# Trying some arrow clocking.....



## *SWITCH (Nov 27, 2007)

There's been some interesting and very contentious threads on this, but as I have just got some new arrows thought I would give it a try to see for myself.

So, at 1m/3ft it was clear I had a counter clockwise rotating bare shaft. I tried 2 different brands of nocks, both reacted exactly the same.

At 2m, 4m, 5m they continued counter clockwise until at 10m I had 90 degrees rotation on bare shaft. Ok maybe it's possible it could have been a full turn and a half as I jumped from 5 to 10m. I'm discounting, rightly or wrongly, the arrow reversing its initial rotation over these distances, or rotating massively clockwise. As in theory its possible. 

So I fletched up some arrows with a left offset and some with right.

On a walk back test, impact points were the same for both offsets.

At 70m/120cm face over the course of 72 arrows both different sets scored 337. i was actually surprised a little!

Arrows were otherwise identical and shot at random out of my quiver. 

10's, 9's and 8 totals (yes I am a bit rusty outside!) were all within 1 of each other.

I should add that 1 of the left offset arrows started flying off way out of the group at some point in the second half I think. Yet to track down the culprit, likely a component bent/damaged.

i will continue to shoot them against each other, maybe 90m will show up something, or nothing!


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

I applaud you for taking the initiative to actually perform a test and I encourage you to continue testing when you develop new arrow builds. 

I have personally found that sometime fletching direction makes a difference, some times it does not, but when there is a difference, it's not always the arrow that's fletched "with" the bareshaft clocking direction that performs best.

I've recently started to add slo-motion footage to my youtube channel, including comparisons between "clocked" and "anti-clocked" arrows leaving the bow.
Disclaimer, the footage is presented as-is, I make no claims or assumptions about whether either reaction is "better" in terms of accuracy/group size.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRr23rjQzQA


----------



## *SWITCH (Nov 27, 2007)

hey, I've seen your arrow clocking vids nestly, very good thanks.

yeh will continue with it, doing 70/90m later today. Although i'm very rusty at 90m so maybe hard to spot anything significant. We shall see.

Unless I see something very obvious will continue testing for another week.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Always enjoy someone else testing clocking. 

I did my testing starting with 3 feet and then every 2 feet back to 11 feet which showed 1/2 revolution (bare shaft). 

This "clocking" was made aware on AT back in June, 22, 2016. Since then no one has given valid proof that clocking actually works. Still to this day I thought the picture of improvement in that thread a poor example and surely not proof. I shot better and tighter groups at varying distances out to 80 yards and this before I ever joined AT, Sept 2006. My arrows at the time were CXL 250s. They were not spine indexed, no arrow squaring and not "clocked." 
In the inset (article) Thacker told of different models of arrows turning differently out of the same bow, 2nd column, bottom paragraph. "Loop length, release type, face pressure, nock brand and fit leaves a lot of room for doubt of valid proof coming forth.......

https://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4014881


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

That thread is a perfect example why we should not speak of what we do not know. Although I've tested left and right for many years, I was unaware that unfletched arrows also spin, and certainly very unaware of how long it can take for fletchings to over come the "natural rotation direction". All it took was a little effort and I found out just how wrong my initial comments in that 2016 thread were. None of what I've learned through process testing or slo-mo video has changed the results though, which is that fletching direction "can" sometimes affect accuracy, but there's no direct relationship between bareshaft clocking direction and fletching direction in terms of being able to predict which is "better". For the purpose of this discussion, above applies only to field/target points, not broadheads which I have no data for.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

I'm just happy if my arrows don't fly end-over-end...


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

nestly said:


> That thread is a perfect example why we should not speak of what we do not know.  Although I've tested left and right for many years, I was unaware that unfletched arrows also spin, and certainly very unaware of how long it can take for fletchings to over come the "natural rotation direction". All it took was a little effort and I found out just how wrong my initial comments in that 2016 thread were. None of what I've learned through process testing or slo-mo video has changed the results though, which is that fletching direction "can" sometimes affect accuracy, but there's no direct relationship between bareshaft clocking direction and fletching direction in terms of being able to predict which is "better". For the purpose of this discussion, above applies only to field/target points, not broadheads which I have no data for.


We protested, but tested for ourselves and found some truth. 

Okay, the claim made by Thacker....Did Thacker actually find this phenomena? Just a guess, I'd say no, he just elevated it. No different than Tim and Jesse with Torque Tuning. Torque Tuning has been around since 2002. Tim and Jesse just elevated it. Of course, the difference is people have found Torque Tuning does work. Problem is people have to be good enough to see or get results. And then Reo Wilde said he didn't see any difference. So, you don't know until you try it. 

Always doubting...Wonder how many hours Thacker tested to find that so much effects bare shaft spin out of the bow?


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

The main issues with arrow clocking is that a lot of people assume that IT alone makes the difference. 
However, we know that in some cases that it doesn't, so this indicates that it isn't a significant feature in itself. 

What we do know is that arrows that aren't perfectly straight don't fly consistently and require spin to make them average out into a straight line of flight. 
The straighter the arrow, the less spin is required to keep it flying straight. 

The less straight the arrow, the more spin required. 

We know that arrows fletched against their natural rotation don't spin up as fast as ones fletched in the same direction as their natural rotation. 

This means that the least straight arrows will respond the most to the natural rotation fletched arrows. 

So we have a minimum of four combinations between straight, bent, fletched for, fletched against. 

Now we have the interesting part. 
Super competitive archers are going to have the straightest and most inspected arrows and will be the best shots. 

They're going to be the LEAST affected by fletched for, and against rotation. 

Archers with budget arrows aren't going to have the straightest, so they'll have the arrows that need to be spun up quickly to give the best chance of flying straight. 

