# Truth about arrow spine



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

If the spine is that far off, and you would rather just shoot, I would do just that. At 20 yards, perfect tune isn't totally necessary. It will be if you're in contention at Vegas or at World's Indoor, but in most other cases it's not the end of the world. 

I am shooting arrows that are a bit stiff, but they group very well, and my score doesn't seem affected much so I leave them alone. 

If your arrows are stiff, and you would like to sort them out better, there are some tricks that can be done. Heavier points, lighter vanes, less-strand count string, increase weight, increase brace height, switch from brass to tie nock sets.


----------



## VinZ (Apr 30, 2007)

I guess you are recurve, because that where things get a bit more complicated. Easton carbon recommandations for recurve are with a 'R' behind and those recommendations are still a bit on the stiff side. How much is depended on you shooting style, bow weight, type of limbs etc.


----------



## 3D-Nut (Jan 26, 2007)

I hold alot of stock into properly spined arrows. I got some 2613 X7's that were very overspined but I though my scores would go up with the larger diameter. They go down every time I shoot them. When I shoot arrows that are spined correctly even though they may be 3 sizes smaller, my scores are always higher. I have even shot 1/2 game with one set and the other 1/2 with the other set and I always shoot notably worse with grossly overspined arrows. When everything is tuned right, things are more forgiving and responsive. That is worth its weight in gold when you dont execute a shot perfectly, but execute it acceptably. With an unforgiving set up, you can execute a shot well, but not perfect and be WAY off the mark when on the flip side you could still catch the X.

Hope that helps some.


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

wte said:


> Just wondering how critical correct arrow spine is at 20 yrds indoors?
> I have tried many types of arrows from all carbon, carbon/aluminum, and aluminum. In every case I have followed the arrow manufactures recommendations on size for my arrow length vs. draw weight and in every case I have ended up with arrows that appear to be way to stiff and will not bare shaft tune. Not even close. Given that the arrows should be consitant in spine within a group of arrows that are the same brand, model, and size. shouldn't they group well? I feel that I am getting hung up on the fact that my arrows will not bare shaft tune, therefore, they are not grouping well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Todd


Arrows that don't paradox correctly are of little practical use. There are a number of things that can be done to decrease the spine of a stiff arrow. Easton's tuning guide is a great place to start gathering ideas to plan an attack on the problem. Once one has a plan in place one can then decide if the time and effort would not be better spent on a different shaft.

It seems that there is not enough mention of the spine deflection number in typical arrow shaft selection discussions. Easton charts recommend a greater spine deflection for a recurve bow (weaker spine) the "R" in the chart. 

What spine deflection number, draw weight, draw length, point weight, plunger spring and setting are you currently using?


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Most mfg recommendations and arrow size charts are listed over spine. When using the Easton chart or software I usually consider at least one if not two sizes weaker. I think its a liability issue.

Get a program like The Archery Program (TAP) or Archers Advantage. They seem to be a bit more accurate. One set of wrong sized arrows make up the cost..


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Arrow spine has a great deal to do with the make up of your release and what equipment you have. Here are a few things that effect what arrow you will need greatly.

1. Tab style and thickness. A thick stiff tab will increase the amplitude of the first bending cycle and will require at least one size stiffer arrow.

2. Dumping your back. This is where all the muscles in the back and bow arm let go at the same time your fingers do. Some call this collapsing, depending on where it's most prevalent. The bottom line is you will need two sizes stiffer between being a total dumper and using proper back tension. It's like shortening your draw 2" if you collapse and dump your string elbow forward at the same time. It's very subtle, but quite easy to see on video at 30 fps. The back tension must continue to extend while the string fingers relax during release to get an effectively consistant draw length.

3. Riser and Limb combo's. Some risers and limbs simply do not create the same arrow spine requirement. There is a two arrow size difference between last years Hoyt's and a WinEX/Inno combo. The speeds are only a couple fps different, but the geometry can be significantly different.

Now add nock points, nocks, strings, fletching type and such to the equation and you can easily get a setup, shot routine and combo that will never come close to the chart, but is perfectly capable of shooting world records.

