# Are barreled shafts more forgiving?



## mseganti (Sep 15, 2017)

I have heard this over and over again and all of the explanations I have heard sound kind of fishy. I feel like it might just be something people say, but if they actually do id like to hear your opinions. I just can't see why they would be more forgiving. A lot of pros are staying with X10's indoors, people use this as the reason why they wouldn't go with line cutters instead, I personally just think people are lazy.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I think you should explore why barreled shafts were developed. While I won't speculate if people are lazy, I can say with certainty that recurve shooters do benefit from barreled, or weak tailed shafts. You should also explore archers paradox to help you come to an informed opinion about it.

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


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Barreled arrows actually go back into prehistory meaning not just 1 or 2 but many 1000's of years; I don't think it's known yet when they were invented and the benefits were first realized. But the main benefit is real - they simply fly better than a parallel shaft for aerodynamic reasons. This is immediately apparent when they're shot outdoors compared to a parallel shaft, though not so much indoors.

Even out of my coupound, my ACE 470's hugely outperform any parallel shaft I've ever shot at 50 meters both in grouping and general downrange performance. 

For reasons I don't fully understand, they also happen to be my best grouping shaft out of all my compounds at all distances, even 20 yards. They're way too stiff like all my others, but maybe the weaker back end adds a little cushion to them despite the fact that paradox is much less and mosly only up/down on the compound/release aid (I shoot very low poundage, 30-33lbs....)...

lee.


----------



## mseganti (Sep 15, 2017)

I understand why they fly better, let me rephrase what I mean by forgiving, people say it compensates for inconsistencies on the release. Is there any truth to that?


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

No. A poor shot is a poor shot. No miracles in archery. Sorry. ...and I shoot x10s.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

mseganti said:


> I understand why they fly better, let me rephrase what I mean by forgiving, people say it compensates for inconsistencies on the release. Is there any truth to that?


Again speaking from the compound perspective, no, there's no difference that I can detect granted by barreling itself. Depending on how you define "forgiveness" (no I won't derail the thread on that here), typically just good old fashioned arrow spine in general is the main variable that gives you the least penalty on a bad shot. Any shaft configuration will work in that respect....

lee.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

mseganti said:


> I understand why they fly better, let me rephrase what I mean by forgiving, people say it compensates for inconsistencies on the release. Is there any truth to that?


Thousands of Gold medals got by thousands of Recurve archers since 1989 say yes. I think the last significant Gold medal won outdoor by a parallel constant spine shaft at World or Olympic level has been got by Zabrowsky at World championship 1989, shooting Beman Diva carbon shafts. After then, variable spine arrows only. Even the arrows used by my son during the team Gold match in London 2012 were made at variable spine, weaker on back, being the prototypes of the Nano pro Extreme.


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

lees said:


> Barreled arrows actually go back into prehistory meaning not just 1 or 2 but many 1000's of years; I don't think it's known yet when they were invented and the benefits were first realized. But the main benefit is real - they simply fly better than a parallel shaft for aerodynamic reasons. This is immediately apparent when they're shot outdoors compared to a parallel shaft, though not so much indoors.
> 
> Even out of my coupound, my ACE 470's hugely outperform any parallel shaft I've ever shot at 50 meters both in grouping and general downrange performance.
> 
> ...


Aerodynamics of barreled/tapered vs parallel is virtually negligible especially when you take into consideration the bulge points. You likely found better performance because of spine, not shape.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

x-hunta said:


> Aerodynamics of barreled/tapered vs parallel is virtually negligible especially when you take into consideration the bulge points. You likely found better performance because of spine, not shape.


No. The benefits are simple aerodynamics and are easily demonstrable; besides, barreling has been known in archery for literally 1000's of years. In my case, shooting very low poundage the difference is shocking outdoors at 50 meters, over against my GT 400 Ultralights, say. Night and day difference, especially in the wind. 

That said, like in any discussion of archery technology, we have to be honest and also mention the disadvantages: the main one also being obvious - they're quite a bit harder to make than an equivalent parallel shaft. That's why they tend to be expensive - Easton seems to have the manufacturing technology down the most with the ACE and X10 & Protour, but they also do cost an arm and a leg. But especially outdoors with a light poundage bow, it's the best money you can probably spend on gear....

lee.


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

lees said:


> No. The benefits are simple aerodynamics and are easily demonstrable; besides, barreling has been known in archery for literally 1000's of years. In my case, shooting very low poundage the difference is shocking outdoors at 50 meters, over against my GT 400 Ultralights, say. Night and day difference, especially in the wind.
> 
> That said, like in any discussion of archery technology, we have to be honest and also mention the disadvantages: the main one also being obvious - they're quite a bit harder to make than an equivalent parallel shaft. That's why they tend to be expensive - Easton seems to have the manufacturing technology down the most with the ACE and X10 & Protour, but they also do cost an arm and a leg. But especially outdoors with a light poundage bow, it's the best money you can probably spend on gear....
> 
> lee.


That's a case of diameter and spine.

Better spine, thinner arrow will obviously work better, not because of the barreled shape. Take a more representative arrow like a CX Nano or BE X-impact with a comparable spine and I doubt you would find much difference between them and your ACE.


----------



## DarkLightStar (Apr 7, 2016)

You're still going to have to sort through your arrows and match components. One advantage national teams have over individual archers is a larger budget to be able to give their archers much better opportunities to sort through the available stock and find arrows that group well.

