I'm gonna kick this off with this.

Punch list of things you need to know:

1 - Know that your bow is capable of handling Fast Flight material. If it is, the use of a skinny string, if properly constructed, will place no more stress on the bow than a fat string.

2 - You must have tuned, and shot your bow enough to know at what brace height it performs best.

3 - Must know the exact length the string will need to be to give you that brace height.

4 - Must keep the string at a maximum of 1/2 to 3/4 twists per inch after prestretch.

5 - Have a clear understanding of how and why the skinny string works and be able to keep up with the changing needs of the bow as far as spine and a safe arrow weight are concerned, and know how to calculate that change.

6 - Know your materials, or make sure your string builder knows them. Not all string materials are suitable for use to build skinny "HotRod" strings.

7 - Performance of a bow, even with a hotrod string, will still be dependent upon how well the shooter performs. Know, understand, and accept the fact, that nothing can replace poor shooter performance except the shooter himself.

Concerning "Center Serving"

I have been experimenting with a new "to me" method of padding, and sizing the center serving area for nock fit, symmetry, and durability, and I think I have stumbled onto a pretty good method.

What I am doing is wrapping the area to be served with masking tape. Yep, thats right, just plain old tan masking tape.

It takes a little practice to get the coordination to get it wrapped on, but if I can do it anyone can, and it must be wrapped on tightly, and smoothly to work.

In this picture you are looking at a center serve area that is 6.25" long.

There is a 6" long piece of masking tape under it, that has been wrapped roughly 2.5 times around the string. Again, it must be wrapped tightly, and smoothly (No wrinkles in the tape).

This particular serving has had two month of lots of shooting on it, and is showing absolutely no wear, and has not slipped at all.

I believe the tape has actually created a better bond than I have ever seen of serving to string (except for gluing, which I have done), and has bedded the serving to the string extremely well.

There are probably several other materials/tapes which could be used for this method, but masking tape is cheap (just like me). LOL

Weight comparison: It takes six 6" strand of Ultracam to pad my 9 strand sting center serving for nock fit. Those 6 strands weight 3.5gr

The amount of masking tape I used is roughly 2.5 wraps at 6" long, and weighs 3.5gr. I was surprised that it weighed the same as the string. (Your results may vary.)

[[[[[[[If you decide to try this method, please keep a close eye on it. Two months of testing isn't a long time, but I would venture to say I have shot at least 1000 shots on this serving.]]]]]]

P.S.

Sorry for the picture quality. My little camera don;t do close ups so well, but I think it shows it well enough for you to see, that this serving shows no wear at all, and is not slipping.

Ken, I can tell you that if they did not build the string to the proper specs, then they likely just built you a string that had a lot of extra, and wasted material in it, that did nothing but rob it of it's performance potential.

That said - Winners Choice builds some nice strings, but I would bet they still built the string for you, much longer than it needed to be, assuming it was flemish.

3 tree strings will be getting my review soon.... there certianly cheap enough... 12 dollars for a ts plus

Just remember this - if a flemish string has more than 3/4 twist per inch after prestretch, then you will not get the full benefit of performance from it.

If is is a continuous loops string, over serving the loop ends will rob it of potential performance also.

Black and I will be kicking around some ideas on the continuous loops strings to not only keep the serving weight down, but to give them the appearance of a flemish. Wish us luck.

Black = Blacky (sorry Blacky)

Masking tape! Good idea. Now I wonder if plumber's teflon tape would work? How about applying the tape just in the general area of where the nocking point would be? You'd only need 1 to 2 inches then.

The skinny strings alone are tough on fingers and tabs-you need to serve a minimum of 4 inches and a bit more is better. Strings get beat by armguards and sleeve material too. Keep them waxed.

Rick,

I also used masking tape to beef up the serving, but I only use it in the center of the serving.

I wish I had some time for testing my new string materials (DF10 and Astroflight) but my deadlines for the different magazines are killing me right now.

Blacky

Blacky - Sleep less - work more - 8^)

Just funnin ya Bro.

I can't wait to see the results on those two. Brownells swears the astrofight is even better than ultracam.

Ken,

I have been shooting skinny strings for many many years. I have never had one of them blow, and I shot 6 strand on 96#. I have never had a bow blow because of one of them.

I also have shot lots of competition with that same 96# bow. I put a lot of arrows into targets, and animals, and can tell you they were just as stable, as any other string when properly constructed.

Yes, I will agree that if they aren't properly built, they could cause a problem, but then again, the same thing goes for the bow, or the arrow.

I'll stick to my belief that - "if a shooter is having accuracy problems with a properly constructed skinny string, he/she needs to look to other reasons for their inaccuracy, because it isn't the string. More likely an inability to accurately handle the added performance, and no idea how to compensate for it."

An increase in speed will only mean an increase of accuracy due to a lessened drop of the arrow at longer distances, and/or the ability to shoot a heavier arrow at the same speed you are used to, and that is only assuming that the increase in speed is not enhancing flaws in the shooters form, which it absolutely will do, but it has nothing to do with an instability of the string, and has everything to do with the shooter.

As far as I am concerned (and I know this is going to create some rift) the only reasons that anyone would argue that the skinny strings are unstable are:

1 - they never shot a properly built skinny string, and therefore have no clue of it's benefit.

2 - they were unable to handle the increase of performance due to a flaw in their form, or they did not take the steps to properly tune for that performance, and just used the instability theory as an excuse.

I've heard that same old instability theory spouted for 25+ years, and as of yet no one has come forward with any real evidence to support it other than "my shooting suffered".

My shooting suffered at first as well, but it didn't take me long to figure out, and admit to myself, that it wasn't the string, it was me, and after that my experience was quite the opposite, and my accuracy increased dramatically, especially at the longer distances.

All that said - lets not turn this into a debate. If you have personal experience to offer, then lay it on us, and leave the hear say out of this discussion.

This thread is for those who are interested in skinny strings, and for those who have "experienced input" both good and bad to throw it in here to help forward the progress, and development.

While I am convinced of the benefit of skinny strings by years of experimenting, and experience, I know there are those who are not, and will never be, and that is their choice.

I also submit, that even though I have seen benefit to target archery via these strings, my aim for these strings is more at the hunter, especially the hunter who is shooting lower draw weight, and wants to try to get every ounce of performance out of his bow that he can.

I can't imagine any hunter out there shooting a 40# bow, that would not be ecstatic if he could safely make that 40# bow perform like a 50#, or more. Can you?

Skinny strings may not be legal for Olympic competition. I wouldn't find it surprising if there was a rule stipulating the number of strands in an Olympic archer's bowstring. While I don't know what the specific regulations are for competing in Olympic archery events, I am certain, as with all Olympic sports, that there are very specific rules concerning the specifications of equipment, maybe even including bowstrings.

Good point Marc. I have no clue, but would be very interested to know.

Hey Rick, I just twisted another one yesterday. My formula before was to make a 57" three bundle twelve strand, cutting two from each bundle after burnishing and serving, then throw it on a 62" bow. I was getting almost forty grains of thread out after trimming. I was still ending up with about one twist per inch, maybe a little more.