My suggestion would be to do some video to make sure you're not dumping and losing lots of draw length during the release. This one you can train out and perfect so that you move into the arrows you have. If it's not the back tension, but the equipment, don't sweat it. Just buy the lower spined arrow and shoot 10's 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

mfg recommendations. 

They can't account for how each person shoots. A poor release will stiffen or weaken (normally stiffen I think) the dynamic spine of an arrow. I'd venture that the majority of people have a less than stellar release of the string which is why they think the charts are wrong and are too stiff.

It isn't always a bad thing, if your poor release is the same every time, just buy the arrows that spines for you. Or improve your shot and go off the charts.

Remember, the tuning methods are only as good as the shooter using them.

-Andrew


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

Todd,

When I got back into recurve archery two years ago after a long absence, I had the exact same problem you are having. Using the Easton charts, I ended up with arrows so stiff there was no possibility of tuning for them. While I recognize issues such as release can cause problems, the spine on those arrows was impossible to work with.

Fortunately Viper1 came to my rescue and gave me a recommendation on shafts that work perfectly. I'm shooting 20yds with aluminum arrows. Don't know what your set up is, but here is mine for comparison's sake. PSE X-Factor, 68", pulling 32lbs with a 27.75 draw length. The Easton charts listed 1914 X-7 Cobalts as a suitable shaft. Not even close. Based on Viper1's recommendation, I went to 1716s and they work great. Take a look at what I just related and you will see just how far off the mark the current Easton charts are. I had to drop back at least one Group on the Easton chart. As I recall, Viper1 mentioned the 30 year old Easton Charts as being a better guide than today's charts. I recall that back in the late 60s, I was shooting a Damon Howatt with 35lbs draw weight and was shooting 1813s. 

I have zero experience with carbon arrows. I am just a back yard archer who will never shoot farther than 20 yards, but I'm doing quite well at that distance with my set up.

If you will send me a pm with your set up info, I'll plug it into Archer's Advantage and see what the result is. 

Best Wishes

Lee


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

zydeco said:


> PSE X-Factor, 68", pulling 32lbs with a 27.75 draw length. The Easton charts listed 1914 X-7 Cobalts as a suitable shaft.


Actually according to the Easton charts, the 1914 X7 would be too stiff for you.

The T4 group spans 30-35 pounds and 27.5 - 28.5 inches. The 1914 would probably work out for someone shooting about 35 pounds and 28.25 inches. I'm currently shooting 36 pounds and 27.75 inch arrow length and I shoot 1914's. They bareshaft tune great, maybe slightly weak but I can trim .25 inches off if my release becomes consistently better or simply turn down the poundage a little

The 1914 X7 is the stiffest shaft in that group. Therefore if you are on the lower end of the group recommendations (32 pounds) and the lower end of the arrow length (27.75 inches) you should not be shooting the stiffest shaft in the group. The 1912 is in that group and would have probably worked out great for you (except I don't like using anything with that thin of a wall)

Assuming a decent release and decent shot an 1814 probably would have worked for you as well.

-Andrew


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

spangler said:


> mfg recommendations.
> 
> They can't account for how each person shoots. A poor release will stiffen or weaken (normally stiffen I think) the dynamic spine of an arrow. I'd venture that the majority of people have a less than stellar release of the string which is why they think the charts are wrong and are too stiff.
> 
> ...


While I agree you need to spine an arrow for your shooting, here are some things that I have found.

Dynamic spine can go either way depending on what the fault of the release is. Back collapse or dumping will make the arrow seem stiffer (less poundage or slower acceleration on the string), A very smooth quick release will make the arrow seem weaker (faster acceleration). Sideways movement of the string (slow release) will make the arrow seem weaker, because it imparts more sideways movement to the nock end and causes the arrow to flex more. And somewhere in there is a combination that will make the arrow seem stiffer. A very straight moving release will keep the arrow in line better and if there is little movement of the nock end sideways thus a stiffer dynamic spine.

In my play and practice of tuning (compound and recurve) I have found that the easton chart almost always spines stiff. Good or bad release.