You don't necessarily have those kinds of options when you buy 1/2-a full dozen at a time. One of the things that you're paying for with the upper-end arrows is better sorting. And there is a reason Easton has spine codes such as C3. 

I do feel that barrel shafts (and anything designed with a weaker end) give more forgiveness in clearance during the tuning phase. 

But the concept of "forgiveness" after you've tuned your bow to the best of your ability is a little bit of a misnomer. You have "range." And a bad shot is still going to give you an unhappy ending.

How much forgiveness is there at 70 meters when the difference between hitting the gold and not is the size of a pencil eraser? Not much. Flub a shot and you can expect that your tuning efforts will not save you.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

x-hunta said:


> That's a case of diameter and spine.
> 
> Better spine, thinner arrow will obviously work better, not because of the barreled shape. Take a more representative arrow like a CX Nano or BE X-impact with a comparable spine and I doubt you would find much difference between them and your ACE.


Not sure why you keep presenting better spine as a valid parameter. A correctly spined arrow is a given in this discussion which provides that barreled/variable spine shafts have been proven by decades of positive results to be superior. Thinner, yes, as in the X10 is selected more often than the ACE by top competitors.


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

mseganti said:


> I have heard this over and over again and all of the explanations I have heard sound kind of fishy. I feel like it might just be something people say, but if they actually do id like to hear your opinions. I just can't see why they would be more forgiving. A lot of pros are staying with X10's indoors, people use this as the reason why they wouldn't go with line cutters instead, I personally just think people are lazy.


If you have never noticed plunger contact when you have a poor release, you might not benefit.
You would of course benefit the most from a clean release, however, I'm still working on that.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Marketing Marketing Marketing....

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Take two sets of comparatively spined tunes arrows (one barreled and one parallel), drop them from a tall building and see which one arrives on the ground first. Drop them together side by side and see which one lands the furthest from its target to determine which one has better crosswind performance characteristics. Use the same fletching, same distance from the nock groove, perform this over several spines.

When you talk about which profile flies better through a medium, you’re talking about skin drag and form drag. While a barreled profile provides better skin drag due to overall higher mass to surface area ratio, all the advantages of form drag seems to be diminished by the turbulence generated by the violent side to oscillation of a realistic finger release, coupled by the obviously non streamlined tail end of the fletched arrow and nock. I’ve mentioned this in another forum previously, and was met with a rebuttal in the form of a streamlined aeroplane fuselage argument. Unless the plane is going to roll and swing side to side like an actual shot arrow, I’d say that the whole streamlined profile has negligible advantage over a parallel shaft in the area of drag. Should a parallel shaft have less surface area, it might even beat the comparable barreled shaft, not just in various performance parameters, but also in cost of manufacture, and pricing.


----------



## mseganti (Sep 15, 2017)

Bob Furman said:


> Marketing Marketing Marketing....
> 
> Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk


Kind of what I figured


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Nonsense. And it appears that you’ve asked a question but only wanted an affirmation of your opinion.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Maybe whiz-oz would like to offer his views?


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Actually as stated, barrelled shafts are nothing new. The barrelled design helps minimize vibration from archers paradox.

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

"Maybe whiz-oz would like to offer his views?"

The only view that matters is the one from the podium.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Here are some intersting reads i ran across awhile back:

http://www.bow-international.com/features/traditional/a-mystery-revived/

http://www.turkishculture.org/lifestyles/turkish-culture-portal/turkish-flight-arrows-554.htm

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Seattlepop said:


> "Maybe whiz-oz would like to offer his views?"
> 
> The only view that matters is the one from the podium.


www.celebarchersfromthepodiumtalk.com

Membership by invitation and merit.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

First, you need to lose the word “forgiving” and replace it with “accurate”. Nobody has a definition of “forgiving” that isn’t synonymous with better accuracy.

Second, you can’t fairly compare barrelled shafts to parallel because there are different characteristics that vary from one to the other besides the actual shape. Compare an ACE to a Nano, and you have different weight, spine, balance point, diameter, etc. How can you conclusively establish that the barrel shape and only the barrel shape is what makes it more accurate?

Vittorio points out that variable spine arrows have been used for every major championship in recent years. Is it because they are inherently better, or because top archers use them because manufacturers provide these archers with their most expensive arrows? 

I’m not for a minute suggesting there is no advantage to barrelled or variable spine arrows, just that there is no definitive proof that there is. In order to make that determination, you’d have to have an archer (or rather, a large number of archers) shoot a statistically significant number of rounds under controlled conditions with each of a variety of different arrows (each perfectly tuned) and examine the results. Not going to happen.

Everything else is merely anecdotal.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

theminoritydude said:


> When you talk about which profile flies better through a medium, you’re talking about skin drag and form drag. While a barreled profile provides better skin drag due to overall higher mass to surface area ratio, all the advantages of form drag seems to be diminished by the turbulence generated by the violent side to oscillation of a realistic finger release, coupled by the obviously non streamlined tail end of the fletched arrow and nock. I’ve mentioned this in another forum previously, and was met with a rebuttal in the form of a streamlined aeroplane fuselage argument. Unless the plane is going to roll and swing side to side like an actual shot arrow, I’d say that the whole streamlined profile has negligible advantage over a parallel shaft in the area of drag. Should a parallel shaft have less surface area, it might even beat the comparable barreled shaft, not just in various performance parameters, but also in cost of manufacture, and pricing.


