Single v.s. Dual Cam Bows

[Pacosub]

Hey all,

I  have been really happy with my Diamond Black Ice single cam bow, but might be thinking of trying a new bow this year.  As you all know, Diamond makes primarily single cam bows, as does Mathews (except for their monster, I believe?).  My understanding is that originally single cam bows where developed as an attempt to simplify cables/string articulation, address timing challenges, and make bows faster.  Now, technology has reversed this speed quest, and dual cam bows are faster.
So, is this a fair assessment of the difference between the two systems?  What are the benefits other than speed between the two?
I noticed that Diamond now offers their Bowtech Black Knight carbon riser as a single cam "Carbon Cure" - with a 10 f.p.s. reduction in speed from the Black Knight bow.

Thanks - apologies if this question has already been dealt with in the past!

[Jellymon]

Single cams are the best ever to group A and everything else is junk.
Hybrids are the best ever to group B and everything else is junk.
Binaries are the best ever to group C and everything else is junk.

There are pros and cons for every type of cam system and I could sit here and type them all, but the truth is every system is great. They are different because people are different, and this gives tons of choices for everyone. The best cam system is the one you shoot the best. There are top shooters getting amazing scores with every cam style on the market. This gets said a lot and it's true, the only way to see what you like is to shoot what is comfortable and gain experience. There is no way of knowing what you'll like after you gain experience and know what you're looking for in a bow. So just shoot what feels good and have fun!

Your black ice is a great bow! In my opinion Diamond hasn't made better bows since their Black Ice, Iceman, Marquis years.

[h20hunter]

Don't worry....RadSav will see this and be all over it! Tagging to follow.

[buckfvr]

Jellymon nailed it, only thing Ill add is since he mentioned speed......fastest isnt always bestest.

[xXLojackXx]

Radsav enter the arena. I'll be back with popcorn.

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?"

[Bean Counter]

I know some one one with the PSE Dreamseason and he says its as smooth as his old solo cam. I'm interested in what Dr. Radsav will have for his weekly archery lecture as well.

[RadSav]

My understanding is that originally single cam bows where developed as an attempt to simplify cables/string articulation, address timing challenges, and make bows faster.  Now, technology has reversed this speed quest, and dual cam bows are faster.
So, is this a fair assessment of the difference between the two systems?  What are the benefits other than speed between the two?

Wow, difficult questions to answer without writing a novel.  I apologies in advance if I skim over some things quickly.  I am preparing for an IRS/FET audit Thursday and my free time is pretty short right now.

To properly understand the differences one must first understand where we were in the mid to late 80's when what we know as a single cam bow first hit the market successfully.  Back then most bows were in excess of 40" axel-to-axel.  Average brace heights were over 8".  We still used a lot of wood laminations in the limbs of compounds.  And Conner was just starting to bring the benefits of Honeywell's new Spectra fiber to light in his sail rigging for the America's Cup race team.  All had a significant effect on why the single cam bow grew so fast in popularity.

York had brought us the Alpha cam and showed us that there were endless opportunities to increase the speed of the compound bow through nothing more than geometry.  This got us thinking about Cams instead of Wheels, but Yorks own failure to get their Tracker to exhibit easy shootability hampered our thoughts that a shorter bow could actually compete in the market place.  Jennings brought us lightweight limbs and high prestress in the T-Star and showed us that could improve our speeds as well.  But it's failure to produce acceptable longevity in the target market left manufacturers refusing to use lightweight limbs as warranty expenses were more than they wanted to bare.  When Hoyt brought the AIM system to market finally allowing a more flexible, lighter, faster and quieter material to replace the 7X7 cable it failed to maintain a consistent tune due to the amount of constant creep in the early spun fibers.  Bears revolutionary Delta V and Jennings Uni-Star gave us our first vision into what could be accomplished if we could increase the size of the cam.  But archers were just getting use to the sleeker, lighter weight two cam/no roller options.  And while these bows were well ahead of their time their price and overwhelming gadgetry were seen as excessive and they never caught on with the public.

To provide proper draw lengths in a long A2A bow with high brace height two cam bows had to use very small cams.  The force draw curve exhibited in these small cams maintained peak weight for just an instant.  Besides having a small overall size these stiff low stressed limbs could not flex enough to maintain a good level of peak weight over distance without a high failure rate.  But York, Jennings and Hoyt had given us a taste of high performance and the race was on to make the Steve Austin of bows - Stronger, Faster with a Vision into the future.  I guess then that Matt McPhearson gets credit as the director of archery's OSI (Hope you youngsters get the Six Million Dollar Man references)

[RadSav]

The Single Cam

The single cam bow brought us solutions that worked with the technology of the day.  A single cam could be twice the size of a normal two cam allowing more leverage and a better force draw curve.  The power lobe on the single cam could also be made larger as the stress of compression on the limbs was shared and thus it did not over stress the stiff low stressed limb.  And most importantly since there was no need to time two cams identically the creep of the new stranded fibers did not effect timing.  While the single cam bow was never really "In Tune" it was almost impossible for it to go "Out of Tune" either.  The result was a dependable bow, with a speed advantage despite the limitations of the materials of the day.

