# Stabilise your arrows faster with the TURBULATOR



## FIGJAM (Jan 12, 2009)

As I said stabilise your arrows faster with the TURBULATOR a D.I.Y cheap and effective.

The Turbulator in this context is simply a raised ringed surface of fletching tape or o-ring placed a 1\4 inch from the forward edge of the fletch and about one sixteenth inch high.

The bump serves to disrupt the air flow before it reaches the fletches, giving them more controle.

Aeroplane control surfaces utilise the same principle, for example when flaps are raisedwhile landing.

If you dont have fletch tape you can use peep tube and just roll it to the top of the arrow.

Simple cheap and it works. Attached is a picture to show you.


----------



## truper (Sep 23, 2007)

*turbulator*

Have you chronographed an arrow to see the fps it has on the arrow?


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

I have a chronograph I'll mess around with it but I'm not sure how I could ID the number of rotations per 20yards?

So if it does increase rotation with a decrease in speed I wouldn't be able to prove it. Logic says if more energy is applied to rotation it has to come from some where and usually at a cost of speed. So the only other option would be aerodynamic efficiency.


----------



## bcbow1971 (Oct 24, 2007)

Does it make your groups tighter?


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

Not sure how this works? Don't you want the fletching to make the disturbance/drag so as to control the arrow?

Now a dimpled shaft like a golf ball. Or shark skin I think is something to be looked at. This is proven to create a friction cushion along a surface. I believe its stated the friction between two like surfaces is far less then non-like. So by creating an air cushion around an object it lessens the friction/drag.

There work up this one:wink: Now we need a taxidermist to do artificial velvet to a shaft. an adhesive and the fine fibers. Then with an static charge stand the fibers up and back. I would think this would be the most feasible approach to try this theory.


----------



## woodridge 30-30 (Feb 1, 2009)

this trick has been used by a few guys over the years. the original theory behind it was for something called gyro-turbulence, which is also a yet to be proven theory. but the basis behind the theories can be seen on modern jets that break the sound barrier. the bell x1 had a feature that made it do so, the body was thinner where the wings connected, know as the wasp waist (outlined in the "whitcomb area rule" of any aerodynamics text book). it had something to do with high/low pressures and wing stability. but as the original post mentioned it does help stabilize a arrow but not by disrupting the air alone, but by creating a area of low pressure. if there is low pressure the air rushes back over the band, right in the path of the vanes. now the actual amount that this help, i dont know but it wouldnt be much especialy at sub sonic speeds. but it helps by stabilizing the vane (less in flight deformation) not so much by creating more drag


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

Interesting!!


----------



## custompump (Apr 11, 2008)

would an o-ring work?


----------



## DaJester (Jan 9, 2009)

Sounds like a Myth-Busters episode....


----------



## Tunaboy (Oct 3, 2004)

*O Ring*

My question also: would an O ring do the job? If so it would make the experiment much easier.


----------



## skycomag (Aug 31, 2006)

*a quote from first post*

"The Turbulator in this context is simply a raised ringed surface of fletching tape or o-ring placed a 1\4 inch from the forward edge of the fletch and about one sixteenth inch high."


----------



## dustoffer (Jan 24, 2009)

Flaps are lowered for landing, spoilers are raised.:wink:


----------



## trlcavscout (Jan 30, 2008)

We need someone with a scale, chrono, and that can get slo mo video to count rotations. Call mythbusters!


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

Why do you want to crate or have a turbulence in front of your vanes or feathers? I don't get it. You probrably needs more steady airflow thru the vanes or feathers and then your arrow can spin faster to stabilize itself. That's my story. :darkbeer:


----------



## BowKil (Mar 19, 2005)

Do birds have those?? :darkbeer:


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

BowKil said:


> Do birds have those?? :darkbeer:


Yes sir, Thats my story :darkbeer:


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

Actually I may be totally wrong. But the spin is nothing more then stabilizing any non centered mass. With components of today's arrows. The slow speeds and the short distance. I feel rotation is almost pointless. I mean we all bare shaft are bows right. Well they group as good as any fletched shaft at 20yrds. So I feel rotation is only second to the drag that fletching induces to keep the arrow flying straight.

So this theory seems to work for me.


----------



## stiknstring (Aug 27, 2008)

Instead of reinventing the wheel why don't you boys hop on over to tradgang and look up the turbulator discussion. It allowed guys to shoot small 2 and three inch fletchings with broadheads and maintain very consistent groups. I am not going to purport to know a whole lot on the subject but there is 20 some pages of discussion to peak your interest.


