# Weak arrows group better at longer distances?



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Here's how I look at it. This has been discussed before in another forum, and the opinion was that a stiffer spine grouped better. However, because there was no further scrutiny into how that was supposed to work, I'm just gonna take it that it is not true, and I have an alternate view.

I would agree that "weak arrows" grouped better. It really is talking about dynamic spine, the way the arrows (fletched and bare) behaved during the shot. The generally accepted method of tuning for dynamic spine is to shoot both fletched arrows and bareshaft, and to compare the two. The popular belief is that both arrows should group together at 30m.

Now think about that. They are telling us that both fletched and unfletched shafts should behave the same. Apart from the dampened lateral oscillation of the arrow with the help of the fletches from the moment of the release, and to a much lesser extent (depending on the type of fletching) the increase in mass resulting in a small marginal decrease in overall speed, why would the two different configurations, in a supposedly "tuned" system, be expected to behave in the same manner?

The way I see it, we should be tuning for fletched arrows, because that is what we use for scoring. Fletched arrows being slightly heavier and dampened at the tail, should be expected to behave "stiffer" than its naked counterpart. How much stiffer? I have no answer for that at the moment. I'm still setting up my dark room and cameras to find the correct tune.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

When you say weaker arrows, I take it that you mean the bare shaft groups to the right of the fletched arrows for a RH recurve.


----------



## That archer (Dec 22, 2012)

Yes that is exactly what I mean, and thanks for the reply.

However what I read is that weaker arrows (bareshaft right) group better at longer distances whilst stiffer arrows (bareshaft left) group better at shorter distances.

Your explanation seems to imply that weaker arrows group better in general at any distance.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

The stiff arrow recovers faster from the shot so you can get away stiffer arrows at 18m
At the longer distances the arrow has time to recover from it's occultation so it can use them. I've read this two from some of our top men recurve shooters. The key word is slightly weak not a drastically weak.


----------



## That archer (Dec 22, 2012)

No offence but do you mean oscillation? 
"An occultation is an event that occurs when one object is hidden by another object that passes between it and the observer."

If so, I'm still not sure how oscillation helps grouping at longer distances?


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

That archer said:


> No offence but do you mean oscillation?
> "An occultation is an event that occurs when one object is hidden by another object that passes between it and the observer."
> 
> If so, I'm still not sure how oscillation helps grouping at longer distances?


Yes Oscillation - autocorrect on my phone - How it actually effects and makes the shot more consistent, IDK. It might not actually work for all people either.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

That archer said:


> No offence but do you mean oscillation?
> If so, I'm still not sure how oscillation helps grouping at longer distances?


It's not that oscillation helps your grouping. 
It's that all arrows oscillate. 

Having an arrow that is the closest to perfectly tuned to your bow, and the way you shoot it. Is what tightens up arrow groups. So long as one can hold the same POA for each arrow released 

That's the simple answer. 


GB


----------



## That archer (Dec 22, 2012)

From Apptitune: 
"Match Your Arrows To Your Distances - A weaker arrow typically shoots better at longer distances, while a stiff arrow shoots better at shorter distances. Keeping that in mind, when tuning for indoor season, your primary concern should be the tune at 20 yards/18 meters. If you are shooting outdoors, tune at the furthest comfortable distance, at least 30 meters."

And I've read similar elsewhere also. Can't say that I've done the testing to confirm it first hand but I would very much like to understand the theory behind the statement.


----------



## joebehar (Nov 13, 2012)

Not sure if it's my OCD or ignorance, but why is everyone using the word "grouping"? It seems to me its the wrong word.

Lets say you shoot 6 weak spine arrows and they go to the right. Then you shoot 6 stiff spined arrows and they go to the left. Are you suggesting that the weak spined ones will actually be closer to each other than the stiff spined arrows?

If you are, then what you are saying is that INDIVIDUAL stiff spined arrows behave MORE DIFFERENTLY than the weak spined ones. This would be the only reason for tighter or looser groups. (leaving out the inconsistency of the shooter)

Let me say it another way. A looser grouping would indicate that arrow 1 behaves differently than arrow 2, which behaves differently that arrow 3 etc.

Regardless of whether the arrows go right, left, up or down, unless they are different from each other, they should (within the limitation of the archer's consistency) land in the same place and give you the same group regardless of spine.