I think you're talking about parasitic and induced drag here, and I believe your analysis is reversed. Instead, a barreled design will exhibit lower parasitic *and *induced drag - a barrel produces poorer lift than a straight shaft at any angle of attack to the relative wind up to the point of stall (strange but true) and will therefore exhibit less induced drag in those conditions, not more. And the stall characteristics are better for a barrel too, just as we see in wing airfoils vs. a flat airfoil. 

In other words, a barrel will perform better with respect to drag in any condition, including any time where any portion of it has an angle of attack with respect to the relative wind, than a straight shaft will and will also have lower parasitic drag too. 

As for streamlined aircraft fuselages, they're typically streamlined for the same reason we've been barreling arrow shafts for 1000's of years: an airfoiled or barreled fuselage produces lift more poorly at given angles of attack such as when the aircraft is in uncoordinated flight. This is not a negligible, but in fact very large, benefit to efficiency of flight (aircraft fuses actually *do* roll and swing side to side in flight normally, so reducing generated lift of a fuselage as much as possible is critical for reducing drag and increased performance). And that configuration just flies through the air better....

lee.


----------



## mseganti (Sep 15, 2017)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Nonsense. And it appears that you’ve asked a question but only wanted an affirmation of your opinion.


I just wanted to know, I’m new to the sport and I feel have grown relatively quickly in it. Now I’m just trying to gather info, so yes I confirmed it and it’s not wrong of me to start a thread because of something I’m ignorant about. I didn’t know it would turn into a firestorm.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

x-hunta said:


> That's a case of diameter and spine.
> 
> Better spine, thinner arrow will obviously work better, not because of the barreled shape. Take a more representative arrow like a CX Nano or BE X-impact with a comparable spine and I doubt you would find much difference between them and your ACE.


There's actually science behind the aerodynamic/fluid performance of barrels vs. straight columns, though, that would contradict that. That said, Stash has the right idea of a controlled experiment to confirm whether it actually makes a difference in practice, though I think he's right that it probably won't ever be able to get properly done.....

lee.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Did you say induced drag?

I deliberately left that out because it doesn’t apply here.

Form drag definitely is comparable between two arrows as their tail ends have similar non streamlined features, and they oscillate, causing more disturbance in airflow, with (surprise) the barreled shaft exhibiting higher A.O.A. between comparable shafts, flow separation definitely becomes more frequent than parallel uniform spines. All things being viewed equal, the only difference to talk about is skin drag. Which is a function of surface area.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

theminoritydude said:


> Did you say induced drag?


Sure did.


> I deliberately left that out because it doesn’t apply here.


Heh. Then you deliberately left out one of the most important factors you could name in arrow flight performance. In fact, for anything that flies through the air......

lee.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Not that archers are interested in specific terms in aerodynamics. Induced drag is an unavoidable by-product of lift, and usually results in a swirling vortex caused by pressure differential between a region of higher pressure “leaking” to region of lower pressure. Simply put, unless lift is specifically required as a function, it’s better to leave induced drag out of the discussion. Especially so if we are talking about shaft profiles and not vane functions.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

So to confirm, is lift an important function (to you) in arrow flight?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

theminoritydude said:


> Simply put, unless lift is specifically required as a function, it’s better to leave induced drag out of the discussion. Especially so if we are talking about shaft profiles and not vane functions.


Actually, no, it is precisely when dealing with shaft profiles that induced drag is a critical aspect of performance. Only ideally does an arrow shaft not act as a lifting surface on its way to the target. In actual practice, you have paradox, which you've already mentioned, you have mediocre and bad shots which affect the trajectory of the shaft through the airmass and finally you have relative movement of the airmass itself with respect to the arrow's ground track (AkA turbulence and the wind). Because of all those real-world situations, the shaft does act as a lifting surface under a variety of conditions and those do affect the performance of the shaft's flight via induced drag.

This isn't important just "for me", it's important generally for anything that flies through the air. If you want to assess and improve some aspect of its performance, that is. In the case of an arrow for outdoors, for example, the lowest drag (both parasitic and induced) is generally desired for the shaft itself. The fletching is a whole nother story of course.....

lee.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Stash said:


> ...
> Vittorio points out that variable spine arrows have been used for every major championship in recent years. Is it because they are inherently better, or because top archers use them because manufacturers provide these archers with their most expensive arrows?
> ...


Believe me, if in around 30 years no one has used a single spine arrow at top (recurve) level, surely it is not because they are provided free. 

And, of course, "forgiving" is not a synonimus of "accurate", at least for arrows. For sure you can define an arrow more "forgiving " than an other based on several of its parts and its overall construction, were variable spine is one of the most important factors. 

Example:

Supposing to have 2 sets of 6 perfectly matched and spined arrows,equivalent in dynamic spine and weight, but:

- 1 set made by carbon parallel shafts, with 60 grain point PF 175 plastic vanes 
- 1 set made by ACE's , with 100 grain point and Spin Wing wanes

Which one you will choose ?
Do you choose based on point, shaft or vanes, or a combination of them? 
Considering 100 archers, what percentage will choose carbon set after real testing ? 
And , in a closed area, with a shooting machine, which arrow will be more "accurate" at 70 mt?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

lees said:


> Actually, no, it is precisely when dealing with shaft profiles that induced drag is a critical aspect of performance. Only ideally does an arrow shaft not act as a lifting surface on its way to the target. In actual practice, you have paradox, which you've already mentioned, you have mediocre and bad shots which affect the trajectory of the shaft through the airmass and finally you have relative movement of the airmass itself with respect to the arrow's ground track (AkA turbulence and the wind). Because of all those real-world situations, the shaft does act as a lifting surface under a variety of conditions and those do affect the performance of the shaft's flight via induced drag.
> 
> This isn't important just "for me", it's important generally for anything that flies through the air. If you want to assess and improve some aspect of its performance, that is. In the case of an arrow for outdoors, for example, the lowest drag (both parasitic and induced) is generally desired for the shaft itself. The fletching is a whole nother story of course.....
> 
> lee.


