Post by: Pacosub on February 24, 2014, 11:40:41 PM
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!
Post by: Jellymon on February 25, 2014, 07:44:47 AM
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! :tup:
Your black ice is a great bow! In my opinion Diamond hasn't made better bows since their Black Ice, Iceman, Marquis years.
Post by: h20hunter on February 25, 2014, 07:51:10 AM
Post by: buckfvr on February 25, 2014, 07:54:11 AM
Post by: xXLojackXx on February 25, 2014, 11:50:53 AM
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?"
Post by: Bean Counter on February 25, 2014, 12:18:36 PM
Post by: RadSav on February 26, 2014, 12:37:35 AM
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) :chuckle:
Post by: RadSav on February 26, 2014, 12:54:36 AM
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.
Post by: RadSav on February 26, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
This should be a fun one ;)
Post by: Pacosub on February 26, 2014, 10:08:53 PM
Thanks again Radsav - you should write a book!
Post by: Jellymon on February 26, 2014, 10:37:53 PM
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! :tup:
Post by: RadSav on February 26, 2014, 11:46:03 PM
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...
Post by: RadSav on February 26, 2014, 11:47:35 PM
Same Bat time / Same Bat station tomorrow :hello:
Post by: hollymaster on February 27, 2014, 06:50:12 AM
Post by: RadSav on February 28, 2014, 05:06:44 AM
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...
Post by: RadSav on February 28, 2014, 05:13:39 AM
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?
With todays improved string fibers and shorter bows Jellymon is right on about it being who you ask as to what is better. Jelly's post reminded me of a seminar Larry D. Jones did at my shop in the 80's. When it came time for Q&A a customer asked, "Why do you make three different diaphrams'?" Larry's answer was, "I've found there are a lot of elk calling experts. Some tell me I need to sound like a smaller weaker bull to have success. For those experts I make the blue single reed. Other experts tell me the only way to call in an elk is to sound like a bigger bull, but not so big that you sound intimidating. For those experts I make the red 1.5 reed. And then their are experts who tell me the only way to be successful calling elk is to challenge the bulls manhood by sounding as big and bad as he is. For those experts I make the green double reed. They all told me they were experts so I had to make three reeds. You just need to decide which expert you are!"
Since I started bowhunting back in the early eighties I hunted with bows that range in actual speed from about 180 fps to 320 fps. Not one of the dead animals ever complained about how fast the arrow was going when it delivered the fatal payload. Somewhere around '86 I shot a bedded blacktail buck after stalking close by keeping a log between he and I. When I took the shot I could not see his vitals because the log was in the way. I short drew the bow making sure the arrow could lob over the log and hit the sweet spot. With an X through his heart he didn't make it very far after impact. In 2004 I killed an elk in the last hour of the last day of the season. The shot was long and the brush was thick. My only chance for success was to place an arrow through a beach ball sized hole 30 yards in front of me. I got down on my knees and using my 30 yard pin I aimed about 2" from the top of the hole. I was not aiming for the elk, but for this spot in the hole. With a triangle hole through her heart she didn't make it very far after impact. Had I shot the 2004 bow in '86 and the '86 bow in 2004 I would not have been able to kill either of those animals. Speed was a factor, but in these cases I was fortunate enough to have a slow bow when I needed it and I fast bow when I needed it. The longer you bowhunt the more you realize speed sucks and speed rules. It all depends on the situation.
With todays max load limbs, low creep string fibers and short A2A bows all cam types produce outstanding speeds. Mathews has produced single cam bows in moderate brace height models that rival the speed levels achieved by even the short brace height Hoyt Cam1/2 models. PSE has reached the 370 fps mark with a hybrid cam rivaling any binary offering by Bowtech or Mathews. At 37.5" A2A and 7.5" brace height Bowtech's Overdrive Binary Specialist produces speeds the short low brace height Hoyt Cam1/2 hunting models struggle to reach. So does any one cam style have an advantage over the other? Sometimes "Yes" sometimes "No".
