# what is the "c"number on x10 shafts?



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

It's a weight code...this allows weght matching from one dozen to the next.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

Xs24-7 said:


> It's a weight code...this allows weght matching from one dozen to the next.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


thanks xs24-7
so one arrow of a specific size may be slightly heavier or lighter than another arrow of the same size but with a different "c" number?
why easton has done this?have they officially stated anything about this number or its your experience?
so I should be careful not to buy two boxes of arrow with different "c" number.am I right? 
please someone give a more convincing idea or I have to write to the easton factory!


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Yes, this is something Easton has done to allow archers to select shafts and know they will be the same from one dozen to the next...C1 is the lighest category, C5 is the heaviest.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

Xs24-7 said:


> Yes, this is something Easton has done to allow archers to select shafts and know they will be the same from one dozen to the next...C1 is the lighest category, C5 is the heaviest.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


and how should i decide which number is suitable for me?
besides if it is a vital factor why online archery shops dont have an option to select the c number when you are ordering arrows.for example its mentioned in altservice that "We cannot guarantee specific "C" numbers for these shafts."


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

It's impossible to manufacture a batch of carbon arrows within the tolerances required for just one set of them. So each arrow is weighed and sets of twelve closely matched arrows are made. There will be a few 'light' sets, some more 'slightly light', most 'neutral', some less 'slightly heavy' and a few 'heavy' sets. So if possible you want to get a middle of the road set because there will be more comparable sets manufactured.


----------



## Progen (Mar 17, 2006)

Benyamin, it's a good thing you asked here. Some folks where I am used to think C1 was the best and they had this idea that the 1 meant highest quality.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Xs24-7 said:


> Yes, this is something Easton has done to allow archers to select shafts and know they will be the same from one dozen to the next...C1 is the lighest category, C5 is the heaviest.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've had C6's, but I've never seen anything higher than that. FYI:smile:


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

The way it was explained to me was, you can build all your carbon arrows to have perfect spine OR perfect weight but not both. By building all the shafts to the same spine and then grouping by weight you get the best of both characteristics.


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

straat said:


> It's impossible to manufacture a batch of carbon arrows within the tolerances required for just one set of them. So each arrow is weighed and sets of twelve closely matched arrows are made. There will be a few 'light' sets, some more 'slightly light', most 'neutral', some less 'slightly heavy' and a few 'heavy' sets. So if possible you want to get a middle of the road set because there will be more comparable sets manufactured.


dear straat
its hard to believe that easton,with all its high tech machines and ...,is not able to manufacture some arrows with the same weight and helplessly puts them in different weight groups.accepting that theory leads you to believe that even arrows in one group may not have exactly the same weight,rather very close to each other.
i am still waiting for other friends ideas.


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

Progen said:


> Benyamin, it's a good thing you asked here. Some folks where I am used to think C1 was the best and they had this idea that the 1 meant highest quality.


if so c1 should be more expensive than for example c3 in the market but its not.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

benyamin said:


> dear straat
> its hard to believe that easton,with all its high tech machines and ...,is not able to manufacture some arrows with the same weight and helplessly puts them in different weight groups.accepting that theory leads you to believe that even arrows in one group may not have exactly the same weight,rather very close to each other.
> i am still waiting for other friends ideas.


When would you say two weights are the exact same? Dou you expect Easton to count the number and size of all carbon atoms/molecules? If you look at the specifications of arrow shafts you will find there always is a weight tolerance. The more expensive shafts generally have tighter tolerances. Go have a look at the Easton website for example. 

Maybe their (and other's) machinery is not as high tech as you imagine...

If you require tighter tolerances for some reason, contact a manufacturer. I'm sure it's possible to have 'exactly' matched shafts. The price however won't be nice.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I would suspect that the carbon fiber content of the CRP matrix (carbon reinforced plastic) can be kept consistent to tight tolerances. This is how the spine is maintained consistent.

The binder (plastic) is more vulnerable to atmospheric conditions and continuous batching and this is the likely cause of weight variation.

I doubt if it is possible to hold tight weight tolerance over large batches of tubing.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

straat said:


> .....
> .. I'm sure it's possible to have 'exactly' matched shafts. The price however won't be nice.


But, manufacturers do not supply tighter tolerancies at any price, so
this is the reason why arrows selection is a must at top level, making competition arrows for top shooters two to tree times more expensive than those off the shelfs, depending from selection yeld.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

benyamin said:


> dear straat
> its hard to believe that easton,with all its high tech machines and ...,is not able to manufacture some arrows with the same weight and helplessly puts them in different weight groups.accepting that theory leads you to believe that even arrows in one group may not have exactly the same weight,rather very close to each other.
> i am still waiting for other friends ideas.


It is probably as cost effective as it can be, given their expectation of what price they need to sell the shafts for. If you want all the arrows to weigh the same, become an elite shooter, so you can pick through lots of shafts to get the ones you will use. 

It's just like going through a bag of "G" nocks. If you want a dozen of those to be straight, you need to buy a half dozen bags to find 12 straight ones.