So, I did the same thing, but twisted a 56" string, and bingo. I only got 30 grains of thread out of that one and have right around 2/3 twist per inch. I also shortend the amount of material I used to twist the top and bottom loops by a half an inch each. I think its about as light as I can make it. Oh yeah, served with 3.75" of Halo. Its knocking the hell out of my CX 250s, need to add nock end weight or go up to 350s. One other thing, its fast too. Sorry Onesharp, it hasn't helped accuracy yet, my group hasn't shrunk, I just miss faster.

Olympic archery and bowhunting share the common denominator of the stick bow, but they are very different sports and require specialized equipment. No doubt bowhunters have assimilated elements from Olympic archery. The ILF system is one, but you aren't going to see bowhunters stalking through the brush with an Olympic style bow sprouting meter long stabilizers. And your not going to see Olympic archers stepping to the line wearing a Ghille suit, a bow quiver, and beaver fur silencers. Not once in this thread, or any other related to this topic has Rick or anyone else suggested that Olympic shooters should use thin strings. The fact that they don't use them means nothing as equipment needs are different. Rick and others have pioneered making and using thin strings made of new materials as they have become available on the market. I and many others have learned much from the information given freely on this topic. I think it is safe to say that this thread is not looking for a debate. It is about soliciting experience, sharing experience, and providing that experience to answer questions about building and using these strings.

Skinny strings have more creep, more elasticity as well, by definition. I don't have any stats for what Olympic archer's prefer, but if "stability" relates to this issue then the relevance of that stability becomes the question. Most archer can't shoot the difference, probably not even olympic archers, but that's no reason why they would not trade some arrow mass for string mass. Arrow mass is not nearly as relevant for olympics archers, at least no on the scale we're talking here (10 to 50 grains of arrow).

It's been said repeatedly, folks like skinny strings for the benefits of lower hand shock, quietness and speed. If appeal to authority appeals to you, I'll cite Ron LaClair. The son of a gun is notorious for his prowess with a bow, and might near single handedly started the skinny string phenomenon over a decade ago. I'd imagine the archers who aspire to Ron's use of the bow outnumber those who follow the olympic model by a fair measure.

It's appropriate to brain storm and evaluate each aspect of any question, but at the same time weight effectively each one's relative importance.

I wonder what olympic archer do choose, and why. Seems like one posts here from time to time. Wouldn't take much to research his posts. I don't recall having seen him comment on this question. Although IBO champs might be a better model, given our proclivities as mentioned above. I'd imagine we're lousy with them, so to speak, relative to the number of olympic archers.

I pretty much concur with everything Rick has posted concerning low strand count strings, their construction and benefits. We are in regular contact about it and have had identical results. Key to realization of performance increases is building the string to the exact length necessary while maintaining no more than 1/2 " twist per inch in order to keep the amount of material low and thus weight. Increased energy made available to the arrow can be used in two ways, shoot the same weight arrow at a higher speed and flatter trajectory while accepting that your effective grains per pound has dropped, or increase the arrow weight and shoot it at the same speed with more momentum and stability. I prefer the latter but either is aceptable as long as arrow weights are kept in a range so as not to unduly stress the bow. Any energy that is not absorbed by the arrow will be transmitted back into the limbs of the bow as shock and vibration so know how to calculate the changes is key. This used with care and an examining approach gives the hunting archer some additional tools that may benefit him. Does it increase accuracy? I think the accuracy is determined by what's behind the eyeball of the archer. Is it or would it be beneficial to "OLYMPIC ARCHERS"? I don't know and frankly I could care less. Rick is doing a great job of putting forth good and reliable information for those who think that they may reap some benefit from it. Some other distractions just need to be taken with a grain of salt

I really do not give a rats A%$* if Olympic archers use them or not. The point as i see it is that Rick along with others have spent time and money to give us another option to explore.AND I THANK THEM .Like any thing else the skinney strings will work and be liked by some and not others.

Eack person who decides to try these type strings (me included)will make a decision if they work for them.

Olympic archers will not make that decision.

Nuff said axle

To get the most out of a low strand count string you need to make it yourself. Reason being is that there is an exact brace height at which it will give what you want and you are working with a string that has very little adjustment to it so you may make two or three or moe before you find that sweet spot. String makers compensate for this by making a longer string so you can twist it up. This is defeating the whole purpose of a low count string. You have to really know your bow and you have to know what you are looking for. The chances of ordering a low count string made by somebody else for a bow they have not seen or shot and having it work properly are about the same as dialing up a stranger in another state and saying " hey go buy me a pair of shoes and send them to me" and having them fit. There is no loss in stability as a result of a preoperly made and used low strand count string. More than a few bowyers supply a low strand string for use on their bows. Not knowing what you are doing and shooting too light an arrow will likely lead to damage. Thisis not for everybody, and it's not meant to be. If you don't believe in it or understand how to properly use it then leave it alone that's all.

I guess I'll stop hunting with broadheads too, last time I checked, Olympic archers didn't use them either.

Rick,

Who sells a properly made skinny string?

Rick

Rick,

this is who I am recommending - http://www.dougmccoy.us/. Doug builds a fine string.

Whoever you have build them, just make sure, and specify the exact length the string needs to be, and specify you want it to have no more than 1/2 to 3/4 twist per inch.

This might turn into one of those get the popcorn threads. Seems like a lot of speculation here. Sounds like someone needs to talk to an Olympic archer. I don't know anything about string dynamics and came to learn. I'm hoping this stays civil.

Actually, many Olympic archers hunt with a bow, so let's get off the Olympic Archery B.S. and get back to what Rick is talking about. We can live cooperatively with other species. 8^).

I'm using a skinny, 450+ string on an old Shakespeare Necedah. It's a 1967 model, and I worked the string notches to make sure there wouldn't be any edges or bad angles. Then I had it made with 12 strands in the loops....6 strands in the body. I've been using this on said Shakespeare now for over 2000 shots...and growing.

I have found that the bow is much quieter on release; not just quieter noise, but more dead in the hand, with literally no jumping or vibration that is noticeable. To me, the lack of vibrations speaks of a string that should in the long run be easier on my bow, not harder on it. Only time will tell on that aspect....and more shooting of course.

Not everyone jumps to skinny strings for speed. What I have found is it makes the bow just more pleasant to shoot over all. I suppose the lighter mass weight of the string itself has something to do with that. I can also shoot a wider spine range of arrows with this string.

I can't tell you how fast the bow is, versus what it was with dacron, but it takes one spine stiffer arrow. It shoots flat, and it shoots quietly...perfect for a hunting bow. The bow has only tip overlays of wenge and maple, but so far there is no indication of issues. We hear people hollering all the time that the newer strings will break the old bows. I'm one of the few who is really seeing if that's the case. Time will tell, but I'm betting it's more hot air than anything else.

I've said my piece on it stating the facts and I'm out, the ranting will be done by somebody more suited for it.

Okay, I've been following the saga of skinny strings long enough to know that I want to try them and have bought a spool of 8125. A few questions, if you don't mind...

How much overlap should I be using at the loops of my flemish twist strings to ensure there is no slippage (yes, the loops will be padded with extra dacron)? Why is there talk of building up the serving area for a length of 6.5" when the arrow nock is only occupying a 20th of that and the fingers just a bit more? Sure, serve 6.5" to increase the durability of the string but why build up for the entire length?

