Nitro cam updated for 2012?

[Phantonza]

For Onza 3 specs 2012 a draw length adjustment between 26"-30.5" is claimed for the Nitro cam (now referred to as Nitro Pro). Is this correct? Is there really an update in the cam compared to 2011? For the 2011 model, adjustment between 27.5"-30.5" was claimed - 1.5" less adjustability.

When I look at page 11 of the compound bow manual for 2012, it still says "The Standard Module has positions that number #1 through #7, with each number providing ½” additional draw length." This is exactly the statement given in the 2011 manual, so something does not match here. Only seven positions would not give the range of 26-30.5" in half inch increments.

If there really is an update in the cam, does this have any effect to the draw cycle compared to 2011 model? Or are only the rotating draw length modules different?

[Spiker]

I think that is because the cam is offered in 2 versions: the 1.5 and the 2.0.
The 1.5 would go from 26"-29". The 2.0 would go from 27.5"-30.5".
Therefore the bow has a range of 26"-30.5" depending on which cam is ordered on it.

[wscywabbit]

That makes sense, I didn't know they offered the 1.5 on the Onza this year....

[Phantonza]

I think that is because the cam is offered in 2 versions: the 1.5 and the 2.0.
The 1.5 would go from 26"-29". The 2.0 would go from 27.5"-30.5".
Therefore the bow has a range of 26"-30.5" depending on which cam is ordered on it.

Well, that would make perfect sense. However, if you look at the Martin Archery Web store, there is no option of selecting the cam size for Onza 3:

http://www.shopatron.com/products/pr...0.0.0.0?pp=12&

[Phantonza]

So a further clarification of the cam issue would still be appreciated - are there really two cam versions (1.5 and 2.0) offered for 2012 Onza 3? I checked a couple other web stores and they did not have the option of selecting the cam, even though they were referring to the 26"-30.5" adjustment range.

Another question about the Nitro cams: I have a brand new Onza 3 (2011 model but without the TRG/SOS). I use 29" draw length setting of the rotating modules. I noticed that after some test shooting (tens of arrows), I can already see some wear on the serving of the cables - they are two tiny white spots where the cables go over the seams between the cams and the rotating draw length modules when drawing/shooting the bow. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the finish of the cams or modules, but as you know, there is a dip between the two.

For those that have been using bows with Nitro cams: have you observed this wear? Has it caused any problems such as cable failure or does it hold well in practise? At least I haven't heard of a cable failure.

[Phantonza]

So a further clarification of the cam issue would still be appreciated - are there really two cam versions (1.5 and 2.0) offered for 2012 Onza 3? I checked a couple other web stores and they did not have the option of selecting the cam, even though they were referring to the 26"-30.5" adjustment range.

Spiker, Martin customer service confirmed that you are right: Nitro 1.5 and 2.0 are both offered for the Onza 3. I just wonder how it is not shown in the web store as an option. But all right, that is now solved

Another question about the Nitro cams: I have a brand new Onza 3 (2011 model but without the TRG/SOS). I use 29" draw length setting of the rotating modules. I noticed that after some test shooting (tens of arrows), I can already see some wear on the serving of the cables - they are two tiny white spots where the cables go over the seams between the cams and the rotating draw length modules when drawing/shooting the bow. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the finish of the cams or modules, but as you know, there is a dip between the two.

For those that have been using bows with Nitro cams: have you observed this wear? Has it caused any problems such as cable failure or does it hold well in practise? At least I haven't heard of a cable failure.

I studied this issue closer. I found out that the draw length module has a slightly thicker inner side wall compared to the corresponding track in the cam. The cable track in the cam also has a very slight inner "ridge" but its thickness does not quite match to that on the module. This causes the alignment of the cable change slightly at the transit from the cam to the module when drawing the bow - at this point the side wall of the module touches the serving a bit on one side and this is what causes the wear.

Good news is that it goes this way when drawing the bow, so it is not combined to the speed that occurs at the shot. I could imagine a similar wear on the other side of the cable caused by the transition to the opposite direction, but luckily there is none visible. So I am not very worried about that. On the other hand, I bet this could be easily improved in production.

Sorry, no pictures, but I hope the (possible) readers could understand from my non-native English explanation.

[Spiker]

It probably is not listed on the online store because, if purchased that way, the bows are standard production models.
The nice thing about Martin is that you can get a bow built in just about any configuration if you go thru one of their dealers.
That may not be as easy in Finland as it is here but - still is available.

Sounds like you have a good grasp of archery engineering and mass production.

[madman350]

phantoza, do you bowhunt over there in finland? if so fill us in a little about it. not everyday we hear input and direct info relating to archery from folks in your neck of the woods.

[Phantonza]

It probably is not listed on the online store because, if purchased that way, the bows are standard production models.
The nice thing about Martin is that you can get a bow built in just about any configuration if you go thru one of their dealers.
That may not be as easy in Finland as it is here but - still is available.

OK - but in that case I assume the draw length should be listed as 27.5" - 30.5" (as for Nitro 2.0 cam) in the online store. The whole range of 26” to 30.5” is written there instead.

Sounds like you have a good grasp of archery engineering and mass production.

No, not really. I was just trying to apply common sense, that's all. But perhaps I am having a bit more analytical perspective at the moment as I am doing a comparison test (including Onza 3) to the magazine of the Finnish Bowhunting Association. I could post some pictures to illustrate my explanation later.

[Phantonza]

phantoza, do you bowhunt over there in finland? if so fill us in a little about it. not everyday we hear input and direct info relating to archery from folks in your neck of the woods.

Yes, since 2003. I don't feel like a very experienced bowhunter yet, though. In Finland, the largest animals that are allowed for bowhunting are beaver and roe deer. Roe deer is much smaller species of deer than whitetail, as you might know.

However, we actually have a good whitetail deer population too, mainly in the southern parts of the country (I live in the north). The species was imported from USA back in the 1930's by Finnish immigrants. Basically the species is non-existent elsewhere in Europe. We are hoping to get all the deers permitted for bowhunting in the near future. Other deer include Finnish forest deer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus), very similar to caribou. We also have lots of moose around, they are smaller in average size compared to North America, but you are not allowed to use bow and arrow to hunt them. Other big game such as brown bear, lynx and wild boar are also only for rifle hunters. On the other hand, half of the European countries have banned bowhunting completely!

So far, most of my hunting effort has been about birds (different species than in the USA, black grouse being my favorite), hares and roe deer.