----------



## ARShooter01 (Aug 10, 2008)

*test*

It seems to me that all everybody is after is tighter groups. Throw all the tech stuff out the window. Go to your local hardware store and get some o rings that will fit your shaft. Now forget the slow motion step off 20 yards shoot 5 or 6 arrows take a pic. Then at the same 20 yards with the o rings on shoot the same 5 or 6 arrows compare to your pic and see if it improved your groups. If it didnt you have lost about 25 cents. If it did help your groups then its a good test go get you some more o rings.


----------



## Special_K (Aug 28, 2008)

Has anybody chrono'd it yet? What about group size. I mean that's all that matters. I don't care if my arrows do cork screws as long as it's pretty fast and hits within a fiftey cent piece. I couldn't give a crap about the drag co-effcient of the arrow as it hits the target. Sorry call me crazy.


----------



## Nightstalker117 (Sep 17, 2009)

It seems to me that this would NOT be good for anyone shooting a biscuit or TM hunter style rest ... If you complain about the biscuit slowing your arrow down it would seem this o-ring addition is really gonna piss you off :darkbeer:


----------



## pyroman_27 (Feb 4, 2003)

*Wind Tunnel*

We need to put these theories through a wind tunnel test. Anybody have access to or wanna DIY build one. I got a spare leaf blower that will run with some tuning.


----------



## Hoyt Havoc (Jul 27, 2006)

How many degrees are those helixed at? looks like a lot!


----------



## quintonhall (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm going to try stick my arrows up my nose. I think if there slicker than snot they should go faster.


----------



## disturbed13 (Aug 16, 2005)

bilongo said:


> Why do you want to crate or have a turbulence in front of your vanes or feathers? I don't get it. You probrably needs more steady airflow thru the vanes or feathers and then your arrow can spin faster to stabilize itself. That's my story. :darkbeer:



its not the goal to create turbulence
nor is it the cause of the effect
its the fact that the air has to go faster to get over the ring
causing a low pressure behind it all the way around the shaft
causing a uniform and equal effect all the way around the shaft
thus adding stabilization



madarchery said:


> Actually I may be totally wrong. But the spin is nothing more then stabilizing any non centered mass. With components of today's arrows. The slow speeds and the short distance. I feel rotation is almost pointless. I mean we all bare shaft are bows right. Well they group as good as any fletched shaft at 20yrds. So I feel rotation is only second to the drag that fletching induces to keep the arrow flying straight.
> 
> So this theory seems to work for me.



spin has everything to do with it
if spin has nothing to do with stabilization then why do quarterbacks throw tight spirals?
wouldn't that be a waste of effort when they could just throw the ball?
you all ready have answered that sentence in your mind by now
and you know that every little bit helps
it doesnt matter how slow or short
it could be a football tossed 5 yards to the reciver in a tight spiral
or it could be a bullet from a 30-06 rifle traveling faster then the speed of sound
quarterbacks can send the ball out there like a 'laser' as some would say
or they can throw it so that it 'hangs' in the air
at different speeds with a rotational force applied to the object causes an increase in accuracy
providing that it could be done time and time again
but thats not the argument
nor whats being discussed
thats just my view
why do more then you have to if spin has nothing to do with it?


EDIT: i for one am glad that people are still sharing ideas and thoughts in the community
lets keep hearing what you have for us


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

Football needs to be spun because of the uneven force applied during the throw. The spin equalizes the force to stabilize the projectile.

A bare shaft out of a well tuned bow. Shoots groups as tight as any fletched shaft at 20yrds. How could this be? Well for the most part the spine of the arrow is right. And the power stroke is lined up to provide a straight even force to the projectile. Rotation just equalizes and covers any irregularities.

So thats why I will stick to the fact that rotation is second only to the drag induced by the fletching to keep the projectile pointed straight as the velocity slows.