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> But, manufacturers do not supply tighter tolerancies at any price, so
> this is the reason why arrows selection is a must at top level, making competition arrows for top shooters two to tree times more expensive than those off the shelfs, depending from selection yeld.


 i had heard this before even about bows(that the bows champions use is not what we get in the market) but couldnt believe it.someone even told me korean shooters select their arrows among lots of arrows by shooting them unfletched and then selecting the ones hitting closer to each other.i used to take them as rumours among archers in iran but now i am hearing it from you guys.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

benyamin said:


> i had heard this before even about bows(that the bows champions use is not what we get in the market) but couldnt believe it.someone even told me korean shooters select their arrows among lots of arrows by shooting them unfletched and then selecting the ones hitting closer to each other.i used to take them as rumours among archers in iran but now i am hearing it from you guys.


Almost all top level shooters in the world select their competition arrows by a procedure same or similar to the one I have described in THA. In Italy, 100% of national teams members down to Cadets do it. No way anyhow to avoid the process if you really aim to >340 70 mt recurve scores. Some federations also have special machines to selct arrows to thighter tolerancies, others send arrows to Beiter center that has the equipment to do it. 
Again, It is an expensive process that can make final arrows extemely expensive. The chepest system remains the one I have described. 
The arrow selection process gets to its top every were when preparing for Olympics, that means once every 4 years, when nations have better budgets to afford it and buy tons of shafts for their archers to get enough competition arrows to hope to be able to get the big game. If you consider the average yeld, the time dedicated to the selection process by several professionals for each compettion set, it clear that a single arrow becomes so expensive that no one can get a full set without sponsorship from manufacturers or from his federation. Some time ago, someone in Italy made an evaluation of the final cost, an it came out to be more than 100 Euro per arrow.....


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Almost all top level shooters in the world select their competition arrows by a procedure same or similar to the one I have described in THA. In Italy, 100% of national teams members down to Cadets do it. No way anyhow to avoid the process if you really aim to >340 70 mt recurve scores. Some federations also have special machines to selct arrows to thighter tolerancies, others send arrows to Beiter center that has the equipment to do it.
> Again, It is an expensive process that can make final arrows extemely expensive. The chepest system remains the one I have described.
> The arrow selection process gets to its top every were when preparing for Olympics, that means once every 4 years, when nations have better budgets to afford it and buy tons of shafts for their archers to get enough competition arrows to hope to be able to get the big game. If you consider the average yeld, the time dedicated to the selection process by several professionals for each compettion set, it clear that a single arrow becomes so expensive that no one can get a full set without sponsorship from manufacturers or from his federation. Some time ago, someone in Italy made an evaluation of the final cost, an it came out to be more than 100 Euro per arrow.....


Then is this re-tested after a period of time? I can see that wear and tear on arrows changes each arrow ever so slightly that this same set will be rendered null and void after a rather short period of time.


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> Almost all top level shooters in the world select their competition arrows by a procedure same or similar to the one I have described in THA. In Italy, 100% of national teams members down to Cadets do it. No way anyhow to avoid the process if you really aim to >340 70 mt recurve scores. Some federations also have special machines to selct arrows to thighter tolerancies, others send arrows to Beiter center that has the equipment to do it.
> Again, It is an expensive process that can make final arrows extemely expensive. The chepest system remains the one I have described.
> The arrow selection process gets to its top every were when preparing for Olympics, that means once every 4 years, when nations have better budgets to afford it and buy tons of shafts for their archers to get enough competition arrows to hope to be able to get the big game. If you consider the average yeld, the time dedicated to the selection process by several professionals for each compettion set, it clear that a single arrow becomes so expensive that no one can get a full set without sponsorship from manufacturers or from his federation. Some time ago, someone in Italy made an evaluation of the final cost, an it came out to be more than 100 Euro per arrow.....


so easton doesnt produce a special set of x10s for top archers but its they who select their desired arrows.


----------



## Progen (Mar 17, 2006)

Yes, benyamin. Vittorio's explained himself rather clearly and you've answered your own question too. 

ps. With his amount of experience and knowledge, I'd trust him in a jiffy.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

benyamin said:


> i had heard this before even about bows(that the bows champions use is not what we get in the market) but couldnt believe it..


I wouldn't. If there was such a range of tolerance in production so that some bows shot significantly better than others, that product would be a failure. 



benyamin said:


> someone even told me korean shooters select their arrows among lots of arrows by shooting them unfletched and then selecting the ones hitting closer to each other.i used to take them as rumours among archers in iran but now i am hearing it from you guys.


Not JUST korean shooters. Anyone with the resources or desire to do it. 

I was told a story by one elite archer about how he was sent not 24 x10s, but 24 sets of 12! When he rang up and queried it, he was told to take the 24 that he liked and give the rest back. 
He of course was expected to take two sets. 

He shot them all and selected the best 24. They came from various packs too. I'm betting that Easton weren't that impressed when they got the boxes back... 

As for rumours of what Korean archers do in terms of mystical practices. Just ignore them. They just train hard.


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

straat said:


> When would you say two weights are the exact same? Dou you expect Easton to count the number and size of all carbon atoms/molecules? If you look at the specifications of arrow shafts you will find there always is a weight tolerance. The more expensive shafts generally have tighter tolerances. Go have a look at the Easton website for example.
> 
> Maybe their (and other's) machinery is not as high tech as you imagine...
> 
> If you require tighter tolerances for some reason, contact a manufacturer. I'm sure it's possible to have 'exactly' matched shafts. The price however won't be nice.


so I think there remains one surefire way to prove this idea and thats weighing uncut arrows with different c numbers and same spine with a precise scale and comparing the results.
has anybody here have access to such scale and arrows?


