# New Carbon Xpress Nano-XR small diameter arrow?



## Full metal jack (Oct 29, 2006)

So what is the price tag on these arrows?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beats me. I just learned about them this morning.

Interesting that the metal pin and the metal insert nock are almost the same weight.

I'll have to see those metal nocks in person. Sounds like an interesting idea.

John.


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

The metal nocks do not fit properly on a string designed for Easton 098 or Beiter large throat nocks. they are too small. I have looked at their data sheet and the spine/weight is very similar to the new McKinney shafts.


----------



## stickmonkey (Nov 1, 2006)

price is supposed to be close to the x10s, 250-350 dollar range, 's all ive heard


----------



## x1440 (Jan 5, 2003)

They were designed by Soma Archery with Carbon Express. Soma was calling them SP-1 under their brand, but have now changed to Nano XR and now has both the Carbon Express logo and Soma Archery logo. Price is very high. A quote I got from Mr. Baek was $325 and that was a discounted price!

Their CEX2 stabilizers look very good too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I just don't get these small diameter all-carbon arrows (I assume these are all-carbon like the McKinney II's) costing as much as ACE's and X10's.

Why on earth would someone want to use an all carbon arrow that is overall larger in diameter, but costs just as much? There must be something I don't get. Are they attracted to the lighter weight?

John.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*I wonder*

Not knowing the process but presuming... that the carbon is spun or layed down onto a mandril (sp.) It has got to be difficult to get solid rods in lengths of 30 inches or so with diameters of .090 or less. That is what would be necessary to get a shaft of FITA diameter. Add to this the rods need to be _+.001 in straightness and stay straight during a heat curing process. I wonder is they are pushing the technology a bit.

Perhaps there is some type of straightening process the carbon shaft can go through after the curing process. 

It would be great to have someone who really know the process technology.

You are right on however John. Why buy a lighter shaft when easton is prooving that the heavier small diameter shaft flies better down range?

Regards,


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> ... Why on earth would someone want to use an all carbon arrow that is overall larger in diameter, but costs just as much? There must be something I don't get. Are they attracted to the lighter weight? John.





massman said:


> ... You are right on however John. Why buy a lighter shaft when easton is prooving that the heavier small diameter shaft flies better down range?Regards,


It is hard to compete with Easton (due to name recognition and a proven tournament record among the other things), but Rick’s McKinney II arrows might be a good alternative to Easton A/C/E arrows at the field tournaments. Vic already successfully used Rick’s arrows at the last World Field Championship. Parallel shafts might also tune slightly “stiffer” than barreled ones of the same spine. You might end up with even lighter arrow and this could be an additional advantage at the unmarked field distances. Lighter arrows might also behave a little “stiffer” than heavier arrows of the same spine, so for those archers who value better FOC, it might be another advantage. 

You also have to compare weights in various spine groups. For example, X-10 1000 shaft is a little lighter than A/C/E 1000 shaft while being much smaller in diameter. McKinney’s and NANO’s might be more competitive in some other spines.

I don’t have a firsthand experience with NANO XR arrows as I have with McKinney II arrows, X-10 and A/C/E. You can find some discussions about NANO XP arrows on various forums. It is my understanding that NANO XR arrows are just slightly larger in diameter than X-10 arrows and might be a great performer. 

A price tag is, IMHO, a problem with both NANO and McKinney arrows. They are just slightly less expensive than the X-10 shafts, but are all carbon and are viewed by many as “should be chipper” than barreled a/c (and neither has the “Easton” logo on them).


----------



## VFX_Fenix (Feb 8, 2007)

eBay has Nano-XR's for $299/dz. I was looking into these when I saw them on CX's Target shaft chart but quickly pulled a 180 when I saw how much they were :lol:
I don't know what a FITA arrow's diameter should be, but these come in at .208" diameter (similar to a 13XX series arrow I believe).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mike, I've considered the McKinney's and the only real advantage I can see in them is lighter weight and flatter trajectory. Perfect for field archery events (which I'm sure why Vic used them), but I fail to see their superiority at 70 meters.

I agree that they should be significantly less expensive than a barrell tapered ACE or X10 A/C shaft. For several reasons.

If either the McKinney II's or the Nano's were in the Cartel Triple price range ($189/doz.), I think they would be great for the majority of archers out there. However, at their current price points, I can't even recommend them to my advanced JOAD kids. I think they are better off using ACE's, or even Navigators/Triples if they are budget conscious.