----------



## disturbed13 (Aug 16, 2005)

madarchery said:


> Football needs to be spun because of the uneven force applied during the throw. The spin equalizes the force to stabilize the projectile.
> So thats why I will stick to *the fact that rotation is second only to the drag induced by the fletching to keep the projectile pointed straight* as the velocity slows.


oh
and here i thought thats what the FOC was for
if thats the case then i will just ditch my 100 grn points and get some 25s
and pick up more FPS and the added kinetic punch with it

now im not saying that drag is non-existent
its just a very small force that IMHO can be ignored for the most part and it wont change the grouping at any distance
FOC is what keeps the arrow straight
and the turbulator is applying that low pressure to reduce the effect of the arrow
as it bends/flexes through the air
allowing the fletchings to apply their spin on to the flexing arrow shaft
which as its flexing the angle of the fletchings is changing so the force is constantly moving around the arrow
with the turbulator the low pressure allows all of the fletchings to apply the same force
the same torque to the shaft and 'cover any irregularities' as you put it
which is what it does
in the exact same way that the spiral on a football does
drag is the last thing on everyone's mind
if everyone was so concerned with drag
they would have taken low profile/low drag bullets and turned them into tips for the arrows
so why isnt that happening?


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

"and here i thought thats what the FOC was for
if thats the case then i will just ditch my 100 grn points and get some 25s
and pick up more FPS and the added kinetic punch with it" Mass does more for kenetic energy then speed. FOC is part of the tuning process. You get that right and other factors this fletching thing is not that big of a deal.



"they would have taken low profile/low drag bullets and turned them into tips for the arrows
so why isnt that happening? " Are not the shape of a Field point low profile and bullet shaped?

People get so caught up in spin to the shaft. The faster it spins does not mean the more accurate it will be. There is more to spine,foc, and power stroke alignment then there is to spin in the shaft. All the extra spin does is help offset the errors in the other factors. 

I try not to use a band aid.


There is a ratio to it. Other wise manufacturers would make a bullet spin even faster if thats all it took to create a super accurate gun.


----------



## COUESRIDER (Jun 16, 2009)

This topic definitely puts a spin on things. But it is very interesting.


----------



## disturbed13 (Aug 16, 2005)

the bullet goes through the barrel waaaaay to fast to impart any more spin
if they tried it would do nothing because the bullet is going to fast to get spin inparted


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

disturbed13 said:


> the bullet goes through the barrel waaaaay to fast to impart any more spin
> if they tried it would do nothing because the bullet is going to fast to get spin inparted


rubbish. bullet spin is imparted by rifling, and is set by the manufacturer based on the stabilisation needs of the projectile likely to be fired from it - which in turn depends on expected weight (governs length, given bore is fixed) and profile (spitzer vs round nose, or semiwadcutter vs full wadcutter etc). you then need to consider velocity - the faster the projectile is fired, the higher RPM spin is imparted.

this is precisely why handloaders play with slight variations in charge weight, different powers (ie burn rates), projectile profiles, weights and diameters and crimp to find a combination that suits the barrel they have. all the barrel manufacturer can do is pick a rate of twist that inherently suits the gun's intended use, but if it needs more it would be given more.


----------



## Huaco (Jul 7, 2006)

caspian said:


> rubbish. bullet spin is imparted by rifling, and is set by the manufacturer based on the stabilisation needs of the projectile likely to be fired from it - which in turn depends on expected weight (governs length, given bore is fixed) and profile (spitzer vs round nose, or semiwadcutter vs full wadcutter etc). you then need to consider velocity - the faster the projectile is fired, the higher RPM spin is imparted.
> 
> this is precisely why handloaders play with slight variations in charge weight, different powers (ie burn rates), projectile profiles, weights and diameters and crimp to find a combination that suits the barrel they have. all the barrel manufacturer can do is pick a rate of twist that inherently suits the gun's intended use, but if it needs more it would be given more.


I agree... 
You can actually load up a 22-250 so hot that it will spin the jacket off the lead bullet. I think this happens somewhere around 4,500 fps. Of coarse the brand of bullet also plays a factor in this...


----------



## mudtoy (Jan 1, 2009)

you wil find a bullet needs to spin becouse of its short length same aas a ball
an arrows not so important i shoot arrows that dont spin and one that do spin and my groups are the same 70m 4inch group that is with a fine tuned target set up.