I am now shooting a martin scepter2 with a genesis shoot through system. 55lbs with 65% let off 29.5" draw length. Zenith back tension release and bullet holes on the paper test at 10, 15 and 20 yrds. Bare shaft groups well at 30-50 yrds. 

If I use the easton chart with 50-55lbs it recommends 420-500 spine.
If I use the easton chart with 55-60lbs it recommends 400-480 spine.

Using all recommend components my bow shoots best at about 570 spine (for me)

While I'm not a "world class" or even a competing archer anymore I would have to say my release is probably pretty good. 

I have found the same with my recurve tuning. 

Also take the same data and plug it in to TAP or Archer's advantage and most of the time it suggests weaker spines as well.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

wte said:


> I feel that I am getting hung up on the fact that my arrows will not bare shaft tune, therefore, they are not grouping well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Todd


While bare shaft tuning is considered one of the "standards" for tuning, 

as long as the arrows are evenly spined, at 20 yards you should be grouping fairly well. You don't give your specs on equipment or group size, how long you have been shooting, or experience so it's hard to say.

I would hazard a guess that yes, you are getting hung up on this bare shaft/tuning issue.

My wife, while a good shooter, is far from an expert shooter. She can pick up any bow off our JOAD Rack, 20lbs 62" bow. No plunger, no stabilizer, No finger sling, a set of 1914 X7's 26" (just because they are free (no kids shooting them)) and once she finds a point of aim, will proceed to put up 2-3" groups. Often smaller. If we watch the arrows, they will be flying real strange but they still seem to end up in the same group. 

Would a properly tuned arrow help? By all means.

Is it that critical? Depends on what your goal is. Vegas? More critical. Fun, Not critical at all. League? Maybe slightly.

Go play first. Work on form. Then ....


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Arrow chart error is at least partially operator error*

Anyone who uses their draw length to determine arrow spine on the Easton charts will automatically be at least one spine too stiff. Who can tell me why?

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

*test*



Seattlepop said:


> Anyone who uses their draw length to determine arrow spine on the Easton charts will automatically be at least one spine too stiff. Who can tell me why?
> 
> Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!


Is this a test or are you really wondering?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

dchan said:


> Is this a test or are you really wondering?


Yes, it is a test. I'm only wondering why so many people miss this important characteristic of the Easton Chart. 

That's one wrong answer, btw, LOL. 

Now excuse me while I go pick up my turkey (a fresh one from the butcher, almost like I shot it myself).


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

wte said:


> Given that the arrows should be consistent in spine within a group of arrows that are the same brand, model, and size. shouldn't they group well? I feel that I am getting hung up on the fact that my arrows will not bare shaft tune, therefore, they are not grouping well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Todd


The arrows will group well!! The bow doesn't care too much about spine. It's going to toss them suckers the same way every time:wink: . Unfortunately the shooter as mentioned by C3 (Hey Pete!!!!) that will throw a big monkey wrench into the nice social gathering of arrows. We human archers can be big party poopers .You must first master your technique (consistent technique) Just like the bow and or a bow shooting machine. Finger shooting is difficult and takes some time just figure out how to get off the string consistently. Once your technique is reasonable you can then begin to seriously tune the bow. Until then it can get hopeless so no worries mate keep plugging away. My suggestion is shoot any arrow the will give you a reasonable group. Beg, barrow, steal different arrows and try them. I help out an archery shop so it is easy for me to get guinea pigs (Dumpster diving can be excite'n!!! In the end try not worry too much about the tuning. 

If you want to scare yourself you can go to this wonderful website:http://homepage.ntlworld.com/joetapley/index.htm
Warning it's very technical!!!

I think Mr. Tapley is from another planet. I'm always afraid to go to his sight  But I do it anyway.


-R&B


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

spangler said:


> Actually according to the Easton charts, the 1914 X7 would be too stiff for you.
> 
> The T4 group spans 30-35 pounds and 27.5 - 28.5 inches. The 1914 would probably work out for someone shooting about 35 pounds and 28.25 inches. I'm currently shooting 36 pounds and 27.75 inch arrow length and I shoot 1914's. They bareshaft tune great, maybe slightly weak but I can trim .25 inches off if my release becomes consistently better or simply turn down the poundage a little
> 
> ...