Now, i expect to hear "yeah, but you're leaving out the effects of wind and such" Again, wind will affect ALL of the weak or stiff spined arrows and may cause them to not go where you aimed, but they will still all go to the same spot.

Seems to me that the only thing that affects grouping (short of shifting winds) is the archer him/her self. Easy to check too..just shoot indoors where there is no wind


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

Entire reason for you to want your bare shaft in the group with your fletched is that it means your fletches didn't have to correct any major rotation of the arrows flight. That's it. If your bow will shoot the arrow straight without them, then adding the fletches will further stabilise them in flight. I would ignore any notions of it being better one way or the other versus distance being too relevant and simply get it so bare land the same as fletched to about 50 meters. Most people who can manage that need not worry about a small difference left or right. The angular difference would be so low as to forget about it.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

I'm guessing (having no idea who actually said what) that your understanding is maybe back to front here.
First off tuning is about group size so talking about weak or stiff arrows has really no meaning in this context.

For a given arrow, bow and archer the optimum tuning (as in how the bow is set up) will be different at 18 meters than it will be at 70 meters say (reason: flight aerodynamics) , just at it will be different with different environments of wind and temperature say (reason different aerodynamics and/or different material properties/behaviour). You could I suppose turn this around and say "with the same bow set up" you need different arrows for different distances and environments but this would be a completely crazy approach.

PS re simultaneous posts: a whole bunch of factors define the group size. If you represented the group as a target of concentric circles then "tuning" would be only one ring. You would have a whole bunch of rings some relating to the archer (egt. aiming stability) some to the equipment (e.g arrow manufacture consistency) some to the environment (e.g. wind) and so on.


----------



## That archer (Dec 22, 2012)

I'm not suggesting anything, it is what I have read.

And what I take it as is this: If the archer him/herself made no mistake whatsoever, I guess no matter weak or stiff spined, as long as the arrows matched perfectly they would end up in the same exact hole.

However since no archer can be perfect, there will inevitably be at least small variances to each shot.

Now given those variances, the way I read the statement that I posted earlier is that weaker spined arrows would be more forgiving at longer distances and therefore group better. The same for stiffer spined arrows at close distances.

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the statement.

That was in response to joebehar. Sorry I type slow.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

That archer said:


> I'm not suggesting anything, it is what I have read.
> 
> And what I take it as is this: If the archer him/herself made no mistake whatsoever, I guess no matter weak or stiff spined, as long as the arrows matched perfectly they would end up in the same exact hole.
> 
> ...


The statement is literally incorrect but as I said it may just be the way it's being put. Tuning will be different at different distances but you would adjust the bow not change the arrow.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

The studies i have read say weaker spines will group better but be less forgiving (regardless of distance)
Stiffer spines will not group as tight but will be more forgiving to errors.

So for most beginner/ intermediate shooters, stiffer arrows are probably better.

For advanced it becomes a bit more complicated.

For the elites they are usually going towards the weaker side.

A good shooters Score example for a weaker arrow might be x x x x 10 7
Where the same good shooter, stiff arrow x 10 10 10 9 9 with all of the 10's on the outer edge.

For a beginner intermediate shooter it might be weak arrows 7 6 4 1 M off the bale
Stiff arrow might be 6 6 4 4 3 3

For an elite it might be weak arrow, x x x x x 8
Stiff arrow, x x x 10 9 9

Not sure of the physics but that was what the studies reported.

DC


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

so a good compromise would be to have tune spot on


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

dchan said:


> The studies i have read say weaker spines will group better but be less forgiving (regardless of distance)
> Stiffer spines will not group as tight but will be more forgiving to errors.


This is a different definition as what's being referred to is what makes for a better performing arrow in terms of its properties. A lighter, thinner arrow shaft (i.e. weaker) will perform in general better as far as grouping goes than a heavier, fatter shaft (i.e. stiffer). Whatever the arrow you have you tune it so weak/stiff in a descriptive tuning context is irrelevant.



> so a good compromise would be to have tune spot on


...exactly by definition  the Goldilocks solution


----------



## joebehar (Nov 13, 2012)

That archer said:


> I'm not suggesting anything, it is what I have read.
> 
> And what I take it as is this: If the archer him/herself made no mistake whatsoever, I guess no matter weak or stiff spined, as long as the arrows matched perfectly they would end up in the same exact hole.
> 
> ...