This is probably a matter of different usage of the terms. Induced drag if you would like to call it that, personally I don’t like to confuse it with form drag, but either way they are both largely unrelated to the profile of the shaft. Flow separation occurs at approximately the same angles of attack under similar conditions between parallel and barreled shafts, and as pointed out by some others, the point has more effect than the shape of the shaft. Longitudinally.

Laterally, it’s really just about the diameter of the shaft. The smaller diameter wins. The induced drag you’re referring to could arguably be applied here (and I do see your point because they work on the same mechanism) but again, as I have mentioned, the smaller diameter wins. Not directly a result of a barreled profile.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Bottom line is, what results can we expect if we dropped two different profiles of the same spine with similar point weights from a tall building? Anyone knows if it is even legal to perform this test?


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

theminoritydude said:


> Bottom line is, what results can we expect if we dropped two different profiles of the same spine with similar point weights from a tall building? Anyone knows if it is even legal to perform this test?


What would happen if you drop your bow from a tall building beside said arrows. 

Bottom line is by "dropping" the arrow you are negating all the effects of shooting it. So, not sure what you are looking to prove with the experiment.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

To establish the longitudinal effects if any of the barrel profile over that of a purely parallel profile by removing the other mechanical effects of the shafts interacting with the bow.

But if you’re going to drop a bow, let us know.


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> Not sure why you keep presenting better spine as a valid parameter. A correctly spined arrow is a given in this discussion which provides that barreled/variable spine shafts have been proven by decades of positive results to be superior. Thinner, yes, as in the X10 is selected more often than the ACE by top competitors.


I gave spine as a parameter of his personal results, in which he was comparing a stiffer arrow to a weaker arrow, that would have a large impact on results. Common sense.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

theminoritydude said:


> This is probably a matter of different usage of the terms. Induced drag if you would like to call it that, personally I don’t like to confuse it with form drag, but either way they are both largely unrelated to the profile of the shaft.


Still wrong, but if it's any consolation, the concept of induced drag gives new student pilots trouble when they're first introduced to the concept too (no offense meant, of course). But unfortunately, induced drag is a critical part of the performance analysis of anything that flies through the air, including an arrow shaft. Nothing that flies through a real airmass isn't capable of producing lift (even the proverbial brick) and is, accordingly, immune to its effects.



> Flow separation occurs at approximately the same angles of attack under similar conditions between parallel and barreled shafts, and as pointed out by some others, the point has more effect than the shape of the shaft. Longitudinally.


It's not the AOA, it's the amount of lift generated by the surface at that AOA (strange but true: stalled surfaces still produce lift). The more lift the surface produces, the higher also is the induced drag. This is where the barrel performs better with respect to drag - it produces poorer lift than a straight shaft does (in addition to the lower parasitic drag of a barrel profile).



> Laterally, it’s really just about the diameter of the shaft. The smaller diameter wins. The induced drag you’re referring to could arguably be applied here (and I do see your point because they work on the same mechanism) but again, as I have mentioned, the smaller diameter wins. Not directly a result of a barreled profile.


Still wrong again, for the reasons stated above. All else being equal (roughly speaking) a barrel will have lower induced drag in flight and will therefore perform better (in terms of drag).

lee.


----------



## mseganti (Sep 15, 2017)

The question I intended for this thread was for the effect of a soft tailed shaft. The question I was asking, even though I realize not very clearly, was if having a soft tailed shaft mitigates effects of inconsistent releases. I have heard this for a long time and just wanted to know if there was any truth to that.

Commenting on induced drag, yes it does come into effect on arrows, both the shaft and vanes, say for example spin wings. The act of spinning them, they are generating lift parallel to the tangent of there the vane is, there for even they create induced drag as well as parasitic drag. Think of the vane as a torque that is applied to the arrow, which begins to rotate with an acceleration rate inversely proportional to its moment of inertia in its rotational vector (im trying to explain it as best as possible).The shaft has slight induced drag as well, but considering it is not an airfoil, the effect is null, the whole design of a barreled shaft is to drop induced drag as well as wind. What does that all mean? Nothing, its negligible effects of an arrow, it is a concept while technically coming into effect, isnt super important in the argument of causing lift, resisting wind yes, causing lift no.


Good scores aren't shot by physics. I feel this thread turned into a physics technicality than an actual discussion on performance.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

mseganti said:


> The shaft has slight induced drag as well, but considering it is not an airfoil, the effect is null, the whole design of a barreled shaft is to drop induced drag as well as wind. What does that all mean? Nothing, its negligible effects of an arrow, it is a concept while technically coming into effect, isnt super important in the argument of causing lift, resisting wind yes, causing lift no.


