# Thoughts on "cutting" yardage for uphill & downhill shots.....



## 5spotbullseye

I've been doing a little thinking on the theory of cutting yardage for uphill & downhills shots. Now, I've shot some field courses before........I'm well aware that you need to cut yards whether it's uphill or downhill. BUT........I don't think it's as straight-forward as most may think. I don't necessarily believe that it's solely a function of the "true horizontal distance"......but ultimately this method may end up being a good simplified guess.

Although the slope distance is always longer than the true horizontal distance (unless it's perfectly flat, which in that case they would obviously be equal), that doesn't mean that the arrow is in flight for less time.

If you were to find the flight time (the time that the arrow is in the air), you would take the horizontal distance divided by the horizontal velocity. Take note of the term "horizontal velocity". This is the part that alot of guys neglect. When you shoot an arrow at a certain speed leaving the bow, there's a "horizontal component" or "horizontal vector" to that speed. So, when shooting uphill or downhill, the horizontal speed of an arrow is only a portion of the full arrow speed. 

Let me give an example.

Case 1 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, perfectly flat terrain (angle of 0 degrees), and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
Horizontal distance = 150'
Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 0) = 250 fps
Flight time = (150') / (250 fps) = 0.6 seconds

Case 2 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, angle of 15 degrees, and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
Horizontal distance = (150')(cos 15) = 144.89'
Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 15) = 241.48 fps
Flight time = (144.89') / (241.48 fps) = 0.6 seconds

Case 3 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, angle of 45 degrees, and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
Horizontal distance = (150')(cos 45) = 106.07'
Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 45) = 176.78 fps
Flight time = (106.07') / (176.78 fps) = 0.6 seconds

Notice, in all three cases, the arrow is in flight for the SAME time. When shooting up or down a slope, the decreased horizontal distance is cancelled out by the reduced horizontal arrow speed.

*So...........why do we have to cut yardage? We all know it's needed, but it's NOT because the arrow is in flight for less time (as shown above). Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that.*

A projectile (arrow) will travel on a parabolic path to the target. Since this path is parabolic, serveral variables come into play such as speed, starting & ending elevations, etc. *What it boils down to is that it depends where the intended target lies on this parabolic path of travel.*

Due to the parallax between your line of sight & the bow sight, along with the distances typically involved in field course (less than 80'), the projected point of impact along the parabolic path will always land on the beginning portion of this parabolic path. *This is what leads to arrows hitting high*.

However, when you compare the projected height of the impact point (where the arrow will actually hit) to the intended impact point (where the target is), this compensation can be acheived by roughly using the "true horizontal distance".......even though the reasoning is necessarily related.

Another thing to consider - when you think about the "vertical component" of arrow speed/travel, gravity is acting downward in both cases. For a downhill shot, gravity actually acts WITH the vertical component, increasing the vertical speed vector. For a uphill shot, gravity actually acts AGAINST the vertical component, decreasing the vertical speed vector. *In essence, a downhill shot has a higher speed VERTICALLY than a uphill shot. What ends up happening is that the increased downward velocity allows for downhill shots to be "cut" a little less than uphill shots.*

One last thing to consider - arrow speed. If you're familiar with the kinematic equations, you'll know that speed plays a part in the shape of the parabolic path. In my opinion, this answers a highly debated topic in the field archery community........*yes, arrow speed affects how much you need to cut*

If I get some time, I might go through some calculations and provide some examples.

I'd like to hear some discussion/opinions/comments on this. Just in time for some field shooting!


----------



## BOWGOD

Boy, and Hornet always accuses me of over thinking things :doh:


----------



## owl

You actually have three things working (at least) First, gravity that is always working in the vertical direction only, hence the need to consider the cosine of the upward or downward angle. Second, air resistance, that is always working (more or less depending on the quality of arrow flight) directly against the direction of travel at any point. And third, energy gained or lost due to the arrow going uphill or downhill.


----------



## SteveID

BOWGOD said:


> Boy, and Hornet always accuses me of over thinking things :doh:


Hahahaha!


----------



## Brown Hornet

BOWGOD said:


> Boy, and Hornet always accuses me of over thinking things :doh:


But never again will I do that :chortle: 

We cut because if we don't we will miss.....


----------



## SEC

Wow...I couldn't have said it better myself.
Actually...I couldn't have said it myself!!

One thing I will comment to is the "arrow speed" statement.
It is definetly true that arrow speed affects how much you cut.
I shoot right at 280 fps...my shooting buddy shoots about 245fps.
On a shot where he cuts 3 yards, I cut 1-2 yards.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brown Hornet said:


> We cut because if we don't we will miss.....


I was just trying to explain WHY it's done, not if it was needed or not.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

SEC said:


> Wow...I couldn't have said it better myself.
> Actually...I couldn't have said it myself!!
> 
> One thing I will comment to is the "arrow speed" statement.
> It is definetly true that arrow speed affects how much you cut.
> I shoot right at 280 fps...my shooting buddy shoots about 245fps.
> On a shot where he cuts 3 yards, I cut 1-2 yards.


Totally agree......


----------



## Spoon13

My head hurts after reading that. I think I'll go outside and shoot my bow.

On LEVEL ground.


----------



## tabarch

No wonder I'm not very good at this sport I don't understand a thing he was talking about


----------



## NEVADAPRO

And don't forget about our "vertical stature"!! And always cosine your score cards...or they won't be valid!!!!:set1_thinking::nyah:




Brown Hornet said:


> But never again will I do that :chortle:
> 
> We cut because if we don't we will miss.....


----------



## IGluIt4U

I think you are spot on with your theorisation 5spot, but.. do yourself a favor.. 

Get an iTouch, copy of Archer's Mark and let it do the math for ya.. it's spot on up and down and a whole lot easier.. :chortle: :chortle: :wink:


----------



## JawsDad

NEVADAPRO said:


> And don't forget about our "vertical stature"!! And always cosine your score cards...or they won't be valid!!!!:set1_thinking::nyah:


ohhh, math nerd humor... :thumbs_do :wink:


----------



## IGluIt4U

All the programs I've used to calculate cuts have varying marks for a given cut up or down at the same distance and angle. Generally they are close, but not quite the same, but often enough that if you 'split the difference' and shoot both with the same mark, you'll likely hit.. as long as it's not too severe an angle over distance.. the old adage 'the horizontal distance' is just an easy approximation and works great for bowhunting at shorter distances, but.. probably not for a 25* uphill shot on a 65 yd target.. :nono:  :wink:


----------



## NEVADAPRO

HEY!!! Takes one to know one buddy!!!!!




JawsDad said:


> ohhh, math nerd humor... :thumbs_do :wink:


----------



## golfingguy27

NEVADAPRO said:


> HEY!!! Takes one to know one buddy!!!!!


Come on guys.. let's not get off on a tangent here!!!


----------



## Brown Hornet

5spotbullseye said:


> I was just trying to explain WHY it's done, not if it was needed or not.


I know that.....read bowgods post :wink:


----------



## NEVADAPRO

Ted....We have a winner!!!!:doh:




golfingguy27 said:


> Come on guys.. let's not get off on a tangent here!!!


----------



## Hammer X

Could it have something to do with the angle of the dangle :confused2:


----------



## Rattleman

I think you missed something here. A target is measured from the stake to the target. It doesn't matter if the target is flat or up/down hill. So 50 yards is 50 yards no matter if it is up,down or flat. Or maybe I missed something here:smile:


----------



## Rattleman

5spotbullseye said:


> I've been doing a little thinking on the theory of cutting yardage for uphill & downhills shots. Now, I've shot some field courses before........I'm well aware that you need to cut yards whether it's uphill or downhill. BUT........I don't think it's as straight-forward as most may think. I don't necessarily believe that it's solely a function of the "true horizontal distance"......but ultimately this method may end up being a good simplified guess.
> 
> Although the slope distance is always longer than the true horizontal distance (unless it's perfectly flat, which in that case they would obviously be equal), that doesn't mean that the arrow is in flight for less time.
> 
> If you were to find the flight time (the time that the arrow is in the air), you would take the horizontal distance divided by the horizontal velocity. Take note of the term "horizontal velocity". This is the part that alot of guys neglect. When you shoot an arrow at a certain speed leaving the bow, there's a "horizontal component" or "horizontal vector" to that speed. So, when shooting uphill or downhill, the horizontal speed of an arrow is only a portion of the full arrow speed.
> 
> Let me give an example.
> 
> Case 1 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, perfectly flat terrain (angle of 0 degrees), and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
> Horizontal distance = 150'
> Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 0) = 250 fps
> Flight time = (150') / (250 fps) = 0.6 seconds
> 
> Case 2 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, angle of 15 degrees, and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
> Horizontal distance = (150')(cos 15) = 144.89'
> Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 15) = 241.48 fps
> Flight time = (144.89') / (241.48 fps) = 0.6 seconds
> 
> Case 3 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, angle of 45 degrees, and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
> Horizontal distance = (150')(cos 45) = 106.07'
> Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 45) = 176.78 fps
> Flight time = (106.07') / (176.78 fps) = 0.6 seconds
> 
> Notice, in all three cases, the arrow is in flight for the SAME time. When shooting up or down a slope, the decreased horizontal distance is cancelled out by the reduced horizontal arrow speed.
> 
> *So...........why do we have to cut yardage? We all know it's needed, but it's NOT because the arrow is in flight for less time (as shown above). Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that.*
> 
> A projectile (arrow) will travel on a parabolic path to the target. Since this path is parabolic, serveral variables come into play such as speed, starting & ending elevations, etc. *What it boils down to is that it depends where the intended target lies on this parabolic path of travel.*
> 
> Due to the parallax between your line of sight & the bow sight, along with the distances typically involved in field course (less than 80'), the projected point of impact along the parabolic path will always land on the beginning portion of this parabolic path. *This is what leads to arrows hitting high*.
> 
> However, when you compare the projected height of the impact point (where the arrow will actually hit) to the intended impact point (where the target is), this compensation can be acheived by roughly using the "true horizontal distance".......even though the reasoning is necessarily related.
> 
> Another thing to consider - when you think about the "vertical component" of arrow speed/travel, gravity is acting downward in both cases. For a downhill shot, gravity actually acts WITH the vertical component, increasing the vertical speed vector. For a uphill shot, gravity actually acts AGAINST the vertical component, decreasing the vertical speed vector. *In essence, a downhill shot has a higher speed VERTICALLY than a uphill shot. What ends up happening is that the increased downward velocity allows for downhill shots to be "cut" a little less than uphill shots.*
> One last thing to consider - arrow speed. If you're familiar with the kinematic equations, you'll know that speed plays a part in the shape of the parabolic path. In my opinion, this answers a highly debated topic in the field archery community........*yes, arrow speed affects how much you need to cut*
> 
> If I get some time, I might go through some calculations and provide some examples.
> 
> I'd like to hear some discussion/opinions/comments on this. Just in time for some field shooting!


Actually you cut more on downhil then up hill. If you don't believe check out Archersadvantage and plug in uphill at given slope and then downhill at the same slope in (- direction) for the same yardage. If you go to archersadvantage.com I believe he explains it mathmatically.


----------



## xring1

*me to ED!*



Rattleman said:


> I think you missed something here. A target is measured from the stake to the target. It doesn't matter if the target is flat or up/down hill. So 50 yards is 50 yards no matter if it is up,down or flat. Or maybe I missed something here:smile:


Thats kinda what I allways thought


----------



## 2005Ultramag

5spotbullseye said:


> I've been doing a little thinking on the theory of cutting yardage for uphill & downhills shots. Now, I've shot some field courses before........I'm well aware that you need to cut yards whether it's uphill or downhill. BUT........I don't think it's as straight-forward as most may think. I don't necessarily believe that it's solely a function of the "true horizontal distance"......but ultimately this method may end up being a good simplified guess.
> 
> Although the slope distance is always longer than the true horizontal distance (unless it's perfectly flat, which in that case they would obviously be equal), that doesn't mean that the arrow is in flight for less time.
> 
> If you were to find the flight time (the time that the arrow is in the air), you would take the horizontal distance divided by the horizontal velocity. Take note of the term "horizontal velocity". This is the part that alot of guys neglect. When you shoot an arrow at a certain speed leaving the bow, there's a "horizontal component" or "horizontal vector" to that speed. So, when shooting uphill or downhill, the horizontal speed of an arrow is only a portion of the full arrow speed.
> 
> Let me give an example.
> 
> Case 1 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, perfectly flat terrain (angle of 0 degrees), and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
> Horizontal distance = 150'
> Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 0) = 250 fps
> Flight time = (150') / (250 fps) = 0.6 seconds
> 
> Case 2 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, angle of 15 degrees, and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
> Horizontal distance = (150')(cos 15) = 144.89'
> Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 15) = 241.48 fps
> Flight time = (144.89') / (241.48 fps) = 0.6 seconds
> 
> Case 3 - 50 yard (150') slope distance, angle of 45 degrees, and an arrow velocity of 250 fps.
> Horizontal distance = (150')(cos 45) = 106.07'
> Horizontal speed = (250 fps)(cos 45) = 176.78 fps
> Flight time = (106.07') / (176.78 fps) = 0.6 seconds
> 
> Notice, in all three cases, the arrow is in flight for the SAME time. When shooting up or down a slope, the decreased horizontal distance is cancelled out by the reduced horizontal arrow speed.
> 
> *So...........why do we have to cut yardage? We all know it's needed, but it's NOT because the arrow is in flight for less time (as shown above). Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that.*
> 
> A projectile (arrow) will travel on a parabolic path to the target. Since this path is parabolic, serveral variables come into play such as speed, starting & ending elevations, etc. *What it boils down to is that it depends where the intended target lies on this parabolic path of travel.*
> 
> Due to the parallax between your line of sight & the bow sight, along with the distances typically involved in field course (less than 80'), the projected point of impact along the parabolic path will always land on the beginning portion of this parabolic path. *This is what leads to arrows hitting high*.
> 
> However, when you compare the projected height of the impact point (where the arrow will actually hit) to the intended impact point (where the target is), this compensation can be acheived by roughly using the "true horizontal distance".......even though the reasoning is necessarily related.
> 
> Another thing to consider - when you think about the "vertical component" of arrow speed/travel, gravity is acting downward in both cases. For a downhill shot, gravity actually acts WITH the vertical component, increasing the vertical speed vector. For a uphill shot, gravity actually acts AGAINST the vertical component, decreasing the vertical speed vector. *In essence, a downhill shot has a higher speed VERTICALLY than a uphill shot. What ends up happening is that the increased downward velocity allows for downhill shots to be "cut" a little less than uphill shots.*
> 
> One last thing to consider - arrow speed. If you're familiar with the kinematic equations, you'll know that speed plays a part in the shape of the parabolic path. In my opinion, this answers a highly debated topic in the field archery community........*yes, arrow speed affects how much you need to cut*
> 
> If I get some time, I might go through some calculations and provide some examples.
> 
> I'd like to hear some discussion/opinions/comments on this. Just in time for some field shooting!