That archer,

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but the statement you read just simply makes no sense at all and cannot possibly stand up to the scrutiny of logical thinking. Not your fault, you just read it 

As far as weak spined arrows being more forgiving of technique errors, assuming that is right, you may have a point. If a weak spined arrow does not go as far off target as a stiff spined one (assuming the exact same technique) then they will indeed group tighter when the archer makes slight mistakes. One arrow a bit left, one a bit high and so on. The weak spined arrows will be closer to the intended target than the stiff ones.

The only question now is, is this actually true?


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

joebehar said:


> That archer,
> 
> I don't mean to sound confrontational, but the statement you read just simply makes no sense at all and cannot possibly stand up to the scrutiny of logical thinking. Not your fault, you just read it
> 
> ...


My earlier post says the opposite 

The way we tested this was during my compound shooting days. We took a group of very well tuned arrows and over several sessions we shot several ends of arrows.

The rigs were mostly 40-50% let off long axle to axle wheel target bows and releases (iirc most of us were shooting stan II BT) so pretty consistent shots. Most of us were shooting 295+ averages NFAA 20yds.

Starting with a real well tuned setup, bullet holes in paper multiple distances and bare shaft in the center of the group we stiffened and weakened arrows by setting up longer and shorter arrows so same diameter same FOC nibbs.

By going weaker (1/2" longer) the groups got tighter (more x's) but the misses were often 4 or even 3's

When we went stiffer (1/2" shorter) we had larger groups (less x's) but often misses were line cutters, or just barely 4's.

I have not re-done this test since I switched to recurve and I have not tried it at long distances but I would suspect similar results.

More paraox when an arrow is in flight would slow arrow speed so that would also affect accuracy and elevation. Inconsistent releases would create more paradox.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I don't know. So far I have seen the phrase "Weak spine" many times in this thread.

Can someone tell me, if a "weak spine" grouped better than "spined", then.....what exactly does "SPINED" mean?


----------



## joebehar (Nov 13, 2012)

dchan,

I will take what you have to say as empirical evidence. I have never tried this. What your experience tells me is that when you take the total score into consideration, shooting a too weak spine or shooting a too stiff spine makes relatively little difference. The trick is to find the sweet spot for your style and set up.

Of course, all this goes out the window when we talk about high level archers, but for the recreational shooters like me its comforting to know


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Ah, this may be a captain obvious moment, but wouldn't a properly spined arrow group best?
- that being the case why would we care how an improperly tuned arrow would group, just work until you have the proper tune.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

b0w_bender said:


> Ah, this may be a captain obvious moment, but wouldn't a properly spined arrow group best?
> - that being the case why would we care how an improperly tuned arrow would group, just work until you have the proper tune.


I think that a bow can be set-up to put either a slightly weak or slightly stiff bareshaft into the middle of the group. What it seems to me is that a bow set-up to put that stiff arrow into the group is a bit more forgiving but less precise. The bow tuned to the weaker arrow is the opposite, very precise but not so forgiving.

Likely it's accounted for in very small differences in plunger offset and tension.

-Grant


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

grantmac said:


> I think that a bow can be set-up to put either a slightly weak or slightly stiff bareshaft into the middle of the group. What it seems to me is that a bow set-up to put that stiff arrow into the group is a bit more forgiving but less precise. The bow tuned to the weaker arrow is the opposite, very precise but not so forgiving.
> 
> Likely it's accounted for in very small differences in plunger offset and tension.
> 
> -Grant


Joebehar, I'm very tempted to repeat what you have mentioned to That Archer awhile back there but I suspect you already know what I am going to say so I will just skip that.

I think there is a general confusion as to what constitutes dynamic spine, weakness or stiffness. Let us bring back the concept of the nodes. Assuming 2 nodes were readily identifiable, these nodes would appear shortly after exiting the bow, and depending on how stiff or weak, will have the rear node follow the lateral path of the front node if it were to be "spined". Do note that any comparison with a fletched arrow would be meaningless, as the fletched arrow would not be "spined" with the same settings and configuration.