Ron....it's that old "line of diminishing returns thingy" and it is real, of course. That said, there are some avenues we haven't traveled yet, some side roads that are being ignored, and not just for the speed thing.

I am adventurous enough that my mind tells me I may be missing some other things....not just more speed....I can get that with my 243. I am finding that maybe...just maybe, there are things that we can look at that are not detrimental to the bows we are shooting, and not necessarily bound to be the curse of the devil. Sometimes it's fun to experiment. I've got an old bow that seems to be tickled to death that I care enough to shoot it about every day, and I'm learning more about this archery thing to boot.

Everyone who tinkers, isn't a fool....some do it to actually see if there is a benefit, or even a negative effect, to things that are out there. In my case, I had a closed mind about anything except B-50 on old bows. The only way I can fully understand how this interaction will work out is to do it....thus the 450+ on an old 67 recurve. It's nobody's loss but my own if the bow succumbs to the rigors of a new material, and I will give it an honorable burial should that occur. However, so far I have found that old bow is working great and shooting as well as any I could buy for ten or more times what I paid for it.

Magic Bullet? That's a stretch in comparing what some of us are doing....a magic bullet would come with guarantees. And it's a silly metaphor anyway. I have a bow that likes nothing but B-50 and that's what I use. I have two others the seem to have a varied appetite and can use more than the same old thing everyday.

And I will say that there are plenty of things that are free; particularly our ability to use our imaginations and enjoy what we do. If you are not looking for something "free" or a "magic bullet", then you won't be disappointed with any outcome.

James (Kanuck),

[[["How much overlap should I be using at the loops of my flemish twist strings to ensure there is no slippage (yes, the loops will be padded with extra dacron)?"]]]

For recurves, I begin my loop twist at 9" for the top loop, and twist it 11 twists before folding for final twist in. - I begin my loop twist at 8" for the bottom loop, and twist it 8 twists before folding for final twist in.

For longbows, I begin my loop twist at 9" for the top loop, and twist it 8 twists before folding for final twist in. - I begin my loop twist at 8" for the bottom loop, and twist it 6 twists before folding for final twist in.

Those however are just my preference, and make for pretty tight loops. You can do it however you want to get a good loop fit to the limb tips.

I prefer to pad the loops with the same material the string is being constructed from. B50 works, but when placed in with the hard FF materials it has a tendency to get squished away.

````````````````````````````````````````

[[["Why is there talk of building up the serving area for a length of 6.5" when the arrow nock is only occupying a 20th of that and the fingers just a bit more? Sure, serve 6.5" to increase the durability of the string but why build up for the entire length?"]]]

6.5" isn't necessary, it's just how I did it. Only enough serving area to allow for proper nock point adjustment, and finger placement are necessary, unless you are prone to hitting your arm with the string, and then it is wise to serve far enough down so the serving protects the strands from wear on contact.

The whole purpose of skinny is to reduce the weight of the string, so yes - reducing the amount of the center served area to the minimal amount needed will also reduce weight, and increase string performance.

Where was the data that showed what the losses associated with skinny strings were? I seem to have missed it. I don't remember, was it written in a chart, a table, perhaps inside a porta-john?

No Ken,

that was not what was implied at all. Not even close

What was implied was - anyone who is spouting the skinny strings are unstable because they messed up my shooting, but fail to show any real evidence of the strings instability, is more than likely just using that instability theory as an excuse for poor form, and shooting.

Don't put words in my mouth. 8^)

```````````````````````

Do you have any experience with a skinny string, that you can give us the exact specs on, so we may try to break down why it worked, or didn't work for you?

If so we're all ears.

```````````````````````

Do you have any questions on how to properly construct one of these strings for yourself, or have someone else properly construct one for you?

If so, again we are all ears, and will our best to help.

``````````````````````

Do you have any experience in building strings, that you might pass along some of that experience, and tips to help things work better for others?

If so we would love to hear them.

``````````````````````

You mentioned in an earlier post, that you had tried a skinny ultracam string, but you were not impressed with it.

Would you mind sharing that strings specs with us?

Specifically:

Type of sting - flemish, or continuous loop?

If continuous loop, what was the material used for loop serving, what are the loop serving area lengths, and what are the loops bonding serving area lengths?

How many strands actual string?

How many strands in loops?

What method was used to size the center serving area for fit?

How many actual twists per inch were in the string when you adjusted it to your brace height?

All of these things are extremely important to know, before any help can come from us.

Gotcha Ron, guess I wasn't paying attention to some of those posts.

OL, where are ya when I need ya?

Come on Pokey - stick yer head in here. LOL

I want to offer an example of what the skinny string does for me.

Of course this is all subjective, because it is assuming you believe that I know how to properly tune a bow, and you trust Stu Miller's calculator to at least some degree of satisfaction.

I do, and I do.

```````````````````````

I did this bare shaft tuning "BEFORE" I punched the numbers into the calculator.

This picture shows the results of tedious tuning, to nail down the arrow to the bow for perfect arrow flight.

The first is the result with a 14 strand DF97 string.

The second is the result with a 9 strand Ultracam string.

If you trust my ability to tune, and have at least some faith in the calculator, then you can easily see the pronounced performance gain from the fat string to the skinny.

That is 9.9# increase in required dynamic spine from the fat string to the skinny. Pretty significant if you ask me.

I know Ken, and I apologize. I was not speaking of you with that statement at all. It was more of an accumulation of opinions, and frustrations from dealing with this, and dealing with blanket statements about it for many years.

Not once has anyone offered any physical documented evidence that a skinny string is inherently unstable, except "it made me shoot bad".

Heck, I have even had folks refuse to shoot with me, or shoot anywhere near me at 3D shoots because of my skinny string fetish. LOL

I am sure Glen builds good strings, but maybe it was not built to the specs we have discussed here.

Tuning is almost always different when jumping from a fat string to a skinny. I have often witnessed an amplification of noise at first, but always before the arrows were brought up to the requirement the skinny string placed on them, and then that noise went away. You just can't throw one of these strings on, and expect to be able to shoot the same arrow configuration.

I can understand the nervous factor, trust me. You should have seen my butt puckering when I first started doing this stuff. You couldn't a drove a 16 penny nail in there with a jack hammer.

To be honest - I doubt the Olympic Shooters, and coaches have done much testing in this area at all. They have no need to. What they currently do works, and works well, and they are not concerned with delivered energy, only accuracy. That of course is only opinion, and I would love to have someone from their camp chime in here with tangible evidence, and first hand experience and not just I think this, or I think that.

What I have been offering is from real life (maybe not so scientific) but still real life visible evidence of what the skinny strings do for me.

I don't believe the difference in stability would be so slight as to not be noticeable by the average shooter, because I have seen, and shot with to many WAY ABOVE average shooters who used skinny strings at one point or another, and their shooting did not suffer for it. Of course there again, I don't believe there is any instability if the string is properly constructed, so I guess it's a mute point until someone proves to me there is.

If/when you decide to try that string again, do it starting from scratch. I mean start completely over from square one with it by finding the sweet spot brace height, and getting the arrow set up right for it.

If you need any help at all, don;t hesitate to contact me, and I'll do my best to help.