John.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I've had this discussion with several other shooters too. 

What I am not convinced of is whether the reduced wind drift is enough to offset the slower velocity and longer flight time of the X10's. 

Conversely, are the flight times of the lightweight arrows short enough to offset the increased potential for wind drift?

I would need to see tests done where a controlled side wind is induced so that actual drift per wind MPH can be determined on an arrow-to-arrow basis, as well as actual flight times and differences.

I can say this though: a lightweight ACE or Mckinney II moving along at around the 220 fps range is 10% faster than an X10 going 200. Given these speeds, does the X10 have 10% less wind drift? I don't know...

Another couple of things to consider: a lightweight shaft needs less point weight to get a nice FOC. This definitely helps the velocity. Higher velocity means flatter trajectory, and less wind effect from winds that are above ground level. 

Before I get flamethrowered, yes, I have seen a couple of guys shooting the Mckinney II's with light points, and their velocities were way over 200fps. One chrono'ed his arrows in the 230fps range (light points, spinwings, pin nocks) on a 42# or so bow/29" drawlength. 

Oh, and just for the record I have 120 grain point ACE's and 110 grain point X10's, and at this point my setup is outshooting me so I'm sticking to what I got.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> a lightweight ACE or Mckinney II moving along at around the 220 fps range is 10% faster than an X10 going 200. Given these speeds, does the X10 have 10% less wind drift? I don't know...


I'm not sure it's that direct of a relationship, but I'm no engineer. I trust that when GT set out to design the best 70M target arrow he could, he considered all these things... At least I hope he did. Nope, I'm sure he did.

He's one smart cookie, and I guess I trust that the X10 design won out over lighter, higher FOC designs.

Now, I'm sure Vittorio will be along soon to disagree... :tongue: ha, ha.

In '04, I couldn't afford X10's, and nobody was offering them to an unknown, so I did the best I could with my ACE's by following the "heretic archer" approach of high FOC by using 125 grain tungsten points in them.

I guess you could argue that no better than I shot, I still beat a bunch of X10 users in a windy week in Ohio. For whatever that's worth. But then that may be more a product of a freakish draw length than type of arrows.

A year or more ago, on two consecutive days with two setups (one with ACE's and one with X10's), I did some tests of my own. The first day was dead calm, but the next day was predicted to have strong winds. I zeroed in each setup on day one, then went out on day two and shot them both several times, holding dead on each time.

The results were quite stunning to me. The ACE's drifted twice as far at 70M as the X10's did. Both setups were well tuned, and what I would consider ready for competition. I will post a few pictures later, but I was satisfied with what I saw.

John.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Suppose you have a light arrow and a heavy arrow, both hitting the middle at 30m. You move back to 70m and shoot them both. Both arrows suffer from "gravity drift" and drop below centre. The light arrow has less "gravity drift" than the heavy arrow.

Conclusion - the light arrow is clearly "better" than the heavy arrow as it has less drift.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Joe, you crack me up.

I know you have more of an opinion on this matter than that! Probably even backed up by a little data too 

John.


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Joe, you crack me up.


Same here.  

But, if you take Joe’s comment seriously, the question could become if you might save more points “vertically” than loose “horizontally”. It appears that lighter arrows might provide some advantages in calm weather: not much of a horizontal drift while lesser “vertical drift”, more convenient archer’s body angles at longer distances, more favorable arrow’s angle of impact on target, arrow leaving a bow quicker, thus set-up is, potentially, “more forgiving”, etc. Athens had strong winds. Beijing predicts having a very calm weather… :secret:


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

In dead calm, I would suspect lighter and faster has an advantage, the arrow spends less time on the string. 

Hmm, interesting about the lose less vertical for more horizontal idea. 

FWIW, I agree John, I can't imagine GT did not build the best possible he could. I'm also sure that my very simplistic analogy is wrong, but it was the best my non-engineering mind could come up with.

I would like to see those pics....


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

The basic point was that drift, whether of the wind or gravity variety, is basically compensated for by moving the sight pin, so while both are not irrelevant you shouldn't give undue importance to either. You have to look at the composite performance *you personally * get under tournament conditions in variable environments to decide on the "best" arrow - and then you find you need different arrows in different conditions - so unless you're very rich some compromise.

Beating the **** out of a bunch of X10 shooters on a windy day with ACE's doesn't prove anything either (except who's the better man on the day  ).


----------