As luck would have it this new cam technology was an idea at the perfect time in history.  It was happening at the same time giant leaps in manufacturing technology and polymer sciences were developing.  All helping it's rapid progression into shorter, faster and more reliable archery products of the modern age.

The down fall of the single cam was that those early models were anything but a pleasure to shoot.  The large out of balance cam on the bottom and the small idler wheel at the top gave it a rocking horse effect when shot.  That led to the majority of top pro shooters to maintain their relationship with the two cam bow.  This rocking effect also had a great influence on nock travel.  It was not uncommon for a Ross, Bear, Hoyt and even Mathews bow to need an over 1/2" high nock set to get proper flight.  While later development of the counterbalanced single cam made great improvements in nock travel and shot feel manufacturers knew they needed another option.

So entered in the mass patents for a successful hybrid cam including Hoyts game changer...Cam1/2.

[RadSav]

Sorry, got to get back to work.  Guess I will give a post a day as time will allow.  Easier to read a novel over a couple days instead of one night anyway, isn't it?

This should be a fun one

[Pacosub]

Wow!  Radsav - thanks for the great insight and the time you took to write it down.  I will re-read to make sure it all sinks in  .  Jellymon - I totally agree with your assessment of Diamond's Black Ice, Iceman, Marquis generation of bows.
Thanks again Radsav - you should write a book!

[Jellymon]

Wow!  Radsav - thanks for the great insight and the time you took to write it down.  I will re-read to make sure it all sinks in  .  Jellymon - I totally agree with your assessment of Diamond's Black Ice, Iceman, Marquis generation of bows.
Thanks again Radsav - you should write a book!

I would buy it!

[RadSav]

Hybrid Cam - Cam1/2

In 2003 the Hybrid cam had been out for a while, but largely unaccepted.  Most manufacturers were trying to keep up with Mathews and without the counter balanced cam license they were failing.  All the major manufacturers were struggling to keep their market share and Mathews kept taking and taking customers.  In a stroke of pure genius Hoyt made an extremely loud statement when they dropped all their single cam bows and offered their entire line in the new Cam1/2.  Archers around the world got the message.  Hybrids were in!

The Cam1/2 was and still is just a single cam bow with an idler built in an almost identical image of the cam.  The control side using a groove and string separate from the main draw string.  There is some timing that must be maintained in the Cam1/2, but the system was easily adjusted when it needed to be and nock travel issues were all but eliminated.  Hoyt's engineers had placed emphasis of machining these new cams so weight of both cam and wheel were also near identical.  No rocking horse feel here and the enjoyable bow shooting experience was back. 

Combined with a new Tech riser, wide split limbs, a quiet and spectacular limb pocket, and Sims limb vibration dampeners this bow felt great to shoot, had lots of speed, insanely durable, easy to shoot, quiet for the time, and gave archers everything they liked in a two cam along with everything they liked in a single cam.  Hoyt was not only taking back their market share from Mathews they were taking market share from everyone!  And perhaps most impressive was the list of top target shooters that were lining up to become the next Hoyt sponsored shooter.  It wasn't just prestige - these bows were winning tournaments and setting new records in the process!

Hoyt rode the horse for a good while keeping things roughly the same.  Now other manufacturers had to chase either the single cam technology of Mathews or the Hybrid technology of Hoyt.  Some did both, but few made an impact until PSE engineers began taking advantage of modern fibers and resins and started adding light weight limbs capable of excessive pre-loads adding spark and fire to the industry.  No longer were speed freaks talking about Strothers and the impossible 350 fps bow.  Now the discussion had changed to "Who is going to reach 400 fps first."  All bets were on PSE!  And finally the market share began to redistribute among more than just Mathews and Hoyt.  Everyone felt the need for speed and all major manufacturers were now in play.  The race was on!



So how do you design more speed into a bow when limited by the weight and durability of available materials?  Sure lengthening the draw cycle by dropping brace height helps.  Steepening the front and back walls of the force draw curve also helps.  Switching measuring systems from AMO standards to IBO standards is an advantage only on paper and in conversation.  But how does one take these things one step further within the limitations of the geometry of the modern archer and the available materials?  Without redefining what a compound bow is and how it looks there really is only one way...eliminate mechanical inefficiencies.