Rick

Actually, I have read a quite a few posts on hands on experience with the use of skinny strings on Olympic style equipment and long distance shooting over on Archery Talk.

They use only endless strings, built properly as to not have too many twists in them, as many (not all) flemish strings do.

They re-tune their rigs/arrows for the new skinny string.

Their results at 70 meters? Their groups opened up substantially. After giving it a fair shake, they put the thicker string back on, retuned their rigs/arrows and the groups tightened right back up.

To be able to hit something consistantly at 70 and 90 meters using a bow shot with fingers, your form and tuning have to be better than pretty darn good.

Bruce,

you are dead on, but that is comparing a flemish string to an endless loop string, and I absolutely believe an endless loop string is more stable than a flemish due to the lack of twist.

I also believe an endless loop string with just some slight twist (just enough to hold the strands together well) is more stable than one with no twist at all.

Good points, and glad you brought them forward.

Hey Bruce - something else I found interesting in your post was this - "They use only endless strings, built properly as to not have too many twists in them, as many (not all) flemish strings do."

One of the things we have been trying to adamantly address about the flemish strings (especially the skinny ones) is how they have been extremely over built for years, and how the "one size fits all" mentality about them has been robbing them of both stability, and performance for years.

Man, I am really happy you brought that up.

It helps to strengthen my belief, that it isn't the number of stands that create instability, but the number of twist is instead the culprit.

For every coil there is a recoil.

We don't want our strings behaving like a spring, now do we. 8^)

I went to fast flight 10 and 12 strand strings in the early 90’s when everyone said they made more noise and were hard on the bows. Many of the guys when using FF made 20 strand strings. I found that on my selfbows and longbows the fast flight string reduced hand shock and bow vibration. My FF string was as quiet without silencers as my B50 with them. I gained arrow speed and accuracy with my hunting rigs. I was told time and again I was wrong in my assessment by people who hadn’t tried it, but I knew from doing it that it worked better.

If you have ever beefed up a loop to get more surface to limb nock contact you would know that this is simple and does the trick. There is less chance of failure not more.

I feel that for me to get the most out of my bows I need to I make my own arrows and strings. I recently built some 6 strand D97 strings that are about the same diameter as my old 12 strand fast flight. I find the D97 stretches too much. I will give some of these newer materials a try. If there is a better material I am willing to give it a try. I don’t need someone else to make my strings.

I don"t really see any confusion on this topic! Many would consider 10 or 12 strands that I use "skinny". I would say "Do what works for you" and take the credible advice of those who study the topic from extended testing. I would just do what works best for your set-up, and not worry about establishing "The skinny vs. thicker" strings as a Landmark case which must receive Judicial notice for credibility. The Manu's test their materials, and have data posted. Is there any data that concludes this one way or another, by the Manu's? If not, credit must go to those who have already tested it as far as they can. I commend those who have, and thank them for their remarks in Posted form!

Hey Rick,

Even though I'm not a skinny string guy, I want to say that I'm of the opinion you guys are doing an outstanding job with all this stuff! My hat is off to you as I feel this work is very helpful to a whole bunch of people. I greatly respect your dedication and I appreciate your efforts:)

Best

One thing to consider when comparing Olympic archery equipment to bowhunter's equipment is the difference in arrow weight....some of the lightweight carbon/carbon-alloy arrows weigh far less than what we shoot as bowhunters...shooting the lightweight arrows of FITA style is almost like dry-firing the bow as it is...compound that with a skinny string and you multiply tremendously the negative effects on the limbs and risers of FITA bows...

Another thing to consider is the confidence level of knowing that the string you have chosen wll handle all stresses that will be applied to it in a tournament without having to go through the replacement of strings during competition...a very unnerving situation when the utmnost donfidence in your equipment is demanded..

If you prefer a skinny string, shoot it.......if you prefer a thicker string, shoot it.......just shoot the ones that performs at the comfort level that you are confident in.....

By the way, I will stay with my 12 strand string...they do well for me.......but my hat is off to those that care to experiment...that's how new equipment/techniques get intoduced into our wonderful passion of life..............

The string that came with my ILF bow is AMO 60", 16 strands, D97. Including 2 Super Leech silencers it weighs 154 grn.

My latest skinny string is 55 3/4", 6 strands, 1 twist per inch, UltraCam. Including 2 Super Leech silences it weighs 116 grn. (sorry rick, that 1/2 to 3/4 is hard to hit)

There is a difference of 38 grn between the two strings. 38 fewer grains that the limbs have to move.

That's a reduction of almost 25%. The limbs are transforming more of their energy to the arrow with less remaining in the string at the end of the shot resulting in a quieter shot and a faster arrow.

Yep - the skinny string thing isn't ever going to be for everyone. It is just an option of the string testing that I wanted to include for those who would like to try it.

My main goal is to make folks aware of the wide variety of materials there are out there, and try my best to relay to you some of the characteristics of those materials in order to better utilize them.

````````````````````````

For me personally, I have 4 goals:

1 - to find a material that gives me the least amount of creep, cutting down on having to twist it up so much. This one is my #1 pet peeve.

2 - to find a material that gives me the least amount of stretch at the apex of the shot, and instead transfers that energy to the arrow.

3 - to find a material that gives me the quietest shot possible, without having to over do it with silencers.

4 - and of course to find a material that is suitable for doing the low strand count, which will give me all of the above, and remain safe while doing so.

For the moment, the Ultracam has been the best all around fit for what I am looking for.

I am really looking forward to trying some Astroflight, and looking forward to Blacky's feed back on it. Should be real interesting.

`````````````````````````````

While it is on my mind, I am going to have to eat some crow. LOL

I'm sure many of you remember some of the comments I have made about Dyneema materials, and how I didn't like them due to the creep.

Ultracam was always stated as being HMPE (High Modulus Polyethylene), and there was never any mention of Dyneema.

Well in my conversations with Brownell, and with Rod Jenkins I received some education.

Prior to 2004 HMPE was Vectran/Spectra, but there was some problems with it, and from 2004 on HMPE has been Vectran/Dyneema.

Ahhhhhhhh Sooooooooooo - Ultracam is Dyneema based, and thus my crow pie. LOL

My understanding is the present day HMPE is a "Suped up Dyneema", and by the way, so is Astroflight, neither of which should be confused with or compared to the other Dyneema based materials, because even Brownell states - "There is no comparison."

How do you guys prestretch a string? Is the material, or the constructed bowstring preshrunk?

What if a guy wanted to experiment and didn't have the cash to buy a bunch of strings and took a broke-in FF flemish 16 strand sting and cut 8 strands at the loops and serving?

Good stuff Rick! Thanks

Has anyone tried the Astro yet? I just ordered a couple of spools. After speaking with brownell and mentioning skinny strings, they suggested astro. Said it would be less likely to fail than the ultra cam and creep less than the ultra cam.

Now I don't have a clue about the new stuff. This is just what they told me when I called. They also said 125# tensile strength if I remember correctly. If this is accurate, how many strands would be necesary for a 90 lb. bow? and a 30 lb bow?

All my personal bows are between 86 and 90lbs and my wife's bow is 30lbs. I like using the skinny strings on the really light bows to get the most for the ladies and also youth. thought I would try a skinny string on my bows for the heck of it. I broke a 10 strand ts plus after about 150 shots.