Hence, referencing a RH recurve bow, a weak spine would have the rear node maintain a path falling left of the front node for a sustained period, until such time its flight through air aligns the two nodes' paths. By then, regardless of whether the alignment eventually takes place, the weak spine would have landed right of the path of an otherwise spined bareshaft, which would be recognised as one where the two nodes rapidly fall into the same lateral path. For a stiff spine, vice versa.

Now in another thread, there is talk about the two node being non-existant, and that there could be a multitude of nodes. It is my understanding that regardless of the number of nodes present, based on the paths taken by the most forward node and the most aft node, the above should hold true.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Tuning.a bow/arrow is different than tuning an instrument. Most instruments need to be tuned to a specific pitch. Tuning a bow/arrow/human takes on a lot more variables. We can tune for more forgiving shots which is probably best for intermediates. We can find arrows "close enough" and just tune to provide arrow/riser clearance which I feel is fine for beginners. We can tune for a balance of forgiveness and accuracy which most advanced or competitive archers are probably looking for. And we can tune just for accuracy. This is probably what most elites are going for. So taking everything equal, an elite archer may adjust the arrows or bow to have it so the dynamic spine is actually on the weaker side. While a beginner we probably want to setup their bow erring on the side of stiff. A strong recreational archer their sweet spot is probably right in the middle. A balance of accuracy and forgiveness.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

grantmac said:


> I think that a bow can be set-up to put either a slightly weak or slightly stiff bareshaft into the middle of the group. What it seems to me is that a bow set-up to put that stiff arrow into the group is a bit more forgiving but less precise. The bow tuned to the weaker arrow is the opposite, very precise but not so forgiving.
> 
> Likely it's accounted for in very small differences in plunger offset and tension.
> 
> -Grant


Think of it more like bare shaft in the center of the fletched group as "proper" then push the bare shaft toward the weaker side for a more accurate less forgiving setup. Push the bare shaft to the stiffer side if you want a more forgiving setup.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

dchan said:


> Think of it more like bare shaft in the center of the fletched group as "proper" then push the bare shaft toward the weaker side for a more accurate less forgiving setup. Push the bare shaft to the stiffer side if you want a more forgiving setup.


This is back to That Archer's original question - I think he was looking for some kind of explanation for the piece of rhetoric - which no-one has been able to supply.



> Could somebody please explain to me why this is the case? I don't quite understand the scientific reasoning behind this.


The majority vote seems to be that the idea is nonsense - mainly because no-one can suggest an explanation.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Joe T said:


> This is back to That Archer's original question - I think he was looking for some kind of explanation for the piece of rhetoric - which no-one has been able to supply.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority vote seems to be that the idea is nonsense - mainly because no-one can suggest an explanation.


It could many pages of research to explain the whole scientific reasoning but

A perfect shooting machine with perfectly matched arrows should put all the arrows in the same place. Regardless of tune.

Because we are not perfect we need to find the best match for our inconsistency.

When most of us "bare shaft test" most do not take into account that the bare shaft is already dynamically weaker as we have removed some weight from the back of the arrow. If you want more accurate testing you need to make adjustments for that, however that is a different discussion.

I need to run but will continue this explanation later.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

dchan said:


> Tuning.a bow/arrow is different than tuning an instrument. Most instruments need to be tuned to a specific pitch. Tuning a bow/arrow/human takes on a lot more variables. We can tune for more forgiving shots which is probably best for intermediates. We can find arrows "close enough" and just tune to provide arrow/riser clearance which I feel is fine for beginners. We can tune for a balance of forgiveness and accuracy which most advanced or competitive archers are probably looking for. And we can tune just for accuracy. This is probably what most elites are going for. So taking everything equal, an elite archer may adjust the arrows or bow to have it so the dynamic spine is actually on the weaker side. While a beginner we probably want to setup their bow erring on the side of stiff. A strong recreational archer their sweet spot is probably right in the middle. A balance of accuracy and forgiveness.


Let's see if I understand this correctly.

Let us take an archer and assume his range of inputs are -10 to +10, 0 being the average input value. Having tuned his bow to be "forgiving", within his 95th percentile of shots that range from -10 to +10, he is expected to land his shots within 8. The distribution of his shots are evenly distributed over the area covered up to 8 points, which mean his next shot has as much chance of hitting a particular score as the position and ratio of the surface area of that particular score, regardless of his input as long as it is within -10 to +10.