So.... THAT'S where I'm screwing up!


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Rattleman said:


> Actually you cut more on downhil then up hill. If you don't believe check out Archersadvantage and plug in uphill at given slope and then downhill at the same slope in (- direction) for the same yardage. If you go to archersadvantage.com I believe he explains it mathmatically.


You're right.......I got my directions mixed up. It's a little faster, so it wil shoot shorter. Sorry!


----------



## 5spotbullseye

IGluIt4U said:


> I think you are spot on with your theorisation 5spot, but.. do yourself a favor..
> 
> Get an iTouch, copy of Archer's Mark and let it do the math for ya.. it's spot on up and down and a whole lot easier.. :chortle: :chortle: :wink:


Just was trying to explain the theory behind it.....that's all!


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Rattleman said:


> I think you missed something here. A target is measured from the stake to the target. It doesn't matter if the target is flat or up/down hill. So 50 yards is 50 yards no matter if it is up,down or flat. Or maybe I missed something here:smile:


Are you saying that you don't cut yardage for uphill & downhill shots? You must be shooting on a fairly level course......otherwise, you'll be missing something!


----------



## JawsDad

Personally, I like the discussion about cutting. Our range has practically zero incline. I think the biggest elevation change we have is about 10 feet, and thats on one target and only in the middle distances. These type of discussions allow some of us flat landers the opporutnity to learn and live vicariously through the experience of others..


----------



## Brown Hornet

5spotbullseye said:


> Are you saying that you don't cut yardage for uphill & downhill shots? You must be shooting on a fairly level course......otherwise, you'll be missing something!


That isn't close to what he is saying....yes he cuts....and no he doesn't shoot flat courses. Hell you have to cut the bunny target at his range :chortle:


----------



## IGluIt4U

Brown Hornet said:


> That isn't close to what he is saying....yes he cuts....and no he doesn't shoot flat courses. Hell you have to *cut the bunny* target at his range :chortle:


 :thumb: :darkbeer:


----------



## montigre

I really like that one..._We cut; therefore, we hit!_ Feel like I'm in philosophy class again. :teeth:


----------



## montigre

Rattleman said:


> Actually you cut more on downhil then up hill. If you don't believe check out Archersadvantage and plug in uphill at given slope and then downhill at the same slope in (- direction) for the same yardage. If you go to archersadvantage.com I believe he explains it mathmatically.


Is this cuz of gravity also working on the arrow as it's losing altitude during flight????


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brown Hornet said:


> That isn't close to what he is saying....yes he cuts....and no he doesn't shoot flat courses. Hell you have to cut the bunny target at his range :chortle:


Bud.......not liking your tone at all. I was trying to start up a civil discussion. If you don't like it, move on. I'm not sure if I ticked you off or what, but I'm getting to the point of not really caring anymore.

My local course is Cumberland, MD........home of the Hillbilly shoot. Pretty flat there.......


----------



## Brown Hornet

5spotbullseye said:


> Bud.......not liking your tone at all. I was trying to start up a civil discussion. If you don't like it, move on. I'm not sure if I ticked you off or what, but I'm getting to the point of not really caring anymore.
> 
> My local course is Cumberland, MD........home of the Hillbilly shoot. Pretty flat there.......


Not liking my tone? What tone :noidea: 

I said NOTHING smart or to set you off or anyone else.....the discussion was and still is civil......if me stating that you were missing what Ed was saying and that he does cut set you off....wow cuz I don't see how that's possible...and yes his course Anne Arundle...has a serious bunny on it that could probably be cut....if that comment pissed you off then you need to step away from the keyboard :zip:


Your home course is Cumberland....sweet. Rattleman and half the other people in this thread have shot there before....in fact the pic in my avatar was taken at Cumberland....this will be the 5th Hillbilly I have been this year....

But your course has nothing to do with anything I said so far....stop being all touchy.....but I can pretty much go target for target on your course and tell you the cuts from memory if that will make you happy... Brian Simpson and my roommie Bob Peterson lernt me well and Shane has been a big help also :wink:


----------



## JawsDad

5spotbullseye said:


> Bud.......not liking your tone at all. I was trying to start up a civil discussion. If you don't like it, move on. I'm not sure if I ticked you off or what, but I'm getting to the point of not really caring anymore.
> 
> My local course is Cumberland, MD........home of the Hillbilly shoot. Pretty flat there.......


That's not a tone.. that's just a Hornet. lain:


You don't want him to get a tone.. :nono: :chortle:


----------



## 2005Ultramag

Brown Hornet said:


> Not liking my tone? What tone :noidea:
> 
> I said NOTHING smart or to set you off or anyone else.....the discussion was and still is civil......if me stating that you were missing what Ed was saying and that he does cut set you off....wow cuz I don't see how that's possible...and yes his course Anne Arundle...has a serious bunny on it that could probably be cut....if that comment pissed you off then you need to step away from the keyboard :zip:
> 
> 
> Your home course is Cumberland....sweet. Rattleman and half the other people in this thread have shot there before....in fact the pic in my avatar was taken at Cumberland....this will be the 5th Hillbilly I have been this year....
> 
> But your course has nothing to do with anything I said so far....stop being all touchy.....but I can pretty much go target for target on your course and tell you the cuts from memory if that will make you happy... Brian Simpson and my roommie Bob Peterson lernt me well and Shane has been a big help also :wink:


I agree with JawsDad. I think he just don't know how to take you, is all. 

I've shot that bunny at Anne Arundel one time. I hit the first three fine, and missed the last one because of the angle figuring that the arrow wouldn't be in the air long enough to be effected bt the steep angle. I watched 3 others shoot it, and move their sights for the last target of the four, but I was smart enough to know that my faster bow would be fine. I was wrong.


----------



## Rattleman

5spotbullseye said:


> Are you saying that you don't cut yardage for uphill & downhill shots? You must be shooting on a fairly level course......otherwise, you'll be missing something!


No I cut up and downhill. Usually do not need to cut uphill if less then 10 degrees. Or is it 5 degrees... whatever.


----------



## Rattleman

5spotbullseye said:


> Are you saying that you don't cut yardage for uphill & downhill shots? You must be shooting on a fairly level course......otherwise, you'll be missing something!


Oh I didn't respond to the 1st part. Your calculation state that the distance changes with the up and down hill and my responce was that is not an issue with field targets because they are measures by tape from the stake to the target. (ie 50 yards measures up or down or on level ground is still 50 yards.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brown Hornet said:


> Not liking my tone? What tone :noidea:
> 
> I said NOTHING smart or to set you off or anyone else.....the discussion was and still is civil......if me stating that you were missing what Ed was saying and that he does cut set you off....wow cuz I don't see how that's possible...and yes his course Anne Arundle...has a serious bunny on it that could probably be cut....if that comment pissed you off then you need to step away from the keyboard :zip:
> 
> 
> Your home course is Cumberland....sweet. Rattleman and half the other people in this thread have shot there before....in fact the pic in my avatar was taken at Cumberland....this will be the 5th Hillbilly I have been this year....
> 
> But your course has nothing to do with anything I said so far....stop being all touchy.....but I can pretty much go target for target on your course and tell you the cuts from memory if that will make you happy... Brian Simpson and my roommie Bob Peterson lernt me well and Shane has been a big help also :wink:


All I did was start a thread discussing cutting yardage and each post you contributed seemed like a smart-assed comment......at least it seemed that way to me. Hey, maybe that's your personality, I dunno. But just because you're not interested in the mathematics behind it doesn't mean someone else isn't. I thought I was being helpful to people who were actually interested in the theory behind it.

I'm not looking to get into a argument........

On another note....something tells me I've met you before........I know Bob, Brian, & Shane very well.......in fact, I was at the first Hillbilly shoot, and i think I'll be there this year. I've been out of the game for a few years now but there's a good chance that I've met you before.

No harm no foul?


----------



## CarlV

Rattleman said:


> Actually you cut more on downhil then up hill.


Agreed. 

No discussion of the long (80 yard) targets at a slight uphill angle where you actually have to ADD yardage. I find that interesting but true.

I use the cut chart provided by the TAP program I have.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

CarlV said:


> Agreed.
> 
> No discussion of the long (80 yard) targets at a slight uphill angle where you actually have to ADD yardage. I find that interesting but true.
> 
> I use the cut chart provided by the TAP program I have.


(Yeah, I corrected my statement after he mentioned it.....got my directions mixed up.)

That might be due to the arrow passing the apex of it's travel......it's very possible that on the longer shots that you're no longer on the "front side" of that parabolic path and have actually starting coming back down.

Good point.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

CarlV said:


> Agreed.
> 
> No discussion of the long (80 yard) targets at a slight uphill angle where you actually have to ADD yardage. I find that interesting but true.
> 
> I use the cut chart provided by the TAP program I have.


I did a quick example showing this very case. It works out.......

*80 yard shot - Case #1 – Flat Shot*
Actual slope (flat) distance (measured stake distance) = 80 yard (240’)
Vertical difference between shooting location and target height = 0’
Horizontal distance = 80 yard (240’)
Arrow speed = 250 fps

y = yo + vyit + (1/2)ayt^2
y = final vertical position of arrow (unknown)
yo = initial vertical position of arrow = set at 0’
vyi = initial vertical velocity of arrow = 0 (arrow shot horizontally)
t = (horiz. distance / horizontal velocity) = (240’ / 250 fps) = 0.960 seconds
ay = use standard gravity value of -32.2 ft/s2
y = (0) + (0)(0.960) + (1/2)(-32.2)(0.960)^2 = -14.84’ (target located at 0’)

In order for arrow to hit bullseye, you must aim 14.84’ above bullseye.

*80 yard shot - Case #2 – Uphill Shot*
Actual slope distance (measured stake distance) = 80 yard (240’)
Vertical difference between shooting location and target height = +20’ (uphill)
Inclination angle = sin-1(20 / 240) = 4.78˚
Horizontal distance = (80 yard)(cos4.78˚) = 79.72 yards (239.17’)
Arrow speed (in line with slope) = 250 fps

y = yo + vyit + (1/2)ayt^2
y = final vertical position of arrow (unknown)
yo = initial vertical position of arrow = set at 0’
vyi = initial vertical velocity of arrow = (250)(sin 4.76) = +20.75 fps (up)
t = (horiz. distance / horizontal velocity) = (239.17’ / (250cos4.76) = 0.960 seconds
ay = use standard gravity value of -32.2 ft/s2
y = (0) + (+20.75)(0.960) + (1/2)(-32.2)(0.960)^2 = +5.08’ (target located at +20’; difference = 14.91’)

In order for arrow to hit bullseye, you must aim 14.91’ above bullseye. For the flat shot, you only had to aim 14.84’ above the bullseye. Therefore, the uphill shot will “shoot longer” and hit 0.07’ (0.84”) low. This requires that yardage be ADDED to the measured 80 yard slope distance to hit the bullseye (known as the effective yardage). In order to find the “effective yardage”, the same equation can be used. However, now the time is unknown and the final vertical position of the arrow is known. Ultimately you will solve for “t” that will be used to calculate a new slope distance, or the “effective yardage”. So, since in this case, since a GREATER yardage is needed, the value of “y” needs to also result in a GREATER “t”.