----------



## disturbed13 (Aug 16, 2005)

caspian said:


> rubbish. *bullet spin is imparted by rifling*, and is set by the manufacturer based on the stabilisation needs of the projectile likely to be fired from it - which in turn depends on expected weight (governs length, given bore is fixed) and profile (spitzer vs round nose, or semiwadcutter vs full wadcutter etc). you then need to consider velocity - the faster the projectile is fired, the higher RPM spin is imparted.
> 
> this is precisely why handloaders play with slight variations in charge weight, different powers (ie burn rates), projectile profiles, weights and diameters and crimp to find a combination that suits the barrel they have. all the barrel manufacturer can do is pick a rate of twist that inherently suits the gun's intended use, but if it needs more it would be given more.


good to see that we are on the same page
so
a rifle barrel is somewhere between 16-26" depending on the make, modle, ect
so that is the governing length of the possible rifling
so then answer me this
why dont they make the rifling somewhere on the order of a 20 twist to 1" ratio?
and why is it that a bending/flexing shaft doesnt need rotation to counter the eccentric nature of the arrow itself?
im failing to see why a shaft that has control surfaces that are changing due to the shaft changing its position as its sailing through the air
either they are having too much load applied while the others dont have all of the work load (hows that for causing drag?)
why are you so sure that a working (but far from perfect [dont even get me started on that]) shooting system cant use any little help?


----------



## disturbed13 (Aug 16, 2005)

mudtoy said:


> you wil find a bullet needs to spin becouse of its short length same aas a ball
> an arrows not so important i shoot arrows that dont spin and one that do spin and my groups are the same 70m 4inch group that is with a fine tuned target set up.


im glad to hear that someone has found a sweet spot
but thats not the case for everyone
the manufacturers cant make a shaft specific enough for everyone combination
dl in 1/2" incraments = 10 points (26-31")
dw in 1lb incraments = 20 points (50-70#s)
thats 200 different combinations
and thats just the majority
now im sure that someone would say that the average archer wont notice the differance between the best match, and a very good match for the shooter
that maybe
but its still waaaaay to many to make
way tooooo much overhead and production costs
so every little bit helps

with the FOC (as we all know, weight forward of center) that applies an uneven force (the bending/flexing) the weight in the front of the arrow pulls it through the air
and the fletching are left with the short end of the stick (pardon the pun)
so as i see it an force that gets applied to the back to settle it down (or to cover the irregularities of the arrow) is never a bad thing


----------



## Jmills224 (Oct 14, 2005)

I think a good way to test this theory is to de-tune a bow thats known to shoot well. Stick it in a hooter-shooter and fire two sets of arrows. Fifty arrows with and 50 arrows without. That should give you a pretty good idea if the turbulator does in fact change the center of pressure (CP) of the arrow. In theory the arrow with the turbulator that leaves the rest off center should recover quicker and provide a different p.o.i. (not nessesarily a tighter group.)

~J


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

*Airflow*



disturbed13 said:


> its not the goal to create turbulence
> nor is it the cause of the effect
> its the fact that the air has to go faster to get over the ring
> causing a low pressure behind it all the way around the shaft
> ...


For my understanding there is enough airflow thru the shaft that is made off from the arrow point or tip when the arrow is shot from the bow. This airflow navigating thru the arrow shaft will be caught by the vanes or feathers to spin the arrow and maintain the lift pressure that the arrow needs to flight in it's path. Anything in front of the vanes or feathers will cause to slow the airflow to cause less airflow to spin the arrow. If you want faster spin use offset or helical vanes or feathers.

Check this link http://www.mrfizzix.com/archery/aero.html that's my story. :darkbeer:


----------



## gr8brew (Feb 4, 2007)

ARShooter01 said:


> It seems to me that all everybody is after is tighter groups. Throw all the tech stuff out the window. Go to your local hardware store and get some o rings that will fit your shaft. Now forget the slow motion step off 20 yards shoot 5 or 6 arrows take a pic. Then at the same 20 yards with the o rings on shoot the same 5 or 6 arrows compare to your pic and see if it improved your groups. If it didnt you have lost about 25 cents. If it did help your groups then its a good test go get you some more o rings.


I like how you put that I'm with you and my hardware store has a big selection of o rings.


----------



## AiR_GuNNeR (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm not sure this principle is the same as with aircraft wings. Turbulators, or trips as they are also called, impart energy into the boundry layer of air flowing around the airfoil. This higher energy air tends to "stick" better to the surface of the wing. Where you may have boundry layer separation from the wing surface at 60% back, with a trip, it may not separate until it is 75% percent back. (These number vary of course with the airfoil profile, angle of attack, reynolds number, etc). This increases lift, and decreases drag.
The trips are added to the top surface of the wing since this is the low pressure side and subject to separation. 
If anything, a small bumps along the back side of the spiral may help at 15-25% back from the leading edge of the vane.
Eric


----------



## happyhuntr (Jul 24, 2009)

isn't that the theory of the Starflight FOB?