Is there a good rule of thumb for determining strand count?

thanks,bigjim

Rick, I really like the way masking tape works as an under layer for the serving. It makes for a nice, even serving. Better than the floss layer I was using before. I'd like to know how masking tape will hold up in a drenching rain. Any experience there?

Yesterday, I had my skinny string blow up on me while shooting. The bow wasn't damaged but my confidence in the skinny string was. I had a spare dacron string with so I eventually continued shooting.

I've been making my own strings for about twenty years using dacron and fast flight. I never have had a string break before but I did lose a Wing Thunderbird to a fast flight string. Back then, I did not know fast flight could ruin a bow.

I was shooting my Blacktail takedown which is 62" and is 45#@28". I draw just over 28". My arrow is 406 grains so I was about 9 grains/#.

The flemish string was made with six strands of fast flight(three white and three black). The loops were padded with ten strands of dacron (five white and five black). I made these strings last August but did not hunt with them becuase my existing hunting arrows were two weak for the new strings.

I started shooting the skinny strings following the hunting season with other arrows.

The string broke immediately after the arrow left the bow. The three white strands in the upper loop all broke, the three black strands did not but entire string then stretched until the bow reached its unstrung position.

Maybe the dacron/ff mix is the problem.

I sure like the performance but I'm about to take a scissors out.

Glad your bow is OK. I had the same happen to me a couple years ago when I was shooting 3D with my Quinn. I had a 14 strand TS1 that broke in the upper loop. Just one color like yours. I figured I must have nicked it on something. Maybe from hanging it on something with a sharp edge. UltraCam is significantly stronger than some of the other fast flight materials. The biggest problem with some of the other materials like TS1 is that it continues to creep. I think this eventually weakens the string. I've always padded my loops with the same material as used in the string.

Big Jim, I believe the rule of thumb is 100# test per 10# of draw. UltraCam/Astro has a test of 125# so 8 strands would have a total of 1000#. If I was shooting a 90# bow, or should I say could shoot a 90# bow, I'd go with 10 strands. I'd go with 6 strands on the 30# bow just because it will be easier to get the correct diameter of the serving.

5:1 ratio string to bow is the old standard for string stength, and way more than sufficient.

Jim when you try out that Astroflight, please keep us updated on it.

This stuff is all very interesting material, and one of the main reasons I like this site.

I'm just getting into making my own flemish style strings, and I want to be able to get them set up with a minimum of twisting. To wind up with a 63" actual-length finished string, how long should it be made to start out, measured loop-to-loop? How much decrease in length can be expected for x-number of twists, and how will stretch factor into that? I'm going to be using Brownell Xcel to start with, on a 66"AMO ACS CX, pulled to 60lbs at 31". Any thoughts?

I've done some of my own research into skinny strings. Shooting the skinny strings leads me to believe that I know why Olympians don't use them. They use sights so the idea of gaining a couple fps for that magical "flatter trajectory" is pointless. Also the so called "stability" of the string has nothing to do with it either. The fat strings they use roll out of the tab better for a cleaner release. What is going to come out of your fingers easier? A big fat hemp rope or a strand of piano wire? At their level of shooting its not the mass, the speed, or the stability of the string that is giving them an edge on accuracy. Their bows probably all perform comparably. It is the physical dimension of the string that matters. It all comes back to the shooter. Being able to get off a clean crisp release is paramount to those guys. So skinny strings are definitely shootable. I do keep messing with them because I shoot without sights. And I do have decent form. (Current Longbow champ in CA, for whatever that's worth) But I do find them harder to release well. There always seems to be a super brief feeling that the string is trying to hang, even with a brand new tab.

Bruce (mczilla),

On most of the normal strand count strings, I usually get roughly 1/16 inch of length reduction per twist.

On the skinny strings, I get roughly 1/32 inch length reduction per twist.

Now, you have to remember - the more you have it twisted, the more the additional twist will consume in length, but you usually won't notice the difference until you get your twist count above 3 or so twists per inch of string length.

Rick, are you saying 5 pounds strength for every 1 pound of draw weight? meaning that I could use a 4 strand if the strenght was 125 test?

thanks, bigjim

Jim,

Yes - 5# of "actual breaking strength" for every 1# of draw weight,

"BUT" I would go at least six if I were you, unless you're feeling real froggy LOL.

My rule of thumb is - no less than 6 strands "EVER".

I usually go 6 strand on bows with draw weights up to 50# to 55#, and then go 8-9 strands on bows above 55#.

Of course that all depends as much on how much creep factor the material has as on breaking strength.

On your 100# bow, I think you would be much happier with 9 strand, but you'll just have to test it out to see.

Another thing to remember is - the skinnier you make it, the harder it is going to be to pad back for loop, and nock size.

Rick

When I said this -

""BUT" I would go at least six if I were you, unless you're feeling real froggy LOL." -

I meant go at least 6 strands, not 6lbs.

Bart, I have only hunted twice in the rain since using the masking tape for my serving padding. It got pretty wet, but not drenched.

Had no affect on it, and I don;t think it would even if soaked.

Built me a spare string this afternoon, and did the masking tape padding, but I did it a little different.

I put a very thin coat of fletch glue on the string area where I was about to wrap the tape. Made the job much easier.

Gonna try again:

"How do you guys prestretch a string? Is the material, or the constructed bowstring preshrunk? What if a guy wanted to experiment and didn't have the cash to buy a bunch of strings and took a broke-in FF flemish 16 strand sting and cut 8 strands at the loops and serving?"

Gary (Zbone)

[[[["How do you guys prestretch a string?]]]]

Before doing the center serving, I place the string on a heavy draw weight bow, and then briskly rub a piece of soft leather from one end to the other until I have the string heated up pretty hot. This stretches, the string, and at the same time seats the wax, and rids the string of excess wax.

Lots of folks prestretch by using weights on them.

````````````````````````````````

[[[[Is the material, or the constructed bowstring preshrunk?]]]]

No, but most materials will stretch, some more than others, and it is always better to get most of the stretch out before you start shooting with it.

```````````````````````````````

[[[[What if a guy wanted to experiment and didn't have the cash to buy a bunch of strings and took a broke-in FF flemish 16 strand sting and cut 8 strands at the loops and serving?"]]]]

Absolutely. I used to build my strings that way, but the problem you will have, will be identifying the strands to be cut away at each end. You have to be sure you do that.

You will need to cut away the center serving which will make it easy for you to make sure you cut the same strands at each end, and then reserve the center area afterward.

I would recommend you make sure that broke in string is in good shape, or I wouldn't do it. It would also help to know what type of material it is constructed from.

Thanx much Rick

I prestretch all the strings I sell with 300# of pressure on them. I also serve my strings as soon as I stretch them. I do not use heat as I feel it can get away from you and turn the strands slightly brittle if you are not careful.

I like Rick recommend 6 strands for anything under 55 lbs. and 8 for anything over. The serving area of your flemish string is the most important area that you need to pay attention too in my opinion. This is were you can gain a lot of weight fast on your string. Used to be the average serving area was 8-9" - I serve mine 5 1/2" and it is served to your shooting style - split or 3 under. I have found this to be a great compromise as I experimented with a 3" serving and found my armguard wearing my string exceptionally fast.