Solve for equivalent “t”;
y = yo + vyit + (1/2)ayt^2
yo = initial vertical position of arrow = same as above = 0’
vyi = initial vertical velocity of arrow = same as above = +20.75 fps (up)
t = unknown
ay = use standard gravity value of -32.2 ft/s2
y = +5.08 - 0.07 = +5.01 (subtracting the 0.07 will make “t” greater in the quadratic solution)
5.01 = 0 + (20.75)(t) + (0.5)(-32.2)(t2)
-16.1t^2 + 20.75t – 5.01 = 0
Solve quadratic; t = 0.967 seconds (confirmed to be GREATER than original “t”; 0.960 sec)

Now use equivalent “t” to solve for equivalent horizontal distance:

t = (horiz. distance / horizontal velocity)
0.967 = (horz. distance) / (250cos4.76)
Equivalent horizontal distance = 240.92’
Resulting “cut” slope distance = 240.92 / (cos4.76) = 241.75’ (80.58 yards)

*Need to ADD about 0.58 yards for the uphill shot*

*80 yard shot - Case #3 – Downhill Shot*
Actual slope distance (measured stake distance) = 80 yard (240’)
Vertical difference between shooting location and target height = -20’ (downhill)
Inclination angle = sin-1(20 / 240) = 4.78˚
Horizontal distance = (80 yard)(cos 4.78˚) = 79.72 yards (239.17’)
Arrow speed (in line with slope) = 250 fps

y = yo + vyit + (1/2)ayt^2
y = final vertical position of arrow (unknown)
yo = initial vertical position of arrow = set at 0’
vyi = initial vertical velocity of arrow = (250)(sin 4.76) = -20.75 fps (down)
t = (horiz. distance / horizontal velocity) = (239.17’ / (250cos4.76) = 0.960 seconds
ay = use standard gravity value of -32.2 ft/s2
y = (0) + (-20.75)(0.960) + (1/2)(-32.2)(0.960)^2 = -34.76’ (target located at -20’; difference = 14.76’)

In order for arrow to hit bullseye, you must aim 14.76’ above bullseye. For the flat shot, you only had to aim 14.84’ above the bullseye. Therefore, the downhill shot will “shoot shorter” and hit 0.08’ (0.96”) high. This requires that yardage be SUBTRACTED from the measured 80 yard slope distance to hit the bullseye (known as the effective yardage). In order to find the “effective yardage”, the same equation can be used. However, now the time is unknown and the final vertical position of the arrow is known. Ultimately you will solve for “t” that will be used to calculate a new slope distance, or the “effective yardage”. So, since in this case, since a LESSER yardage is needed, the value of “y” needs to also result in a LESSER “t”.

Solve for equivalent “t”;
y = yo + vyit + (1/2)ayt^2
yo = initial vertical position of arrow = same as above = 0’
vyi = initial vertical velocity of arrow = same as above = -20.75 fps (down)
t = unknown
ay = use standard gravity value of -32.2 ft/s2
y = -34.76 + 0.08 = -34.68 (adding the 0.08 will make “t” lesser in the quadratic solution)
-34.68 = 0 + (-20.75)(t) + (0.5)(-32.2)(t^2)
-16.1t2 - 20.75t + 34.68 = 0
Solve quadratic; t = 0.958 seconds (confirmed to be LESSER than original “t”; 0.960 sec)

Now use equivalent “t” to solve for equivalent horizontal distance:

t = (horiz. distance / horizontal velocity)
0.958 = (horz. distance) / (250cos4.76)
Equivalent horizontal distance = 238.67’
Resulting “cut” slope distance = 238.67 / (cos4.76) = 239.5’ (79.83 yards)

*Need to SUBTRACT about 0.17 yards for the downhill shot*





****Yeah, a palmpilot or better yet, previous notes on the course, would be a little easier to use on the fly*******


----------



## 5spotbullseye

I apologize guys.......I have some rounding errors in there. These rounding errors are making me reconsider some things......

As I shown originally, the arrow will be in the air the same amount of time regardless if it's flat or sloped, assuming the target yardage is marked on the slope, as it would be with a non-angle compensating rangefinder.

80 yards flat & 80 yards on slope = same arrow drop

The arrow MUST drop the exact same amount whether it's flat or sloped. This kind of throws a road block into my theory.

Yes........I'm guilty of overthinking from time to time............but something's gotta give here. If the arrow drops the same amount, then what in the heck is a cut needed for? It's gotta be caused by something else.........

Any help would be appreciated.........


----------



## CRAZYRICK1

has any one factored in altitude? I'm sure an arrow will fly flatter in that cool mountain air than it will in this S.W. Florida air ????:wink:


----------



## 2005Ultramag

CRAZYRICK1 said:


> has any one factored in altitude? I'm sure an arrow will fly flatter in that cool mountain air than it will in this S.W. Florida air ????:wink:


Then there's humidity, and barometric pressure... and the number of flying insects between the bow, and the target.

I compensate for that by filling my shafts with helium before an outdoor shoot.


----------



## Rattleman

5spotbullseye said:


> I apologize guys.......I have some rounding errors in there. These rounding errors are making me reconsider some things......
> 
> As I shown originally, the arrow will be in the air the same amount of time regardless if it's flat or sloped, assuming the target yardage is marked on the slope, as it would be with a non-angle compensating rangefinder.
> 
> 80 yards flat & 80 yards on slope = same arrow drop
> 
> The arrow MUST drop the exact same amount whether it's flat or sloped. This kind of throws a road block into my theory.
> 
> Yes........I'm guilty of overthinking from time to time............but something's gotta give here. If the arrow drops the same amount, then what in the heck is a cut needed for? It's gotta be caused by something else.........
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.........


Andy check out Perrys answer at his site www.archersadvantage.com If memory serves me right I think he sums it up pretty good. See you at Cumberland in June. Ed


----------



## IGluIt4U

The first rule to keep in mind with projectiles of this type is... 

Gravity only affects an object for the distance it has traveled parallel to the surface of the earth.. so, on an up or downhill shot, the 'horizontal distance' traveled decreases, therefore you have to cut. How much depends on the target distance and the angle of the shot from parallel...


----------



## IGluIt4U

IGluIt4U said:


> The first rule to keep in mind with projectiles of this type is...
> 
> Gravity only affects an object for the distance it has traveled parallel to the surface of the earth.. so, on an up or downhill shot, the 'horizontal distance' traveled decreases, therefore you have to cut. How much depends on the target distance and the angle of the shot from parallel...


This takes us back to the most basic of Geometry, the Pythagorean theorem.. while not a perfect model, it's damned close and easy to figure out.. 

Just shoot the shot for the 'base' length of the right triangle. :becky:


----------



## Brown Hornet

I have heard for some time about the 80s or 70s that you have to add yards to....but have never shot one or seen one to the best of my knowledge.....anyone have a pic of one or something? :noidea:


----------



## DHawk2

Here is a video with Dave Cousins and even though he isn't explaining the reason for a cut, he is talking about it and showing what happens with and without one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3XeaWt7huQ


----------



## 5spotbullseye

IGluIt4U said:


> The first rule to keep in mind with projectiles of this type is...
> 
> Gravity only affects an object for the distance it has traveled parallel to the surface of the earth.. so, on an up or downhill shot, the 'horizontal distance' traveled decreases, therefore you have to cut. How much depends on the target distance and the angle of the shot from parallel...





IGluIt4U said:


> This takes us back to the most basic of Geometry, the Pythagorean theorem.. while not a perfect model, it's damned close and easy to figure out..
> 
> Just shoot the shot for the 'base' length of the right triangle. :becky:


You're wrong man. It isn't because the arrow has less time to drop.

If you're figuring out time in flight, yes, the horizontal distance is part of the equation. BUT......so is the "horizontal velocity". That isn't your bow speed when shooting on a slope.......it's the horizontal component of it. So........the end result is an arrow travelling slower horizontally over a shorter horizontal distance........it ends up being in the air the same amount of time.

I'm not disagreeing that using the horizontal distance is a good estimate. I know it is. I'm trying to figure out WHY. It's not because it's "in the air less time therefore it drops less".


----------



## IGluIt4U

5spotbullseye said:


> You're wrong man. It isn't because the arrow has less time to drop.
> 
> If you're figuring out time in flight, yes, the horizontal distance is part of the equation. BUT......so is the "horizontal velocity". That isn't your bow speed when shooting on a slope.......it's the horizontal component of it. So........the end result is an arrow travelling slower horizontally over a shorter horizontal distance........it ends up being in the air the same amount of time.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing that using the horizontal distance is a good estimate. I know it is. I'm trying to figure out WHY. It's not because it's "in the air less time therefore it drops less".


I don't think I ever referred to time in my discussion.. it's the fact that the arrow is traveling less distance across the face of the earth on an angled shot, therefore there is less gravitational effect in the end on it's path. 

It's the same for bullets, where we shoot wayyy longer ranges and at severe angles at 10-15 times the velocity of an arrow.. the time in flight does not affect them at a given range (as the time in flight is almost the same regardless of the angle for a given distance), but the lessened effect of gravity reduces the bullet's drop on an uphill or downhill shot.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

IGluIt4U said:


> I don't think I ever referred to time in my discussion.. it's the fact that the arrow is traveling less distance across the face of the earth on an angled shot, therefore there is less gravitational effect in the end on it's path.
> 
> It's the same for bullets, where we shoot wayyy longer ranges and at severe angles at 10-15 times the velocity of an arrow.. the time in flight does not affect them at a given range (as the time in flight is almost the same regardless of the angle for a given distance), but the lessened effect of gravity reduces the bullet's drop on an uphill or downhill shot.


Distance does not matter for "drop".........time does. If gravity has the same time to act, that's all that matters. There is not less gravitional effect on the sloped shot since it's in the air the same amount of time!

Y = Yo + (Vyi)(t) + (1/2)(a)(t^2)

Horizontal distance plays no part in the projectile equation above.


----------



## IGluIt4U

I'll gladly continue to debate this, but from a practical experience point of view, I still disagree... 

The theory as to why the bullet always shoots high for uphill and downhill shooting is based on the projectiles path in relation to the pull of gravity. Gravity works perpendicular to the horizontal line. It's the horizontal distance traveled by the bullet that is important rather than the actual linear distance traveled. This is explained by the use of trigonometry and the right triangle shown in Fig. 2.










Fig. 2-Using trigonometry to explain uphill/downhill shooting

According to the rules of trigonometry the cosine of THETA is equal to the horizontal range divided by the slant range (hypotenuse). By rearranging the terms, the horizontal range is equal to the slant range (hypotenuse) multiplied by the Cosine of THETA.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

IGluIt4U said:


> I'll gladly continue to debate this, but from a practical experience point of view, I still disagree...
> 
> The theory as to why the bullet always shoots high for uphill and downhill shooting is based on the projectiles path in relation to the pull of gravity. Gravity works perpendicular to the horizontal line. It's the horizontal distance traveled by the bullet that is important rather than the actual linear distance traveled. This is explained by the use of trigonometry and the right triangle shown in Fig. 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fig. 2-Using trigonometry to explain uphill/downhill shooting
> 
> According to the rules of trigonometry the cosine of THETA is equal to the horizontal range divided by the slant range (hypotenuse). By rearranging the terms, the horizontal range is equal to the slant range (hypotenuse) multiplied by the Cosine of THETA.


What you just posted was covered way back the beginning of this thread. Right triangles are 9th grade topics.............we're past that. I know exactly what you're showing me there........it's not applicable to what I'm saying though.

Yes.......it's a shorter horizontal distance. But since the arrow is travelling SLOWER horizontally, the time in flight is the SAME. And........all that matters is TIME when dealing with gravity.

My practical experience ALSO tells me that I need to cut yardage. But it ain't because of what you're showing there.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

This might help.....

Notice how:

A) The flight time is the same for all three cases
B) The arrow drop is the same for all three cases

This is simply using the projectile equation from earlier.........


----------



## Brown Hornet

This is rather "interesting"....:chortle:

But it's seems to me that you are forgetting that arrows don't shoot flat....their flight path has an arc to it....and arrows flying at 250 have even more of an arc to their flight path then an arrow flying 280 does....another reason why I refuse to shoot a slow setup for field cuts are too critical :wink: 

Shooting uphill and downhill changes that path slightly...yes the target is still say 60 yds away but since it's now 25* uphill or downhill...the arrow doesn't have a chance to fully finish it's arc ....that's why you have to cut. 

At least my non technical, over thought, non scientific version anyway...that makes sense to me :chortle:


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brown Hornet said:


> This is rather "interesting"....:chortle:
> 
> But it's seems to me that you are forgetting that arrows don't shoot flat....their flight path has an arc to it....and arrows flying at 250 have even more of an arc to their flight path then an arrow flying 280 does....another reason why I refuse to shoot a slow setup for field cuts are too critical :wink:
> 
> Shooting uphill and downhill changes that path slightly...yes the target is still say 60 yds away but since it's now 25* uphill or downhill...the arrow doesn't have a chance to fully finish it's arc ....that's why you have to cut.
> 
> At least my non technical, over thought, non scientific version anyway...that makes sense to me :chortle:


I'm not "forgetting" that arrows shoot flat.

Did you see the pdf's attached above?

Anybody that has any physics background and understands projectile motion can produce those results I've shown. I'm not reinventing the wheel here. I'm simply using basic kinematic equations for projectile motion.

I'm gonna try this one more time.......hopefully it comes across this time:

Arrows shot on a slope have to travel less horizontal distance, but they are in flight the same amount of time as a flat shot since the horizontal speed is also less. Since they are in flight the same amount of time, gravity has an equal effect..........this results in the exact same drop.

Am I'm getting anywhere?


----------



## pragmatic_lee

5spotbullseye said:


> I'm not "forgetting" that arrows shoot flat.
> 
> Did you see the pdf's attached above?
> 
> Anybody that has any physics background and understands projectile motion can produce those results I've shown. I'm not reinventing the wheel here. I'm simply using basic kinematic equations for projectile motion.
> 
> I'm gonna try this one more time.......hopefully it comes across this time:
> 
> Arrows shot on a slope have to travel less horizontal distance, but they are in flight the same amount of time as a flat shot since the horizontal speed is also less. Since they are in flight the same amount of time, gravity has an equal effect..........this results in the exact same drop.
> 
> *Am I'm getting anywhere?*


Yea, but you probably wouldn't like it if I said "where". 

