# Rick Mckinney - Fletching Test



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Art. This is not an easy answer. I also believe that every top archer has developed their own method to find out what works best for their shooting style. I am sure many have experimented in strange ways but have found an efficient method to their madness that gives them the best results as quickly as possible. After all, there are several pieces of equipment a person has to test to find out what works best. And…after finding a piece of equipment that works for a particular setup, they have to go back and re-test it when they change something. Say for instance they change arrow rests, or they change the type of arrow they use. The different poundage limbs will cause some setups to work well and others not to. This is an ongoing process that really should never stop other than to figure out what works best at the moment and focus on your shooting just before a major event. 

Now, having said that, I used to be fairly methodical in my process to determine what vane will work best for me. I keep my regular vanes as is. Let’s call them setup A. Then fletch 6 arrows with a different fletch. We can call them setup B. I proceed to shoot my favorite distance at first since I am most comfortable with it and understand all of the nuances in shooting that distance. Then I proceed to shoot 3 arrows of type A and then 3 of type B in that order for the first end. I also have all of my arrows numbered so I can record them. I also shoot them in sequential order to make sure I can tell if it is the arrow shaft or me or the shooting sequence number. 

I then plot each arrow. Once they are plotted, I then shoot again but using type B first and then type A second. I do this rotation to make sure neither has an advantage over the other. I do this for maybe 72 arrows or 36 arrows each. Don’t forget that an elite archer can determine a result with far fewer shots than an intermediate level archer. Once I have finished I observe the scores to see if there is any discernable difference. If there is a blatant difference, then it is a no brainer. I take that particular setup and change it to something different. Let’s say that type A wins hands down over type B. I then would change the angle of the fletch of type B to see if I can make it any better. I will also plot each arrow number on one target. Thus #1 will have six arrows in it all with the #1 arrow. Not the number 1 shot first, but the actual arrow that is numbered one. I can then see if there is an issue with the particular arrow or even me. I will follow the same procedure as mentioned above. If it gets to a point that both are very close then it will take some more testing. This process of testing a product to make sure it works takes a few weeks if not a full month. I recall a time that I thought for sure that the thinner made spin wing was the ultimate in performance. I was shooting unbelievable groups over the standard spin wing. Then one day I was shooting in a tail wind that I seldom get and the arrows became extremely erratic. I pulled out the standard spin wings and started testing again and found them to be more stable in this situation. I put the thinner spin wings away. 

I have tested three different thickness of spin wings, 6 different spin wing lengths, 2 different tape widths and the five different colors. You can imagine the amount of time I spent on these items. I also tested the rubber vanes of flex-fletch and AAE. The 180’s, 200’s and 230’s and a couple of different colors. I tested the “rigid” AAE vanes, the Myro vanes and some other vanes of various lengths, colors and thickness. I would say that I was most fond of the Myro vanes until a friend of mine helped me learn how to shoot the spin wings and I have since shot those and have had great success with them. I even tried the flonite vane which I felt that “scientifically” would be the best vane due to is inflexibility, lightness and consistency. However, it was not near the consistency as the spin wing. Now, I hope to take some time and run some more tests on the Eli vanes. 

Keep in mind that it is not always necessary to go into detail with every test. If you try a vane that does not even come close to grouping, it is a waste of time to keep shooting the vane and hope that things get better. It could be anything, but the results will tell you that just because one archer shoots and loves a product it is always a good idea to test to find out what is best for you. Also, don’t forget the mental part of the test. I like to call it the “newness” period of testing a product. You always want a new product to shoot better so you will probably shoot better at first. That’s because you are more aware of the shooting and your focus is heightened as well. Once the newness wears off, the heightened awareness and focus drops thus the performance drops. That’s why you need to test the product several times against your old faithful setup. 

We all are looking for that magic setup. I used to get real excited when I tried out a new product and it usually did perform better at first, but once the newness wore off the score would drop and I had to continue on with what I had been shooting. That is why it is so important to record the information and look at it objectively. The facts do not lie. 

