Great review! Interesting how the dynamic brace height is greater than the Mach 33, considering PSE pushes their "Full Draw Stability" system. Would be interested to see how each performs with accuracy, particularly at longer distances.
I thought the same thing. Interesting that other manufacturers are actually doing more to provide a longer dynamic brace height than the people marketing the spec! Anecdotally, I achieve my highest ever Vegas round score out of the RX-7 Ultra that I had a few seasons ago. I'm curious how much that dynamic brace height may have played a role...
Kellen as always great review you really should display the efficiency the difference between the draw curve stored energy and the actual energy of the arrow. Yes I can calculate it on my own but you're already doing the rest of the work. Great review keep up the great reviews!
@@Lucas_Palmer_Archery certainly noise is one place that energy would "leak" out of the system, but its also probable that noise/vibration dampening would blunt shot volume independent of efficiency. It's interesting that the two loudest bows on test so far have not had limb dampeners 👀 I think some companies are abandoning limb dampeners in order to shed any weight that might reduce arrow speeds.
@ oh absolutely, I have been curious about if you can add arrow weight while taking off limb dampeners and speed nocks on the string and end up with the same or similar noise and similar vibration level while transmitting more energy to the arrow rather than energy to move said weight. I am planning on doing an experiment or two with this on my channel.
Pretty neat. For your draw force curve, you are integrating force with respect to distance, this is work. Inch-pounds is a unit of torque and is not correct. The area under your draw force curve is telling you how much work did you apply to the system (thereby transferring energy into the system). Similar to applying work to lift a bowling ball into the air, which now has some energy potential. Of course, not all the energy put into the bow by the work you applied when you drew it back will be transferred to the arrow, because the bow is not 100% efficient. Thanks for the video.
It's a great point, and you are directionally correct. Inch Lbs. most often refers to torque (that is, force applied around an axis), however, it is also allowable for "work" (you can see this in some engineering applications). Foot-Lbs. is really applied to torque measurements. Ultimately, I could go to the trouble of converting my measurements to work (J, kJ, etc.), but its just easier for me to call it "inch pounds" since my setup is using a pound-based scale and 1/4" sampling increments. So long as my method is similar across all bows, it will give us a "unit" that we can compare to speeds to come up with a useful description of efficiency. :)
I guess it really depends on the context. Good engineering practice should avoid ambiguity. Ft-lb could also be a work measurement. 1 in-lb (work) is approximately 0.112 Joules, minimal work to be explicit in the data you are presenting. I liked the technical parts of your video, really well put together. I’ll be on the lookout for more. Thanks again.
Right now, I am pretty focused on the longer ATA bows on the market, as these are what I prefer to shoot. But perhaps when I am wrapped with that series I might do some shorter bows!
Your reviews are extremely thorough and well done. I'm sure the subscribers will be growing quickly posting content like this
Thanks for feedback! I put a ton of effort into these - hope people enjoy them!
Really enjoy the deep dive into the nerd numbers
Great review! Interesting how the dynamic brace height is greater than the Mach 33, considering PSE pushes their "Full Draw Stability" system. Would be interested to see how each performs with accuracy, particularly at longer distances.
I thought the same thing. Interesting that other manufacturers are actually doing more to provide a longer dynamic brace height than the people marketing the spec!
Anecdotally, I achieve my highest ever Vegas round score out of the RX-7 Ultra that I had a few seasons ago. I'm curious how much that dynamic brace height may have played a role...
Kellen as always great review you really should display the efficiency the difference between the draw curve stored energy and the actual energy of the arrow. Yes I can calculate it on my own but you're already doing the rest of the work. Great review keep up the great reviews!
It's a great idea. My plan now is to come up with overall efficiency for comparison's sake when we do our "roundup" after all the bows are in.
@ it would be very interesting if the bows that are less efficient generate more noise!
@@Lucas_Palmer_Archery certainly noise is one place that energy would "leak" out of the system, but its also probable that noise/vibration dampening would blunt shot volume independent of efficiency. It's interesting that the two loudest bows on test so far have not had limb dampeners 👀
I think some companies are abandoning limb dampeners in order to shed any weight that might reduce arrow speeds.
@ oh absolutely, I have been curious about if you can add arrow weight while taking off limb dampeners and speed nocks on the string and end up with the same or similar noise and similar vibration level while transmitting more energy to the arrow rather than energy to move said weight. I am planning on doing an experiment or two with this on my channel.
Pretty neat. For your draw force curve, you are integrating force with respect to distance, this is work. Inch-pounds is a unit of torque and is not correct. The area under your draw force curve is telling you how much work did you apply to the system (thereby transferring energy into the system). Similar to applying work to lift a bowling ball into the air, which now has some energy potential. Of course, not all the energy put into the bow by the work you applied when you drew it back will be transferred to the arrow, because the bow is not 100% efficient. Thanks for the video.
It's a great point, and you are directionally correct. Inch Lbs. most often refers to torque (that is, force applied around an axis), however, it is also allowable for "work" (you can see this in some engineering applications). Foot-Lbs. is really applied to torque measurements.
Ultimately, I could go to the trouble of converting my measurements to work (J, kJ, etc.), but its just easier for me to call it "inch pounds" since my setup is using a pound-based scale and 1/4" sampling increments.
So long as my method is similar across all bows, it will give us a "unit" that we can compare to speeds to come up with a useful description of efficiency. :)
I guess it really depends on the context. Good engineering practice should avoid ambiguity. Ft-lb could also be a work measurement. 1 in-lb (work) is approximately 0.112 Joules, minimal work to be explicit in the data you are presenting. I liked the technical parts of your video, really well put together. I’ll be on the lookout for more. Thanks again.
Will you be testing shorter bows as well? Great videos btw!
Right now, I am pretty focused on the longer ATA bows on the market, as these are what I prefer to shoot. But perhaps when I am wrapped with that series I might do some shorter bows!
Good stuff man. Never even considered some of these measurements. Be cool to do this with my bow
What kind of bow do you have?
@ApexArchery No Cam HTX. I know the specs on it but you go a step further. Really interesting stuff as to why these measurements are relevant
Good stuff once again. Great job!
The price just kills this bow for me. There is no reason a china made riser bow should be $2000 or more.
Do you have a website to show all the comparisons of the bows? Showing all the results?
No website. That type of analysis will be part of our "wrap up" video once we are done with several more longer ATA bows.
Any chance to get a review on darton sequel 31 st2?
I am definitely looking to get a Darton bow in for review soon!