I began to understand some of the GenPop type of strife in this forum when we all had been crammed inside for way to long, but OUTDOOR SEASON IS HERE - so why not just get outside and shoot your bow????


----------



## Brown Hornet

No I didn't open the PDFs....they don't play nice with the Crackberry 

No I don't have a physics background....but it doesn't really matter all of the examples and explanations aren't helping explain why you have to cut or giving you the results your looking for. You keep showing that you shouldn't have to cut for reason X and B and T....but you do....so why? Because of the ARC of the arrows flight path....I don't know what your missing to get to the correct answer or what the real answer is.... But I understand what your saying and showing. 

and I said arrows don't shoot flat not that they do :wink:


----------



## JawsDad

Brown Hornet said:


> No I didn't open the PDFs....they don't play nice with the Crackberry
> 
> No I don't have a physics background....but it doesn't really matter all of the examples and explanations aren't helping explain why you have to cut or giving you the results your looking for. You keep showing that you shouldn't have to cut for reason X and B and T....but you do....so why? Because of the ARC of the arrows flight path....I don't know what your missing to get to the correct answer or what the real answer is.... But I understand what your saying and showing.
> 
> and I said arrows don't shoot flat not that they do :wink:



Watch your tone Hornet.. :becky: :bolt:


----------



## 5spotbullseye

pragmatic_lee said:


> Yea, but you probably wouldn't like it if I said "where".
> 
> I began to understand some of the GenPop type of strife in this forum when we all had been crammed inside for way to long, but OUTDOOR SEASON IS HERE - so why not just get outside and shoot your bow????


lol.........gettin close anyway...........still kinda cold & dreary up here!



Brown Hornet said:


> No I didn't open the PDFs....they don't play nice with the Crackberry
> 
> No I don't have a physics background....but it doesn't really matter all of the examples and explanations aren't helping explain why you have to cut or giving you the results your looking for. You keep showing that you shouldn't have to cut for reason X and B and T....but you do....so why? Because of the ARC of the arrows flight path....I don't know what your missing to get to the correct answer or what the real answer is.... But I understand what your saying and showing.
> 
> and I said arrows don't shoot flat not that they do :wink:


Ok..........what those pdf files show is a plotted trajectory path for a flat, uphill, and downhill shot at 80 yards. The flat trajectory looks, well, normal. The uphill actually reaches it's apex and starts coming back down before it impacts hte target. The downhill has a much flatter trajectory (due to gravity being "helped"). But, the final impact point in all three cases show the same thing...........that they all hit the same distance below the target. On paper, that would mean that you wouldn't cut yardage at all. But we know that's not true.

Hey......believe me.........I know cutting is necessary. BUT.....there's gotta be something else that plays a part in it because the stuff that I've discussed here isn't really one of those "interpretation" calculations. They're black & white.........it's hard to mess them up.

I'm going to get in touch with the fellow over at Archer's Advantage and see if he can lend a hand.


----------



## Brown Hornet

JawsDad said:


> Watch your tone Hornet.. :becky: :bolt:


Don't you have some storms to be chasing or something :chortle:

or some good classified deals to find 

Speaking of those....there may be a blue PE in there soon


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brownhornet:

Here's .jpeg files..........


----------



## JawsDad

Brown Hornet said:


> Don't you have some storms to be chasing or something :chortle:
> 
> or some good classified deals to find
> 
> Speaking of those....there may be a blue PE in there soon


:chortle: Soon.. storm season should be right around the corner.. And I already got my classifieds deal for the week. :wink:


Speaking of storm chasing, anyone know the cut, or windage required to shoot through a tornado at 80 yards? Other than shoot and duck? :tongue:


----------



## pragmatic_lee

Brown Hornet said:


> Don't you have some storms to be chasing or something :chortle:
> 
> *or some good classified deals to find*
> 
> Speaking of those....there may be a blue PE in there soon


Or a missing Hoyt demo bow.


----------



## USNarcher

I did not read everything but why did you take the cos of the speed. The speed is the the constant so it would get there faster.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

USNarcher said:


> I did not read everything but why did you take the cos of the speed. The speed is the the constant so it would get there faster.


The speed is only constant in the direction the arrow is going.

If your bow shoots 250 fps and you shoot uphill/downhill at 15 degrees, the horizontal speed (used in determining the time) is (250)(cos15) = 241.5 fps.

This is why the shorter distance DOES NOT MATTER........it shorter, but the horizontal arrow speed is SLOWER.....the time ends up being the same......and therefore gravity has an equal effect.......resulting in an equal drop.


----------



## USNarcher

how does the angle effect the speed of the arrow at the point of release? Not buying it.


----------



## 2005Ultramag

Brown Hornet said:


> No I didn't open the PDFs....they don't play nice with the Crackberry
> 
> No I don't have a physics background....but it doesn't really matter all of the examples and explanations aren't helping explain why you have to cut or giving you the results your looking for. You keep showing that you shouldn't have to cut for reason X and B and T....but you do....so why? Because of the ARC of the arrows flight path....I don't know what your missing to get to the correct answer or what the real answer is.... But I understand what your saying and showing.
> 
> and I said arrows don't shoot flat not that they do :wink:


So.... what you're saying is that with all the science, and math on this thread, knowing your setup, and practicing with is probably a better idea than studying the geometry, and trig here, and trying to apply it to the # of a particular bow, and weight of a specific arrow.:shade:


----------



## pragmatic_lee

Andy,
Over in the GenPop forum, someone has brought this 3 year old thread back to life. You might want to share all your knowledge there as well.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=438872


----------



## 5spotbullseye

USNarcher said:


> how does the angle effect the speed of the arrow at the point of release? Not buying it.


It effects the HORIZONTAL SPEED.......not the arrow speed as measured out of your bow.

If you shoot an arrow at 250 fps on a flat surface:
Horizontal velocity = (250)(cos0) = 250 fps
Vertical velocity = (250)(sin0) = 0 fps
Resultant (total) velocity = ((250^2) + (0^2))^2 = 250 fps (bow speed)

Makes sense, right?

If you shoot an arrow at 250 fps on a 15 degree incline:
Horizontal velocity = (250)(cos15) = 241.48 fps
Vertical velocity = (250)(sin15) = 64.70 fps
Resultant (total) velocity = ((241.48^2) + (64.70^2))^2 = 250 fps (bow speed)

An arrow shot on an angle CANNOT travel as fast horizontally as an arrow shot horizontally. It's losing some of it's energy to travel vertical as well..........


----------



## pragmatic_lee

2005Ultramag said:


> So.... what you're saying is that with all the science, and math on this thread, knowing your setup, and practicing with is probably a better idea than studying the geometry, and trig here, and trying to apply it to the # of a particular bow, and weight of a specific arrow.:shade:


Yea, who would have ever thought that actually shooting a bow would produce real results?


----------



## 5spotbullseye

2005Ultramag said:


> So.... what you're saying is that with all the science, and math on this thread, knowing your setup, and practicing with is probably a better idea than studying the geometry, and trig here, and trying to apply it to the # of a particular bow, and weight of a specific arrow.:shade:


Yep.......agreed 100%.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

pragmatic_lee said:


> Andy,
> Over in the GenPop forum, someone has brought this 3 year old thread back to life. You might want to share all your knowledge there as well.
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=438872


Not sure if you're serious or if it's a dig on me.........


----------



## 2005Ultramag

pragmatic_lee said:


> Yea, who would have ever thought that actually shooting a bow would produce real results?





5spotbullseye said:


> Yep.......agreed 100%.


:becky:


----------



## pragmatic_lee

5spotbullseye said:


> Not sure if you're serious or if it's a dig on me.........


Not sure either, but here's a post made today that could really use an explanation 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1057548404&postcount=207


----------



## USNarcher

5spotbullseye said:


> It effects the HORIZONTAL SPEED.......not the arrow speed as measured out of your bow.
> 
> If you shoot an arrow at 250 fps on a flat surface:
> Horizontal velocity = (250)(cos0) = 250 fps
> Vertical velocity = (250)(sin0) = 0 fps
> Resultant (total) velocity = ((250^2) + (0^2))^2 = 250 fps (bow speed)
> 
> Makes sense, right?
> 
> If you shoot an arrow at 250 fps on a 15 degree incline:
> Horizontal velocity = (250)(cos15) = 241.48 fps
> Vertical velocity = (250)(sin15) = 64.70 fps
> Resultant (total) velocity = ((241.48^2) + (64.70^2))^2 = 250 fps (bow speed)
> 
> An arrow shot on an angle CANNOT travel as fast horizontally as an arrow shot horizontally. It's losing some of it's energy to travel vertical as well..........


The arrow does not travel flat at any time. In our sport with the speeds and distances we shoot. The speed is the constant. So when we shoot up hill or down hill we calculate the distance with the cos of the angle and set our sight for that distance. That is why I deduct less when shooting 290 than my partner that shoots 270. Simple as that.


----------



## Brown Hornet

5spotbullseye said:


> Not sure if you're serious or if it's a dig on me.........


Ok let me clear the air here....you can not come in this forum and be all sensitive and think that any time someone says something to you that they are trying to fight...argue...digging on you or picking on you. Otherwise your gonna be fighting every other post....this isn't Gen Pop. :wink:

On another note I agree with USN....just because your shooting up or down your speed isn't changing. Take a chrono with you and shoot thru it at 24 yds then go shoot #1 with it setup in front of the target....:wink:


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Guys......let me clear something up.

I'm guessing that I'm getting labelled as some egg-head, book theory crazed, nonpractical wannabe archer. Am I right?

I KNOW CUTTING YARDAGE IS NEEDED. I also know that the best method for figuring out the cuts is to actually shoot the course. But, the engineer in me wants to know the theory behind it, that's all. I'd just like to be able to prove it on paper simply for the heck of it.......I like the challenge.

But the reasons provided so far, mainly the "shorter distance" argument, is not accurate. I've proved that. Heck, a 12th grade physics student can prove that.

If you're content with just shooting, that's fine. I started this thread to get some input on the theory behind it. My physics skills are rusty......if someone else out there can lend a hand, I'd be interested.

If you're just here to antagonize me, move on. If this doesn't interest you, move on. I'm not sure what I did to tick some of you off, but it seems as if some of you need either an attitude adjustment or a lesson in manners.


----------



## owl

The problem with the above is that the speed is not constant.
If one considers a sphere moving through an ideal fluid at a slow enough speed to avoid turbulance, then the force resisting that movement can be represented by the formula f=bv^n, where b is determined by the size of the sphere and the nature of the fluid, an n is approximately 2. Now an arrow is not a sphere, and its aspect to the relative wind changes, being larger at first where the vanes are being pushed to rotate the arrow, and the shaft is snaking around, as not completely stabilized. In addition, as the arrow is long, there is skin friction, also, there is turbulent flow. But, as these forces are small, the above formula is still a fair approximation. The arrow will lose most of the speed that it will lose early in its flight. Note that the slowing force of air resistance works exactly opposite to the arrow's flight direction at any time, and not on the horizontal. The upshot of all this is that the actual distance travelled does make a difference, however small. That difference is dependant on the initial velocity and configuration of the arrow. An extreme example might be a flu-flu, where we might just be able to hit a target at 40 yards on the level, it might not be able to reach one at 56 yards up or down at 45 degrees, even though the horizontal distance is the same. in each case.


----------



## USNarcher

You are all correct. That is why I say for our sport. Yeah if we was doing all this through some sort of machine that kept everythin the same and the objective was the same exact hole at a 1000 yards then all the math would come into play. 

But lets face it. For most of us we could care less about anything as long as that silly little screen says set your sight for this and you actually hit the target. And even then BH is suprised. :shade:


----------



## JawsDad

5spotbullseye said:


> Guys......let me clear something up.
> 
> I'm guessing that I'm getting labelled as some egg-head, book theory crazed, nonpractical wannabe archer. Am I right?
> 
> I KNOW CUTTING YARDAGE IS NEEDED. I also know that the best method for figuring out the cuts is to actually shoot the course. But, the engineer in me wants to know the theory behind it, that's all. I'd just like to be able to prove it on paper simply for the heck of it.......I like the challenge.
> 
> But the reasons provided so far, mainly the "shorter distance" argument, is not accurate. I've proved that. Heck, a 12th grade physics student can prove that.
> 
> If you're content with just shooting, that's fine. I started this thread to get some input on the theory behind it. My physics skills are rusty......if someone else out there can lend a hand, I'd be interested.
> 
> If you're just here to antagonize me, move on. If this doesn't interest you, move on. I'm not sure what I did to tick some of you off, but it seems as if some of you need either an attitude adjustment or a lesson in manners.




I think what Hornet is saying, is you have to have a fair amount of ability to absorb sarcasm in this forum. Every comment is not meant as an indictment on your character or motives. Many times the comments are just meant in jest.. Most everyone in this forum either shoots with, or communicates with, eachother on a frequent basis. So, the communication tends more towards the locker room than anything.. 



But, to add to the point of the conversation, isn't speed anything BUT a constant? Downrange speed changes over time and distance I would assume. I've never shot an arrow through a chrono at a target 80 yards away to determine the rate of deceleration. But I'm assuming that there is a fair amount.. I could be completely wrong though..