Thanks Andrew. I understand your point, but suggest the following. While I agree my set up is at the lower (weaker) end of Group T-4, one should expect the group to be what it says it is. Here if food for further thought:

After the debacle with 1914s, I tried 1913s - the next weaker shaft in T-4. Impossible to tune - way too stiff.

Next, I tried 1814s which are in group T-3 and not the stiffest shaft in that group. I was able to get these arrows to tune only by increasing the point weight from the 60 grains for the standard nib to 75 grains. Like you, I didn't consider the 1912s because of the wall thickness, but that shaft is stiffer than the 1814s.

I accepted Viper1's advice and went with the 1716s. Possible could have used 1813s as well. 

Bottom line is that while I may have erred in picking the stiffest shaft in Group T-4 to start with, I reasonably had every expectation that Easton's groupings should be tunable for a setup within the boundaries of that group. That is simply not the case. I tried the next weaker shaft and it was far too stiff. I dropped back to T-3 with the 1814s and had to significantly increase point weight. Given that my setup is totally out of the draw lenght boundary of Group T-3, one might wonder why the 1814 were not too weak as opposed to being too stiff. I had to drop over 200 "points" in spine deflection from the 1914s to the 1716s. Even had I selected the weakest aluminum shaft in T-4 (1912s @ 778), it is still 100 spine "points" stiffer than the shaft that finally worked.

I don't think my release is a problem. I consistently shoot 286 - 290 with a pair of 63 year old eyes.

My experience convinces me the charts are skewed way too stiff I just don't think the consumer should have to parce such fine diffenences in interpreting the charts. Years ago, you could count on the charts as solid guidelines. Don't think that is the case anymore. I went through a lot of this before I discovered AT. Having said that a lot of us live in areas where recurve archers are almost nonexistent with no recurve friendly/knowledable pro shops or coaches anywhere near. 

By the way, there was another post about the nuances of using draw length in interpreting the charts. I realize the charts are based on shaft length not draw length, except of course if they happen to be the same, which in my case they are exactly the same.

Best Wishes,

Lee


----------



## Targetbutt (Jan 19, 2006)

If you're shooting those scores then the release is not a "problem", it's probably just different than what Easton thinks is the ideal release.


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

Targetbutt said:


> If you're shooting those scores then the release is not a "problem", it's probably just different than what Easton thinks is the ideal release.


You may be right, but it's likely the same release I used years ago when the charts worked fine. Back then I was competing at college level and started an archery club at the college I was attending. I was not out in left field with some wierd release. The other archers I was associated with used the charts in the same manner that I did and we enjoyed success in choosing shafts that worked fine. Not sure how my personal release can have that huge of an impact on spine. 

When I communicated with Viper1 (whom I respect highly), his response to my set up was unhesitatingly 1716s and I seem to recall that his comment was that those shafts were "classic" for my setup. Those shafts are in Group T-2 and I just don't see my setup fitting into T-2. Plain and simple, the charts are skewed stiff - at least with respect to aluminum shafts. Can't speak to carbons.

It's not if - I have no reason to be less than truthful. One advantage I have is that 20 yards is all that I shoot.

Cheers,

Lee


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Yes, I agree as I went through the same frustration. It is almost as Easton (and others) are playing the odds that this way they sell more arrows...
BTW: I plugged the 32lbs and 28" arrow into 2006 Easton shaft selection software. I attach the print...


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

If you use the Easton charts, you have to subtract 3/4" off of your draw length. That is where most folks go wrong when looking at the charts. If you use draw length, you will always be at least one category too stiff. 

Please understand that I'm not trying to sell the charts. In fact if you look at any of my posts on the subject of arrow selection you would see that I am an avid cheerleader for the software available. The software would have included the 1716's, for example. I personally don't use the charts because each category has a 5# and over 1" spread. That is too much. The charts also provide no real opportunity to consider the effect of pt weight. The software does all of that and more. In tenths. 

However, for those who MUST use the charts, and apparently there are a lot of you out there, my point is simply that if you use draw length you are automatically going to be wrong from the start.