Sorry to harp, but no, that's wrong too. Even a shaft at some AOA to the relative wind *is* an airfoil (of a type) that *does* produce some non-zero amount of lift. That's true of anything that goes through an airmass. Even the proverbial brick will fly (tho not really in a controlled manner) if you put enough thrust-producing power on it. So its profile *is* an important aspect of its performance in flight.


> Good scores aren't shot by physics. I feel this thread turned into a physics technicality than an actual discussion on performance.


Well, what I hoped to highlight is that the profile of the shafts we shoot has non-trivial effects - they're not zero as seems to be mistakenly believed by some. And the historical uses of barreled shafts are not accidents or merely cosmetic innovations. So, if this is understood, my hope is that we can choose our arrows in a more informed way, particularly if we want a particular outcome.

In my case, I shoot a very low poundage compound - probably imparts a KE to my arrows less than the typical olympic recurve rig - so for outdoors shooting, drag, wind resistance, etc., are extremely important considerations for my arrows. It turns out that throwing money at my shafts, and going with the humble ACE instead of a straight-column design, is money well spent and produces measurable (tho just barely at my current skill level) results at the target. 

Sure, if you're shooting a 450g arrow out of a 70lb bow 270+ fps at 50 meters you could probably ignore the drag benefits of a barreled shaft and never have to study the issue at all. But if not, basic aerodynamical performance of different shaft profiles is something about your equipment that you just have to know if you want to make informed choices.

That's the only reason I've harped on this - barreling does have a non-negligible effect on arrow shaft performance and that's just a demonstrable fact backed up by the science of aerodynamics and airfoil design. And that can, depending on your needs and circumstances, be an important part of selecting your arrows. That's all I'm trying to say.

lee.


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

lees said:


> Sorry to harp, but no, that's wrong too. Even a shaft at some AOA to the relative wind *is* an airfoil (of a type) that *does* produce some non-zero amount of lift. That's true of anything that goes through an airmass. Even the proverbial brick will fly (tho not really in a controlled manner) if you put enough thrust-producing power on it. So its profile *is* an important aspect of its performance in flight.
> 
> 
> Well, what I hoped to highlight is that the profile of the shafts we shoot has non-trivial effects - they're not zero as seems to be mistakenly believed by some. And the historical uses of barreled shafts are not accidents or merely cosmetic innovations. So, if this is understood, my hope is that we can choose our arrows in a more informed way, particularly if we want a particular outcome.
> ...


Any aerodynamic advantage from barreling on a compound bow would be negated by the bulge points that those arrows require and you would see minimal differences in ariflow across a barreled and parallel shaft.

If the barrel design had non negligible aerodynamic benefits we would see more than one manufacturer using that design. As I said if you used a similarly setup arrow closer in spine and diameter to the ACE 470s you have you would likely see no difference between the 2.

This is most definitely a case of overthinking. The barreling was introduced as a method of differing spine across the shaft, not because of aerodynamics.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

x-hunta said:


> Any aerodynamic advantage from barreling on a compound bow would be negated by the bulge points that those arrows require and you would see minimal differences in ariflow across a barreled and parallel shaft.


It doesn't matter what type of bow it's shot out of, and yes, the points used would have some effect on the airflow around the shaft. But it's incorrect to say that, in general, every barreled shaft has a "bulge point" and that that point negates the basic aerodynamics of shaft profiles we've been discussing.


> If the barrel design had non negligible aerodynamic benefits we would see more than one manufacturer using that design. As I said if you used a similarly setup arrow closer in spine and diameter to the ACE 470s you have you would likely see no difference between the 2.


Wrong, and maybe/maybe not. 

As for the wrong comment, remember the primary drawback of barreled shafts, and it's a big 'un: they're significantly harder to make, especially making them consistent shaft-to-shaft. So an arrow manufacturer has to have a really really good motivation to master barreled shaft manufacturing. That means a customer base that really truly needs barreled shafts and is willing to pay the extra cost for them. By implication, it has to make a measurable difference for whoever the customer is. 

I'll let you put all that together yourself; I won't insult you by dragging you through all the "therefores" on that one (Hint: notice that Easton isn't the only one now; Victory has wandered into the fray recently) .

As for the maybe/maybe not comment, maybe or maybe not. If I had the money and resources to do a controlled experiment with my bows, though, I think it'd be an interesting thing to do, but alas, the checkbook wouldn't allow it at this point in time.....



> This is most definitely a case of overthinking. The barreling was introduced as a method of differing spine across the shaft, not because of aerodynamics.


Wrong and definitely wrong; more knowledge about your equipment rather than less is never a bad thing, and barreling long long predated the refinement of the science of arrow spine. Meanwhile, I think we've already covered this at enough length.

lee.


----------



## Z3R0 (Nov 6, 2014)

Coincidentally, this was just posted:

https://eastonarchery.com/2018/12/arrow-shaft-design-and-performance/

From a quick glance it's (unsurprisingly) not going as deep into aerodynamics as some of you guys are. It's also obviously a biased source. Still, probably a good read, especially for us fluid mechanical laypeople.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

lees said:


> It doesn't matter what type of bow it's shot out of, and yes, the points used would have some effect on the airflow around the shaft. But it's incorrect to say that, in general, every barreled shaft has a bulge point and that that point negates the basic aerodynamics of shaft profiles we've been discussing.
> 
> Wrong, and maybe/maybe not.
> 
> ...


It has a great impact on the type of bow it is shot out of, an arrow reacts very differently out of a recurve bow vs a compound.