Strothers, Yehle and Darlington had been working on this very issue with mixed success.  But they knew they were on the right track.  Soon everyone would know their names and the industry was about to find out what "Binary" was all about...

[RadSav]

Well, back to work.  FET Audit tomorrow...Yippy Hippy Skippy!

Same Bat time / Same Bat station tomorrow 

[hollymaster]

Tag

[RadSav]

Binary

The debate over who made the first binary is still being waged.  Bowtech's  Yehle had always claimed to be the first and yet they were still paying Darlington royalties.  Rumor has it that a recent court battle has been won by Bowtech.  And since we are starting to see the older version of the binary again on Bowtech bows there may be some validity to those rumors.

No matter who started it I know in 2005 I was extremely excited to see the Bowtech cam.  It was everything this bow nerd had been waiting for.  A two cam bow with slaved cams synchronized in such a way it was near impossible to grab a string or draw a bow poorly.  And while the cam was my holy grail the bows it was attached to were some of the most horrific things ever produced.  I remember that first year I stopped by the local archery shop a week before bowhunting season opened.  There were no less than a dozen bows in the service center waiting on new limbs.  Worst of all is while the horror was unfolding at the proshops, senior Bowtech management were heard boasting about how it was not going to effect the company financially because they bought the limbs at bargain basement prices.  Their greed and arrogance was about to delay progress the binary cam deserved.  As York had done so many years before with the Alpha cam, Bowtech had shot the binary and themselves in the foot with cheap materials and a rush to market.

While Bowtech rose in popularity at a rather rapid rate due to the binary they struggled to have the impact Mathews and Hoyt had brought to the industry. Had the binary not been such an improvement in efficiency and speed potential I think Bowtech would have floundered and died.  But the binary cam was and is a great concept.  Improvements continued to be made and even though licensing royalties were priced "Extremely High" other manufacturers, besides just Bowtech and Darton, began putting quality and innovation to work bringing us better and more durable options.

Much like the Cam1/2 the binary cam must have a certain level of timing to achieve proper results.  And the binary cam shares a major design flaw with the Cam1/2...A three string groove cam that when combined with short A2A length and a cable guard leads to off center load bearing.  That means constant challenges to control cam lean.  But, beyond that they are very different.  Most notably is that both the top and bottom cams are absolute mirror images of one another.  This makes them one of the more pleasurable bows to shoot and possibly the easiest bows you will ever get a chance to tune for arrow flight.  The down fall is that instead of having just the bottom cam lean issues as you have with the Cam1/2 you have the same issues with the upper limb too.  With the efficiency and speed the binary cam was producing it proved too much for split prone solid limbs and cheap materials.

Over the next few years Darton, Alpine and Bowtech itself were solving the cam lean issues gradually and producing respectable results.  But for many archers, myself included, the binary momentum had settled and questions of durability had replaced the excitement.  Until, enter Matt McPhearson again and Mathews "Released the Beast" in 2009 with the AVS/Monster cam.  While not referred to as binary it is in all regards an improved binary technology.  Finally those archers who wanted something better than Cam1/2 had faith once more in the benefits of binary.  With new ownership and management Bowtech paid attention to the binary answers McPhearson had shown and their engineers forever changed the future of Bowtech...Overdrive Binary was the answer.

This new Bowtech stole a lot of the Monsters drive and momentum when it combined the new Overdrive Binary with the old Quadraflex center pivot limb system.  Now no longer a clunky eye sore pickle fork design, but a sleek and sexy riser utilizing not only the Overdrive Binary but high end materials from tip to stern.  This wasn't your same old Bowreck from the past.  This was Savage Arms Bowtech and they had a vision of quality and performance that really separated them from the past.  I sincerely hope the new ATK ownership of Savage and Bowtech won't take away from that positive vision and quality.

Both the AVS/Monster cam and the Overdrive Binary cams keep the mirror image top and bottom.  I've held hundreds of these bows and I have yet to see one with even the slightest hint of cam lean.  They are fast, efficient, smooth at the shot and a kindergartner could tune them for perfect arrow flight.  They are a heavier cam than most of the hybrid and Cam1/2 models and that does seem to have an effect in some harmonics and speed.  But I do not find it objectionable at all.  In fact on my Experience I've removed most of the dampeners to shed weight and simplify my setup.

Binary is here to stay!  And I expect the following years will find them getting more and more exposure from all the major manufacturers.  They definitely are a technology worth taking a long hard look at...