There for a time I was testing three items at one time. Using a sequence of A, B and C. Shooting similar to the old FITA ABC sequence. I still plotted the shots and spent three or four days on the setups to verify what works and what did not. But it can be an ongoing process if you are not careful. Don’t forget that a machine cannot duplicate the human shot. You are looking for a setup that is most forgiving. It takes some time but well worth the effort when you come up with something just a little bit better. 

Now if you choose to test different arrow lengths or different stabilizer systems, you will need to have two bows. You run a the same test as mentioned above. The one main thing to take into account is one bow versus another. After shooting your 72 arrows of the setups, then switch the setup to the other bow. Shoot again and see if there is any performance difference. This eliminates the variable of a different bow. Yes, it takes a lot of time. But you get a lot of shots in while doing this and if you focus on your form while testing you are accomplishing two goals.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Art, I cannot really add to what Rick said because I never went to that length. What I did was over the last 15 years or so shoot

1) Easton-AAE rubber vanes

2) Flex Fletch 1.87 shield cut vanes (which I still use for practice since they are incredibly durable)

3) the Rigid Flonite K vanes

4) Spin wings

5) Kurly Vanes

6) the K-spin vanes

I have shot at least 3 Star FITAS with each vane as well as 15 or so field shoots where I used the above stuff

My best results came from K spins or kurlies-in all fairness, the years I shot the SWings were my first two years shooting FITA and I was not shooting above 1100 scores. I switched to the Flonite about the time I started consistently shooting over 1150 (2000) and then to Kurlies (we opened a shop in 2001 and had Kurlies made with our shop's logo and I shot those For several years-through about 2004 when I developed serious shoulder issues that required surgery in the fall of 2005). After that surgery I switched to the K spins but my level of shooting had degraded-more from shooting a year with pain causing a lack of confidence rather than actual physical injury which was solved with the surgery. I switched back to Kurlies last year. I found that K Spins are great but when slighltly damaged they fly worse than kurlies or SW

My son Ian who is shooting very light weights (22 pounds) short draw length (22") shot National tounaments with K spins, Kurlies and flex fletch as well. By far his highest scores were when we switched him to kurlies from vanes


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

In thee days Michele is testing some new shafts and comparing again different fletching solution with them. Different arrows often need different fletching to get a good combination. First, he has selected the bare shafts by the usual method at 70 mt, getting 21 accptable ones out of 24. Then, he has fletched 6 of them with usual 2 3/16 Blue Spin wing he is using since round 15 years, 6 with another SW size/color and 6 with other curled vanes. 
He has shot the first session at 70mt around 6 times all of them, plus 3 bare shafts, to get a first impression. Then, he has started fine tuning the bow with the arrows that were performing better in terms of initial grouping (new curled vanes). Then, he has modificed sligtly the profile of the vanes by a nail trimer. Then, he has decided thta the smaller SW were useless, refletched them with the new vanes and has continued to tune and compare the remainig solutions, the new one and the old one. 
Around 180 arrows have been shot the first day just to decide the 2 among 3 to be carried on in testing. 
Testing and tuning is still continuing, and of course we hope to have some variable wind in the next days, as without wind of different intensity coming from different directions comparison/tuning will not be completed. Then, the final setup choosen will be used on Monday, 25th, in a local FITA round for the only real final test, shoot arrows in competiton. 
I can not count how many times these kind of testing for arrows, vanes or other accessories has been done in 21 years of Michele's activity. Some few national teams have now days wind tunells available to test arrows and different solutions with any kind of possibility to control ambient variables. We still work the old way. Tons of shots to decide if nock A is better than nock B or string serving C is better than string serving D. And same do tens of top level shooters in the world.


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

Can you tell us what curled vanes? Eli vanes or gas pro vanes?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Borja1300 said:


> Can you tell us what curled vanes? Eli vanes or gas pro vanes?


I've been told that they are more or less the same vane, hope someone can confirm this? At least they look identical, apart from the gaspro logo.


----------



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

Rick,
You do not mention re-tuning for each of the differently fletched arrow groups, or are you just looking for grouping and are not concerned with scoring?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Good question engtee. When I first play with a new vane I leave the tune alone. Then I will switch tunes to give the new vane the “advantage” and compare again. Usually, there is very little difference in tune unless you go from a heavy rubber vane to a spin wing type vane or you go from a spin wing vane to a rubber vane. 