----------



## IGluIt4U

5spotbullseye said:


> Guys......let me clear something up.
> 
> I'm guessing that I'm getting labelled as some egg-head, book theory crazed, nonpractical wannabe archer. Am I right?
> 
> I KNOW CUTTING YARDAGE IS NEEDED. I also know that the best method for figuring out the cuts is to actually shoot the course. But, the engineer in me wants to know the theory behind it, that's all. I'd just like to be able to prove it on paper simply for the heck of it.......I like the challenge.
> 
> If you're content with just shooting, that's fine. I started this thread to get some input on the theory behind it. My physics skills are rusty......if someone else out there can lend a hand, I'd be interested.
> 
> If you're just here to antagonize me, move on. If this doesn't interest you, move on. I'm not sure what I did to tick some of you off, but it seems as if some of you need either an attitude adjustment or a lesson in manners.


No antagonism here, just a good debate.. :lol:

Perhaps this will help explain a bit better.. 

Note: for discussion purposes, shot 1 is parallel to the earth, shot 2 is at an uphill 45* angle in the following:

While it is true that gravity has the same time to act upon both bullets, the acceleration of gravity does not act equally on them relevant to the direction of drop. Remember, gravity is a vector. In this example, the bullet is a vector also. Vectors have both a magnitude (in the case of gravity, an acceleration of 32 fps/s) and a direction (vertically downward). Vector mechanics involves both the angles and the magnitudes of the involved vectors.

Now back to the horizontal bullet fired in shot one. By definition, horizontal is perpendicular to gravity. Therefore, gravity acts in a downward direction that happens to be perpendicular to the original path of this particular bullet. Therefore, the drop of the bullet is related directly to the TOF and the effect of the full magnitude of gravity (32 fps/s) because gravity in this case acts in exactly the same direction as drop. Simple concept; everybody understands this.

For the bullet fired in shot two it gets more complicated. You see that bullet has a vector direction of 45 degrees to horizontal, and to vertical. While gravity still acts vertically upon the bullet, the bullet is not traveling horizontally or perpendicular to gravity, so *gravity no longer acts perpendicularly to the original path of the bullet, but at the 45 degree angle*. (This is easier with a diagram.) In other words, gravity pulls the bullet vertically downward, but vertically downward in this case is not the same as drop. Drop, as I understand the definition, is the amount the bullet falls perpendicularly (but not necessarily vertically) away from the line of the original path (barrel). Since the barrel in this case is not horizontal, drop is not vertical.

Now let's do the math. Picture shot two, upward at an angle of 45 degrees from horizontal, with a muzzle-to-target distance of 100 yards.
Gravity is acting at an angle of 45 degrees from the path of the bullet, rather than perpendicular to it. The component of gravity that is acting in the direction of drop, or perpendicular to the path of the bullet, is described by the equation: (Gravity) x (sine 45 degrees). You will notice that due to the angle this amount is only 0.707 times the horizontal shot's gravity effect, or about 23 fps/s. The other component of gravity is acting perpendicularly to the first. It acts exactly parallel, but opposite (for an uphill shot) in direction to the path of the bullet and the magnitude is described by the equation: (Gravity) x (cosine 45 degrees). This component can be legitimately ignored as insignificant relative to the velocity and TOF of the bullet.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

owl said:


> The problem with the above is that the speed is not constant.
> If one considers a sphere moving through an ideal fluid at a slow enough speed to avoid turbulance, then the force resisting that movement can be represented by the formula f=bv^n, where b is determined by the size of the sphere and the nature of the fluid, an n is approximately 2. Now an arrow is not a sphere, and its aspect to the relative wind changes, being larger at first where the vanes are being pushed to rotate the arrow, and the shaft is snaking around, as not completely stabilized. In addition, as the arrow is long, there is skin friction, also, there is turbulent flow. But, as these forces are small, the above formula is still a fair approximation. The arrow will lose most of the speed that it will lose early in its flight. Note that the slowing force of air resistance works exactly opposite to the arrow's flight direction at any time, and not on the horizontal. The upshot of all this is that the actual distance travelled does make a difference, however small. That difference is dependant on the initial velocity and configuration of the arrow. An extreme example might be a flu-flu, where we might just be able to hit a target at 40 yards on the level, it might not be able to reach one at 56 yards up or down at 45 degrees, even though the horizontal distance is the same. in each case.


I was assuming though that the drag is cancelled out........that's already accounted for with your 80 yard mark.....the sight parallax already takes care of it.


----------



## IGluIt4U

IGluIt4U said:


> The other component of gravity is acting perpendicularly to the first. It acts exactly parallel, but opposite (for an uphill shot) in direction to the path of the bullet and the magnitude is described by the equation: (Gravity) x (cosine 45 degrees). This component can be legitimately ignored as insignificant relative to the velocity and TOF of the bullet.[/COLOR]


Now.. this probably applies more to archery than firearms, as the gravitational effects on up/downhill shots does have more influence due to relatively low velocity and longer TOF, therefore the cuts will vary from positive inclined shots as compared to negatively inclined shots...


----------



## 5spotbullseye

IGluIt4U said:


> No antagonism here, just a good debate.. :lol:
> 
> Perhaps this will help explain a bit better..
> 
> Note: for discussion purposes, shot 1 is parallel to the earth, shot 2 is at an uphill 45* angle in the following:
> 
> While it is true that gravity has the same time to act upon both bullets, the acceleration of gravity does not act equally on them relevant to the direction of drop. Remember, gravity is a vector. In this example, the bullet is a vector also. Vectors have both a magnitude (in the case of gravity, an acceleration of 32 fps/s) and a direction (vertically downward). Vector mechanics involves both the angles and the magnitudes of the involved vectors.
> 
> Now back to the horizontal bullet fired in shot one. By definition, horizontal is perpendicular to gravity. Therefore, gravity acts in a downward direction that happens to be perpendicular to the original path of this particular bullet. Therefore, the drop of the bullet is related directly to the TOF and the effect of the full magnitude of gravity (32 fps/s) because gravity in this case acts in exactly the same direction as drop. Simple concept; everybody understands this.
> 
> For the bullet fired in shot two it gets more complicated. You see that bullet has a vector direction of 45 degrees to horizontal, and to vertical. While gravity still acts vertically upon the bullet, the bullet is not traveling horizontally or perpendicular to gravity, so *gravity no longer acts perpendicularly to the original path of the bullet, but at the 45 degree angle*. (This is easier with a diagram.) In other words, gravity pulls the bullet vertically downward, but vertically downward in this case is not the same as drop. Drop, as I understand the definition, is the amount the bullet falls perpendicularly (but not necessarily vertically) away from the line of the original path (barrel). Since the barrel in this case is not horizontal, drop is not vertical.
> 
> Now let's do the math. Picture shot two, upward at an angle of 45 degrees from horizontal, with a muzzle-to-target distance of 100 yards.
> Gravity is acting at an angle of 45 degrees from the path of the bullet, rather than perpendicular to it. The component of gravity that is acting in the direction of drop, or perpendicular to the path of the bullet, is described by the equation: (Gravity) x (sine 45 degrees). You will notice that due to the angle this amount is only 0.707 times the horizontal shot's gravity effect, or about 23 fps/s. The other component of gravity is acting perpendicularly to the first. It acts exactly parallel, but opposite (for an uphill shot) in direction to the path of the bullet and the magnitude is described by the equation: (Gravity) x (cosine 45 degrees). This component can be legitimately ignored as insignificant relative to the velocity and TOF of the bullet.



That's just attempts to explain the basic projectile motion problem in a round about way......

When figuring out how much "drop" gravity causes a projectile, it's found by the term:

(1/2)(a)(t^2)

This is the last term in the projectile motion equation:

Y = Yo + (Vyi)(t) + (1/2)(a)(t^2)

"a" is constant......gravity is approximately -32.2 ft/s^2. The only other factor is "t", or time. That's why everything hinges on the flight time. If it's equal time in the air, it will drop an equal amount.

Look at the jpeg files I attached earlier. It shows the final impact point for all three cases (flat, uphill, downhill)......they're all the same.....the arrow will drop 14.84'. (neglecting drag in all three cases)

It's completely based on flight time.........this is what dictates the effect of gravity. Since it's been shown that the arrow is in flight the same amount of time, that's what the predicted impact points are all the same.


----------



## IGluIt4U

5spotbullseye said:


> That's just explains the basic projectile motion problem in a round about way.
> 
> When figuring out how much "drop" gravity causes a projectile, it's found by the term:
> 
> (1/2)(a)(t^2)
> 
> This is the last term in the projectile motion equation:
> 
> Y = Yo + (Vyi)(t) + (1/2)(a)(t^2)
> 
> "a" is constant......gravity is approximately -32.2 ft/s^2. The only other factor is "t", or time. That's why everything hinges on the flight time. If it's equal time in the air, it will drop an equal amount.


They would, if the gravitational force on the angled shot were not vectored as a function of the angle from parallel to the earth.. 

Time is equal.. just like if you drop a bullet from the top of a building or shoot one parallel to earth.. they will both strike at the same time, so tof is not the issue here.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

IGluIt4U said:


> They would, if the gravitational force on the angled shot were not vectored as a function of the angle from parallel to the earth..
> 
> Time is equal.. just like if you drop a bullet from the top of a building or shoot one parallel to earth.. they will both strike at the same time, so tof is not the issue here.


I agree that gravity is centered towards the earth's center........but we're not dealing with long enough distances to worry about it......it's essentially flat for calculation purposes. Sure, maybe in firearm ballistics where the Coriolis Effect comes into play, but not here.

If time is equal, so is the vertical change in the final position of the projectile. That article assumed "drop" was measured parallel with the flight path.....which isn't what I'm calling "drop".


----------



## 5spotbullseye

My head's starting to hurt........lol

I know a physics guru..........maybe he can help.........


----------



## C Doyle 88

pragmatic_lee said:


> Not sure either, but here's a post made today that could really use an explanation
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1057548404&postcount=207


The wife says it's-- KARMA--


----------



## 5spotbullseye

C Doyle 88 said:


> The wife says it's-- KARMA--


lol


----------



## Spoon13

I'm gonna throw some ******* on this and see what you think.

Draw a horizontal line 6" long. Now draw another line at a 45* angle from the same starting point the same 6" long. Now draw a vertical line from the finishing point of the 45* line down to the horizontal line. the point of intersection will be before the termination of the horizontal line.

We all sight in our bows on as close to flat as we can. The cut in uphill/downhill shots is not because the target is any closer to in real distance, it is closer however in relation to the distance at which we acquired our sight settings. Thus the need to cut the yardage.

I will also go one step further and say that since targets are measured with a tape from stake to target that any natural or Earthen elevation changes will require a cut to hit the X. A man made elevation change, ie Tower target at DCWC, wouldn't need to be since the distance was measured and the target was elevated at that distance.

Oh and for the record, I run a glorified sewing machine for a living.

******* out!!!!!


----------



## C Doyle 88

On the actual subject----

With thaughts cleared---

If you shoot an arrow straight up---it goes a couple of 100 yds and comes straight back down all the way to the ground

If you shoot an arrow down from orbit it will travel many miles after slowing to terminal speed and reach the ground

So it seems that gravity does have a varing affect on all other forces throughout it's path even overcoming air resistance completely at a point----

Now knowing that this is only an affect of a 90* change from flat------I believe it proves that up hill simply needs more energy than down hill 

Maybe taking the radical point out of my example 1-5 degrees at a time would bring the variable into the formula--

The reality of the shots in the FIELD recognize my concept even if I don't have the math background to prove it 

Cec


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Spoon13 said:


> I'm gonna throw some ******* on this and see what you think.
> 
> Draw a horizontal line 6" long. Now draw another line at a 45* angle from the same starting point the same 6" long. Now draw a vertical line from the finishing point of the 45* line down to the horizontal line. the point of intersection will be before the termination of the horizontal line.
> 
> We all sight in our bows on as close to flat as we can. The cut in uphill/downhill shots is not because the target is any closer to in real distance, it is closer however in relation to the distance at which we acquired our sight settings. Thus the need to cut the yardage.
> 
> I will also go one step further and say that since targets are measured with a tape from stake to target that any natural or Earthen elevation changes will require a cut to hit the X. A man made elevation change, ie Tower target at DCWC, wouldn't need to be since the distance was measured and the target was elevated at that distance.
> 
> Oh and for the record, I run a glorified sewing machine for a living.
> 
> ******* out!!!!!


It's not possible to draw a right triangle (like you show) that has a 6" horizontal side and a 6" sloped side.........try it once to scale. Better yet, take a arrow and lay it flat. Now rotate it up at 45 degrees....the tip pulls back doesn't it? (An arc path) The only that would work is if the vertical side was tilted somewhat.

Good point with measurement note. Some ranges use a tape, which adds yardage since it rolls over hills & dips.


----------



## Spoon13

5spotbullseye said:


> It's not possible to draw a right triangle (like you show) that has a 6" horizontal side and a 6" sloped side.........try it once to scale. Better yet, take a arrow and lay it flat. Now rotate it up at 45 degrees....the tip pulls back doesn't it? (An arc path) The only that would work is if the vertical side was tilted somewhat.
> 
> Good point with measurement note. Some ranges use a tape, which adds yardage since it rolls over hills & dips.


That's exactly my point. The vertical side of the triangle doesn't go all the way to the end of the 6" horizontal line. It comes down short. Thus the need to "cut" the yardage on a shot that is either uphill or down. 