With todays shorter bows and lighter more durable limb materials each cam style has the ability to produce the same force draw curve. However, if all things were equal, including cam weight and force draw curve, except for the style of the cam mechanical efficiencies would lead us to believe that the hybrid would produce slightly faster speeds than the single cam and the binary would produce slightly more speed than the hybrid cam. But things are rarely if ever equal. So beyond brand loyalty why would someone chose one over the other?
Without punching the numbers and getting too exact in figures I'd bet 8 out of every 10 Mathews single cam shooters I speak with have chosen their bows because of how the bow felt when they test shot it at the shop. "It was so smooth!!!" is the response I hear over and over from these shooters. Mathews seems to have figured this out and while they could make faster bows with a single cam they do not. They produce a smooth drawing, reasonably fast bow for that customer base. If you want top speed from Mathews you now have to think about choosing AVS/binary. While to me it's not objectionable there might be a marketing reason behind calling it a Monster. Sort of a mind game in expressing it's not going to be that silky smooth Mathews your use to.
It is my belief that Bear archery has exceeded Mathews in the single cam development. The Venue and Empire produce better speeds than the Mathews bows and they are as sweet to shoot as anything out there. Bear's S13 cam is extremely light, extremely well balanced, it is mounted to a great Max Preload quad limb, draws like butter and stays extremely level throughout the shot. While I like mechanical efficiencies I find I have a hard time not shooting the single cam when choosing a Bear bow. They've really gotten it right over the past few years.
I also like a high performance single cam bow when I travel to far away places. The security and confidence in having a bow that is not going to lose tune no matter the weather is important to me when a backup or pro shop is hours or days away. The caribou in my avatar was taken with a Bear single cam bow shooting about 290 fps. It was one of the best shots I've ever made after eight days of nonstop rain and only a North Face tent for escape from the elements. I think it was the perfect choice for that hunt.
So experts agree. The single cam bow is a winner!
Post by: MLBowhunting on February 28, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
Post by: hollymaster on March 01, 2014, 02:47:15 PM
Post by: RadSav on March 02, 2014, 01:59:12 AM
Meanwhile, as I was struggling, the wife had created a lasting relationship with the Hoyt Kobalt. Sure it had cam lean from Hell being 28" A2A, but she was shooting it very well and was making the shots when it counted. Of course this Hoyt had the nicer two piece saddle grip and the wife's attitude over cam lean was more a "Who cares. It shoots great!" She was on fire killing just about everything she aimed at...even at some distances I didn't think she should shoot. So she couldn't have been happier. I'm still trying to get that bow out of her hands. At times I think she likes that bow more than she likes me. :chuckle:
By 2009 my frustration with Hoyt (the company) had hit an all time high. They were arrogant, rude and began treating their long time loyal followers with true disrespect. As a result my hunting time began being shared with other brands and other cam styles. Bear had produced the first single cam I could stand to shoot and Bowtech was starting to get things somewhat figured out. Then Steve Sims set me up with the odd new DZ-32. While this bow was much more noisy than I expected from Sims the hybrid cam had only a hint of lean, the valley was perfect and the back wall was solid. It felt great in the hand during draw and through the shot. Every time I checked the sight bubble at the range it was already dead center perfect!!! And most important was that every single thing I ever pointed it at seemed to die instantly. Finally, a hybrid cam bow where the reality of the hybrid and the facts as set down on paper matched. This is what I was expecting of the hybrid and Cam1/2 since 2004!
While Hoyt is still trying to convince the bowhunting public that 330 fps from a 6.75" brace height bow and 340 fps from a 6" brace bow is in their words "Blistering Speed", the fact is the new Hoyt Cam1/2 models are quite nice. And even though the Faktor is quite anemic in regards to speed for the money spent it matches well with the hybrid cam and feels nice from draw all the way through the shot. Once again Bear Archery is the sleeper deal in the new hybrid bows. It draws as nice as any Hoyt, produces speeds of 340 @ 7" brace and 350 @ 6" brace. The Agenda 6/7 and Motive 6/7 are super quiet, a dream to tune and matched up with the wonderful Max PreLoad Quad limb it's a super value. And most importantly...in all the Bear hybrids I've played with I have yet to see one with even a slight cam lean issue! PSE had hit a home run with their value priced Vendetta so I was shocked and very disappointed to see it discontinued. I recommended it to a lot of folks and it always made my annual top choice list. But, a few of the value priced PSE bows still mimic the Vendetta's smooth draw, good speed and excellent shot feel. Even if they still lack that fit and finished look.