The assumption that other arrow companies don't manufacture barreled shafts simply because of difficulty to manufacture is ignorant. The level of capability the top few manufacturers have is near on equal, its not being done as it does not provide the aerodynamic benefit that you believe it does.

You refute the claim that a parallel shaft is every bit as equal as a barreled shaft in terms of performance based on your personal experience, I am merely pointing out that your experience was a skewed experiment and therefore you are spreading your opinion misrepresented as fact.

But of course you personally don't need to carry out the experiment as it has been done many times over by many much more skilled and knowledgeable archers, and the results are shown through their arrow choices. The barreled design does not give a compound shooter any downrange benefit compared to parallel or tapered shafts.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

x-hunta said:


> It has a great impact on the type of bow it is shot out of, an arrow reacts very differently out of a recurve bow vs a compound.
> 
> The assumption that other arrow companies don't manufacture barreled shafts simply because of difficulty to manufacture is ignorant. The level of capability the top few manufacturers have is near on equal, its not being done as it does not provide the aerodynamic benefit that you believe it does.
> 
> ...


First point correct, all the rest wrong. We've already gone over and corrected all these points at considerable length, I'll just refer you back to the existing discussion since there's no reason to simply repeat things again here.

lee.


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

lees said:


> First point correct, all the rest wrong. We've already gone over and corrected all these points at considerable length, I'll just refer you back to the existing discussion since there's no reason to simply repeat things again here.
> 
> lee.


I would go over each point more in depth, but rather than waste my time with a brick wall I'll just leave one last point, if the parallel shaft is so inferior for a compound bow, why would Easton waste their time developing a new parallel shaft for a market they already have a barreled arrow shaft in?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

x-hunta said:


> I would go over each point more in depth, but rather than waste my time with a brick wall


You're just reasserting the same wrong thing over and over again and I've already shown you why your assertions are wrong. So at some point, repeating what I already said at some length just becomes ineffective. No offense meant, it's just that we've already gone over all of this.


> I'll just leave one last point, if the parallel shaft is so inferior for a compound bow, why would Easton waste their time developing a new parallel shaft for a market they already have a barreled arrow shaft in?


Nobody said a parallel shaft "is so inferior for a compound bow". In fact, "inferior" and "superior" have practical dimensions that have nothing to do with (or at least can overcome) the aerodynamic affects we've been talking about in this thread.

For example, go to lancaster's site and compare the cost of the ProComp to the ACE. And better yet, the X10 and Protour. Huge. If you're shooting a 70lb target bow at 50 meters and need a 300 spine shaft, which might be the better choice all things considered (eg. your budget)? If you're shooting a *30lb* PSE shootdown or supra max at 50 meters like I am (and your competitors are all shooting the same or similar bow at 50-60), would you consider revising your choice, knowing what you now know about barreling?
Do you think Easton might have researched these types of scenarios and decisions too?

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Z3R0 said:


> Coincidentally, this was just posted:
> 
> https://eastonarchery.com/2018/12/arrow-shaft-design-and-performance/
> 
> From a quick glance it's (unsurprisingly) not going as deep into aerodynamics as some of you guys are. It's also obviously a biased source. Still, probably a good read, especially for us fluid mechanical laypeople.


I could make a smart-alec remark about great minds thinking alike, but I'm not going to. I will say G. Techmitchov and Easton seemed to have done their research as I suspected they had.

As for the original topic, though, he does say this:

"Compounds don’t benefit from a more compliant rear shaft portion. Finger shooters benefit more from a rear taper, which is more forgiving of minor release variation, and being lighter in mass, clears better on leaving the bow."

So there you go.....

lee.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

.....so are we going to drop that bow from height?


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

> Good scores aren't shot by physics. I feel this thread turned into a physics technicality than an actual discussion on performance.


It's not quite a physics discussion either, at least not in a scientific sense. Physics, like any other natural science, is based on quantitative objective observation with controlled parameters. What's happening in this thread is mostly well-natured hypothesizing based on our current physical understanding, but it can hardly be taken as the objective truth that usually comes with science.

Of course, every time I mention this and ask for a citation/reference, people get angry. Let's see if that pattern holds.



> Believe me, if in around 30 years no one has used a single spine arrow at top (recurve) level, surely it is not because they are provided free.


I'd really like to believe you, Vittorio, but I find it very hard to accept. The world's largest company in archery that sponsors most top level archers has a vested interest in making sure that every such archer shoots their most expensive arrow. If they can justify it with the cost of more complicated manufacturing, then so be it.

This happens all over the place, not just archery. For instance, technology is full of places where we don't use what's optimal, but rather whatever happens to be convenient, or benefits one party that has control over the field. So maybe I've gotten cynical, but I certainly believe that what's popular is not always what is best.

[HR][/HR]

As a side note, I find a quote in the linked article quite infuriating:



> At the time, competitions were shot with 72 arrows at 100 yards- 91 meters- 48 arrows at 80 yards or 73m, and 12 arrows at 60 yards or 55m. (Obviously our forebears in the sport were a tougher lot than we are today!!)


That last comment is just rubbing salt in the wound. I'd much rather be shooting those distances, and I still try to shoot the FITA distances when I can. It's not my fault that WA decided to change the format. Besides, that format is still only 72+48+12 = 132 arrows. Shooting a double 720 is still more arrows, and those are still very common.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

theminoritydude said:


> Maybe whiz-oz would like to offer his views?


