How the side rods are spread and angled changes how much the stabiliser damps vibration
1 study
The summary today
It comes from a single piece of work, and it is a mathematical model: an Olympic recurve with a multi-rod stabiliser, simulated on a computer from the release to the moment the arrow leaves the string. In the model, without a stabiliser the kinetic energy of riser and limbs is 79 per cent higher, and the position of the side rods matters a good deal: at maximum spread, 35 degrees, and maximum tilt, 17 degrees, the energy dissipated is 1.7 times that of parallel rods, and at the same spread with zero tilt it becomes 5.6 times. Spread out, the side rods flex up to 2.4 times more, while the duration of the push on the arrow, 15.8 milliseconds, does not change with their position. Two things stop the conclusion going further. The first is that nobody has fitted those configurations to a real bow: the calculated damping depends on the dissipation model chosen, and there is no archer in the model, as the author himself acknowledges. The second is that cutting the amplitude tenfold takes three or four oscillations of the rods, that is 28 to 34 milliseconds, and the arrow is gone after 15.8: how much any of this counts on the target has never been measured.
Also phrased as: "side rod angle"; "spreading the side rods"; "v-bar and vibration"; "side rod tilt"; "stabiliser side rods and damping"
In practice
When setting up a stabiliser, archers hear that spreading the side rods or changing their angle is not only about balance: it also changes how much the bow vibrates and how it sheds the shot after the release.
Evidence
-
2012
For Model Published later
Numerical simulation of an Olympic recurve with a multi-rod stabiliser, using the parameters of a commercial stabiliser: compared with parallel side rods, energy dissipation is 1.7 times greater at maximum spread (35°) and maximum tilt (17°), and 5.6 times greater at maximum spread with zero tilt. The damping follows the dissipation model chosen by the author, proportional to the square of the rate of deformation.
Recoil and Vibration in an Archery Bow Equipped with a Multi-Rod Stabilizer · Igor Zaniewski
-
2012
Context Model Published later
In the same model, without a stabiliser the kinetic energy of riser and limbs while the string pushes the arrow is 79 per cent greater, with seven full cycles of oscillation. In the side rods the logarithmic decrement is 0.24 to 0.29 and the amplitude falls by an order of magnitude in three or four cycles, that is 0.028 to 0.034 s.
Recoil and Vibration in an Archery Bow Equipped with a Multi-Rod Stabilizer · Igor Zaniewski
-
2012
Context Model Published later
The duration of the push on the arrow, 15.8 ms, does not depend on the position of the side rods, but their flexing does: at maximum spread it is 1.3 times (maximum tilt) and 2.4 times (zero tilt) that of parallel rods. The side rods reach their first flex peak at 4.6 ms, the trough at 9.4 and the second peak at 12.7, about two oscillations during the push; in the model the central rod is the most compliant (485 N/m) and the side rods the stiffest (1,170 N/m).
Recoil and Vibration in an Archery Bow Equipped with a Multi-Rod Stabilizer · Igor Zaniewski
Status history
- 2012 Transferred The first and only work on the question arrives, a numerical simulation of an Olympic recurve with a multi-rod stabiliser built on the parameters of a commercial model. Without a stabiliser the kinetic energy of riser and limbs during the push is 79 per cent higher; spreading the side rods to the maximum makes the energy dissipated 1.7 times that of parallel rods at maximum tilt and 5.6 times at zero tilt, and the amplitude drops tenfold in three or four oscillations, 28 to 34 milliseconds. The position of the rods does not change the duration of the push, 15.8 milliseconds, only how much they flex. It is a model, with no real bow and no archers, so transferred.
Related
Related articles
Research lines
Cite
Campagna, M. (2026). How the side rods are spread and angled changes how much the stabiliser damps vibration (Version 1). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/side-rods-stabiliser-damping
@misc{campagna2026_astelateralismorzamento,
author = {Campagna, Matteo},
title = {How the side rods are spread and angled changes how much the stabiliser damps vibration},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/side-rods-stabiliser-damping},
note = {Version 1; accessed 2026-10-16}
}
Follow this claim
RSS is an address you paste into a feed reader: each time this claim changes status, adds a year to its history or is revised, a new item appears there.
Registry updates by email
At most one email a month, sent only when something has changed: claims that change status, new claims, Lab predictions registered or resolved, new studies and new books.
Sign-ups are handled by Systeme.io, the service that runs the newsletter. Every email has a link to unsubscribe with one click.
Other claims in this domain
- CorroboratedAlong its flight the arrow loses an appreciable part of its launch speed12 studiesStatus since 2011
- CorroboratedAs it leaves the bow, the arrow flexes and snakes around the riser instead of leaving straight19 studies · 47 archers measuredStatus since 2012
- ReportedA camera-based scoring system misreads some arrows: the ones barely sticking out and the ones that shift the target face7 studies · 2 archers measuredStatus since 2017
- ReportedA chest band with fibre optic sensors measures breathing and mean heart rate with small errors, and an archer can wear it while shooting2 studiesStatus since 2019
- ReportedA compound bow stores between 70 and 100 joules and sheds about two thirds of the force at full draw4 studiesStatus since 2015