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

scrounger said:


> Yes, I agree as I went through the same frustration. It is almost as Easton (and others) are playing the odds that this way they sell more arrows...
> BTW: I plugged the 32lbs and 28" arrow into 2006 Easton shaft selection software. I attach the print...


Thank you, and the truth shall set you free. I don't know if Easton has any ulterior motives or not, I just know the charts are not the same as before and they are definitely skewed stiff.

All I have been trying to do is to help another pilgrim from spending too many hard earned dollars on arrows that will not work, regardless of release, back collapsing, etc.

Best Wishes

Lee


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> If you use the Easton charts, you have to subtract 3/4" off of your draw length. That is where most folks go wrong when looking at the charts. If you use draw length, you will always be at least one category too stiff.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not trying to sell the charts. In fact if you look at any of my posts on the subject of arrow selection you would see that I am an avid cheerleader for the software available. The software would have included the 1716's, for example. I personally don't use the charts because each category has a 5# and over 1" spread. That is too much. The charts also provide no real opportunity to consider the effect of pt weight. The software does all of that and more. In tenths.
> 
> However, for those who MUST use the charts, and apparently there are a lot of you out there, my point is simply that if you use draw length you are automatically going to be wrong from the start.


I simply do not understand. My AMBO measured draw length is the same as my shaft length as specified in the Easton guidelines. I perhaps erred when I referred to draw length as opposed to shaft length in my previous posts, but I fail to understand how I erred in using the charts. My draw length is 27.75" and my shaft length is the same. I need your help in understanding the 3/4" you refer to and how that can be a hard and fast rule. 

My point #1 is that the charts worked before, therefore why not now? Point #2 is that the charts are all some folks have to go by. 

Cheers,

Lee


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> If you use the Easton charts, you have to subtract 3/4" off of your draw length. That is where most folks go wrong when looking at the charts. If you use draw length, you will always be at least one category too stiff.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not trying to sell the charts. In fact if you look at any of my posts on the subject of arrow selection you would see that I am an avid cheerleader for the software available. The software would have included the 1716's, for example. I personally don't use the charts because each category has a 5# and over 1" spread. That is too much. The charts also provide no real opportunity to consider the effect of pt weight. The software does all of that and more. In tenths.
> 
> However, for those who MUST use the charts, and apparently there are a lot of you out there, my point is simply that if you use draw length you are automatically going to be wrong from the start.


Hi Fred,
The thing is that no, Easton software does not give this selection. Look for yourself at the list for 27" arrow at 32lbs (attached). 1714 and 1716 will appear only if I reduce arrow length to 26". 
Best Regards,
Rob


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

scrounger said:


> Hi Fred,
> The thing is that no, Easton software does not give this selection. Look for yourself at the list for 27" arrow at 32lbs (attached). 1714 and 1716 will appear only if I reduce arrow length to 26".
> Best Regards,
> Rob



Rob, exactly! First, mea culpa, I should have clarified that by "software" I was referring to the likes of TAP, On-Target, and Archers Advantage. Why? Because they use the standard AMO measurement for draw length. Easton uses a shorter measurement as you so nicely point out. That is why I suggest, to put it mildly, that anyone using the charts has to subtract at least 3/4" from the AMO draw-length standard (that I am assuming we all use) in order to arrive at exactly the same conclusion you did! You da man!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

zydeco said:


> Thank you, and the truth shall set you free. I don't know if Easton has any ulterior motives or not, I just know the charts are not the same as before and they are definitely skewed stiff.
> 
> All I have been trying to do is to help another pilgrim from spending too many hard earned dollars on arrows that will not work, regardless of release, back collapsing, etc.
> 
> ...



Lee, it may not sound like it, but I am with you 100%. Saving "pilgrims" from wasting money (heaven knows I've wasted plenty) is why I think its important to understand that the Easton chart does not use the same standard for measurement that we are now used to, but above all, I would recommend anyone starting out buying equipment immediately establish this priority:

1. Riser
2. Limbs
3. Arrow selection software!


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Since a number of you seem to know exactly what's wrong with the Easton charts, riddle me this one: I generally can shoot just what they recommend, and sometimes I have to ignore the "R" and go with the stiffer recommendation. My un-natural draw length goes off the page and onto the margin so none of the rules seem to apply.