What's the point? 
There are people here arguing about things that have already been established by published scientific research expressly about arrows. People here are up to ten years behind established science. 
Why should I bother trying to educate people who won't even educate themselves?

My views align with what has actually been proven, rather than what people's opinions are.

Air flow around the point of an arrow 2011- James L Park, Michael R Hodge, Salam Al-Mulla,
Michael Sherry and John Sheridan

Extracts from Bow International about Jame's research http://www.bow-international.com/features/shaft-selection-picking-the-right-arrow/

Here's the full study of The aerodynamic drag and axial rotation of an arrow which can be read by anyone who wants to click on it. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1754337111407124

Here's Arrow behaviour in Free Flight, but nobody will bother to read it. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1754337111398542

Oh look. Here's Minimising the wind drift of an arrow. Lots of answers here, but people won't believe it because their anecdotes are far more reliable. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1754337111418876

How about The behaviour of arrows shot from a compound bow? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/17543371JSET82

This all of course requires the ability to accept information and understand stuff. 
Given that the world seems to reject any actual science that it doesn't like, and that attitude exists on this forum in spades...

You'd think that after almost eight years, people who were interested in this stuff, (enough to write about it on archery forums) would have read it and discussed it so that they understood what it meant, or at least even realised or published that it existed. 


I talk talk to people the Chief Scientist at NASA's Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center about aerodynamic stuff. 
What's the point in giving my views here?
People in this thread don't even know what archers paradox actually IS, ffs.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

^^^ where's that AT "like" button..... around here somewhere.....

lee.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> What's the point?
> There are people here arguing about things that have already been established by published scientific research expressly about arrows. People here are up to ten years behind established science.
> Why should I bother trying to educate people who won't even educate themselves?
> 
> ...


I would read these if I had access to your sources. Any chance you can email the pdfs?



Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Bob Furman said:


> I would read these if I had access to your sources. Any chance you can email the pdfs?


Same here. Can read the abstracts but the full articles aren't accessible (except the first link of course). I'll take copies too if possible.

lee.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

“Buzz” once stepped into my office and we had a little technical discussion as well. That was about 3 years ago.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm guessing the reason those articles won't be read " ...by anyone who wants to click on it" is because: 

*"Purchase Article
1 day online access to download article for $40.00"*


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

So I guess this proves that nobody clicked on ALL the links?

Hang on a minute.
It appears that my work, for some odd reason has paid for open slather access to this stuff. 
But that actually doesn't matter because anyone who might want to google "free access to scientific publications" might find a link to an interesting site which has been in operation for years. 

Armed with the names of the studies, it's incredible what the internet provides.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

whiz-Oz said:


> So I guess this proves that nobody clicked on ALL the links?
> 
> Hang on a minute.
> It appears that my work, for some odd reason has paid for open slather access to this stuff.
> ...


The point would be getting information from peer-reviewed articles from an actual journal adhering to at least some basic standard of scholarship, would it not? Which I presume these links point to (looks like a real journal to me anyway)? Else, we're just fishing on the internet with the rest of the great unwashed masses, reading all that nonsense, etc..... 

The same site has an article specifically on archer's paradox (which none of us here knows anything about, as you said) that I'd like to read too, so if there's a general way to access these I'd be game for it.... modulo any copyright, etc, infringements that might require payment or whatever....

lee.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Just so that you're aware of it, archer's paradox referred to what the early archers saw in terms of where their arrow had to point, compared to where it would end up. 
In 1981, Bill Kooi published his studies of what happened during the bow's power stroke and started incorrectly referring to the arrow bending as archer's paradox. Since then, everyone has started using the term incorrectly. So there you have exactly how the wrong information keeps on being regurgitated by people who can't be bothered. 

If you bring it up on here, a horde of "better informed" forum goers will educate you as to why the wrong use is correct. 

So here's a link that every single person reading this thread should click on. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
You should carefully consider the information contained within this Wikipedia article and how you might use it. 
Then you should maybe do a bit of research that involves clicking on things. 
I can't spoonfeed you guys much more than this.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

You should be banned for promoting piracy.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

I provided people the ability to make a moral decision, provided that they were capable of reading and following instructions. 
I mean, some people on this forum promote the wrong thing. 
Constantly, despite evidence to the contrary existing for decades. 

They don't get banned. 
And banning achieves SO much in a world full of free email providers.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

whiz-Oz said:


> And banning achieves SO much in a world full of free email providers.


Exactly.
How’s the weather down under?


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Z3R0 said:


> From a quick glance it's (unsurprisingly) not going as deep into aerodynamics as some of you guys are. It's also obviously a biased source.


it's 99% advertising and tubthumping about how awesome we should think Easton are, with a thin smear of information.

but that's pretty much standard for that source.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

PregnantGuppy said:


> ....
> I'd really like to believe you, Vittorio, but I find it very hard to accept. The world's largest company in archery that sponsors most top level archers has a vested interest in making sure that every such archer shoots their most expensive arrow. If they can justify it with the cost of more complicated manufacturing, then so be it.
> ...


My statement was note fully exact. A young Kim Woojin shot the World 70 mt 12 arrows Junior record during Ogden 2009 Junior World championships using Nano Pro parrellel single spine arrows. In my knowledge, that is the only case existing of a Korean archer using parallel arrows at world level. Clearly, they were investigating the new generation of slim, hi module carbon parallel arrows appearing in those years. But never used them again.
Your statement about more "expensive arrows" might contain some trouth if you compare X10 to cheaper ACE's, only. Both barrelled shafts.