If you have a shaft that is not perfect, but half way to the target it's slowed down to a stop, and then starts spinning up the other way, you have an arrow which is going to steer in one direction ONLY for a portion of it's flight time. 

Good luck hitting anything predictable with that. 

If it was straight, it wouldn't plane in one direction. 

To keep yourself out of the clocking issue, you just shoot the straightest shafts you can possibly buy and maintain. This would be what the top archers do anyway, which is why they rarely see any difference when clocking is mentioned.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

nestly said:


> I applaud you for taking the initiative to actually perform a test and I encourage you to continue testing when you develop new arrow builds.
> 
> I have personally found that sometime fletching direction makes a difference, some times it does not, but when there is a difference, it's not always the arrow that's fletched "with" the bareshaft clocking direction that performs best.
> 
> ...


NICE WORK! 

It's fun when you have actual evidence to show people. They tend to have to stop and consider that what they're saying doesn't match what is obvious to what they can see.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> .
> If you have a shaft that is not perfect, but half way to the target it's slowed down to a stop, and then starts spinning up the other way, you have an arrow which is going to steer in one direction ONLY for a portion of it's flight time.
> 
> To keep yourself out of the clocking issue, you just shoot the straightest shafts you can possibly buy and maintain. This would be what the top archers do anyway, which is why they rarely see any difference when clocking is mentioned.


.
Right off, my tests were done with .001" for straightness arrows. Still, "half way to the target" is bit a much. My bare shafts turned 1/2 revolution in 11 feet. My fletched arrows started out counter clockwise and right at before 9 feet started turning clockwise.
I can't remember ever having arrows worse than .0025" for straightness. I do have some, but of more recent times, Absolute 22s and Bowcore Giants (both rated .003" for straightness). 

I would also noted the .001" straight arrows are Muddy Outdoors Virtues, no longer made. They were upgraded Harvest Time Archery arrows, even has Harvest Time Archery in small print on the label. Still the most accurate arrows I've ever shot.

Most fletched arrows don't turn up a whole lot of rpms. I can probably say 200 rpm average and be somewhat correct. 

Again, bare shaft and fletched started at 3 feet and then checked every 2 feet back. One thing not taken in the scope of things my fletched shafts had 1 3/4" vanes which barely show helical (short vane don't show helical as well as vanes offset to the 2 and 3 degrees). So taller (Blazers) or longer vanes set helical may have corrected sooner and spun much more than my tests showed.

I don't remember how many times I shot/tested, but a bunch. I quite bulged the back of my Delta 400 fps speed bag with 284 fps arrows.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

One of the hardest things to get particularly archers to accept in terms of testing, is that you need to be able to eliminate all variations in the testing process, so that you are ONLY left with the effects caused by what you want to demonstrate. 

99.9999 percent of demonstrations I've seen posted on archery forums in the last 12 years don't eliminate enough variables to be considered accurate information.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> One of the hardest things to get particularly archers to accept in terms of testing, is that you need to be able to eliminate all variations in the testing process, so that you are ONLY left with the effects caused by what you want to demonstrate.
> 
> 99.9999 percent of demonstrations I've seen posted on archery forums in the last 12 years don't eliminate enough variables to be considered accurate information.


When given a demonstration, the Thacker article, one only has what was presented to work with or start to work with. There was Thacker's own admission, the many variations he gave of that had different arrows turn differently in the same bow. If this has been noted heavily enough would one even try? Well, a couple of us had to....

So much performed in the quest for perfection....most not proven, but some how accepted. Those with OCD are both blessed and cursed? Squaring arrow ends, squaring inserts, indexing, clocking, so many tuning methods said best, spine of arrow thought narrow as for point weight. But if one gives confidence why not?


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Waiting for the turbo nock tests to show up?


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Mahly said:


> Waiting for the turbo nock tests to show up?


I bought the camera, you supply the nocks.  I'll high-speed them any way you want and then ship them back to you.


----------



## *SWITCH (Nov 27, 2007)

So unfortunately I wore out my release aid, so have been trying to get used to a different one, which meant I only had 1 session with it at 90m and 2 sessions at 70/50m before it failed. 90m didn't show anything conclusive. both offsets performed similarly, maybe slight edge to the left offset.

Have shot a lot but nothing past 70m with new release, tracking the arrows the only thing I could conclude was that the left offset wasn't doing any harm to my groups.

so at 50m in zero wind, I shot 3 of each different offset until I made 6 perfect shots in the 10 or x. The group size of the left offset was smaller then the right offset.

Again means probably nothing, but decided to refletch the entire set with left offset anyway.

Got to retest the barehsaft with new release aid though, plus since then had to change cables and dloop is shorter with new release ummm maybe I should just leave it!.....can of worms


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

nestly said:


> I bought the camera, you supply the nocks.  I'll high-speed them any way you want and then ship them back to you.


I’ll have to see if, and how many I still have... I’ll let you know if/when I find them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Was also going to suggest:
Try different sized loops as well as releases that can be locked in place perpendicular to the string vs solid releases the will twist a loop.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Mahly said:


> Waiting for the turbo nock tests to show up?


I'm still trying to find the results of the FOB event that would prove them the greatest vane ever. Of course you couldn't enter if you didn't use FOBs. How is that proof? Are they advertised any more?


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Not sure.
I actually used them for a while.
I modified mine so they would be farther up the shaft.
They seemed to work OK.
But the again, spin wings worked great as well.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Mahly said:


> Not sure.
> I actually used them for a while.
> I modified mine so they would be farther up the shaft.
> They seemed to work OK.
> But the again, spin wings worked great as well.


After a summer of testing different brands and models of vanes I'll stick any vane on my arrows. Still, personal preference plays part. 

Getting off subject, aren't we? Or is it giving that fletching right or left doesn't matter?


----------