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

benyamin said:


> so I think there remains one surefire way to prove this idea and thats weighing uncut arrows with different c numbers and same spine with a precise scale and comparing the results.
> has anybody here have access to such scale and arrows?



I think it would be easy to find the equipment and arrows, but who has the time, and better yet, why? When we acquire our equipment, we take a leap of faith, and sometimes you can sweat the small stuff. The most some people will have access to is a grain scale, and if they're close in grain weight, go shoot. The top shooters may have access to hand picked lots of arrows, but I have noticed one thing. They have VERY consistent form, and the confidence to do it time after time. I think it's then a shooter should start sweating the small stuff.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

benyamin said:


> so I think there remains one surefire way to prove this idea and thats weighing uncut arrows with different c numbers and same spine with a precise scale and comparing the results.
> has anybody here have access to such scale and arrows?


We already have two entities that confirm what Straat said. 

Vitorrio was quite clear on it and not only has access to that equipment but has for many many years and done it many many times. There probably isn't going to be anybody else on here that will answer that has more experience or better testing. I suppose Easton themselves could possibly somehow show up, but barring that you could only get as good, not better.

But then we do not really need Easton to show up anyway - they helpfully print their tolerances on their arrow specs. I see no reason to disbelieve them.

Now, we do not know how much variation there is within one C number (though we know it enough that very top end shooters still have to match across multiple dozens) nor do we know what the range is for each one. That may or may not be interesting, I rather suspect that if it is really that important you are going to need to match across several dozens anyway. Otherwise try and get all within the same (same is true for Easton's other top end arrows - even I can tell a difference between some of the ACC's).


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

I have done 3 dozen sets of Protour 380 series C3 in the past couple weeks...all 36 arrows are within one grain fully assembled and I did nothing but take them from the package and assemble....I cant believe how people get so obsessed with things that dont matter...none of you are good enough to waste any time sorting X10 shafts by group...I have now had 14 dozen x10s+Pro tours in the last 7 years...and not one arrow out of those dozens has been varied enough to be noticible...I coached a recurve archer who has shot as high as 1345 and placed 10th in the Olympics...shooting X10s straight outta the box..a compound archer whos best tournament FITA is 1414...with Protours straight outta the box.....unless you are at the very very top of the world, your time is best spent elsewhere than worrying about what c code your X10s are...


----------



## Progen (Mar 17, 2006)

Not dismissing what you've said Xs24-7 but there're still possibilities of dodgy shafts which just want to fly somewhere else away from the others so if you want to be at the top, there's more to worry about than just variation in weight.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Historically, the archery industry has been notorious for saying to archers "you don't need anything better (than what we are foisting upon you for your hard earned money)", whenever quality control is questioned or even discussed.

What an archer "needs" in the context of his shooting ability is not relevant to what he is willing to spend his money to acquire. More people should be unwilling to also acquire pejorative comments forced upon them.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Essentially, if you want to test your gear, put it through a shooting machine. That will show your arrows for what they are and that is the most logical reason to actually use one of them. 

Then there is no archer variation. It's absolute testing of the arrows. 

Step one is testing the test setup with just one arrow to gauge the capability of the testing gear and operator. 
Then it's testing all your shafts with the same setup. 
If you're lucky/unlucky, then it becomes testing the effectiveness of your "robin hood" protection mechanisms. 

It is nice to talk about testing, but real, repeatable testing is NOT done with a person holding the bow. Anyone who says otherwise would get shot down in flames by the scientific or product testing community. There is NO testing methodology that JUST applies to archery because you want it to. It's not even arguable, but someone is sure to try...




FS560 said:


> . More people should be unwilling to also acquire pejorative comments forced upon them.


And you should all take a great deal of notice of what this man has said and apply it to every point of your lives.


----------



## Progen (Mar 17, 2006)

whiz-Oz said:


> ... real, repeatable testing is NOT done with a person holding the bow. ...


Some of our archery legends are good enough for that purpose though.


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

Xs24-7 said:


> ...none of you are good enough to waste any time sorting X10 shafts by group...


You should not say that, Michele Frangilli is definitely good enough for bareshaft arrow selection.
I do agree that it’s only make sense for top archers.
I’ve tried and find out that I’m not good enough to see any difference with newly assembled bareshaft arrows.
But EVERY archer selects there competition arrows, they do it in different way.
Some do it like Vittorio, some do it by just shooting the arrows as usual.
And keep an eye on arrows that don’t group with others.
Those will never be used in competition.
And it is not waste of time at all, even for amateur archers.
I did successfully find a defective arrow, and after very careful inspection, the arrow has a very small crack just behind the point-pin.
jx


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

lorteti said:


> You should not say that, Michele Frangilli is definitely good enough for bareshaft arrow selection.


Of course, these arrows were never confirmed to be close by individual testing through a hooter shooter... so no, XS24-7 CAN quite easily say that and be correct.


----------



## archerpap (Apr 24, 2006)

I have used X10 Protours, and have C4 grade shafts. I swapped a set of 380's with a guy, and his were C2's. Bare shafts, tips, and vanes are all measured and with 1gr. of the dozen(C4 same, C2 same), but when the shafts are built, the C2's are all about 5gr. lighter than the C4's. Is it really going to matter...maybe past 50YDS or 50M, yes, the weight factor may come into play. If your going to buy shafts, try to get 2 dozen at a time(if you can afford it). Sometimes i may even buy 2 dozen now, then 2 dozen later, but all are the same weight "C" series, and if not, I'll wait until they get the same available!