As you guys can see, Vittorio's method is similar to mine as I suspect most top archers. It does take some time, but it is not time wasted, even if the results lead you back to your original setup. It's great practice and keeps an archer motivated.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

when I know my form is decent I like to tune and change a few things...agree it's not wasted time, sometimes re-establishing the tune you have builds confidence!


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Good question engtee. When I first play with a new vane I leave the tune alone. Then I will switch tunes to give the new vane the “advantage” and compare again. Usually, there is very little difference in tune unless you go from a heavy rubber vane to a spin wing type vane or you go from a spin wing vane to a rubber vane.
> 
> As you guys can see, Vittorio's method is similar to mine as I suspect most top archers. It does take some time, but it is not time wasted, even if the results lead you back to your original setup. It's great practice and keeps an archer motivated.


Maybe it's a waste of time only when the level of the archer is not good enought (less than 1300 points maybe?)


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Borja 1300. I guess you could look at it that way, but if you want to continue to improve your performance you need to test different products that just might give you an edge both psychologically and physically. You are only as strong as your weakest point. Testing product encourages archers to shoot more and whether the product proves to work or not, it gives the archer more confidence (as cc46 stated) overall. Knowing increases your understanding of how things work for you. 

Tommicheal444. I am not sure that is actually true. From the experience I have had, a well tuned bare shaft will work fine for all weights. Years ago I shot 520’s, 470’s and special made 500’s at 90,70,50 & 30 meters. All bare shafts while testing and found them all to work fine with a bit of adjustment. The big challenge is form consistency to get good reading results. If your form is still in it’s infancy, it is best to not spend all of your time bare shaft tuning since each shot might give a different result. Just get it close and spend your time on form consistency. Play with the bare shaft at times to see if your consistency is improving but otherwise it is best to mainly work on form.


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Borja 1300. I guess you could look at it that way, but if you want to continue to improve your performance you need to test different products that just might give you an edge both psychologically and physically. You are only as strong as your weakest point. Testing product encourages archers to shoot more and whether the product proves to work or not, it gives the archer more confidence (as cc46 stated) overall. Knowing increases your understanding of how things work for you.


Obviously test diferent materials like limbs, arrows, etc is needed to do but what I mean is that more important at some levels to focus in things like bow arm, head position, body control, etc than give attention to vanes colours, angles or whatever. For me, that things are not enough important if you have not raised certain skills in archery. Just my opinion 

I'm saying that because I saw people that hardly made 1000 points in a FITA round testing different nock brands or string material. They won't take any clear conclusion at that low level from do tests. Obviously its funny, but not productive.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Rick, JimC, Vittorio...thank you so much for spending that much time in pass the above on....if this wasn't an open forum I'd probably say "Holy Sh39T" but since it is I'll just say WOW!. Frankly, I had no idea tuning and testing was that laborious, but as you say, it gives tons of practice.

One question I did have for you Rich, as Vittorio said, Michael starts with bare shaft and then proceeds. Do you do the same or do you just start with a tested old set up? I would assume bare shaft testing would be only with new shafts.

Thanks again guys..this has been a real eye opener for me.

Art

P.S. This should be made into at Sticky.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

Borja1300 said:


> I'm saying that because I saw people that hardly made 1000 points in a FITA round testing different nock brands or string material. They won't take any clear conclusion at that low level from do tests. Obviously its funny, but not productive.


I disagree slightly with that. Someone could be shooting 360 at 30m, but falling off at say 90m simply because their setup isn't suited for it or their long distance shooting form isn't up to scratch (sadly, I suffer this, I don't shoot 360, but 330's at 30m and my 90m scores are well below the rating that they should be because I have shonky long distance form). They could test the difference in brands/types/equipment at the distance that they are nailing and see if there is any difference to their groups. A total event round isn't as clear cut as say 1 set distance (as stated by Rick, a favourite distance that they are comfortable and understand in shooting).