Take another archer, an elite, and his range of inputs are -2 to +2. Having tuned his bow to be "accurate", within his 95 percentile of shots within -2 to +2, he is expected to land his shots within 9. And the rest as applicable.

Between the two archers, should the elite make an error and execute a shot with an input of say +4, his shot will likely result in a 7 or 6. Meaning to say, having made an error that is quantified to be less that that of the other archer, the elite archer pays a higher price on the target.

Are these the defining notions of tuning for forgiveness and tuning for accuracy?


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

I don't think this thread is going anywhere useful . so I'll call it a day.
For reference here is a bare shaft tuning summary I put on an other forum one time bare-shaft-tuning-fundamentals


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Joe T said:


> I don't think this thread is going anywhere useful . so I'll call it a day.
> For reference here is a bare shaft tuning summary I put on an other forum one time bare-shaft-tuning-fundamentals


Thanks for the link Joe T.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

I would concur with dchan. A slightly weaker spine always out performed a slightly stiffer spine for me.

This would be a very small difference and was at one time pretty well substantiated by Larry Godfrey and Alan Wills in 2006 or 2007. They were taking plunger stiffness readings off of as many competitors bows at the World Cups as they could get. They would take your bow and measure the actual plunger tension and rate. They had quite a database. It included a number of world record holders and Olympians setups. In most cases the plunger tensions were on the very stiff side (weak arrow). The Koreans they tested had plungers that were almost locked out. My setup that I shot all my personal bests with was right up there in that super stiff plunger range, though not as stiff as the Koreans setups.

As Doug said a slightly weak setup tuned perfectly will result in a stiff plunger and you get X,X,X,10,10,8 type ends. The stiff setups gave much as he said - 10,9,8,10,8,9 type ends. In fact with my one setup at 44 lbs with x10-500's I could group a bare shaft in a 3" circle every time on a good shot at 70m. It was amazing how the same arrow would go in nearly the exact same place every time. They just wouldn't all be in the same 10 ring on a target. Fletching with spin wings, made them group much better as a set, but never a correlation for a given arrow anymore. That testing was from an arrow selection technique I learned from Vittorio in his book.

When you get that perfect tune, which to me is not really perfectly down the middle of the road as tuning guides would suggest, it can result in amazing correlation to how you felt the shots go off and where the arrow lands in the target. Setups that had the arrow right down the middle to the slightly stiff side have never given me that perfect correlation.

Just my $0.02

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

c3hammer said:


> I would concur with dchan. A slightly weaker spine always out performed a slightly stiffer spine for me.
> 
> This would be a very small difference and was at one time pretty well substantiated by Larry Godfrey and Alan Wills in 2006 or 2007. They were taking plunger stiffness readings off of as many competitors bows at the World Cups as they could get. They would take your bow and measure the actual plunger tension and rate. They had quite a database. It included a number of world record holders and Olympians setups. In most cases the plunger tensions were on the very stiff side (weak arrow). The Koreans they tested had plungers that were almost locked out. My setup that I shot all my personal bests with was right up there in that super stiff plunger range, though not as stiff as the Koreans setups.
> 
> ...


My experience mirrors Pete's, while acknowledging my experience is less deep and less illustrious than is his).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

All my best outdoor scores were shot with what I consider a pretty stiff plunger, and an arrow that by every measure, should have been too weak for me to use. 

Indoors? Just the opposite.

YMMV however.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Keep in mind we are talking about very high levels of shooting and tuning. The average recreational archer will probably never get to this level unless they just really love to play with tuning, and push their shooting to a pretty high level.

So as Joe T so aptly puts it, "I don't think this thread is going anywhere useful "

But it's fun to think about it and understand it for some of us..

As John says YMMV


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

I am curious -what exactly counts as a "slightly" weak arrow relative to grouping landing right in the yellow (9 ring or better)? For a right handed archer is this in the outer 9, 8 or 7?


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

tunedlow said:


> I am curious -what exactly counts as a "slightly" weak arrow relative to grouping landing right in the yellow (9 ring or better)? For a right handed archer is this in the outer 9, 8 or 7?