Okie Dokie - as promised I finally got around to doing some real testing.

This test and comparison was done between a 14 strand Dynaflight97 string, and a 9 strand Ultracam string.

Here is the link:

http://www.tradarcher.com/rickbarbee/string_test_2010_1/index.html

Enjoy

Just checked out your test, very impressive Rick. I trust yur findings and you don't have to take pictures for my account. How do you account for the increase in draw weight between the two strings at 28", is the 14 strand string stretching approximately 1/2" at a 28" draw??? It would be interesting to somehow measure both drawn strings to verify this stretch. By definition this would be stretch and not creep. Thanks again for all your effort in this testing.

Bob

Yes Bob, the UC string stretched less at the 28" drawn than the DF97, and thus the 2# increase in weight.

Thanks for the compliment, and you're welcome. 8^)

By the way - Even though Blackwidow does not agree with my results, they have endorsed the use of these skinny strings (as long as the loops are properly padded), and say that the use of them will not void their manufacturer's warranty. I'm pretty happy to see that in an official statement.

Rick, did they actually contact you and say that they disagreed with your results? I read the post from Ken, and I was surprised that no mention was made of your test at all. Also, the challenge seems to have changed a bit, now the guys building the string has to build it to Widow's spec, kinda removes the stringbuilder's expertise don't you think? Also it has to be feasible for them to make and that most of their customers will want it, man, thats too much wiggle room on their part for me.

No Marc,

they didn't contact me, but it should be fairly obvious they have read my results.

It doesn't really matter to me, because I am completely happy with my results, and have been for 20plus years.

I am even happier now that I know they won't void my warranty, because I will continue to use them as I always have, and continue to be delighted with the extra umph I get from them.

The way you and I build these strings is in a "True Custom" nature, and for them to do it would take to much time for it to be profitable for them, thus I agree whole heartedly with Ken's comment about the feasibility.

Ken's comments about the serving size & length, and about only allowing the strand count to be half that of a DF97 14 strand, proves to me that he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt ("Physics is Physics is Physics"), that the string weight absolutely plays a huge roll in performance, and pretty much proved my points for me. Otherwise there would have been no conditions placed on the hotrod string. Yep, you summed it up "wiggle room".

Well, I was willing to accept the "challenge" as it was first offered, but you are correct, the method mandated is not how we twist them. The string they would like you to build doesn't even meet my definition of a hot rod string. I guess we know why their results turned out how they did. I don't think I have ever served a regular strand count sting with an 8 inch center serving and certainly not a reduced strand string. I'm Like David, about 4" because I don't get any arm contact, heck I don't even shoot with an armguard. Only use it during hunting season to keep the clothes out of the way and thats only if I have on more than one layer.

Then the feasability is the ultimate, no way Jose. It would never make sense for a company to go to the effort to make strings for each bow, when one can be twisted that will work good enough for all of them. Too many conditions that say to me, we won't be giving away any bows, no matter what the chrony says.

It started as a challenge to confirm or disprove the performance gain, its not that anymore. Alas, I'm with you, we can take comfort in the fact that it doesn't appear to void your warranty, and that we know what the performance gains are in speed and noise reduction.

Rick,

I admire your work and I agree with your understanding of string mass and performance and all that happy stuff. But for a variety of reasons I humbly suggest you revisit the idea string elongation can account for the 2# diff between UC and D97 string.

I'm not gonna say any more, I know how these threads can get. And I'm more than happy for you to ignore this post completely. My intuition is screaming at me that don't sound right but I could easily be wrong.

Off hand do you know the breaking strenght of each string, is it dramatically different?

No David,

I am glad you posted the concern about the 2# difference.

Let me explain it -

first by asking a question - Have you ever noticed that the draw weight on a stickbow will increase a little as you increase the brace height?

It does, and the reason it does is, because you are shortening the string in order to increase the brace height, and the shorter string allows for more limb bend when drawn. The more bend, the higher the draw weight. It is the same as drawing the bow farther.

The reason the UC string increased the draw weight was the same principle. It did not stretch as much at the 28" draw, therefore it placed more bend in the limbs, thus increasing the draw weight by 2#.

The breaking strength of a 14 strand DF97 is 2170#

The breaking strength of a 9 strand Ultracam is 1125#

Don't let the breaking strengths fool you into believing the stronger of the two will stretch, or creep less, because that strength has no baring on stretch, nor creep. It is the properties of the string materials that make the difference.

The DF97 string will elongate much farther before it breaks than the Ultracam will. The Ultracam will break at a much lower stress level than the DF97, but it will not elongate as much in the process.

When we are talking strings of 1000# plus strength on bows that are generally less than 100# the breaking strength becomes insignificant, and the creep, and stretch factors become paramount.

P.S.

David,

I was concerned just as you about the draw weight difference, and started not to say anything about it.

I then thought to myself - hiding that little piece of information would not be telling the whole truth about the test conducted, but I was still reluctant.

What I decided to do was - test that theory on every bow I own - 11 recurves, and 3 longbows.

Without fail, the draw weights increased on every bow when the brace height was raised, and the draw weights were higher on every bow when using the Ultracam string, and testing it against the DF97 set to the same brace height.

Those draw weight increases varied. Some were slight, and some were very pronounced, but always present to some degree.

Interesting. I could easily see some difference, but 2# was more than I thought. My rough thinking was 2# equates to about 2", (60# bow, 60" string) although string angles make the math really tricky and certainly negates that thinking. Way, way back in the day I used to hang 50# - 70# from a FF string, then a B50 just to get a sense of the diff. I honestly don't remember the results but don't recall it being that pronounced.

Still skeptical, but accept you have more than done your due dilligence. It's a problem I have, sometimes works in my favor, other times not.

Pretty freaking amazing actually. Might account for a whole lot of unexplained stuff... bows reportedly not drawing what they did when I built 'em for example.

"Pretty freaking amazing actually. Might account for a whole lot of unexplained stuff... bows reportedly not drawing what they did when I built 'em for example."

Yep, I was pretty shocked about it when I actually discovered the phenomenon about 3 months ago, and I went to an old bowyer friend of mine who confirmed it for me then, but I still had to do my own testing to be satisfied.

This same phenomenon can account for why some folks feel like a certain bow is stacky, and a different person can pick up that same bow, shoot it at a different brace height, or with a different string, and think it is the smoothest thing they ever held.

Rick, Thanks for checking the draw weight effect on the different bows. That is a lot of work you are doing but very valuable!

I am still curious about the explanation of why there is a draw weight increase with ultra cam. Did you have a chance to check the change in tension on the string as the bow is drawn? You should find it is highest at brace and lowest toward the middle or end of the draw.

Also, would you be willing to measure the stiffness of a single strand ultra-cam compared to a single strand of the D97? What I do is use about a 30-ft length of string and measure how much the length of the string changes when going from a 10-lb static load to about a 20-lb load. It would be interesting to know what the relative stiffness is between these two string materials is.

My guess is that the bows with the highest string tension at brace will show the biggest change in draw weight between the two strings. Interesting stuff. Thanks! Thanks! -Alan

Alan,

I am still trying to figure out a way to put a scale in line with the string to see what tension change in poundage there is from brace to full draw, but I don't have it worked out yet.