----------



## rossing6 (Jun 7, 2008)

Like the last guy said, make sure what you pick works at all the distances you'll compete at. I prefer to determine what the smallest size vane is that will work on whatever setup I have and will compete with. I like to know that on a particular size arrow shaft, FOC combination, that the vane size is adequate to correct quickly. For example I took a set of X10 PRotours and fletched them with Flex Fletch .187 shields, ffp-200 parabolic, AAE 2" shields, FFP-225, etc, and spin wings (black I think was the color) and then I purposely set my rest for a 2" high tear (bare shaft) at 10 feet or so. Then I shot each vane combo through paper to see which vanes correct and how quickly. I do this at several distances to make sure the vane is correcting and has the arrow completely stabilized...interestingly enough, the spin wings could grab just about anything I could throw out, which means they completely correct for poor launch, possible creating the best scenario for the max forgiveness due to shooter error...obviously the smaller vanes will perform less aggressively, but with a tuned bow/arrow, if one is going for crosswind minimization, the you have to get the most from the vane with the smallest size using the small diameter shafts, but as I go to larger shafts the vane performance decreases as well, so for each shaft size I have figured the minimum performance vane I can use for wind issues...and when tuning for arrows at long distance, I make sure I am using the minimum offset needed for solid carry, but not so much that the arrow is dropping off rapidly at max 90 meter or 101 yds, as that causes larger groups....So there is a happy middle ground...but I always say tune the bow and arrow set up as best you can prior to relying on vanes to "correct" for poor flight or launch, let the vane just keep the arrow on course, and have the ability to correct for the bad shot when you need it, not be relying on the vane correcting every shot, as then when you torque or make an error in that direction, the vane has no more performance for correction, and you lose points...I have noticed two primary things that cost points in people I observe, and one is undersized target vanes, and the other is too much offset or helical, robbing the shooter of the back end, the arrows start dropping out and bleeding off speed quickly.....thoughts and great info above...thanks for sharing for everyone. Cheers, Ryan


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

Flehrad said:


> I disagree slightly with that. Someone could be shooting 360 at 30m, but falling off at say 90m simply because their setup isn't suited for it or their long distance shooting form isn't up to scratch (sadly, I suffer this, I don't shoot 360, but 330's at 30m and my 90m scores are well below the rating that they should be because I have shonky long distance form). They could test the difference in brands/types/equipment at the distance that they are nailing and see if there is any difference to their groups. A total event round isn't as clear cut as say 1 set distance (as stated by Rick, a favourite distance that they are comfortable and understand in shooting).


About 10 years ago, I was shooting pretty good scores at all distances but 90 mts. About 340 at 30, and 315 at 50 and 70 mts but was very hardly for me do more than 260 at 90 mts. The solution was to train more at 90 mts. Without change any setup of my equipment, I begant to shoot 90/90 (90% of the arrows at 90 mts). After a couple of months, my PB at 90 raised to 298 (310 in training). At the same time all the rest of PB raised to but the proportion of the different distances was more equal. About 350 at 30 mts, 320-325 at 50 and 70 mts and about 290-295 at 90 mts.
I put my PB from 1225 to 1289 in a couple of months of training just changing the kind of traning done.
I've never played with vanes, brace-height (always 23 cm, no mather what) and anything. Just bareshaft tunning. Thats all.
I'm very sure that this amount of point hadn't been raised only playing with vanes, or anything. And If I had been a 1000 points archer... 
Equipment is a important part of the shoot, but the less important.
You don't really need anything but a bareshaft tuning for raise 1250.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

I don't disagree with you that training will raise your scores if you take that approach, since it is the same approach I take, except my current working distance is 70m, and not 90m. But, *if* someone who felt that they needed to pick the gear that works for them the best by doing testing, then they should still do it regardless of what score they shoot.

The mental aspect of this is very significant, as if they feel that setup A is better than setup B because of their 'testing' and are confident with it, then they will shoot better for it, regardless of their skill level.