----------



## buckeyboy (Feb 6, 2007)

Thats what vanes are for rockets dont have em. 
besides my arrow fly great 
IF aint broken Dont fix it


----------



## Huaco (Jul 7, 2006)

happyhuntr said:


> isn't that the theory of the Starflight FOB?


Oh no... you said the "F" Word! LOL

I think your correct here. Just kidding about the F-word thing. I like FOBS.


----------



## woodridge 30-30 (Feb 1, 2009)

ive been thinking about this thread for awhile. yes ive been one of the guys trying to throw math at everyone but so far but we have only tried to answer why and how, but no one has answered the more important question of will it work


----------



## buckeyboy (Feb 6, 2007)

woodridge 30-30 said:


> ive been thinking about this thread for awhile. yes ive been one of the guys trying to throw math at everyone but so far but we have only tried to answer why and how, but no one has answered the more important question of will it work


 works already without them ? just another unnecessary gadget.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

Somebody's been reading their Ashby bible.


----------



## woodridge 30-30 (Feb 1, 2009)

buckeyboy said:


> just another unnecessary gadget.


thats what drives the archery industry, sooner or later someone will be making money off this


----------



## jerrytee (Feb 5, 2005)

Yes it will work. It's called boundary layer control. 
The first thing to make clear is that drag is not the main thing that stabalises an arrow. It is the correcting forces generated buy the vanes. And for the vanes to do their job they need as much air flow as they can get. The problem is that at the back of the arrow there is a layer turblulent air stagnating close to the shaft. That is why tall vanes like blazers work well. They have a lot of vane area away from the shaft in the clear air. By placing a small bump in front of the vanes the air is stired into the stagnent region and the air flow on the vanes is increased.


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

*The Test*

I just did a test...............

1. Take a vacuum cleaner hose and attached to the exhaust side of the vacuum and it'll blow air out.

2. Turn on the vacuum and insert an arrow thru the tube or hose.

3. The arrow will spin depending on the vanes or feathers.

4, Same arrow w/ a turbolator (small oil ring) 1/4" in front of the vanes or feathers the arrow spin slower. It didn't matter the location of the ring (1/4 thru and 1 in.) still spinning slower.

5. You can DIY if you have a house vacuum cleaner.

6. Thats my story.

7. :darkbeer:


----------



## txarcher1 (Aug 5, 2003)

*Offset Vanes*

Seems some time ago I saw some people shooting arrows with vanes staggered down the shaft about 1/4" to 1/2" between vanes.
Actually is been done for years. Doesn't the vane in front of
the other vanes do the same thing.Break-up that 
stagnet air? In theory, Your shooting 3 in. vanes 
but getting the effect of say a 4 or 5 inch vane. Wouldn"t 
That be better? Save you a trip to the hardware store. JMO


----------



## ka30270 (May 20, 2009)

*?????*

There seems to be alot of "testing" and "thoughts" on this subject but I haven't heard anything about broadheads since the first few posts. Has any of the testing ben done with a broadhead attached. As you know the broadhead will impart more disturbed air down the shaft and it seems that it would have a different disturbance around the shaft dependant upon the blade lineup. It seems to me that the ring may help by redirecting the air and disturbing the air uniformly around the shaft which in turn will give a more uniform control to the fletch and shot to shot consistency that could go unseen with a field point.

Any thoughts?


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

Thoughts are its not needed. Pros don;t use it. And they would be the first to know. The rest of us just simply are not consistent enough to determine if it helps or not. Just another gadget. I do not think the range, speed, and consistency of archery lends itself to such technology.

This is another band aid idea to cover the root of problems for the archer. Proper setup, tune and consistent shot procedure will do more then a little o-ring 100 times over.


----------



## ka30270 (May 20, 2009)

*+1*

I agree 100% with setup and tune but there are always posibilities for imprevement as long as there are people striving for improvement. We have come a long way from the stickbow and hand knaped heads but I never feel there is no room for impronement no matter how simple it may be. Because it is inexpensive and simple should not negate a benefit (if there is one). I have some o-rings that will fit my shafts nicely and I am willing to try it and see for myself, if there is an improvement I will continue if not nothingis lost.


