The New Hamskea Overdraw Bracket

[justin davis]

Maybe where you were. Mel Stanislawski made a bunch of overdaws in his garage and we torque tuned them decades ago. Then he started selling them, along with his roller guard.

Nice! Sounds like Mel knew his stuff!!

 

[Brandon Pattison]

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1541100&d=1355262669

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1908481

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?13213-What-s-the-next-big-step-in-archery-design (Rick's link)

This is most likely what Hoyt has on the market for the new 2015 bows. A new tech design with arrow rest mounts made specifically for this mounting location to achieve torque tuning. I am no engineer but I cannot see how this is a bad thing. It simplifies and improves accuracy. These bow gurus are years ahead every step of the way and I cannot believe that it has not came out since that picture of Ulmer. I would personally like to see the sight and rest mounts recessed to facilitate your quiver to be even closer yet, further removing sideways torque and the need for 'extra' weight on the opposite side. Yes, I know heavier bows are more steady. Bring it!

 

[ceng]

Couldn't the same thing or a similar thing be accomplished by mounting the sight very close to the riser and pushing the mount forward a lot (or mounting the a sight off the back directly over the rest both over the pivot point? This would minimize it, not cancel it. I see these long dovetails and wonder if the increased sight radius/less touchy pin adjustment is worth the magnified torque error?

 

[Brandon Pattison]

Couldn't the same thing or a similar thing be accomplished by mounting the sight very close to the riser and pushing the mount forward a lot (or mounting the a sight off the back directly over the rest both over the pivot point? This would minimize it, not cancel it. I see these long dovetails and wonder if the increased sight radius/less touchy pin adjustment is worth the magnified torque error?

I like the way you think. I had an idea to have the throat of the grip, the rest and the sight all in one plane (vertically) but was told that it would never sell.

I will just continue living my meager existance and shooting what is available.

 

[quarbles]

when you were torque tuning your bow how badly did you purposely torque, and did you play around with your grip and still got good results? essentially, how much wiggle room does the overdraw allow for whilst applying honest torque to the bow? how much forgiveness is bought? i don't want any shorter of an arrow, but i do like the idea of piece of mind and easily aquired forgiveness.

 

[ceng]

Why does this work? I have been wracking my brain to figure out how magnifying the error (angle between sight line and arrow direction) could possibly make it better. If anybody knows I would appreciate some help. If you want to sketch it up even better. Thanks

 

[justin davis]

Couldn't the same thing or a similar thing be accomplished by mounting the sight very close to the riser and pushing the mount forward a lot (or mounting the a sight off the back directly over the rest both over the pivot point? This would minimize it, not cancel it. I see these long dovetails and wonder if the increased sight radius/less touchy pin adjustment is worth the magnified torque error?

Yea your thinking is right on target. I have heard of a few guys who mounted their sights behind the riser. They were amazing shots from what I heard.
Copper john released a sight this year that mounts behind the riser.

 

[justin davis]

when you were torque tuning your bow how badly did you purposely torque, and did you play around with your grip and still got good results? essentially, how much wiggle room does the overdraw allow for whilst applying honest torque to the bow? how much forgiveness is bought? i don't want any shorter of an arrow, but i do like the idea of piece of mind and easily aquired forgiveness.

So I tried it first before I put the bracket on. I would torque the bow a considerable amount. The arrows would hit 4-6 inches from the X. After putting on the bracket and doin the same thing. All arrows were hitting near the X. I was torquing it about as much as I could do.

 

[goodgrouper]

I used to have a photo of one of my dad's buddies with an arrow firmly placed in his hand when his arrow fell of his overdraw in 88'. Went in the right side of his wrist joint and had about 10 inches of shaft sticking out between his middle and ring fingers. Just thinking about it have me goosebumps.

 

[justin davis]

Yikes! My arrow is still long and slightly past my hand. So no need to worry about that.

 

[wapitibob]

Why does this work? I have been wracking my brain to figure out how magnifying the error (angle between sight line and arrow direction) could possibly make it better. If anybody knows I would appreciate some help. If you want to sketch it up even better. Thanks

The axis of rotation is close to the wrist joint, or on a Hoyt about 1 3/4" back from the grip throat. If you're using a std setup, as you rotate your wrist l/r the contact point of the arrow/rest is ahead of that axis and you will move the arrow l/r.
Another method to try and eliminate the rotational variance was to put the grip out in front of the bow.

 

[tipsntails7]

Maybe where you were. Mel Stanislawski made a bunch of overdaws in his garage and we torque tuned them decades ago. Then he started selling them, along with his roller guard.

Where I was was shooting a steel cabled Jenning with aluminum arrows, maybe Mel made them for his purpose, but most of the industry used them to gain speed. Like how they went away when carbons were introduced, for hunting that is.

 

[5MilesBack]

I fight hardcore to find arrows that fit my 60 lbs at 31 inch draw based off the tuning program we use at the shop.

Exactly what arrows are you looking to find? Plenty of options out there. I'm shooting 71lbs at 32 1/2" draw, and I have several sets of arrows that work great. But I don't use a software program........I use trial and error.

 

[tipsntails7]

32 1/2 ?!?!!!?? My god man, I hope you played basketball as a kid

 

[Tilzbow]

32 1/2 ?!?!!!?? My god man, I hope you played basketball as a kid

Dang, I'm 6'5" and just shortened my draw to 30.5" including the loop! A few years ago I was shooting 31.5" but found I couldn't hold back tension on steep uphill shots.

 

[Tilzbow]

Justin,

I might have missed it but have you shot broadheads with this setup and purposely induced torque? If so how'd that work out? Have you found your bow more forgiving with FBBH or do you need more time to find that out?

 

[Brandon Pattison]

Ain't gunna work on the Whitetail Assassin Spyder Turbo!

 

[justin davis]

Justin,

I might have missed it but have you shot broadheads with this setup and purposely induced torque? If so how'd that work out? Have you found your bow more forgiving with FBBH or do you need more time to find that out?

I've been playing around a little with broadheads but not very much yet. Obviously broadheads (fixed) are going to be more touchy and show the torque more then field points. But the overdraw and its ability to help with torque should help.

 

[MattB]

How soon before we have a Rokslider post up that they had a string derail from overtorquing a bow testing this out?

 

[5MilesBack]

How soon before we have a Rokslider post up that they had a string derail from overtorquing a bow testing this out?

Well if folks would stop buying those shallow groove cam bows, it shouldn't be a problem. I do the torque thing all the time with my 8yo bow to see how it affects impact, flight, and consistency. And I really torque it both ways. I would think that at 32 1/2" draw if it was going to derail, then it certainly has enough opportunity with that raw cycle. I certainly wouldn't want to do that with a heavy cam lean bow.