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

archerpap said:


> I have used X10 Protours, and have C4 grade shafts. I swapped a set of 380's with a guy, and his were C2's. Bare shafts, tips, and vanes are all measured and with 1gr. of the dozen(C4 same, C2 same), but when the shafts are built, the C2's are all about 5gr. lighter than the C4's. Is it really going to matter...maybe past 50YDS or 50M, yes, the weight factor may come into play. If your going to buy shafts, try to get 2 dozen at a time(if you can afford it). Sometimes i may even buy 2 dozen now, then 2 dozen later, but all are the same weight "C" series, and if not, I'll wait until they get the same available!


Very, very true archerpap!! When I buy my arrows, and I know it is the perfect size, I buy two dozen at a time, and the same C size. Distributors outside of LAS, sometimes don't understand the pickiness of target shooters, but at the price of the shafts per dozen, they can make a trip out to the warehouse, to pick two dozen like shafts. Impress upon your dealers to make the extra effort!!


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

whiz-Oz said:


> Of course, these arrows were never confirmed to be close by individual testing through a hooter shooter... so no, XS24-7 CAN quite easily say that and be correct.


No shooting machine using a mechanical release can help too much in matching arrows for a recurve release, nor will the radial spine tester available at Beiter center or the "floating shaft" method. Fingers and recurve limbs are making the shaft reacting/bending much more than any mechanical simulation commonly (and I remark... commonly) available. So, the final tests by now is still to shoot arrows. Shooting them at longer distance and without vanes only amplifies the radial spine variations they have over their full lenght and their total weight differencies. 
But, as mentioned, you use the sensitivity you have to do this process, and top level archers sensitivity is a lot more than average archers one. 
Michele has re-tested yesterday the arrows for Rovereto European Championships starting tomorrow. Out of 22 arrows remaining from last bare shafts selection (beginning of the season), he has selected 14 that were able to hit the 10 at 70 mt consistently during a couple of days of shooting. 
He could choose the arrows without unfletching them as he is shooting at > 340 constantly and so he perfectly know when mistake is in the arrow or in his shot. If you don't have this kind of sensitivity, select bare shafts only, at a shorter distance.
I can anyhow bet that the whole lot of 22 arrows was going to hit the 10 at 70 mt if shot by an Hooter Shooter machine.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

t’s been a few years since I have dealt with this company but what the “C” used to stand for is the series of shafts that they are producing. In other words, when that letter changes it means they have changed part of the design, material or something else that would make the arrow very different than another series like a “B” or “A”, etc. However, it appears that this letter “C” has stayed constant for many years. Thus they have not changed the product design or material for some time. Look at the ACE letter and you will see that it is farther down the alphabet.

The number represents the weight group. There used to be 3 grains difference in a weight category for ACE’s. Not sure for the x10. They just might stay with the 3 grains since it is a standard on their ACE’s. 

The 3 grain difference is in a weight group and then they sort through this group to give you 1 grain difference in a dozen shafts. This assures a bit more accuracy for those who can tell a difference. Most cannot but that’s another story entirely. 

The reason for the 6 to 7 different weight groups is due to a few areas. First is the material. When a manufacturer receives the prepreg material there is a percentage of variance between the carbon fibers used (plus/minus) and there is a percentage of variance between the epoxy resins used (plus/minus). This will cause about a 10 to 50 grain weight deviation in the material itself before you even begin building the shaft (all materials used in building arrows are not equal, thus the wide deviation). The second weight deviation is due to the glues used between the aluminum tube and carbon material. It would be virtually impossible to get exact amount of glues on each tube when wrapping. I am sure that glues and procedures have improved greatly from when they first started building tubes wrapped in carbon. And finally is the tube itself. Although this company makes some of the most precise tubes in the world they are not perfect. Don’t forget we are talking in grains here. Carbon prepreg is in grams. Thus the amount of work carbon arrow manufactures do to get you the accuracy offered is quite impressive. 

As for those of you who think it can be better. I am sure all companies do their best to offer top quality within a price range you would be willing to pay for. As Vittorio has suggested not many people would be willing to pay 100euro for one shaft. There is material that is far more accurate but the cost is over $1000 per pound instead of the typical $25 to $50 per pound used today. You can do the math to figure how much more expensive an arrow would be if it were 25 to 40 times more. 

As for companies hand-picking arrow shafts for top shooters. Yes, this is done, on a minimal scale. Very special archers get hand picked shafts but that still is not good enough for the top archer who will have their own process of making sure the arrow is very accurate. Normally a very elite archer may receive 3-4 dozen arrows and then the archer will use their own process to get 1-2 dozen to work. This is good for a few months but then the process will have to start again since arrows do get destroyed rather quickly with the top archer, especially at major events where top archers are shooting together. I find it hard to believe that an archer received 12 dozen arrows and was told to pick a couple of dozen out of this group. Once you cut the shafts they become useless to a manufacturer. However, they may have been told not to cut the shafts…. Or they were using a competitor’s arrows and the other company wanted to impress the archer. 

As for bows (risers and limbs) being specially built for some archers. That is a fact. One archer used another manufacturer’s limbs and had his sponsor paint and decorate the limb to look like it was made by the sponsor. Risers can and have been specially built for top sponsored archers. The look may be similar but the weight distribution could be different, or the window thickness could be different or even length has been just different enough to satisfy a champion archer. Is it wrong? It can be debated but it does happen. This is a minimal cost for a company when the archer is a world known champion. What that champion archer shoots will sell a lot of bows or arrows due to their followers. I will preface that this happens but not always. Most archers can make the changes themselves without the help of a manufacturer. 