Differs for everyone because that involves equipment, the shooter, the tuning process, etc... It's hard to "quantify" that with a specific "ring number"

If you get to the microtuning stages (beyond bare shaft tuning) then keep pushing it further and further, your groups for clean shots will get tighter and tighter (to a point) and the opps shots will eventually get to a point where the forgiveness of the bow really begins to suffer. If you then do a bareshaft test, you will probably find that the bare shaft test will put you on the weak side. How far will depend on you and your rig together. Good tight groups, but those opps shots will really cost you points.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

lksseven said:


> My experience mirrors Pete's, while acknowledging my experience is less deep and less illustrious than is his).


as is mine.. (less deep...illustrious) but I love to tinker.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

c3hammer said:


> This would be a very small difference and was at one time pretty well substantiated by Larry Godfrey and Alan Wills in 2006 or 2007. They were taking plunger stiffness readings off of as many competitors bows at the World Cups as they could get. They would take your bow and measure the actual plunger tension and rate. They had quite a database. It included a number of world record holders and Olympians setups. In most cases the plunger tensions were on the very stiff side (weak arrow). The Koreans they tested had plungers that were almost locked out. My setup that I shot all my personal bests with was right up there in that super stiff plunger range, though not as stiff as the Koreans
> 
> Pete


i have been saying for some time that Park Sung Hyun's plunger was rock hard and had that point debated on AT. this would seem to confirm my information. Since Park Sung Hyun was on the Korean National team at that time and numerous world record holder, and shot the World cups during 2006-2007.

they would have tested her plunger and found it to almost be locked out in stiffness. 


Chris


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Then it begs the question: Why do top class archers still use plungers?


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

theminoritydude said:


> Then it begs the question: Why do top class archers still use plungers?


flexibility to adjust stiffness I imagine. just because you can lock a plunger out doesn't mean having the option to not have be as stiff a tad is a bad thing.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

theminoritydude said:


> Then it begs the question: Why do top class archers still use plungers?


As opposed to using what? 

You still need to dial in the correct spring tension for YOU. Form changes can often require a tune change, and we have well established the when you pretty much change anything at all in the bow there is an effect to the tune. The adjutiblity is needed.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

tunedlow said:


> flexibility to adjust stiffness I imagine. just because you can lock a plunger out doesn't mean having the option to not have be as stiff a tad is a bad thing.


Sorry, I will have to rephrase the question: Why do top class archers who lock out their plungers, use Beiter?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

The reason why I say this is that I cannot seem to understand at first, the need to even use a plunger for one top class archer who has a plunger so stiff that she demonstrably lacks the need to use any function of the spring tension, unless.......

She didn't know that her plunger wasn't really moving. At all.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

theminoritydude said:


> Sorry, I will have to rephrase the question: Why do top class archers who lock out their plungers, use Beiter?


1) its well made
2) there are spare parts for everything in it
3) you can fine tune it very well with easy to read labels for the settings


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Ok. I accept it.


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

The only possible reason I can think for slightly weak arrows (with a bareshaft reading) performing better at longer distance is that adding the fletches puts them in the middle of tune as opposed to weak or stiff due to adding a small amount of mass on the back of the arrow.
Just speculation though!


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

anmactire said:


> The only possible reason I can think for slightly weak arrows (with a bareshaft reading) performing better at longer distance is that adding the fletches puts them in the middle of tune as opposed to weak or stiff due to adding a small amount of mass on the back of the arrow.
> Just speculation though!


I am in complete agreement with you on this one.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

How hard is it to add enough tape to the end of a bare shaft to match the weight of your fletched arrows? When I suggest this to some people, they sometimes act like I just gave them the secret recipe to Coke or something. 

When I'm tuning arrows with lightweight mylar vanes these days, I don't even bother with taping the ends of my bare shafts anymore though. Reason being, is that if that bare shaft shoots in the group with the fletched ones at 30 meters, what you will have is a slightly stiff reaction, by definition, and that's exactly where I want to start my fine tuning for groups anyway. 

Once a person gets their bare shaft in the fletched group at 30 meters, I say quit obsessing over where your bare shaft lands and just go tune for groups after that - this is something too few recreational archers ever do.