That, is my opinion.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

You guys have some good thought and insight. I really believe that you both are right between testing the product versus not testing and just working on your form. I think it depends on the mindset you have. Borja, you have chosen wisely on what works for you and you are correct that the equipment will not give you much in points compared to your form consistency. You chose well to use 90 meters because it requires more discipline and can magnify all of your mistakes, thus you were able to learn from this. Many archers cannot transition this knowledge to the other distances though. You can see this when you look at scores from tournaments and see the people who start out with a high 90 meter score and then drop down to a much lower level at the other three distances. This is more mental than anything but it could also be related to equipment. 

Flehrad you are correct as well since the mental game is so important to most people. The key is that you need to figure out what works for you. Some will need to just focus on shot execution and probably have a good understanding of tune while others need to focus on the mental game and find things that make them shoot better and more consistent or what gives them confidence. 

Two things to remember if your shooting is inconsistent at different distances. If you group real well at the long distance and not so well at the closer distances, then you need to make sure you are not hitting anything (contact). The longer distance allows the arrow to correct itself and you will group fairly well. But at the closer distance you may continue to hit right and left or high and low due to the contact. If you are grouping at the short distances but really struggle at the longer distance your fletching may be parachuting or the spin is becoming faster than the speed of the arrow. As the arrow slows down the spin may not thus it “parachutes” the final 10-20 meters or you could say it is “floating” to the target. A slight wind will reek havoc with your grouping.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

I actually have 2 distinct problems with my distance shooting, and only 1 with my short distance (and I realise this is going tangental from the main thread purpose). My long distance is that I normally shoot with a open ring and it wobbles massively when trying to center the gold inside the ring. Only yesterday I have put in a pin to see if I can shoot pin again (I used to, but was over-concentrating on it, so took it out). My second distance problem is string picture alignment, when I get the string aligned to my sight ring, the group width is very narrow, when I don't, it's everywhere. Those two make big groups at long distance. At short distance, it is usually the end of the day, and so I get tired and end up plucking my release with left/right deviation, and dropping my bow arm causing low shots.

I don't know if tuning would assist any of those problems BUT, I know that through tuning processes already done, all errors that occur are from *me*, and not my equipment, so I have peace of mind that they are going there because I put them there, not because of the gear.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Testing is never a waste of time, regardless of your level of shooting. 

And here's why I say that...

Because so much of competition is about confidence. And you have to have confidence in your equipment. The way you develop that is through testing. Conducting your OWN tests, that you have confidence in, is the only way to be sure that you are satisfied with your equipment.

It helps to have a science background and understand testing variables vs. control, etc. as Rick points out so well. However, even if you make up your own test (which I recommend everyone does), it will be better than none at all. It should be systematic and repeatable and you should take good notes. That's the only three things that really count in the long run.

Again, YOU and YOU alone must trust your equipment and the methods you chose to select them. That means lots of testing and testing in a way you understand and are confident in. Because standing on the line wondering if you have the right gear in your hands is a pretty crappy feeling - and no way to win.

Personally, the method Rick describes is about as good as a person can do. Trouble is, none of us make a living shooting bows so rarely do we have the kind of time required to do this, if ever. So you compromise and find your own solution, borrowing parts of this or that method. 

How did I select arrows? Well, I prefer to keep things simple and focus on results and not the process. So I let the target decide. By that I mean that I shot a few dozen arrows, all tuned appropriately for the bow of course, with different things about them that I felt were important to test (vanes, point weight, length, spine, nocks, etc.) over the course of a few months. I tracked the score for every single arrow that I shot over that time, and let the arrows "battle it out" so to speak, during that time. Eventually, the best 12 and finally the best 6 arrows rose to the top. Those were the ones that produced the most points over that period of time.

Again, simple. Results are what matter. And when I shot those 6 arrows, I knew that they - for whatever reason - had produced the most points for me. I don't always have to understand the reason. Sometimes faith is more important than fact. 

John


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Testing is never a waste of time, regardless of your level of shooting.
> 
> And here's why I say that...
> 
> ...



Very nicely said!
This is outstanding advice for anyone to follow.
Thanks John.