Another example to give you. Invert the whole idea. You sight in on a 45* incline and formulate your marks accordingly. You will have to ADD yardage to reach a target of the same distance on flat ground.

I know that is an extreme example but it helps illustrate what I'm saying.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Spoon13 said:


> That's exactly my point. The vertical side of the triangle doesn't go all the way to the end of the 6" horizontal line. It comes down short. Thus the need to "cut" the yardage on a shot that is either uphill or down.
> 
> Another example to give you. Invert the whole idea. You sight in on a 45* incline and formulate your marks accordingly. You will have to ADD yardage to reach a target of the same distance on flat ground.
> 
> I know that is an extreme example but it helps illustrate what I'm saying.


I see what you're trying to say......but it's not the same thing. Now if the marked target yardage was based on the _horizontal_ distance and not the _slope_ distance, then yes, your point would be more applicable. Although, in that case, you'd have to ADD yardage since it will be travelling farther horizontally......


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Perry sent me the article that he wrote up:

http://www.archersadvantage.com/TipSheets/UpDownHill.htm

I'll read through it and see if I can determine what I'm missing........


----------



## Brown Hornet

5spotbullseye said:


> Guys......let me clear something up.
> 
> I'm guessing that I'm getting labelled as some egg-head, book theory crazed, nonpractical wannabe archer. Am I right?
> 
> 
> If you're content with just shooting, that's fine. I started this thread to get some input on the theory behind it. My physics skills are rusty......if someone else out there can lend a hand, I'd be interested.
> 
> If you're just here to antagonize me, move on. If this doesn't interest you, move on. I'm not sure what I did to tick some of you off, but it seems as if some of you need either an attitude adjustment or a lesson in manners.


Dude....I don't know what your not getting....or what your issue is...nor do I really care to be perfectly honest with you at this point. 

How on earth my response stating that nobody is trying to argue with you or pick on you or make fun of you or whatever got turned into this response is beyond me.....:noidea:

Some of us may need a lesson in manners or attitude adjustment....but one of us needs may need to work on other skills :zip:

You haven't ticked ME off....or anyone else that I can tell but the magic bubble your in seems to think that anyone that doesn't speak the way you want them to or give you the response you want in the way you want it is antagonizing you....trust me if I for one was going to do that or was you would know :wink:

So in case it isn't clear NOW....nobody is picking on you or mad at you....if you still think they/we are or I am....then maybe we aren't the ones that need to move on :wink: :darkbeer:


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Looks like the Parallax Error is the culprit.........interesting article..........


----------



## Spoon13

5spotbullseye said:


> I see what you're trying to say......but it's not the same thing. Now if the marked target yardage was based on the _horizontal_ distance and not the _slope_ distance, then yes, your point would be more applicable. Although, in that case, you'd have to ADD yardage since it will be travelling farther horizontally......


That's what i said. The point you aren't really seeing is that although the targets are based on slope distance, the sight marks we use are established on horizontal distance since most of the know universe shoots marks on flat ground. When the flat ground (horizontal) marks are used to shoot an uphill (sloped) target, you have to cut to hit the middle as was very simply illustrated in my diagram earlier. 

If I knew the A squared divided by the tangent of C raised to the square root of X formula to explain it, I would gladly give it to ya.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brown Hornet said:


> Dude....I don't know what your not getting....or what your issue is...nor do I really care to be perfectly honest with you at this point.
> 
> How on earth my response stating that nobody is trying to argue with you or pick on you or make fun of you or whatever got turned into this response is beyond me.....:noidea:
> 
> Some of us may need a lesson in manners or attitude adjustment....but one of us needs may need to work on other skills :zip:
> 
> You haven't ticked ME off....or anyone else that I can tell but the magic bubble your in seems to think that anyone that doesn't speak the way you want them to or give you the response you want in the way you want it is antagonizing you....trust me if I for one was going to do that or was you would know :wink:
> 
> So in case it isn't clear NOW....nobody is picking on you or mad at you....if you still think they/we are or I am....then maybe we aren't the ones that need to move on :wink: :darkbeer:


lol.....

Judging by some of the pm's I've received, I'd say that I'm not the only one who thinks you come across as a jerk.

Believe me little guy, my feelings aren't hurt. I just wanted to get rid all the static interference so the rest of us could have a discussion.

You seem to be a real piece of work.......hopefully I'll see ya at the Hillbilly.......


----------



## Brown Hornet

Your not the only one getting PMs my friend :wink:

Again I don't know how many times or ways one can say that your reading into static that isn't there....

Lots of similar comments made by plenty of people.....as usual but I am the jerk :chortle: it usually has more to do with the source that it's coming from....if me being straight foward makes me a jerk then I will be a jerk all day long :darkbeer:


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Brown Hornet said:


> Your not the only one getting PMs my friend :wink:
> 
> Again I don't know how many times or ways one can say that your reading into static that isn't there....
> 
> Lots of similar comments made by plenty of people.....as usual but I am the jerk :chortle: it usually has more to do with the source that it's coming from....if me being straight foward makes me a jerk then I will be a jerk all day long :darkbeer:


Take a look at the posts in the beginning of the thread. You jumped right in and started critizing me of "overthinking" and didn't contribute anything until I called you out on it. I have no beef with you.........I don't even know you. Heck, you might be great to be around in person. But jumping all over me will snide smart-assed comments doesn't really sit well with me. Just because you can't explain in in technical terms doesn't mean that it's not a worthy discussion.

Look......if I misinterpreted the "hidden meaning" behind your original short comments, then I apologize. If not, then well I guess the point is moot then, huh?


----------



## Brown Hornet

Actually you may want to go back and read the first few post again....

Bowgod made the over thinking comments....others also laughed at his post. I quoted him and said I wouldn't accuse him of that again....

Then said I cut because we will miss if we don't....now all I want to know is two things....

ONE...am I right? I am pretty sure I am...and that's my reason for cutting...nothing dickish about that comment...it was in good nature let's be serious this isn't a government debate or life changing discussion....

TWO...the others that have made comments like Sticky, Prag...who's one comment was way worse then an over thinking comment that your saying I made that I didn't , Jawsdad, spoon, navy dude and a couple other folks jerks also? You don't have to answer that one.....

As I said before I wasn't am not and neither was anyone else attacking you or picking on you....and as others said this is a very "laid back" forum....no thread that has or will be posted in this forum will not have guys in it having fun....if that's an issue for some that's fine.....

But if you or anyone else get's rubbed the wrong way by me or anyone else....you don't have to be like little kids and run and PM each other pointing fingers and calling me or anyone else a jerk....my PM inbox doesn't block anyone and half the people that frequent this forum know my # if you want to really talk.....including people at your club. 

People take me the wrong way....lots of people get taken the wrong way....it's life...not everyone likes everyone....so what that's life.....but anyone that knows me will tell you I am the same way in person....funny how I am not a jerk then....and if someone doesn't like me on here or in person...that's cool....there are plenty of people that probably don't like them either :wink: :darkbeer:

And for the record....there was no hidden meaning in message....you asked why we cut....I cut so I don't miss


----------



## Bobmuley

With my pins I always sighted in for the bottom of the x. It makes all those 1/2-1 yard cuts irrelevent.:smile:


----------



## JawsDad

Brown Hornet said:


> Actually you may want to go back and read the first few post again....
> 
> Bowgod made the over thinking comments....others also laughed at his post. I quoted him and said I wouldn't accuse him of that again....
> 
> Then said I cut because we will miss if we don't....now all I want to know is two things....
> 
> ONE...am I right? I am pretty sure I am...and that's my reason for cutting...nothing dickish about that comment...it was in good nature let's be serious this isn't a government debate or life changing discussion....
> 
> TWO...the others that have made comments like Sticky, Prag...who's one comment was way worse then an over thinking comment that your saying I made that I didn't , Jawsdad, spoon, navy dude and a couple other folks jerks also? You don't have to answer that one.....
> 
> As I said before I wasn't am not and neither was anyone else attacking you or picking on you....and as others said this is a very "laid back" forum....no thread that has or will be posted in this forum will not have guys in it having fun....if that's an issue for some that's fine.....
> 
> But if you or anyone else get's rubbed the wrong way by me or anyone else....you don't have to be like little kids and run and PM each other pointing fingers and calling me or anyone else a jerk....my PM inbox doesn't block anyone and half the people that frequent this forum know my # if you want to really talk.....including people at your club.
> 
> People take me the wrong way....lots of people get taken the wrong way....it's life...not everyone likes everyone....so what that's life.....but anyone that knows me will tell you I am the same way in person....funny how I am not a jerk then....and if someone doesn't like me on here or in person...that's cool....there are plenty of people that probably don't like them either :wink: :darkbeer:
> 
> And for the record....there was no hidden meaning in message....you asked why we cut....I cut so I don't miss




I am a jerk.. well jerky at least. For those that have seen me, they'd probably guess close to 90%. The other 10% is creamy nougat.. :becky:


Man this place needs spring break or something.. :chortle:


----------



## IGluIt4U

JawsDad said:


> Man this place needs spring break or something.. :chortle:


Yep.. everyone take a deep breath, step away and get a cold beverage of choice (it IS Friday afternoon, after all.. ) and... let's keep this thread on it's original topic of discussion, please.. :becky:

We do on many occasions, post in a somewhat sarcastic fashion on AT. It is not intended to be directed negatively at or towards anyone, but rather just a style of posting that has developed over time. It becomes prevalent in this forum as well as a few others at times, and I think that most of us take it all in stride and brush it off with a laugh. That is how it's normally intended, more in humor or jest than criticism or critique. I'm certain, that if a member who posts like this were really directing something towards someone or something, that there would be NO question about it's intent.. :chortle:

So, chill for a while and get back to figuring out the black magic of 'cuts'.. :darkbeer: :yo: :bolt:


----------



## 2005Ultramag

Bobmuley said:


> With my pins I always sighted in for the bottom of the x. It makes all those 1/2-1 yard cuts irrelevent.:smile:


.... and if it's an extremely steep target hold a little low.

Makes the most sense of anything on the entire thread. 

Then again, my PB is a 517, so... don't pay any more attention than a passing glance to what I say.:embara:


----------



## Rattleman

5spotbullseye said:


> It's not possible to draw a right triangle (like you show) that has a 6" horizontal side and a 6" sloped side.........try it once to scale. Better yet, take a arrow and lay it flat. Now rotate it up at 45 degrees....the tip pulls back doesn't it? (An arc path) The only that would work is if the vertical side was tilted somewhat.
> 
> Good point with measurement note. Some ranges use a tape, which adds yardage since it rolls over hills & dips.


Andy just a side note here. The NFAA states that all yardages will be measured with a tape. Now back to the discussion


----------



## IGluIt4U

Rattleman said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Andy just a side note here. The NFAA states that all yardages will be measured with a tape. Now back to the discussion


Question Ed, as I know you've 'taped' the targets when setting the pins or targets at your club....

When you 'tape a target' that is covering varying terrain from the pins to the target, do you lay the tape on the ground, or stretch it tight? Is there a 'standard' by which it is s'posed to be done? :noidea:

For instance, how did you measure the backside 80.. the pin is on top of a small 'plateau', if you will, then has a downhill and flat, part way to the target butt..


----------



## IGluIt4U

IGluIt4U said:


> Question Ed, as I know you've 'taped' the targets when setting the pins or targets at your club....
> 
> When you 'tape a target' that is covering varying terrain from the pins to the target, do you lay the tape on the ground, or stretch it tight? Is there a 'standard' by which it is s'posed to be done? :noidea:
> 
> For instance, how did you measure the backside 80.. the pin is on top of a small 'plateau', if you will, then has a downhill and flat, part way to the target butt..


Kinda looks like this.. (sorry, just a quick 'paint' job.. lol)


----------



## field14

Someone said: "Some ranges use a tape, which adds yardage since it rolls over hills & dips."

NOT if they want to get approved by an astute NFAA Director they don't! The tolerance for distance measuring, as part of the course inspection process is ZERO...by using the SAME measuring instrument that the club or person that measured in the course originally used!

You STRETCH the tape...you NEVER EVER LAY IT ALONG THE GROUND...The tape is held on the bullseye and the 2nd and 3rd person stretch the tape to take any sag out of it and then, they use a "plumb bob" to set the block or shooting stake on the ground.

IF at your club you are laying the tape along the ground, then your tolerances SUCK...and most all of your distances, unless that target is perfectly flat...are BOGUS, and the course should not be passing its inspection...unless the NFAA Director is allowing a club member to do the "certification" as an "official representative", that is. Then, those at your course have a positive home course advantage over those with ACCURATE site marks.

With BOGUS yardage blocks/shooting stake measurement...any and all "cut charts" become worthless, since all those "yardages" are off by a heap in the first place.

Use of a laser rangefinder is also NOT an official means of getting the shooting stakes/blocks into place. I have heard tell of using surveyor's transits and then BACKING THAT UP with the use of a yardage tape, however.

In additon, when setting a target on a "plateau"...it is REQUIRED that the shooters at ALL the shooting stakes on the target...no matter how tall the shooter is...HAVE FULL VIEW OF THE *ENTIRE* TARGET FACE from ALL shooting positions on said target. You can't "hide" part of that target face with a slope on a FIELD range...but you sure can do this on a 3-D range!

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## IGluIt4U

That's why I asked the question of Ed, who I know has measured the targets at the local club. 