I am also going to figure a way to measure the actual elongation/stretch of the strings when drawn. That one should be fairly easy, because I can just pull them to draw in the shooter, and then take a measurement from limb tip to limb tip. The one that stretches the least should have a shorter measurement from tip to tip.

I twisted up a 6 strander tonight for testing on this same bow. OOOO LAAA LAAA, this thing is crispy. LOL

Sean,

You can't really, but what is working for me is to select 12# more for the draw weight of the bow on the standard recurve setting, or 10# more on the performance recurve setting.

I'm not sure what would work on your longbows, but I'm betting adding 10# to the bow calc would probably get you real close.

Rick, Thanks for the update. This is great!

I was thumbing through my copy of "Archery the Technical Side", and they had some plots of string tension Vs. draw for various brace heights and it shows the high tension at brace which rapidly drops as the bow is drawn. The string tension does rise up again a little bit as the bow starts stacking but would need to be drawn very far to match the string tension at brace. If you figure out how to put a scale in-line with the bow string then you should get a similar looking curve. The string tension at brace will probably measure at 2 to 2.5 times the draw weight of the bow so you will need a stout scale.

See pic (sorry about the off-kilter angle of the picture). -Alan

The picture doesn't show up. Here's another try. -Alan

OK Folks,

I have the inline string stress test/comparison finished up.

Visit the following link

 http://www.tradarcher.com/rickbarbee/string_test_2010_1/index.html

and scroll down to

DF97 14 Strand & Ultracam 9 Strand

String Stretch Comparison.

I do believe this should clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

ENJOY !!!!!!!!!

 

---

HOME	FORUM

 

/table>

 

/table>

 

My take on the two pound differential between strings is that the Ultra Cam string has minimal twist at 1/2 per inch, while an AMO length D97 has quite a few twists per inch and resembles a coil spring. I believe that this results in a some uncoiling at full draw and then recoiling upon release with the uncoiling of twists resulting in the limbs not being pulled back as far as the Ultra Cam which has practically no twists to uncoil. Does that sound right?

David,

I believe that you are correct, but I also believe that the coil/recoil due to the twist (or lack there of), is also accompanied by a string property difference, and the two combined, make a lot of difference.

In other words - the lack of stretch is attributed to both construction, and material factors.

This has turned out to be a lot of fun. A lot of work, but a lot of fun.

The reason I say that is - I have built a low strand count (10 strand) from DF97 for this same bow, and I couldn't keep it to hold brace height for more than 2 minutes, and that was without shooting it, It stretched so much that it finally scared the "he-double-toothpicks" outa me, so I took it off, and trashed it.

Yea I made a 10 strand D97 the other day because a friend insisted on trying it and you could practically sit there and watch it creep on a 67#recurve. He now has a 9 strand Ultra Cam and is working on stiffening up his arrow stash.

"""He now has a 9 strand Ultra Cam and is working on stiffening up his arrow stash. """

LOL - Yep. It'll make ya do that. 8^)

Rick, Could you use a cable tenseomiter (SP) to check the pressure on the string? We used them in the Air Force on flight control cables to adjust the tension to mfg. specs.

Craig,

I'm not sure I know what that is.

What I did was cut the string to use, and tie a hand held bow scale in line with the string.

It worked real well, but was a pain in the butt to do, so any suggestions you, or anyone else might have to make it easier for next time, are more than welcome.

Ouch. Just did a search on a Cable Tensiometer.

Yep, looks like one of those would work real well, except, the least expensive one is $199.95, and it only goes to 70#. Todays testing exceeded that by 2#, so it is out.

The next least costly one is $838.99. It goes to 400#, but I believe at that price I will just stick with my hand held bow scale. LOL

If you know anyone in the aircraft repair business you might be able to borrow one for a weekend?

Rick, In your first post here you list 7 items one needs to consider when making a skinny string. Can you explain them in more detail - particularly items 4 & 5?

I've only built a few strings and find your testing and posts very interesting and informative, and am trying to learn all I can. You have supplied knowledge that could have taken years to travel around this sport. Thanks for that.

As a response to the statement that there has to be a negative trade off with skinny strings; I don't know that that is true. Is there a negative to laminated bows, or carbon lams, or other design techniques that are giving us such incredibly fast, stable, durable and fun to shoot bows? Design and material advancements don't necessarily have a negative trade off - maybe what we were doing was the negative.

Thanks again for some great information.

Dan, thanks, and you're welcome. 8^)

lets see if I can break the 7 down for you.

`````````````````````````````````````````

1 - Know that your bow is capable of handling Fast Flight material. If it is, the use of a skinny string, if properly constructed, will place no more stress on the bow than a fat string.

This one is just a precautionary measurement. We just want you to be sure your bow can handle fast flight material, or at least understand the risk you may be taking if it is not fast flight rated. It is impossible for a properly constructed (loops properly padded) skinny string to place more stress on a bow, than a higher strand count string of the same material.

``````````````````````````````

2 - You must have tuned, and shot your bow enough to know at what brace height it performs best.

For the skinny strings to really shine for you, you need to have a real working knowledge of the particular bow you are going to place it on, particularly what brace height the bow performs best for you at.

``````````````````````````````

3 - Must know the exact length the string will need to be to give you that brace height.

It is imperative to know the exact length the string needs to be to give you that brace height, or you will wind up with an over built string (to long), which will put you beyond the 1/2 to 3/4 twist minimal per inch needed to keep the string weight down, and keep the coil/recoil effect out of the string. Both weight, and coil will rob the string of efficiency.

``````````````````````````````

4 - Must keep the string at a maximum of 1/2 to 3/4 twists per inch after prestretch.

See #3

``````````````````````````````

5 - Have a clear understanding of how and why the skinny string works and be able to keep up with the changing needs of the bow as far as spine and a safe arrow weight are concerned, and know how to calculate that change.

Again see #3 for why the skinny string works, but also keep in mind, that arrow weight becomes a factor where the life of the bow is concerned. Where the life of the bow is concerned can be best explained like this - say you are shooting an arrow which is borderline being to light weight for the bow.

Now you throw the skinny string on there, and you have just reduced the combined weight of the string, and the arrow by (as an example) 40gr. That equates to removing 40gr from the arrow, and now you are shooting an arrow that is much to light for the bow. What we are advocating here is not necessarily a speed gain, but what we see as even more important, and of more benefit is maintaining your current speed, but with a much heavier arrow.

``````````````````````````````

6 - Know your materials, or make sure your string builder knows them. Not all string materials are suitable for use to build skinny "HotRod" strings.