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

Hi John,

I'm agree with you but the lowest level the archer had, more arrows you'll need to take conclusions and that's the waste that I was talking about.
And, lets say, if you are grouping inside the blue at 30mts, you can test all the vanes you want, or nocks but you won't find any diference at all.
So, for me, it's more important to work with form until the archer have some skills.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

KISS method....great advise and a good idea...thanks John. Do you bare shaft at all?? I've always depended on this to tell me if the bow and the arrows were dancing well together.
Art


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

ArtV said:


> KISS method....great advise and a good idea...thanks John. Do you bare shaft at all?? I've always depended on this to tell me if the bow and the arrows were dancing well together.
> Art


Rick said -

"As you guys can see, Vittorio's method is similar to mine as I suspect most top archers. It does take some time, but it is not time wasted, even if the results lead you back to your original setup. It's great practice and keeps an archer motivated." 

Rick, has a great point here, shooting is shooting, time behind the bow especially if you are concentrating on quality form to give each arrow a fair test is quality practice time too....I would imagine a full test of shafts using basically Rick's method might take a week to a month for the average working person.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I know we are going off on a tangent but yet it is still important for not only fletching but for all of your training.

John, as usual, you are spot on…..except…. (BIG smiley goes here!)…the amount of time required. I still do not believe you have to spend a ton of time to learn and train. You just have to develop good time management skills. I would never have been able to just train full time. As a matter of fact, I spent about 1 to 2 hours per day on my training from 1975-1996. I am one of those guys who had to have a full plate but it could not be with just one thing. 

In the 70’s, I worked at my father’s archery center. I worked from 11Am to usually around midnight and sometimes later. Yes, I found time to shoot a little at 20 yards (indoor) and worked on form. But again, I shot about 100 arrows in about 15 to 20 minutes. I did not shoot a lot of target as much as blank bale training. When I did shoot at a target it was more to check my form to make sure it stayed consistent and accurate with my blank bale training. I normally shot a full dozen arrows at one time and shot as much as a machine as I could which meant that I shot all 12 arrows non-stop and with a method of load, pull, shoot, load, pull, shoot….. This helped develop my muscle training and rhythm. And for those who have never run an archery shop, there is hardly ever time for shooting, since you are always, fletching, building strings, setting up bows, ordering materials and dealing with customers. Running leagues took a great amount of time as well since we had a minimum of 3 per week. 

In the 80’s I spent my time going to school and spending 20 hours per week with the NAA as a volunteer and board member. When I graduated from ASU I immediately took on a lot of responsibility with the NAA as their fund raiser and ran the USAT program as well as a consultant for 15 plus archery companies. I was averaging about 240 days a year traveling competing, giving seminars and working. 

How did I find time to test things? I would think about archery all day long. I would then find something that interested me and make a plan on how to test it. I would then find a day to run out and shoot, plot and review the results. It still only took about an hour to two hours at the most. 

Time management is so critical if you want to excel in anything. When I ran for cardio, I also did my mental work. After all, you are just jogging and can do a ton of mental imagery, self talk and self esteem building. The run only took 30 minutes plus your stretching and cool downs would be between 45-60 minutes. That was always in the mornings for me before I started my day. I usually shot right after that so I could get it out of the way for my day of work. 

So, I guess it is up to the individual to figure out how to schedule their day. Watching TV, being on the computer and reading takes time that could be spent on your training. Yes, we all have to have quality time for family and time for work and sleep. But most people waste a lot of time that could be used more efficiently.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Rick, One thing you've not touched on is HOW you fletched your arrows. Do you still do it by marking and hand installing, or have you found a more mechanical method of putting fletching on?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Huntmaster. I ran several tests to find out if a “mechanical” application would be better than just laying the tape and fletch on the shafts and found no performance difference. Since time was usually important to me, I continued to hand apply the fletchings. 

I used a tool built by Santi Spigareli from Italy. You slide a tube like item over the shaft and it had three opening slits 120 degrees apart and you drew your lines on the shaft with it. An excellent tool that was easy to carry around in your tackle box. 