I try to use common sense when shooting a target for the first time.. I range it with a rangefinder to see the actual straight line distance to the target and then either use the angle compensation, or preferably, the iTouch to calculate the cut. I may also use the angle from my rangefinder or iTouch and verify the cut using my cut chart from AA. That is, if it's a target that appears to require a cut. Most of our courses, though hilly, have VERY FEW targets that are on more than a 10-15* angle up or down, so our cuts aren't 'severe' in most cases.

It's better to make no ASSumptions about how the pins or target were set. Verify it first, then make a calculated first shot.


----------



## IGluIt4U

IGluIt4U said:


> That's why I asked the question of Ed, who I know has measured the targets at the local club.
> 
> I try to use common sense when shooting a target for the first time.. I range it with a rangefinder to see the actual straight line distance to the target and then either use the angle compensation, or preferably, the iTouch to calculate the cut. I may also use the angle from my rangefinder or iTouch and verify the cut using my cut chart from AA. That is, if it's a target that appears to require a cut. Most of our courses, though hilly, have VERY FEW targets that are on more than a 10-15* angle up or down, so our cuts aren't 'severe' in most cases.
> 
> It's better to make no ASSumptions about how the pins or target were set. Verify it first, then make a calculated first shot.


All that said, I shot a new course for the first time last weekend... not too hard, but not easy, by any means.. and I probably ranged 6-8 of the targets of the 28 and shot pretty well. The ones I gave away points on were not due to cut errors, just baaad shots..


----------



## Brown Hornet

IGluIt4U said:


> Yep.. everyone take a deep breath, step away and get a cold beverage of choice (it IS Friday afternoon, after all.. ) and... let's keep this thread on it's original topic of discussion, please.. :becky:
> 
> We do on many occasions, post in a somewhat sarcastic fashion on AT. It is not intended to be directed negatively at or towards anyone, but rather just a style of posting that has developed over time. It becomes prevalent in this forum as well as a few others at times, and I think that most of us take it all in stride and brush it off with a laugh. That is how it's normally intended, more in humor or jest than criticism or critique. I'm certain, that if a member who posts like this were really directing something towards someone or something, that there would be NO question about it's intent.. :chortle:
> 
> So, chill for a while and get back to figuring out the black magic of 'cuts'.. :darkbeer: :yo: :bolt:


Egggsss-zac-arrrreeee


----------



## Rattleman

IGluIt4U said:


> Question Ed, as I know you've 'taped' the targets when setting the pins or targets at your club....
> 
> When you 'tape a target' that is covering varying terrain from the pins to the target, do you lay the tape on the ground, or stretch it tight? Is there a 'standard' by which it is s'posed to be done? :noidea:
> 
> For instance, how did you measure the backside 80.. the pin is on top of a small 'plateau', if you will, then has a downhill and flat, part way to the target butt..


No standard that I know. What I posted was just what the NFAA says how you will measure.


----------



## field14

All this "magic" of cut charts and cutting targets...and people are once again going OVERBOARD with this.

A couple of things come to light:

1. First and foremost...how well can you HOLD STEADY on the target? Good enough to KNOW FOR CERTAIN about that 1/2 or 1/4 yard "cut" you just took?

2. How ACCURATE are your site marks? Dead nuts, or "close enough"? Do you site in dead nuts to the center of the bullseye, or do you have a "personal fudge factor" such as KNOWING that when you tire you shoot LOW...so you site in for the top of the X-ring to help cover YOUR fatigue factor? Do you site in for a "group" or do you site in to hit a given width of HORIZONTAL tape on the target face? Most site in for a "group" somewhere around the right height of the X-ring...IMHO...not good enough to rely on a 'cut chart' to bail you out.:wink::wink:

3. Do you KNOW your equipment well enough to know your impact point difference if a target is set 1/2 yard, 1 yard "hot" or cold? Do you know how high or low YOU shoot with YOUR setup if the yardage is "off" by 1/2 or 1 yard?

4. Do you KNOW how an uphill or downhill of varying degrees affects YOUR form and YOUR impact point and how you will hit on the target?

If you don't know those 4 things (and a few more), then the best "cut chart" in the world won't do you any good! It might make you FEEL better...but it likely won't help your score much.

There is more to this "cut chart" science than just printing it out...garbage in = garbage out. In addition, if you don't know the 4 items above...using someone else's cut chart could add to the problem YOU have with YOUR setup and YOUR tendencies on uphill/downhill/sidehill shooting.:wink:

Gotta know YOUR limitations, your abilities, your equipment, and your tendencies...before relying on the 'cut chart'. They WORK...but only if the above 4 items are taken care of and you know YOUR stuff.

Sure Dave Cousins and the big boys use them....but they KNOW THEIR STUFF; they are the experts.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## The Swami

You mean all you Fig Newtons haven't found the answer yet?  The whole world wide web out there and no one here can find something to satisfy you all? 

Someone call their local university if you can't find an answer that satsifies all you sophisticated East Coast shooters.  Hit the library. Geez Louise! 

The last place I would ask a physics question is here on AT.   I'd be asking my math or physics prof at the local uni. Go to the experts, not the bubbas. 

If you really want to work yourselves up into a lather, figure out the cuts on Jupiter.  

Ok, now for more serious stuff...

Field14 does have a point. Depending on your ability, form etc., cut sheets won't do you much good. You would need practical experience of you shooting those distances at different angles up and down to figure out what your tendencies are. You may shoot a 40 yard uphill quite a bit different than a 40 downhill at the same angle. Form and other things come into play. Some don't shoot the same form on both types of shots.

Be careful with technology. If you are going to use hi-tech gadgets and robots, computers to figure out stuff, you had better shoot like a robot.

I remember my first year at Redding. Only been shooting a bow for 4 months. I didn't cut anything that first time. Didn't need to. I shot 1475 with a wrong target shot perfectly in the dot for a 1486 if you don't go by the rules.  What I am trying to say is the better I got, the more I saw the need to cut on shots. At first, I only cut on the more severe angles. Now I will cut a half yard on certain distances when the chart tells me to or because I know what my tendencies are currently. 

Know how far your arrow drops per every yard short or how high it impacts for every yard long at different distances.

For example, you find that for every yard short at 40, your arrow drops an inch at the point of impact, yet you shoot 4-5 inch groups at 40. Are you going to cut an half a yard? Why? It is a half an inch difference and that isn't going to show up much on the target for you. Remember, it might at a longer distance, but not at the shorter ones. That is something you need to consider. A yard at 80 would show up for most.

Just trying to help Field14 out with another perspective. Don't always do what the big boys do, it may hurt you as much as it helps you. Each archer has to take a look at where they are at the present time ability wise and how consistent they are shooting.

Shoot some shorter shots at say 25 yards uphill at 15 deg. and downhill at 15 deg. Don't cut anything. Shoot 5 ends of 4 arrows on each and see what you get. Write down your results.You might have a tendency to shoot low on the uphill and high on the downhill etc. There are several combinations of results that can happen. 

Then do it all over again with your cuts and compare. Do the math to figure out the cuts. You might be surprised at what you see. If you have a tendency to shoot low on the uphill, cutting that shot is going to steal points away. Ya dig?

Then you can see what you might need to do at a 60 yard shot at the same angle. You might need to add yards on the uphill etc. Know YOUR shot.

Swami out...


----------



## Ron Meadows

Boy am I glad that I stayed the hell outta this one!!!!!!


----------



## field14

Good post, Swami.

You mentioned knowing YOUR tendencies....that is the TRUTH for sure!

You mentioned knowing YOUR equipment and if you shoot an arrow 3" high out the top...KNOWING how much to "cut" EXACTLY...AND, in addition KNOWING whether it was YOU that screwed it up...or was it indeed "off" because it was OFF in yardage or cut?

Using someone else's "cut" based upon how high or low THEY shot....is a by-guess and by-gosh way of doing things. BUT...if you see the bunch of arrow holes 2" out the top...YOU had better KNOW...how much YOU will cut YOUR shot to compensate...because someone else's equipment will shoot differently and may require a completely different "cut" than yours!

There are lots of other variables in this game than just a computer, a rangefinder, and a cut chart?

There are targets out there that have ANAMOLIES...they just plain SHOOT WRONG! If you don't pay attention to the lean of the target, the footing, the lean of the shooting stake, the lighting, openings or gaps between you and the target; windy by you? windy down by the target? windy between you and the target?

ALL the cut charts in the world, all the Palm Pilots...are NOT going to help you with your lefts and rights....they won't help you with those dad-nabbed targets that supposedly don't REQUIRE a "cut"...but if you don't "cut" the target AND pop some bubble left or right...you WILL shoot a "4" or worse to the right/left, AND high/low!
I cannot count how many times my bacon was saved because I knew how to READ a target; I knew exactly how MY equipment shot, and I knew exactly MY tendencies in those funny footing situations...I didn't get this by practicing with my sites dead on round after round after round and with "flat footing" and a "perfect T" stance round after round after round....I learned it by PRO-ACTIVE archery...practicing for the WHEN it happens...because the "IF" is inevitable It WILL happen, and you'd better know how to handle it; otherwise, down on the leader board you fall. :wink:

I see so many shooters set their sites dead on every time they practice, shoot the same course in the same order FOR SCORE every single time. They avoid the wind, they avoid "odd stance" practicing, They avoid intentionally "bubbling off" to learn how far a 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and full bubble will move their impact point left or right...they NEVER practice this at all distances. Then, when they NEED this information, they are clueless...and can only guess and gripe and complain, and lose their confidence...and end up all messed up for the day.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Alright.......a much needed breather has been taken over the weekend............

Brownhornet - as I said, if I took your intent the wrong way, I'm sorry. In reality, I like to keep things simple as well.......not saying I don't like to figure out WHY things are done a certain way for curiousity sake.......but the less thinking you have to do in this sport the better off you are. I also cut so I don't miss. 

For the time being, I'm gonna wrap up my thoughts here real quick.

The advantage of a decreased horizontal distance for a sloped target is offset by the disadvantage of the decreased horizontal speed; this means that for flat, uphill, or downhill shots, the arrow is in the air the same amount of time. This means that gravity has an equal time to effect the flight, resulting in the same drop. So, the old reasoning for cutting a target due to the shorter distance isnt actually true..........but ends up being a decent (& simple) estimate in MOST cases. The actual reason for the cuts is primarily due to parallax error. The link I posted from Archer's Advantage explains it in better detail then what I could have.

In any case.........the best method for estimating cuts is to go out there and shoot the course.


----------



## Rattleman

The Swami said:


> You mean all you Fig Newtons haven't found the answer yet?  The whole world wide web out there and no one here can find something to satisfy you all?
> 
> Someone call their local university if you can't find an answer that satsifies all you sophisticated East Coast shooters.  Hit the library. Geez Louise!
> 
> The last place I would ask a physics question is here on AT.   I'd be asking my math or physics prof at the local uni. Go to the experts, not the bubbas.
> 
> If you really want to work yourselves up into a lather, figure out the cuts on Jupiter.
> 
> Ok, now for more serious stuff...
> Field14 does have a point. Depending on your ability, form etc., cut sheets won't do you much good. You would need practical experience of you shooting those distances at different angles up and down to figure out what your tendencies are. You may shoot a 40 yard uphill quite a bit different than a 40 downhill at the same angle. Form and other things come into play. Some don't shoot the same form on both types of shots.
> 
> Be careful with technology. If you are going to use hi-tech gadgets and robots, computers to figure out stuff, you had better shoot like a robot.
> 
> I remember my first year at Redding. Only been shooting a bow for 4 months. I didn't cut anything that first time. Didn't need to. I shot 1475 with a wrong target shot perfectly in the dot for a 1486 if you don't go by the rules.  What I am trying to say is the better I got, the more I saw the need to cut on shots. At first, I only cut on the more severe angles. Now I will cut a half yard on certain distances when the chart tells me to or because I know what my tendencies are currently.
> 
> Know how far your arrow drops per every yard short or how high it impacts for every yard long at different distances.
> 
> For example, you find that for every yard short at 40, your arrow drops an inch at the point of impact, yet you shoot 4-5 inch groups at 40. Are you going to cut an half a yard? Why? It is a half an inch difference and that isn't going to show up much on the target for you. Remember, it might at a longer distance, but not at the shorter ones. That is something you need to consider. A yard at 80 would show up for most.
> 
> Just trying to help Field14 out with another perspective. Don't always do what the big boys do, it may hurt you as much as it helps you. Each archer has to take a look at where they are at the present time ability wise and how consistent they are shooting.
> 
> Shoot some shorter shots at say 25 yards uphill at 15 deg. and downhill at 15 deg. Don't cut anything. Shoot 5 ends of 4 arrows on each and see what you get. Write down your results.You might have a tendency to shoot low on the uphill and high on the downhill etc. There are several combinations of results that can happen.
> 
> Then do it all over again with your cuts and compare. Do the math to figure out the cuts. You might be surprised at what you see. If you have a tendency to shoot low on the uphill, cutting that shot is going to steal points away. Ya dig?
> 
> Then you can see what you might need to do at a 60 yard shot at the same angle. You might need to add yards on the uphill etc. Know YOUR shot.
> 
> Swami out...


And you know sometimes you just have to cut because if you don't somewhere in the back of your mind you will be thinkin about the cut and not the shot. So cut the target if for nothing else just to get it out of your head.


----------



## The Swami

Rattleman said:


> And you know sometimes you just have to cut because if you don't somewhere in the back of your mind you will be thinkin about the cut and not the shot. So cut the target if for nothing else just to get it out of your head.


