  the other relying on controlled test results.  Pretty interesting to me.

A test can't tell you what you do or don't prefer, but it can sure eliminate a lot of smoke and mirrors.

On the noise, folks are going to believe their own ears--can't say that I wouldn't either, although a decimeter will prove you can't always believe what you hear.  I've about decided that bow noise doesn't make much difference, as long as it doesn't sound like a car door slamming--the deer around here will jump at the sound of a mouse fart.....but I still like a quiet bow.  I still get a kick out of shooting at tournaments and having people comment "man your bow is quiet!"  

It's amazing that today we need so many things to make our bows shoot, when the likes of Fred Bear, Ben Pearson, Bill Negley, etc. got by with ropes for strings, made from polyester or linen or whatever, with little to no silencers on them.  Guess nobody told them they'd never kill anything with those set-ups.    

[Lee Robinson .]

Ya Rob...I'm not much into music myself and am pretty ignorant on that subject, as I like the sound of silience...but I did find that musician's tallents interesting.

Life sciences, dogs, and archery...these are things I know rather well...but music...nope. Never studied such. Give me quiet. Its amazing I like kids and dogs, huh? LOL.

[Jeff Strubberg]

Originally posted by Rob DiStefano:
not that ANY of the following matters other than for curiosity's sake ...

a guitar that's concert tuned to A-440 pitch using .011 to .048 gauge strings will have the high .011 "E" string at about 19.6# tensile strength and the low .048 "E" string at about 21.3# tensile strength and 2 octaves lower in pitch.

if you increase the tension on the high "E" string 1.7#, to the same tensile strength as the low "E" string, the note produced by the smaller string is higher in pitch (the note goes from "E" to perhaps "F#" or "G").

i think that best simulates what happens with a "skinny" bowstring - the skinny string tension remains the same as with a "fat" string, assuming the limbs are the same and the same brace height is achieved, and that will create a higher note on that skinny string.  

so why does the skinny string sound quieter than the fatter string?  

my thinking is that the deeper resonant tone, with more pronounced volume, of the fat bowstring is, like with stringed instruments, is easier to perceive, easier for the human ear and body to pickup.    

the skinny string will have a higher pitch, but with lower volume and so harder to hear and/or perceive.  this is the exact same for stringed instruments.  ask me how i know this.        

Huh.

Rob is right, I am wrong.  Now I really have no idea why the skinnier string is quieter.  Maybe the higher pitch is more affected by the silencer materials we use?  I've never tested skinny vs. heavy without silencers.

[Rob DiStefano]

like i said - deeper, more resonant and louder tones are easier to hear and feel than higher, less resonant and quieter tones.  this is one reason why you hear that deep boom box kinda bass tone coming from that close windowed car loaded with kids driving by ya, and almost no treble tone.  

how all of this fits in with how critters react to a discharged stickbow is beyond me.  since no arrow is gonna pass by the speed of sound, deer will hear the bowstring vibrate (as amplified by the limbs and riser) and the arrow (feathers) whoosh.  does a louder and lower tone make them more wary than a softer and higher tone?

[R.V.T.B.]

Last winter when the weather was bad I spent the better part of two days playing with various strings and my chronograph in my basement. Originally, it was a no brainer.  The skinny string with less strands has to be faster then the fatter string. I used 6, 8 & 14 strand strings and played around with them off of four different bows, some with carbon limbs and some with glass/wood limbs. I was shooting 10 shot averages using a clicker for consistency. I was surprised to find that when using the same bow and same brace height, I was getting the same arrow speed from each of the strings. Usually not even a 1 F.P.S. difference. Shooting in my basement, bow noise was of course very obvious.  I didn't find that the skinny strings were any quieter, they just had a "different" sound to them. For me, it was an easy decision. The skinny strings gave me no noticeable improvement over my 14 strand strings. I shoot 3-D's at least twice a month throughout the summer, groundhog hunt and bowfish as well. I am fortunate enough to be able to bowhunt about three days a week from the first of October until the end of January and I always put on a fresh string at the beginning of bow season and always have a spare in my pack. I just like the little extra insurance those 6-8 strands offer me when dragging my bows through brush, briars and other obstacles. I wax my strings often but it is still pretty scary how sad they look sometimes after a night time trail and drag job on a deer.

[LBR]

Originally, it was a no brainer. The skinny string with less strands has to be faster then the fatter string.

That is the common mis-perception.  The problem is the other variables are ignored--folks get tunnel vision on nothing but the string, and have it set in their heads that skinny is faster, period.  It doesn't matter what the chronograph says.

What most folk miss here is the string weight is only a small part of the equation.  It's still pushing the same amount of resistance with the limbs and arrow.  Compared to those, a few grains of string weight is practically nothing.  Arrows are going to average between 400-600 grains, some much heavier.  Compare that to the 20 or so grains of string weight you saved, without even considering the resistance of the limbs, and it's easier to understand why you saw no difference in speed.  And that's only talking about two variables--there are more, but no sense in over-complicating it.
 

Like someone said, "an open mind is a wonderful thing".  Can't have an open mind when your mind is already made up before the first arrow leaves the string, or when you choose to ignore the facts of the matter in favor of perception.

Again though, if you like it, shoot it.  As gets noted from time to time, this is a very mental sport.  

I just like to keep the facts separated from perceptions and opinions, at least on topics where I know the difference.

[MAT]

Thanks Rob for the factual info, I knew someone had to have a music background around here. It's basic physics, and I assume that's why the higher pitch strings on a guitar are thinner.  