John


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> How hard is it to add enough tape to the end of a bare shaft to match the weight of your fletched arrows? When I suggest this to some people, they sometimes act like I just gave them the secret recipe to Coke or something.
> 
> When I'm tuning arrows with lightweight mylar vanes these days, I don't even bother with taping the ends of my bare shafts anymore though. Reason being, is that if that bare shaft shoots in the group with the fletched ones at 30 meters, what you will have is a slightly stiff reaction, by definition, and that's exactly where I want to start my fine tuning for groups anyway.
> 
> ...


I stop obsessing with the bare shaft when it gets to about 4" at 30M and start looking at the groups for our recreational shooters. It's good info to know that the shaft selection is close but a lot of the level of shooters we have, they will never need any more than that..

When we get to consistently shooting groups of all 9's at 30M or 56+ ends(occasional 8 is ok) Then I might have the athlete start to revisit the bare shaft test to get the tune closer. Usually by then we are looking at new arrows anyway.

and about 2"x2" square of duct tape is about right for a set of 3 carbon impact 1.5" vanes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

dchan said:


> Tuning.a bow/arrow is different than tuning an instrument. Most instruments need to be tuned to a specific pitch. Tuning a bow/arrow/human takes on a lot more variables. We can tune for more forgiving shots which is probably best for intermediates. We can find arrows "close enough" and just tune to provide arrow/riser clearance which I feel is fine for beginners. We can tune for a balance of forgiveness and accuracy which most advanced or competitive archers are probably looking for. And we can tune just for accuracy. This is probably what most elites are going for. So taking everything equal, an elite archer may adjust the arrows or bow to have it so the dynamic spine is actually on the weaker side. While a beginner we probably want to setup their bow erring on the side of stiff. A strong recreational archer their sweet spot is probably right in the middle. A balance of accuracy and forgiveness.


This raised an interesting question in my mind. Since a bow does make a sound when you shoot it, could you use an electronic "tuner" to evaluate your tune on your bow for consistency/forgiveness? I mean, if your bow is making the same sound on every shot, it should be consistent, right? Not sure if there is equipment that could pick this up and compare one shot to the next though. I suspect, with all the sound recording equipment we have today, there probably is.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I should probably just get on this project, and sell "JEM harmonic tuners" for $250 each while I still can. Heck, I'd even include a metronome in it that could be set to 10 seconds.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> I should probably just get on this project, and sell "JEM harmonic tuners" for $250 each while I still can. Heck, I'd even include a metronome in it that could be set to 10 seconds.


Hmm. Cheap contact tuners attached to the riser with a green light for a good shot, yellow for a OK shot and red for the "PLUCK":wink:


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Since the rule of thumb is the quietest brace height is the correct one, how about using a decibel meter to find the right brace height? There are free decibel meter smartphone apps.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I agree that sound is an important tool in knowing you're "right there" in the tuning sweet spot. 

How great to have a sensor with green/yellow/red lights! You could use it for a wonderful competition provider for students. Instead of always having to rely on the target face as the only objective measure of performance, you could have competitions to see how many 'green' shots out of 30 each student can achieve.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

NOW you boys are thinking... 

I mean, if you're going to geek out on accessories, you may as well go full bore geek.


----------



## hooktonboy (Nov 21, 2007)

TER said:


> Since the rule of thumb is the quietest brace height is the correct one, how about using a decibel meter to find the right brace height? There are free decibel meter smartphone apps.


http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f11/bracing-height-decibel-meter-74005/


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

hooktonboy said:


> http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f11/bracing-height-decibel-meter-74005/


Why would we use something free when we could spend more money on gear?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Sosius said:


> Why would we use something free when we could spend more money on gear?


Now that's funny!


----------



## MagneticLobster (Dec 24, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> How hard is it to add enough tape to the end of a bare shaft to match the weight of your fletched arrows? When I suggest this to some people, they sometimes act like I just gave them the secret recipe to Coke or something.


Not to get too far off topic, but a few days ago I used this as a simple applied math project with my son.

Weigh each of the fletched arrows, compute the average weight, weigh and measure a length of tape to determine how many grains per centimeter, weigh each unfletched arrow, then calculate the length of tape needed.

Plus you get the satisfaction of weighing the final result to see how accurate you were.


----------