I am sure most know that using a fletching jig will produce similar lines unless you are using Beiter’s asymmetrical nocks. Since the nocks were not symmetrical it did not give you three lines 120 degrees apart. Beiter came up with a solution ,which you clipped onto your nock making it symmetrical just for applying the lines. 

Now having said the above, I did not find any performance difference with having the lines a bit off. Although, psychologically it would be better if you had the lines drawn as close to 120 degrees apart as you could. 

The funny thing about Spin Wings was that a lot of times I had torn vanes and they still shot in the middle. It depended on the tear of course. If I got a small rip in the front of the vane (towards the point) I would rip the tear off and if there was at least 50 percent left of the vane it shot great. If you left the tear alone it would flutter and definitely cause performance issues.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

One thing I found interesting was the amount of archers who applied the tape on the vane and then applied both onto the shaft as one. Although this appeared to be the best way or most logical way, I found that the tape did not stick on the shaft as well compared to applying the tape on the shaft first and then laying the vane on top of the tape. The vane is going to curl up on the edges. It always has and it probably always will. Thus if the tape is on the vane, the tape does not have a solid attachment to the shaft. Thus the curl will pull the tape up off the shaft and will be easy for the entire fletch to pull up off the shaft. When the tape is 100 percent on the shaft it stays there until you rub it off with some serious thumb work out. You will notice that if the tape is applied on the vane first, it is very easy to pull the tape and vane off the shaft. This is not good during a major event! Thus, I put the tape on first and then the vane.


----------



## Borja1300 (Oct 12, 2007)

I never heard about putting the tape on the vane. The instructions sheet says that you have to put the tape over the shaft first.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

I apply my tape onto my shaft first, then stick the vane on backwards, then crease the fletch back upwards. This gives 100% sticking contact on the tape and it will never lift off if you do it right. In addition to this, it lowers the vane profile by a tiny amount, also reducing the drag a tiny amount. I have never had a vane come off that wasn't involved with a pass-through or grass related shot, and I've had fletches shot off that leave a thin strip of vane still stuck on the tape on the shaft, looks pretty


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, that's a pretty amazing schedule you kept. Yes, time management is the key. Another way to say it is "priorities..." Where are your priorities? If you want something bad enough, you'll always find a way to make the time for it. As was point out though, the higher the skill level, the quicker the results will become clear. So, folks should keep that in mind - but not be discouraged since any time spent on this stuff is productive as long as you have a good method and you stick to it. What I see folks doing is changing too many variables at once (in other words, not following the scientific method) because they are impatient. Then they get confused and start chasing their tails... Not good!

Art, yes, I followed Vittorio's bare shaft method pretty closely, although I didn't realize it at the time... When I'd get a new dozen arrows, I'd tune them and shoot just the bare shafts at 70 meters for a few days to see patterns. With Easton ACE's, I'd ususually get 1-2 fliers in the group. With X10's, I'd usually get 2-3 fliers. One of the reasons I switched to CX Nano XR's and then Nano Pro's is because I have yet to get a flier in a dozen of those, and I figure if you're going to spend that kind of money on arrows, there is really no excuse for fliers...

John


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Just going back for a while to curled vanes vs flat ones, it's worth to have a look to the pictures of the first stage of the 2011 Wolrd Cup to see what top level archers are using in these days:

http://www.worldarchery.org/UserFil...ry/WorldCups/WorldCup2011/01_Porec/index.html


----------



## Ricfranz (Feb 20, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> I used a tool built by Santi Spigareli from Italy.


For the story: the tool is built by Spigarelli, but was invented by Giancarlo Ferrari: i've one of the originals where is impressed GF.


----------



## nemr (Mar 19, 2010)

Dear Rick, 

I have a question regarding the VLD vanes. I understand that both the normal 1"3/4 and the 1"3/4 VLD has 4 degrees of drag white the least and red the most. But I couldn't find any technical info about weather those 8 steps (4 in the normal and 4 in the VLD). Weather they do overlap or they connect. 

For example would the red of the VLD have less drag than the white in the normal vanes? And would that be just like the step between yellow and white? 

Is VLD recommended for X10 arrows or there is absolutely no rule but testing? 

Thank you, 

Ahmad.


----------