But, this is only string noise.  There maybe bow noise on top of this, and that maybe why some have different results.  The only other thing I can think of is stretch (actually elastic deformation) at the end of the shot.  Skinny strings will stretch more than thick, thus absorbing more of the energy once the bow returns to brace.  This energy is responsible for the sound.  It is a combination of string and bow vibration.

That's why I used 452x, it doesn't stretch so in theory it should perform better than D97, but maybe louder.  You can tell the string vibration differences by just plucking the string, and that's going to be the same for any string material of equal thickness.  No doubt the skinny string is going to have a higher pitch, but it maybe masked by bow noise.  Anyone have a sound meter?

[LBR]

I'd be curious to see the results of decimeter testing also.  I know my hearing isn't the greatest, and can't be trusted--I have high-frequency hearing loss.  I've seen some test results, but don't remember the specifics.  As best I recall though, they gave me no reason to change my string preferance.

On a side note, I just got off the phone with a customer in CO.  He was telling me how he'd broken two strings (not lsc strings either) just before his season started last year.  Just got a bit careless with a sharp broadhead.  Stuff happens.

[Rob DiStefano]

chad, consistent "perception" is very valid personal reality.  

the good luthiers rely far more on their eyes, hands and ears than a digital caliper and strobe tuner.  

i don't need a decibel meter to tell me if a sound is loud or soft, bass or treble.  even my old rock-concert-worn ears can detect those differences.  

again, i don't shoot skinny strings for speed, i just like the shot "feel".  i also like my perception of shot noise, or lack of such, with my longbows.  dunno or care if that affects game - i suspect that critters can hear all dropped strings before the arrow clears the riser.

also, NO question that longbow and recurve noise factors are different to some degree - it's all about what the string touches.

[Lee Robinson .]

LBR,

Matt Napper is the one that did the decibal tests and found little difference. It was about 10-11 years ago probably and you might be able to search for that post if you wanted to.

My deal is simpler. I just don't like noisy bows. I myself tested a Palmer recurve (that was noisy and didn't shoot too well for me) and a Habu recurve (that was kinda loud, but not too bad, but shot EXCELLENT)...and I never got either to be as quiet as I would have wanted. I tried 9 strands of 450+ and 450 premium, 12 strands of dyanflight, that "nitro excellerant" (junk), ff, and a few others...and felt the 450+ and D97 were the best...preferring the D97 the most as it was the strongest and fastest for a given overall diameter finished string.

[LBR]

Cool--although the results seem to have been the same, after some personal dealings with napper I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.  Whole different story there.

There was another sound test...maybe two, I was thinking of.  

No matter though.  People that want to know the facts will look for them, and people that don't will ignore them.

[MAT]

LBR -

That's a great quote for life in general!

[LBR]

Thanks....think I'll add it to my sig.

[jhg]

... I shot the 55# bow next.  Two improvements were immediately obvious.  First, it was a now as quiet as the 50# bow.  Second, it now was as well-mannered (pleasant in the bow hand) as the 50# bow...  

Question: I have a Damon Howatt Hunter and have two different strings for it. One string the bow is as described above. The other string the bow is not nearly as nice to shoot. Clearly one string is a better string for the bow than the other.

So is the improvement on your bow because  the string is a "skinny" type or could it be that the original string was simply not the right one for that bow anyway. In other words the improvement is because of characteristics rather than type. Another standard string could also give the same improvement.
I am not questioning the skinny strings record of performance. Just whether all improvements are because of its type or if there are other reasons for the changes.

The more I mess with bows the more I understand that there are often several ways/combinations for achieving the characteristics you want to experience.  
A bow is like a person almost. Some like beer and some prefer wine. Its finding which beer is their favorite though that really counts...

Joshua

[J-KID]

jhg,
I'm not real sure I understand the difference between "type" and "characteristics."  It would seem that skinny would be a characteristic.

Both bows are less than 5 months old and had the original Black Widow stings on them.  As for the louder 55# bow, I tried many combinations of brace height adjustment and silencers to reduce the noise level to where I got it.  When I got the 50# bow I realized it was much quieter once tuned as I had the 55# bow.  A simple replacement of strings to "skinny" with the same brace and silencers at the same location dramatically reduced the noise of both bows and they now appear about equal to my ears.  This is especially evident when I shoot next to my house where the sound bounces off the bricks and the overhang.

[J-KID]

Maybe what you are saying is that if I would have switched the original strings on the bows the 55# would have been quiet and the 50# would have been louder due to some characteristic of the strings that is not obvious.  It's a possibility.

[jhg]

Sorry about the ambiguity.

Of my two different strings (neither could I tell you about in regards to materials) the one was just better suited to the bow than the other regardless of how I would try to tune the bow & string together. They just would not work together. The other string would and with a lot less fuss.

I was just saying you might be able to duplicate the reduction in noise and hand shock using another standard string too, that is made with different materials etc

Thanks for the info BTW. I certainly am going to try them on my next bow.

Joshua

[LBR]

There's a lot of variables to consider.  Knowing the string material would help.  It's uncommon, but now and then you'll run across a bow that "likes" one material over another.  'Course string contruction makes a difference also--not just strand count, but how well it's made.

Like most everything else in this sport, consistency will help.  For instance, if your bow is "shocky" now and then, it's not the bow or the string--you aren't being consistent.  Changing something may make it feel better, but you aren't fixing the problem, but rather hiding it.