I have and shoot both. Frankly, I can't tell the difference.

Dave

 

The interesting thing is that BCY developed 8125 for use with compounds. It was felt that the smaller diameter would better suit the redical cams of today's compounds. For some reason recurvers have taken to it. Like Desert Archer I can't really tell any difference; it just means I have to use thicker heavier center serving to fit my nocks. I'll stick with Dyneema 02.

 

I can't tell much of a difference either...I believe the conventional wisdom is D97 has a little bit more stretch but is less prone to fraying, more durable...if I have to pick between the two I go with 8125 because I like thin and David uses it...

 

Check with BCY..these two materials are exactly the same, but only differ in diam. And 8125 is more $$$$...At least that's the way that I read it....Harpman

 

Thanks for the anwers.
I will ask prices, if not much difference I will try 8125.
If Das use it..........

Thanks
Martin

 

D-97 and 8125 are the same stuff, when using 8125 I add two more strands over D-97 to get the same diameter and strength. 8125 will make a little rounder string than D-97 but I don't care if a string is square if it doesn't stretch, fuzz up or wear out fast, both don't...warf

 

D97 has wax, 8125 cost much more. As I wax my strings anyway I get the D97.

BBP

 

8125 is 20% thinner than D97 which creates a rounder string and also allows finer tuning of the strand count. That was primarily why I started using it. Even though it is thinner than D97 it has the same strength (120lbs per strand). The materials are similar but not the same. D97 is 100% Dyneema. 8125 is a modified Dyneema blend. I think it is 90 or 92% Dyneema. 8125 also has less wax, which I like. All that wax makes a heck of a mess. Once the string is made I can always add a little more wax if I want to. It is more expensive though.

David

 

Lets see; 8125 costs 41% more than Dyna 97 and 25% more than Dyneema 02, and you have to use 20% more of it to get the same diameter string. I think I'll stick with with low wax Dyneema 02.

 

Flox,
Yep, the 02 would avoid the wax problem. You're right about the money of course, but in real terms, I couldn't even buy a newspaper anymore with the difference between the most expensive materials and the least expensive on a per-string basis. Strings last so long anyway. Unless one were 3X the cost of another it wouldn't matter much to me.

As an aside comment, it seems like the formulation of these fibers is always shifting around. Sometimes I wonder if anything is what they say it is. I know when Spectra became scarce, several string materials were reformulated with no name change. Serving materials come and go too. I just heard somewhere that Brownell had reformulated TS-1, but it is still called "TS-1". I guess the point is, if you find something you like, buy enough to last a while.

David

 

Yeah, when Brownell originally developed TS-1 it contained a blend of spectra and dyneema. Then when spectra became unavailable due to supplies to the military, they introduced TS-1+ which is all dyneema and they claimed it was an improvement. Whereas Dyna 97 and Dyneema 02 have been 100% dyneema all along. Who's to say what the difference is. I sure can't tell any, and I've got lots of Dyneema 02 in different colors.

 

Flox,
I may be wrong. I can't remember where I saw it, but it was recent. I think TS-1(+) is undergoing another change beyond the one you mentioned. Since I can't remember the source, I can't vouch for the validity. I read too much stuff

David