If todays hybrid cam bows had been available in 2004 I'd expect it would have saved me close to $30,000 in bows over the past 10 years. Todays models are many and they are what we thought they would be back when Hoyt started the craze. In most cases they are smooth on the draw, dependable and softer on the shot than all but the best single cams of Bear and Mathews. And for those speed freaks there seems to be few limits if you don't mind short brace heights and harsh shot characteristics. They really have become the standard by which all other cams are judged and rightly so.
It may have taken a while to marry the technology with the near perfect bow. But, in the end the hybrid cam has become a leader in nearly every important category from the hunting stand to the target line.
So experts agree. The hybrid cam is a winner!
Post by: RadSav on March 02, 2014, 06:09:39 AM
Crossover cables and other fast fix gimmicks to eliminate cam lean issues have pretty much been replaced with two track systems, improved yoke systems, AVS systems and Bowtechs unbelievable Overdrive system. Systems that work and work reliably. Binary can be as simple as a two cam bow (which in reality - it is) and as sophisticated as the AVS and Overdrive. They are quiet, efficient, smooth when you want them to be and aggressive if you wish them to be. They can be light and responsive as seen on the Elite series of bows and on the RPM 360 or they can be moderate weighted to improve durability while still maintaining speeds that rival most single and hybrid systems. All in a package when initially tuned/timed properly should remain trouble free until that next string change. Shoot it arrow high or arrow low. Grip heavy heal or California high wrist. The system is so forgiving and the cable loads are so identical it just doesn't matter. If manufactured properly nock travel will remain level regardless. Making the binary a shop tech / bow tech's dream come true.
You still have to be careful in choosing a binary cam bow today. Not every manufacturer has taken the time to eliminate the issues of the past. You can still find binary bows with limb issues and cam lean issues in excess. And unless you are buying a Mathews Mission with the AVS system, you are probably going to be paying a higher price do to the licensing agreements. I'm expecting this to change in the next few years, but with all the binary licensing lawsuits being thrown around who the heck knows how expensive this is going to get. So be careful. Just because you are paying top dollar isn't going to guarantee you a perfectly performing binary. Currently I think you can be pretty secure in choosing any of the Monster's and any of the Mission bows using the AVS system. Likewise, you can be confident in the Bowtech Overdrive Binary (though I will not endorse the Carbon Overdrive until more time and first hand testing has been completed on these limbs and riser). Elite is showing great quality and pride in workmanship as well. On shorter A2A Elites I might need to inspect carefully before purchase even though I have not seen any surprises with the Elite yet.
More and more target shooters are beginning to take the leap and go binary. Following a great number of bowhunters who already have. And I believe if Bowtech and Elite start laying down the same contingency money that Hoyt does you will see a massive change in logos at the tournament line very soon!
The experts are starting to agree...binary is a winner!!!
Post by: RadSav on March 02, 2014, 06:40:42 AM
With all the advancements in each cam design over the past few years. With all the advancements in limbs and limb pockets over the past few years. With all the advancements in bowstring fibers the past few years. And with all the advancements in vibration control over the past few years. I've come to a conclusion about the various cam technologies. That being;
"The Phoenix is Never Dead!"
Just when you think a cam technology is dead and buried beneath an endless depth of ashes and failure one simple visionary with an idea can trigger a rebirth. The phoenix rises stronger and more functional than it was before. Who knows what's next? With all the new materials available to us today I would not be surprised if the two cam bow rises again. I know a lot of top level target shooters that would like to see that happen.
So any expert to claim a single design as the only answer and dominate winner...He is a dang fool!
Post by: Jellymon on March 02, 2014, 07:06:22 AM
Post by: Pacosub on March 02, 2014, 02:22:03 PM
Post by: JLS on March 02, 2014, 02:44:35 PM
Post by: hoyt2002 on March 02, 2014, 06:25:20 PM
Post by: whackmaster on March 02, 2014, 07:37:41 PM