Yep, but if it misses because of the cut, I would think you could shoot the next 3 at the normal yardage with a clear conscience.


----------



## 2005Ultramag

The Swami said:


> Yep, but if it misses because of the cut, I would think you could shoot the next 3 at the normal yardage with a clear conscience.


Sounds like the voice of experience.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau

Here are some similar calculations I did for an uphill driving range. The driving range was on a hill and I wanted to know how far a shot would go if the range was flat. I surveyed each pin with a Suunto Inclinometer on a tripod and solved the equations of motion knowing the launch angle (club face angle) and one point along the trajectory (the coordinates of the pin). This is similar, but not quite, the same as the archery problem. You can see how you have to play the golf shot at different distances depending on the club. Each club requires a different initial velocity to hit the target. I have thought of redoing this calculation for archery but have not done so yet (although I have posted calculations showing the physics and geometry for barebow gap shooting and stringwalking on AT).


----------



## Rattleman

The Swami said:


> Yep, but if it misses because of the cut, I would think you could shoot the next 3 at the normal yardage with a clear conscience.


True but sometimes I may only cut a couple of clicks which really amount to nothing in most cases just to satisfy my mind and nothing else.


----------



## DHawk2

I haven't shot a course YET that would require a cut. My "home course" only has 1 target on any slope and its not much of one at 45yds.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Here are some similar calculations I did for an uphill driving range. The driving range was on a hill and I wanted to know how far a shot would go if the range was flat. I surveyed each pin with a Suunto Inclinometer on a tripod and solved the equations of motion knowing the launch angle (club face angle) and one point along the trajectory (the coordinates of the pin). This is similar, but not quite, the same as the archery problem. You can see how you have to play the golf shot at different distances depending on the club. Each club requires a different initial velocity to hit the target. I have thought of redoing this calculation for archery but have not done so yet (although I have posted calculations showing the physics and geometry for barebow gap shooting and stringwalking on AT).


Similar situation. Notice how the "vertical difference" value (i.e., "drop") for all cases are basically identical.......same time in air gives gravity equal time for effect.


----------



## 5spotbullseye

Rattleman said:


> True but sometimes I may only cut a couple of clicks which really amount to nothing in most cases just to satisfy my mind and nothing else.


Same here.....


----------



## The Swami

Rattleman said:


> True but sometimes I may only cut a couple of clicks which really amount to nothing in most cases just to satisfy my mind and nothing else.


That would be the smart way to do it.


----------



## The Swami

2005Ultramag said:


> Sounds like the voice of experience.


Yep.


----------



## C Doyle 88

5spotbullseye said:


> Alright.......a much needed breather has been taken over the weekend............
> 
> Brownhornet - as I said, if I took your intent the wrong way, I'm sorry. In reality, I like to keep things simple as well.......not saying I don't like to figure out WHY things are done a certain way for curiousity sake.......but the less thinking you have to do in this sport the better off you are. I also cut so I don't miss.
> 
> For the time being, I'm gonna wrap up my thoughts here real quick.
> 
> The advantage of a decreased horizontal distance for a sloped target is offset by the disadvantage of the decreased horizontal speed; this means that for flat, uphill, or downhill shots, the arrow is in the air the same amount of time. This means that gravity has an equal time to effect the flight, resulting in the same drop. So, the old reasoning for cutting a target due to the shorter distance isnt actually true..........but ends up being a decent (& simple) estimate in MOST cases. The actual reason for the cuts is primarily due to parallax error. The link I posted from Archer's Advantage explains it in better detail then what I could have.
> 
> In any case.........the best method for estimating cuts is to go out there and shoot the course.


You gave up too quickly-----
If you look back at Perry's article---toward the end it is explained as the time climbing to the apex is longer--and the time falling from the apex is shorter--giving it a slower/more time to the target path and therefore shoots low instead of needing a cut

The first time reading through it---it is hard to separate this part from the paralax portion---but it is a part of his program ---I was glad to see it was considered---myself !


----------



## scottranderson

Great thread


----------



## huteson2us2

If you are going to shoot Darrington this year, you need to understand how to cut for hills. The funniest thing that happened to me a couple of years ago was when we shot the 55 yard straight uphill shot at Darrington. The first person up shot a three high and said I don't understand it I added 3 yards to my sight and hit high. I explained to him that it would be better to subtract a couple of yards. He and the others two in the group disagreed with me. I shot second putting all 4 in the spot. The other two shot high. After we scored, it was decided that I had also added yards to my sight but had aimed at the bottom of the spot. I did not argue with them again. Stupid is as stupid does. If the people on this forum can't understand simple math then I say great. More compeditors not to worry about at the Nationals.


----------



## Brown Hornet

huteson2us2 said:


> If you are going to shoot Darrington this year, you need to understand how to cut for hills. The funniest thing that happened to me a couple of years ago was when we shot the 55 yard straight uphill shot at Darrington. The first person up shot a three high and said I don't understand it I added 3 yards to my sight and hit high. I explained to him that it would be better to subtract a couple of yards. He and the others two in the group disagreed with me. I shot second putting all 4 in the spot. The other two shot high. After we scored, it was decided that I had also added yards to my sight but had aimed at the bottom of the spot. I did not argue with them again. Stupid is as stupid does. If the people on this forum can't understand simple math then I say great. More compeditors not to worry about at the Nationals.


:chortle: now that's a great story. We cal it cutting yardage for a reason. Never seen anyone cut anything to make it longer. :wink: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## field14

huteson2us2 said:


> If you are going to shoot Darrington this year, you need to understand how to cut for hills. The funniest thing that happened to me a couple of years ago was when we shot the 55 yard straight uphill shot at Darrington. The first person up shot a three high and said I don't understand it I added 3 yards to my sight and hit high. I explained to him that it would be better to subtract a couple of yards. He and the others two in the group disagreed with me. I shot second putting all 4 in the spot. The other two shot high. After we scored, it was decided that I had also added yards to my sight but had aimed at the bottom of the spot. I did not argue with them again. Stupid is as stupid does. If the people on this forum can't understand simple math then I say great. More compeditors not to worry about at the Nationals.


That is what happens when people are not "ProActive" and don't go out and find out for themselves how THEY perform with uphill, downhill, toes up, toes down. In addition, of course there are those that depend totally upon the "cut charts" and the computers to tell and give them everything, but have NOT gone out and actually shot under those conditions. Conditions, which, with a little bit of "ProActive" thought processes CAN be practiced, even without the hills/side slopes being on their home course.
The computers and cut charts might "give" you the supposed cuts; but if you don't know how YOU are affected by the angles of the dangles, you'll still shoot your "4" or worse anyways, hahaha.
Funny in that the cut charts given out for Darrington by the "computers" are not any better than those given out by the likes of Dean Pridgen and Mike Leiter...who SHOT theirs "in", and KNOW how to handle the cuts without depending upon computers and tables, etc. Just sayin'.....nothing like ProActive experience and doing LEARNING it instead of depending completely upon technology and not knowing yourself or your equipment ahead of time. Yes, I do have those Darrington Cut Charts...and Dean's and Mike's are as accurate, if not more accurate than the computerized versions for the same targets, so I'm NOT talking off the top of my head, haha.
A "ProActive" field shooter would know almost immediately that for a steep uphill you CUT yardage and not add yardage. How Much? Depends not only on the angle...but also upon how well YOU are tuned and ProActively practiced and lessoned in the tools of the trade.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

5spotbullseye said, "In any case.........the best method for estimating cuts is to go out there and shoot the course". that works ONLY if you are allowed to shoot the course(s) ahead of time, which most of the time, there isn't any practice on the courses to be shot during the event...unless you are lucky to get there way early, or have shot the course before and keep track of things.

However, a good, "ProActive" field shooter keeps tabs on things during the course of the round and has learned to "read" targets by more ways than one...and that didn't include until very recently a set of angle compensating range finders or a clinometer...but rather by SHOOTING and paying attention to what is going on around you. The greats such as Lancaster, Pridgen, Leiter, Ragsdale, Kapp, and oh, so many others didn't have the gadgetry...heck, they didn't even have computerized site tapes...and they STILL shot those amazing scores on field courses around the country, including Darrington, and more. They learned their equipment; they learned how THEY and their bodies handled the ups and downs and angles; and they learned how to "read" a target and get it right without depending upon technology to bail them out.
This can and is LEARNED, and the technology is the backup, not the primary, for when the ProActive field shooter is a bit stumped and the gut feeling needs a backup to confirm it.

too many people getting too technical when they don't even know how their equipment shoots and how the SHOOTER handles those situations when things aren't dead level with firm and solid/even footing. FIDGAS...because physics aside, knowing all that physics stuff is nice...but it is mostly in how the shooter handles the situations presented...both physically and mentally that makes the difference. Knowing a physics or trig formula does little good if the shooter cannot handle the situation and hasn't practiced it.
What is sad is that so few newbies today are willing to put in that work to learn themselves and their equipment...but want it "given to them" by technology.


----------



## C Doyle 88

Brown Hornet said:


> :chortle: now that's a great story. We cal it cutting yardage for a reason. Never seen anyone cut anything to make it longer. :wink:
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your silly BH --you've seen shooters w/that much palm control(oops) affect ---I know you have 
MERRY CHRISTMAS all !!!!

Cec


----------



## SonnyThomas

Tom might remember the old Caterpillar Archery Club and their Tough Man 3D event at the end of the year. Hill so steep that fence posts with hay ropes were needed to go down and climb out. Dug out spots on the steep hills just enough to stand without falling, staked on the downhill side to keep from slipping. The long shot going down the last year held was a McKenzie walking bear, at least 75 yards down hill and out on the flat by another 20 feet. We didn't use range finders back then. Those of that shot it for 25 yards walked away with 10s. Those that shot it for 75 yards went walking looking for their arrows. Stuck in the ground fletch up I thought arrows could have been found pretty easy, but some were lost. Of course this was back when we had 3D courses instead of the golf courses clubs and shooters want today.
Sorry about the 3D in this Field thread, but I thought the angles we use to shoot compared to the discussion.


----------



## C Doyle 88

Yea Sonny--the point is well taken and the game of 3D isn't as intended at the start ---the golf coarse hunts are not --so the extremes are needed and not practiced so they can keep the scores & $ up while actual hunting can suffer and I'll leave it at that
MERRY CHRISTMAS

Cec


----------



## field14

C Doyle 88 said:


> Yea Sonny--the point is well taken and the game of 3D isn't as intended at the start ---the golf coarse hunts are not --so the extremes are needed and not practiced so they can keep the scores & $ up while actual hunting can suffer and I'll leave it at that
> MERRY CHRISTMAS
> 
> Cec


Sonny,
Yep, remember the CAT course well. The last time I shot it that very last year it was there, I was struggling with that bunged up knee, and those hills/slopes were a real bother just for me to negotiate without screaming. The "shooting" and "cuts" part of it was a snap...but the slopes, ropes, and "dopes"? Those were the tough part.

Funniest part of it is that "some" think the gadgetry catches them up with the more experienced shooters, when in reality, the gadgetry, if not utilized correctly by someone that knows their equipment and THEIR tendencies (as opposed to the others in their group's "opinions") are doomed, oftentimes, to LOWER scores, and the expense to boot. Gadgetry in the correct hands can been a boon...but in the wrong hands is a liability more than a help. It sure won't bring you from the 530s' into the 550's, or likely even from the 530's to the mid-540s without some dedication, practice, and learning yourself and your equipment.

But then, what the heck, spend the bucks anyways, its only money and you can't take the $$$ with you when you croak off anyways. Myself, I'd recommend taking those funds and spend them on a good coach or trips to "tougher" ranges at times other than for tournament "play." You'll gain much more from that.

"ProActive Archery" Chapters 29-36 would be a HUGE help, hahaha. Just google ProActive Archery, you'll find it.

field14


----------



## MrKrabs

I've always thought the need for cutting yardage had a much easier explanation than parallax. Gravity only works on the horizontal path of the arrow since gravity pulls straight down no matter the slope of the land.


----------



## Brown Hornet

C Doyle 88 said:


> Your silly BH --you've seen shooters w/that much palm control(oops) affect ---I know you have
> MERRY CHRISTMAS all !!!!
> 
> Cec


I have seen guys do all kinds of stuff to jack up a shot...but I don't count what they are doing into things :chortle: 

That's like if your a 285 with 20-30X 5 spot shooter...when we go to another range I am not gonna worry when you say your sights are off cuz the lighting is different :wink:


----------



## field14

Brown Hornet said:


> I have seen guys do all kinds of stuff to jack up a shot...but I don't count what they are doing into things :chortle:
> 
> That's like if your a 285 with 20-30X 5 spot shooter...when we go to another range I am not gonna worry when you say your sights are off cuz the lighting is different :wink:


They need 2013 DM Phase-Inhibitor BAD! I think that, just like the boxes of 60X-300's and boxes of 30X-300 Vegas scores, that in all likelihood 2013 DM Phase-Inhibitor is already on back-order. This stuff is really tough to come by...you either have loft, or you have LOFT and there is a difference on the order form as to which you specify...those with loft go to the bottom of the list, while those with LOFT have to present qualifying data and then are fed into the pool for 2013 DM Phase Inhibitor.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## rock monkey

i'd like a sample of the new stuff.

just dont give me any of that ver4x crap with the foam repellant. i couldnt hit a x ring if i tried and it's harder than silicone to get off.


----------