Make sure the material you are using will maintain the 5:1 ratio of string breaking strength to bow draw weight, and make sure that material has a low enough creep factor to keep you from having to continually twist the string up to maintain brace height. To much twist will counter the performance gain, and can also lead to string failure.

``````````````````````````````

7 - Performance of a bow, even with a hotrod string, will still be dependent upon how well the shooter performs. Know, understand, and accept the fact, that nothing can replace poor shooter performance except the shooter himself.

I was reluctant to include this one, because I did not want to be insulting,  but it is just a plain and simple fact. If your shooting is not up to par, it is doubtful you will see much, if any performance increase with a skinny string, because the are to many detrimental elements it is having to overcome.

Hope that helps.

I did a little more string testing today.

I call this unofficial testing, because I was to lazy to set up the shooter, so I did it all shooting fingers.

Last night I twisted up an experimental string. A Heinz 57 of mixed material, and a strand count of 8. Total breaking strength of this string is 1300#

It had an initial creep of 1/8" during prestretch, but after 100 or more shots it has not moved. This string actually has a smaller diameter at 8 strands than a 6 strand Ultracam.

I did a 20 shot average of each string, but threw out the high, and low reading for each, before doing the average.

Here are the results using a 650gr arrow, and shooting them on my 64# @ 29" Blackwidow PMAX.

14 strand DF97 - 181.1 fps

9 strand Ultracam - 185.4 fps

8 strand Heinz 57 - 196.6 fps

Soon I will set up the shooter, and repeat the test as official. At that time I will place the entries on the Official Test page, and reveal the materials used in the Heinze 57 string.

UPDATE -

After shooting this string all day today, and putting a couple hundreds shots on it, I have decide to trash it.

It is very unstable, and I can only assume it is the mixing of the materials that is causing the instability.

That's a relief! I thought I was going to have to buy a bunch of different kinds of string material.

Rick, You know we appreciate your efforts. Even information about what doesn't work is valuable. Thanks again for your research on this topic.

Bart

Thanks Bart.

I've had a few folks ask me how to do the "Tape and Bed Serving" technique, so I did a little serve along.

I added it to the string testing page.

Copy, and paste, or click the link.

http://www.tradarcher.com/rickbarbee/string_test_2010_1/index.html

Enjoy

Rick, Thanks for the explanations to the seven statement on skinny strings.

Would it work to pad the loops by glueing on a tape wrap before the loops were formed and twisted back into the string?

Is the stress to the limb tips truly increased that much by a thin string? It would seem the area of string contacting the limb tips is probably reduced much less than 50% by a thin string, due to some flattening of the string and the part of the string grooves that the string actually contacts - does that really make that much difference? Wouldn't a little careful polishing of the string grooves, to assure no sharp corners or bends resolve the issue? What about padding the string grooves with a thin coat of epoxy or something like liquid metal?

Also, wouldn't a 6 strand string of a certain material have more stretch and thus less shock at release, than a 14 strand string of the same material? And thus, wouldn't the thin string be easier on the bow tips?

If the linear pull on the string at brace is slightly higher than the draw weight of the bow, and less at full draw, what is the "spike" tension when the bow returns to brace? If a safety factor of 5x is sufficient to ensure a string that lasts, the "spike" can't be that great.

Maybe I don't understand the problem too well - just wondering.

Rick, I was going to try to guess the make-up of the "Heinz-57" string. I would need a hint. Did it make the full draw weight go up even more than the skinny ultra-cam string? -Alan

Slayer,

on an endless loop string, I don't see why my center serving "Tape & Bed" technique wouldn't work just as well for sizing the loops, but I guess we won't know until someone tries it.

The stress on the limbs is not increased by the skinny string. It is increased by the lower stretch of the string (or rather a faster recovery of that stretch, better memory), which is from the material being used. The ultracam was actually shrinking in length faster, and more than the DF97 as the bow was being drawn, which resulted in a shorter measurement at draw, which resulted in more bend in the limbs, and thus a little higher draw weight.

When we are talking about Fast Flight Rated bows, the real concern from the size of the string on the limb tips isn't the amount of stress, but more of the pinpointing of the stress to a smaller area, which creates the piano wire effect, and could start cutting into the limb. Increasing the size of the loop spreads the stress out over a larger area, and the larger area is more capable of handling that stress, and whatever wear might exist.

Polishing the grooves will definitely help decrease wear on the string, but it won't alleviate the pinpointing of the stress, so I say - size the string loops, and polish, and your doing some real good.

I have no way of measuring the spike tension on the string when the bow returns to brace during a shot, but I am relatively certain that for a split second it is much higher than it is when the bow is resting at brace, and could be very near that 5:1 ratio we are working from as our minimum breaking strength.

```````````````````````````

Alan,

I didn't weigh it. Wish I had, but I am guessing it probably did, although I couldn't feel any difference.

I know the stretch factor was decreased a considerable amount, as well as creep. This string never gave up more than 1/8" total from off the jig to a couple hundred shots put on it.

I'm pretty sure the speed gain was a combination of the lack of stretch, and a fair reduction in the weight of the string. Although I did not weigh the string, and compare it to the 6 strand UC, it was noticeably smaller in diameter, so I figure it weighed a bit less.

I also believe the instability of the string was robbing it of it's full potential.

Like I said, this particular string test was unofficial, and since I didn't like the outcome, I will not pursue it further.

I hope to be able to start testing some Astroflight sometime soon, and that is where I am going to focus my attention.

Thanks for more answers to my questions.

I understand that the potential to damage to the limb tips from thin strings is caused by the cutting effect of the thin diameter. I was thinking a thin layer of a tough material, applied carefully to the string groove, would spread out the force of the thin string over a wider area - much as the result of a thicker string - only more permanent and perhaps easier to do. Kind of like putting a leather glove on when fencing or handling a rope. A hard drying epoxy, carefully applied with, perhaps, a toothpick, in the string area of the limbs, then polished to accept the string and look good, could spread the force - just like a tip overlay, or a thicker string does?

Anyway - sure enjoy the information - thank again for sharing.

Had a string break the other day. No damage to my bow. Just want to pass the info on. I was lucky this time and have been reminded to pay close attention to what my equipment is telling me. The string was an 8 strand flemish made of Ultra Cam. By a conservative estimate the sting has shot between 3500 and 4000 arrows weighing close to 11 gpp. The string broke at the nock point. I had warning. I noticed that the nocks were beginning to loosen up which I incorrectly thought meant the serving needed to be replaced. I'm changing my string formula to use 10 strands instead of 8 and keeping the number of twists between 1/2 and 3/4. Above Rick posted that he uses 9.

Bart, not saying your nocks are to tight, but pay attention to that also.

Even a high strand count string can be broken by a nock fit that is to tight.

One thing I will give to B50 that is better than any FF material I have used is this - B50 is way more tolerant of pinching by tight nocks than the FF materials are.

Hey Rick, Just finished watching your fun shots thread. Some good ideas to try at the range.

I was using a double serving of No 4 braided nylon. The nocks just held the arrows weight. On the 10 strand string I'm using 1/3" wide strip of masking tape (your tip) and then serving with .026 Crown. This combination is perhaps a little tighter, but a more secure fit for hunting.

My first 10 strand was too long. Had to put in too many twists. The second is spot on. Very quiet, and shoots the same spine shaft as I was using with the 8 strand.

Another thing for problem to watch for is pinching brass nocks too tight. That can cause a string to fail as well.

[[[Okiak (Bart) said: "Another thing for problem to watch for is pinching brass nocks too tight. That can cause a string to fail as well."]]]

Amen to that, and that's why I do tie ons. I am real bad about over tightening things, and the tie ons give me a little comfort in knowing I haven't pinched the string.

Thanks about the Fun Shots thread. I love doing that stuff, and it is a real good way to practice, and keep it fun.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here