I agree with Vittorio about testing the arrows. A recurve shooter needs to shoot them and verify they group according to their shooting form and style. A shooting machine does very little to determine a good grouping arrow for a recurve archer.


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

thanks for your elaborate explanations.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> I find it hard to believe that an archer received 12 dozen arrows and was told to pick a couple of dozen out of this group.


You misread what I wrote. He was expected to take two SETS. 

You two know each other. Ed Eliason would very likely confirm the story. 



Rick McKinney said:


> I agree with Vittorio about testing the arrows. A recurve shooter needs to shoot them and verify they group according to their shooting form and style. A shooting machine does very little to determine a good grouping arrow for a recurve archer.


Well, here's where we are going to have to disagree. Accuracy depends on consistency. Humans aren't consistent and don't have the ability to make judgement calls of absolute precision. 
That's why nobody has yet hit 1440 even though the equipment is capable of doing it. 

There is not a recurve archer in the world that can consistently place the same arrow in the same hole in a target at any distance. So with no practical variation in properties, the level of repetitive performance of the archer can be established and measured. 

You CAN actually establish what an individual archer is capable of doing at that time and place of testing. 

A shooting machine with an appropriate device for ensuring the sideways slew of a string to simulate the amplitude of a finger release will do it consistently. It might not do it exactly the same as a finger shooter, but it can do it far more consistently. 

Similar forces acting on similar items result in similar behaviours. 

If we're testing arrow similarity, if we apply as identical a force as possible, the arrows if matched accurately, will behave in the same way. 

Humans just aren't capable of accurate testing as they suffer from variations in form, fatigue and psychological bias. 

I'm not suggesting that you could tune a recurve bow on a shooting machine to shoot the same sighting marks as an archer, but you can very accurately test arrows for their similarity and thus grouping potential. 

Introducing variation while testing for similarity just isn't a scientifically reliable method. 

It would be a psychologically important step for an archer to know that out of a choice of arrows, he picked the best. That alone would result in the removal of some doubt and add to the psychological armament of the archer. 

I would sure prefer to know that I had twelve arrows that I could be sure NEEDED to have good pin nocks because if I was capable of shooting with absolute consistency, they'd need them. 

In every other industry and sport, devices are developed for precision with machines. Saying that archery is different cannot be correct. 

And I'm sure that I'm going to cop a lot of heat for going against what you and Vittorio say. When you're dealing with public opinion, you need to be popular. 
When you're dealing with accuracy, you need to be correct. 

When you're dealing with scientific accuracy, there is no room for opinion.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

A few years back a research institute wanted to experimentally validate a flight model" for long thin tubes by gravity drop in a water tank. In practice they found that every time the same cylinder was dropped (nominally identical release) they got a very different flight path. Although the release
mechanism was very simple, i.e. just release a hanging clinder, minute variations in the release resulted in major variations in the flight path. In this case of course being in water, the sensitivity much higher than in air (sort of like bare shaft v fletched arrows). The moral is of course that exactly
reproducible arrow launchers exist only in computer models, not in real life.

As far as arrow selection goes I would suggest describing it as a three phase process:

- Come up with what you think is the ideal arrow specification arrow for the individual archer and buy (or if sponsored get given) the various components.
The number bought will depend on the tolerances guaranteed by the manufacturer. Clearly buying the same "CX" arrows helps as regards variation.

- Using direct physical measurement (grain scales, radial spine measurement) build a test arrow set of arrows that are as physically identical as possible.

- Select the competition arrows on a statistical basis by the archer shooting them. (Point here is that with say two sets of near physically identical arrows the statistical results may differ).

Ok just a repeat of what's already been said. My view is that the overall statistical behaviour of the arrow/bow/archer system is such that you
need a deterministic approach.

Mind you with the new set Set system an alternative approach using "pure dumb luck" may not be significantly inferior. :smile:


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Putting the same arrow into the same hole at 30 metres is reproducible enough for me to say that another arrow that doesn't go into that hole is able to be graded as "not close enough" and discarded.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Joe T. Well put. I agree with your recommendations and the testing does give us a bit more information of why it is necessary to shoot and test physically instead of depending on a machine to give you results.

Ha…ha…ha! Whiz…you crack me up. :shade: Yes, I misread your statement. I did not realize the guy got 288 arrows. I thought he got 144! Then you say he shot all of them, which means that the 24 arrows the guy chose or two sets as you say, were from two sets of 12 arrows out of 24 sets. This means he sent back 264 used arrows (you did say he shot them all). I would be willing to bet that this guy was using a competitor’s arrow before the x10’s were sent. If not, he was thinking about switching. No matter. This is a very rare example. 

About you getting attacked. Quit hiding behind the veil of Vittorio and I being popular and that is why people support us. It just might be because of our decades of experience and our medal count.  What amazes me Whiz is that you don’t think that Vittorio or I have tested what you state. We have probably tested more than most people. We are both very open minded people because we seek the ultimate performance, thus have been willing to try and test many different methods to see what will work most consistently. As a matter of fact, I bet we have tested tons more ideas including a shooting machine, the Beiter method, Korean method, and other methods that have been discussed over the past 40+ years. We both have come to a similar conclusion although we did not discuss nor talk about it beforehand. 