----------



## Metropolis (Oct 10, 2016)

I also trust in barrelled shafts advantage,
but I would point out that parallele shafts are still used massively at World Level: for indoor,
indoor where the arrow doesn't really have time to straighten due to the shorter distance.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Metropolis said:


> I also trust in barrelled shafts advantage,
> but I would point out that parallele shafts are still used massively at World Level: for indoor,
> indoor where the arrow doesn't really have time to straighten due to the shorter distance.


Indoor recurve archers at top level use:
- Barrelled slim shafts (almost all World indoor records) 
- Fat Aluminium or Carbon parallel shafts with very high weight points for those that still believe in line cutters (less and less), or for those that really need line cutters (for Las Vegas and Lancaster competitions) 

If we go on to discuss about forgiveness of an arrow, don't forget that a very heavy point makes a parallel shaft more similar to a back tapered one in terms of reaction  with finger release. > 200 gr points make semi-miracles for this, if helped by very large vanes/feathers. But I don't think anyone will go to >200 grain point + 4" feathers for outdoor ..


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

lees said:


> I could make a smart-alec remark about great minds thinking alike, but I'm not going to. I will say G. Techmitchov and Easton seemed to have done their research as I suspected they had.
> 
> As for the original topic, though, he does say this:
> 
> ...


Prior to thread diversion(Read Hijack!) OP was asking about " are barrel shafts more forgiving? Above quote from GT posits "Finger shooters benefit more from a rear taper, which is more forgiving of minor release variation" see above.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

mseganti said:


> Good scores aren't shot by physics. I feel this thread turned into a physics technicality than an actual discussion on performance.


This is absolutely true. Good scores come from highly consistent repeatable form from the archer. It doesn't matter about the equipment. That is the myth that keeps on going. I can shoot the best equipment in the world, my scores are not going to change. I have to change to get my scores to change.

But, (there are always a but), certain design aspects help to minimize certain variations within the archers form. Often this is the nebulous "forgiveness" term that can't be quantified because each one of us has our own variations and issues in executing the shot repeatably.

What gets me about the barreled shaft argument is the fixation on aerodynamics. For all you engineers out there, just run the calculations for a simple beam bending problem where you want to minimize the deflection of the beam at its mid point while minimizing the overall mass of the beam. Then once you have done the math, you will notice that the barreled beam has the highest stiffness to weight ratio of either parallel or tapered beams. Thus for a given deflection at mid point (spine that we like to use in the archery world) you will find you can make those arrows much smaller in diameter. Then that smaller diameter yields less drag from an aerodynamic's perspective. The archery community is fixated on spine, static and dynamic. Okay fine, the Physics says barreled is better, and the primary reason why it is better is the stiffness to weight ratio. Not because of aerodynamics, though aerodynamics does play a small role. But cross winds, its the net diameter that matters. reguardless if it is barreled or not.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

ButchD said:


> Above quote from GT posits "Finger shooters benefit more from a rear taper, which is more forgiving of minor release variation" see above.


I cannot see how, other than the slight change in shaft diameter at the rear giving a slight bit more clearance off the plunger and rest. unfortunately, you have to put anything that comes from that source through a filter to separate out the engineering knowledge from the advertising. the former is a "we've done it because it's good" concept. the latter tends to be more around "it's good because we've done it".


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

caspian said:


> I cannot see how, other than the slight change in shaft diameter at the rear giving a slight bit more clearance off the plunger and rest. unfortunately, you have to put anything that comes from that source through a filter to separate out the engineering knowledge from the advertising. the former is a "we've done it because it's good" concept. the latter tends to be more around "it's good because we've done it".


Agreed. But I am a believer in the placebo effect.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Ummmm









Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Okay fine, the Physics says barreled is better, and the primary reason why it is better is the stiffness to weight ratio. Not because of aerodynamics, though aerodynamics does play a small role. But cross winds, its the net diameter that matters. reguardless if it is barreled or not.


Well, arrows in flight don't experience much in terms of cross winds because they weathercock into the relative wind. Barrelled shafts have less drag, which directly relates to less wind drift. 

I've included the link to the study in this same thread. Computer modelled AND shot in a wind tunnel. It is actually proven science, so feel free to disagree with it if you want. I don't have to argue.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

This message was proudly brought to you, by the makers of barreled shafts.


----------



## ButchD (Nov 11, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> This message was proudly brought to you, by the makers of barreled shafts.


:set1_rolf2:


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

theminoritydude said:


> This message was proudly brought to you, by the makers of barreled shafts.


I was waiting for someone to point out the obvious.


----------



## Jimbo99 (Mar 30, 2017)

Ok I can't leave this one alone. Barreled shafts, and shafts that taper to the nock end are better. With all other things being equal. They are proven to ocilate less in flight. Are they better from a compound bow? Probably, as there is still some ocilation. The wild tail wagging sometimes seen in slow motion studies of arrow flight wastes lots of energy. It also can magnify variances in arrow construction, release, form. Argue the minutiae of aerodynamics forever, they matter less than you think. I started as a traditional Archer, my favorites will always be barreled, or footed tapered shafts. Now I have not been willing to part with the cash for x10s, nor am I sponsored by anyone. If I was shooting for the win with a good recurve and fingers I sure as heck would.

Jim


----------