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

madarchery said:


> Thoughts are its not needed. Pros don;t use it. And they would be the first to know. The rest of us just simply are not consistent enough to determine if it helps or not. Just another gadget. I do not think the range, speed, and consistency of archery lends itself to such technology.
> 
> This is another band aid idea to cover the root of problems for the archer. Proper setup, tune and consistent shot procedure will do more then a little o-ring 100 times over.


LOL :darkbeer:


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

ka30270 said:


> I agree 100% with setup and tune but there are always posibilities for imprevement as long as there are people striving for improvement. We have come a long way from the stickbow and hand knaped heads but I never feel there is no room for impronement no matter how simple it may be. Because it is inexpensive and simple should not negate a benefit (if there is one). I have some o-rings that will fit my shafts nicely and I am willing to try it and see for myself, if there is an improvement I will continue if not nothingis lost.


do the vacum test :darkbeer:


----------



## Dakota6gun (Nov 27, 2007)

happyhuntr said:


> isn't that the theory of the Starflight FOB?


Happy, I dropped Paul Morris a note about this thread last week. I haven't heard back from him, but I had the same thought you did. Seems like this is exactly what a FOB does.


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

Dakota6gun said:


> Happy, I dropped Paul Morris a note about this thread last week. I haven't heard back from him, but I had the same thought you did. Seems like this is exactly what a FOB does.


+3 :darkbeer:


----------



## FIGJAM (Jan 12, 2009)

bilongo is the only right person:darkbeer:


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

So bilongo. You found it to do the opposite. Makes the rate of rotation slower? If so I would presume this idea is a bust?


----------



## bilongo (Nov 18, 2008)

madarchery said:


> So bilongo. You found it to do the opposite. Makes the rate of rotation slower? If so I would presume this idea is a bust?


I believe so the air traveling thru the shaft will accelerate when it get in contact with the surface of the vane. If you have a large area of degree and helical on your vane the arrow will spin faster, due to the large amount of air speed going thru them. Aviation turbine engines use the same principal to accelerate and pressurize air in it. that's my story. :darkbeer:


----------



## THE GENERAL (Jan 10, 2008)

happyhuntr said:


> isn't that the theory of the Starflight FOB?


+4

You would have to shoot a drop away with the o-ring so why not just shoot FOB's they are proven to work and and its alot less hassel then messing with an o-ring and and fletchings.


----------



## ka30270 (May 20, 2009)

*Fob*

Tried FOBs and my groups were no better and they were 12" lower at 60 yards than my helical fletched standard Blazers.


----------



## eflanders (Dec 8, 2007)

Interesting read guys and here are some additional things to consider: 

Marlin .22 rifles used to have a higher rifling twist per inch than most other manufacturers. I believe it was, or is 21 tpi vs. 16 tpi. They said that this produced a more accurate rifle. My personal experience says this is true when compared to other "stock" guns.

If getting the arrow to spin more or faster isn't preferred, then why do so many people believe in the quick spin vanes?


----------



## JeffreySlayR (Mar 1, 2006)

Nice-- I just fletched my arrows with the "Quick Fletch" that you put in boiling water. Each arrow now has a bit of a "lip" where the leading edge of the tubing is. Is that enough lip to make the "disturbace" you speak of?


----------



## Iceman2383 (Jun 19, 2009)

I'm a FOB shooter...no need to mess with that stuff...there is a cool slow-motion video on youtube that i saw, shows you the rotation of a FOB compared to vanes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4JH0n2BW2g


----------



## Contact223 (Sep 23, 2009)

i'd be interested to see a chrono speed


----------



## Iceman2383 (Jun 19, 2009)

I can't speak for the rubber o-ring, but im shooting a diamond iceman 65#, 28.5" draw, and FOBs @ 283fps, i chrono-ed with the same setup and blazers and i was shooting 284fps.


----------



## ka30270 (May 20, 2009)

*Shooting test*

I did try the o ring and there is a difference. I can't say what or why but at 20 yards the arrows with the o ring would hit 3" lower than arrows without every time. I shot 3 with and 3 without, mixing them while shooting and the o rings were ALWAYS low. Group size did not seem to differ at that range and I shot no farther distance because I did not see the need.

I'll bet if you set the chronograph up at 20-30-40-50 you will see quite a bit of speed loss with FOBs v/s vanes. I am not a hater, I would recomend them to everyone to try as they are a great product.


----------