A shooting machine can be an important tool, but if using just that tool I can assure you, your performance will never reach close to the levels of top archers. You really need to get out from behind that desk of yours and shoot some more. ukey: Top archers use machines to get to a certain level maybe and then they use a simple scientific tools like experimentation via shooting the bow and arrow. They just might even set up a hypothesis and test again and again to either prove or disprove their theories. The one thing that is absolute is that the top archer is looking for arrows that can hit the 10 consistently. Not the arrow that has proven scientifically that a machine can put it in the same hole each time. Yes, you can argue all you want about precision and how to find out if your equipment is precise but it still comes down to the human element, which will either make that equipment precise or critical. 

Using a shooting machine can only take you to a point, but it will not take you to the high level of elite shooting (however the shooting machine companies will sell more machines with your belief…. :smile. This is just one simple test but the real test is you shooting the arrows and plotting them to see how they perform with your shooting style. Shooting a perfect shot and it hitting the 10 ring is easy. Shooting a sloppy shot and it hitting the 10 ring takes a lot of work. :smile:


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

Rick, I was planning to reply to Whiz's post yesterday.
Try to explain that you guys don't become a world champion for no reason, and that top archers have tested all possible ways to select competition arrows.
And that a shooting machine can not test the very important aspect of arrow forgivingness.
But somehow I didn't reply immediately.
Maybe it's that English is my 3rd or 4th language, or maybe I get the feeling that I'm talking to a stubborn high school kid.
Now I see your post explaining everything up to the details.
I wish I have your patient and the will to help people.
Here I'm not only learned a thing more about archery, also a lot about how to become a better person, thanks Rick.
jx


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Ha…ha…ha! Whiz…you crack me up. :shade: Yes, I misread your statement. I did not realize the guy got 288 arrows. I thought he got 144! Then you say he shot all of them, which means that the 24 arrows the guy chose or two sets as you say, were from two sets of 12 arrows out of 24 sets. This means he sent back 264 used arrows (you did say he shot them all). I would be willing to bet that this guy was using a competitor’s arrow before the x10’s were sent. If not, he was thinking about switching. No matter. This is a very rare example.


He was already sponsored by Easton, which is why they sent the X10s. He just took advantage of the opportunity to select the best 24 arrows (as decided by him) out of 24 dozen. I thought that it was rather cheeky and laughed when he told me. I wouldn't have done it.



Rick McKinney said:


> About you getting attacked. Quit hiding behind the veil of Vittorio and I being popular and that is why people support us. It just might be because of our decades of experience and our medal count.  What amazes me Whiz is that you don’t think that Vittorio or I have tested what you state. We have probably tested more than most people. We are both very open minded people because we seek the ultimate performance, thus have been willing to try and test many different methods to see what will work most consistently. As a matter of fact, I bet we have tested tons more ideas including a shooting machine, the Beiter method, Korean method, and other methods that have been discussed over the past 40+ years. We both have come to a similar conclusion although we did not discuss nor talk about it beforehand.


I'm not worried about getting attacked. I think it's quite standard behaviour. In some people's eyes I should have no right to question Rick McKinney or Vittorio Frangilli. Essentially, it's the human element of wanting to believe success is credibility and product endorsement. The lines of what we encounter every day as commercialism tend to colour how we perceive things. 
People in general tend to award credibility with little logical reason, or award it based on probability based on what they want to believe. 

The logical construct of things does not always equal the emotive response. 

If you really want to dig down to it, a medal count is only proof that you won competitions. 
I can make assumptions based on what I know in terms of what it takes to become a champion archer in terms of work. I can realistically expect with an overwhelming probability that you have trained long and hard in the sport of archery. 

strangely enough, the single most valuable thing that you can contribute to the archery community is the one thing that I rarely see you questioned about. 

However, I know for a fact that it does NOT require an archer to be a technician and understand testing procedure.

I would take note if Lou Ferrigno offered to show me how to do a gym routine. There is reasonable proof that he has effective knowledge.
I would not take much notice of Mr Bean offering to show me how to do a gym routine. 
Unless Lou Ferrigno told me that Mr Bean showed him all he knows. 

Other than you saying that you have tested things, I have no proof that you have done so with a rigourous method. A medal or book does not offer conclusive proof.

Conclusive proof of testing is supporting evidence. 

If I can point to massive holes in an argument, ie, there is no evidence, then how can I in good faith take what you have said is correct?

If anyone points to competition success as being reliable indications of virtue.. can I just mention Marion Jones at this point?

That you hold a testing method which involves human variability and interpretation of the answers tends to suggest that you have not done testing which would be held up as being reliable by any group of people who actually test things for a living. 

I'm not saying that you or Vittorio are lying Rick. 

I'm just pointing out that there are omissions in what you are saying that I care about. There are people who don't care. All they see is that I'm questioning what Rick McKinney and Vittorio say, and who am I to do that? 

I am the person who listens to what people say and doesn't let who they are influence my decision. I look at the quality of the evidence that they have presented. 

Essentially, I am saying, gee, what you guys have said, doesn't sound right. I'd rather believe the testing methodology that scientific organisations use. 



Rick McKinney said:


> A shooting machine can be an important tool, but if using just that tool I can assure you, your performance will never reach close to the levels of top archers. You really need to get out from behind that desk of yours and shoot some more. ukey: Top archers use machines to get to a certain level maybe and then they use a simple scientific tools like experimentation via shooting the bow and arrow. They just might even set up a hypothesis and test again and again to either prove or disprove their theories. The one thing that is absolute is that the top archer is looking for arrows that can hit the 10 consistently. Not the arrow that has proven scientifically that a machine can put it in the same hole each time. Yes, you can argue all you want about precision and how to find out if your equipment is precise but it still comes down to the human element, which will either make that equipment precise or critical.


Anyone who relies on a machine to do the shooting for him is a product tester. I never suggested that it is anything but an elimination method. 
What if the testing archer decided that an arrow was no good, but the machine can put it in the same group as the others?
What if the machine decides that one arrow is consistantly bad, but the archer can't tell?

It means that the testing method is wrong if the results don't agree, or that there is a component that isn't being assessed by the tests. 

If the machine and archer both agree, it's happy day. 




Rick McKinney said:


> Using a shooting machine can only take you to a point, but it will not take you to the high level of elite shooting (however the shooting machine companies will sell more machines with your belief…. :smile. This is just one simple test but the real test is you shooting the arrows and plotting them to see how they perform with your shooting style. Shooting a perfect shot and it hitting the 10 ring is easy. Shooting a sloppy shot and it hitting the 10 ring takes a lot of work. :smile:


Anyone who shoots a sloppy shot and manages a ten out of it needs to be honest with themselves in terms of questioning how it was achieved. Was it actually sloppy? Was it luck or was it thousands of hours of training?



lorteti said:


> Rick, I was planning to reply to Whiz's post yesterday.
> Try to explain that you guys don't become a world champion for no reason, and that top archers have tested all possible ways to select competition arrows.
> And that a shooting machine can not test the very important aspect of arrow forgivingness.


Right. You want to test "forgiveness"... Forgiveness can only be defined as "How badly I can screw up and still have an acceptable result" Good luck with that. It's an approach that will make you a top performer at nearly anything. (That was sarcasm, by the way. Often it doesnt translate well in the written form.)

Of course Rick didn't become world champion for no reason. But if I can find another world Champion who doesn't agree with what Rick says.. who is right then?



lorteti said:


> But somehow I didn't reply immediately.
> Maybe it's that English is my 3rd or 4th language, or maybe I get the feeling that I'm talking to a stubborn high school kid.


Your emotive feelings are irrelevant because they describe your opinion. 
You either seek the process which leads to the truth, or you accept what you are given. 

Far too many people in the archery community say things because they rely on not being asked to justify them. You can rely on things being too hard to disprove if you like. But it's a double edged sword. They can be very hard to prove.

Say what you like, but be aware that someone might take it upon themselves to go to considerable lengths to see if what you say is true or not. 

It's why businesses have auditors. Wikipedia has moderators and most societies have Consumer Protection organisations of some sort. 

Internet forums have no truth detectors. 

The only thing that you can do is ask people to deliver supporting evidence or accepted principles which support their claims.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Whoops. I have to change my story. I just asked for the details. They weren't X10s. They were ACE's. X10's hadn't been developed yet.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Whiz….you have accused me of being a liar, drug user and cheater all in one fell swoop. I have no idea of what your motives are but I think we are finished here.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Here's a much simpler reason why using a hooter shooter, even with a lateral release mechanism isn't necessarily a valuable thing. 

Because it's a hooter shooter, arrows with major issues can be culled. But arrows with minor issues won't. An arrow with a minor spine variation could still be shot into the 10 at 70M. But when an archer has to tune a set of arrows, they're picking the group that best reacts to their individual variations. A hooter shooter doesn't really help with.

So in my mind, the arrows that a hooter shooter would cull, an archer would cull just as fast and easily, it not more so. 

Brian


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Whiz….you have accused me of being a liar, drug user and cheater all in one fell swoop. I have no idea of what your motives are but I think we are finished here.


No. I did not. 
It is unfortunate that you took references to the world in general as personal. 
There was no intention to infer or portray you as any or either of these and I categorically deny that there was ever the intention to do so. 

I do not believe that Rick McKinney is a drug cheat. 
I do not believe that Rick Mckinney is a liar (and I did actually specify that I didn't believe he or Vittorio is)
and
I do not believe that Rick McKinney is a cheater. 

What I did say and what the heart of the matter is, is that neither you or Vittorio describe rigorous testing procedures and I can pick holes in them. 
So regardless of your previous accomplishments, I can feel entitled to believe that your results for arrow testing won't be accurate. 

And that's not a character flaw or a negative or what I would consider to be a failure on your part. You're obviously both quite happy with what you've done. 
I wouldn't be.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

gig'em 99 said:


> Here's a much simpler reason why using a hooter shooter, even with a lateral release mechanism isn't necessarily a valuable thing.
> 
> Because it's a hooter shooter, arrows with major issues can be culled. But arrows with minor issues won't.


Hang on, you're making assumptions here without testing them and this is where the problem goes. 

What you're saying is that a process with minor repetition accuracy will find major variation but not minor ones and a process with major repetition accuracy will find minor variations. 

That is just not logical or even possible. 

A shooting machine can monotonously put arrows into the 10 at 90 metres all day. That is the sort of accuracy that tests equipment. 

There are no humans who can do that.


----------



## elan (Nov 6, 2009)

The logical construct of this archery forum is that most of the answers you get are either from personal experiences or mere opinions ergo not rigoriously tested ergo not scientifically proven/quantified.

If you find anything here that might help you then thats good. If you find holes or fishy answers PM the guy. If you agreed on something then SHARE otherwise :darkbeer: :darkbeer: :darkbeer:


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

elan said:


> The logical construct of this archery forum is that most of the answers you get are either from personal experiences or mere opinions ergo not rigorously tested ergo not scientifically proven/quantified.
> :


Nicely put :thumbs_up

Where problems often arise is where the "not scientifically/proven" charge is used as a club to beat others over the head, inevitably by people who would never dream of applying the same criteria to their own opinions :shade:


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Well, Joe, you're totally welcome to pull me up where ever you feel like it. 
I just like to look for the truth. 
Live by the sword. Die by the sword. 

And I have always taken a great deal of notice of what you have historically produced too. Some of your work has been looked over by no less than ex skunkworks engineers and DSTO scientists.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

whiz-Oz said:


> Anyone who relies on a machine to do the shooting for him is a product tester. I never suggested that it is anything but an elimination method.
> What if the testing archer decided that an arrow was no good, but the machine can put it in the same group as the others?
> What if the machine decides that one arrow is consistantly bad, but the archer can't tell?
> 
> ...


See now Whiz - This is why I made my last statement. Because you're using a machine to hold a bow and shoot a bow, you only get results that tell you how a machine works with the bow and arrows. A person can't even get the bow in the precise verticle position each time, but a machine does so easily with a few mechanical adjustments. Since I have witnessed a shooting machine in action, with an off the rack set of beeman ICS arrows, I know quite well, just how easily the machine could put those arrows in very tight groups over and over again. It was decent quality equipment, and it'd out shoot any person. This is why I draw the conclusion that a machine will shoot arrows with a wider degree of quality variation into the middle than a person will. To fine tune arrows with a hooter shooter takes quite a bit of time. Time that may better be spent between the archer and their equipment.

There is always a component that can't be assesed with the machine. Its called the human component. This just so happens to be the component that limits the usefulness of math and physics equasions as they apply to archery. They're a tool, that can point you in a direction. But not one that a person can solely rely on.

In the end, I agree that it is "an elimination method." One that very few people have regular access. But I am not convinced that it is any more useful than numbering your arrows and logging the groups over and over again. Really bad arrows, or arrows that need nock rotation show themselves very quickly this way. But, I'm just a shooter and instructor, not an equipment tester.

Brian


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Actually, a shooting machine should be able to put arrows in the exact same hole every time. This is the way we always checked arrows in compound shooting. One arrow at a time in exactly the same spot. A group from a machine is either a bad bow tune, bad arrow, or a bad test.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

> Maybe their (and other's) machinery is not as high tech as you imagine...


It sounds like they have been hand rolling them like Cuban cigars.

TAO


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

If X10 ProTour shafts have "c" designations of c1 through c5 or c6, what "c" number represents the nominal advertised gpi weight?

Example of say a PT520, which "c" number will the advertised gpi of 7.3 fall into?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Here below a couple of pictures explaining the meaning of "arrow selction" by bare shafts, much more than any verbal explanation. 


















Nothing new, as similar pictures are on THA...

Michele, back from Antalya with 6 good arrows remaining, only, has gone trough the process of re-selecting all his shafts to make another couple of sets for the rest of the season. Shooting total 91 bare shafts from previous selections and some new ones, 3 times indoor 70 mt and one time outdoor 70 mt rotating nocks for each shot. Final result has been 19 arrow discarted, 21 arrows for training only, 51 good arrows (see final group of selected arrows in the second picture) were 26 are 430 c2 and 25 are 430 c3 and will be used as two different sets.
Pls note that:
1) majority of shafts were already the results of previous selections
2) majority of the shafts were quite used, some of them over 10 years old 
3) all shafts have got new nocks and cleaning before shooting
4) all adiacent c groups tend in any case to overlap during selection, and overlapping is increased by usage.

So, the problem again is NOT if the same arrow is impacting in the same hole at 70 mt if shot by a shooting machine or if it can impact at 70 mt in the same hole if released by human fingers, but if 2 different arrows form a given set have a probability to impact in the sme hole EVEN if shot by a shooting machine. 
The reality says that the way FITA has to solve tie breacks by a shoot off to the arrow closer to the center is simply absurd in the real world. While by arrow selection you can grant that the FLETCHED arrows if shot well are all impacting inside the 10 at 70mt, no one can make a full set of more than few arrows that will grant to impact inside the X10 at 70 mt, as of the natural tolerancies still remaining iside a set of selected arrows. 
So, what is happening now is the selection of the selection, or selecting fletched arrows specifically to be used for shoot offs. But, this is another story... 
How much a real competion arrow should cost?


----------



## benyamin (May 17, 2009)

this is the e mail from EASTON in respond to my question about "c" numbers on x 10s:

Dear Consumer, 

It is actually a weight code, so if you don't have any then it doesn't matter, but if you have some you just want to make sure that you match those numbers up.

Thank you for your patience in the delayed response. Tech Support is handling all inquiries and questions as quickly and effectively as possible.

Please respond with any more questions or concerns.

Thank You,

Tech Support

many thanks to those who contributed to this topic by giving useful information.vittorio,your post about michele's arrow selection was very interesting and instructive to me.thank you.


----------