From the nock groove to the front of the shelf, I draw 32.75". The set up I am currently using to learn 70 & 90 meters, barebow, is a 42# at my draw 70" recurve and ACE 370s full length with 120g points. Following the "Tuning for Tens" protocol, I have tested these bareshaft out to 30m.

So, why does this work?

Dave


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Davet

I assume you are wondering why the effective dynamic spine is good for you.

That would be simple physics, math and the numbers.

A longer shaft will act softer or weaker due. more length to flex so requires less energy to bend.

Since spine numbers are based on a 28" arrow and draw, by not cutting them to one of the "recommended lengths" you will have an effective spine lower than what is shown on the chart. 

DC


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Dave T said:


> Since a number of you seem to know exactly what's wrong with the Easton charts, riddle me this one: I generally can shoot just what they recommend, and sometimes I have to ignore the "R" and go with the stiffer recommendation. My un-natural draw length goes off the page and onto the margin so none of the rules seem to apply.
> 
> From the nock groove to the front of the shelf, I draw 32.75". The set up I am currently using to learn 70 & 90 meters, barebow, is a 42# at my draw 70" recurve and ACE 370s full length with 120g points. Following the "Tuning for Tens" protocol, I have tested these bareshaft out to 30m.
> 
> ...


Now I'm no expert and hope my earlier posts didn't come off as my pretending that I was. 

My shafts have always worked pretty good with the charts. I use the Dick Tone/James Park/many others method of tuning where you pick the "correct" shaft and then tune by adjusting draw weight with a stiff, centershot plunger. I however have a "standard" about 28" DL. I am of the opinion that the charts work pretty well (if you read them correctly) for standard shaft lengths but don't work as well at the extreme ends (like Dave's, or my wife who has a 24 inch DL).

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a range of 5# and 1" length and a range of spines in each group. This is because there are so many other variables that any chart or software cannot ever consider. This is also why it is the easton chart of recommended arrows and not the easton chart of "arrows you MUST use".

I do hear of people that think they are too stiff, or too weak, but most of the shooters I know think it works pretty darn good.



> I don't think my release is a problem. I consistently shoot 286 - 290 with a pair of 63 year old eyes.


Right, but re-read what I said, you can have a certain release that makes arrows act dynamically stiffer or weaker and if it is repeatable have great success...you just need to find the spine arrows that fit your shooting.

Ah, nevermind I guess. The people that think the charts are off are still convinced that they are, and I'm convinced that they aren't skewed one way or another.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Seattlepop said:


> Yes, it is a test. I'm only wondering why so many people miss this important characteristic of the Easton Chart.
> 
> That's one wrong answer, btw, LOL.


Heh. I knew the answer, just didn't want to blow your little game.

I guess I should have PM'd you my question and answer.

Even with the correction however I have found that they are still spined on the stiff side.

When I used the charts and selected the weakest edge of the chart recommendation it was very close and could be tuned out. But why tune out the stiffness if you can get right in the middle?

As I talked to many top shooters, they have all told me that weak spine arrows group best, but are less forgiving to errors in shooting.

In other words, unless your shooting is spot on, stiffer arrows are more forgiving. Better groups can mean higher scores but errors can really create fliers in your group. So do you want 5 x's and a 4 for a 54? or 3x's and 2 10's and a 9 for a 59?

There's a good arguement to use the charts

DC


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Dave T said:


> Since a number of you seem to know exactly what's wrong with the Easton charts, riddle me this one: I generally can shoot just what they recommend, and sometimes I have to ignore the "R" and go with the stiffer recommendation. My un-natural draw length goes off the page and onto the margin so none of the rules seem to apply.
> 
> From the nock groove to the front of the shelf, I draw 32.75". The set up I am currently using to learn 70 & 90 meters, barebow, is a 42# at my draw 70" recurve and ACE 370s full length with 120g points. Following the "Tuning for Tens" protocol, I have tested these bareshaft out to 30m.
> 
> ...


Interesting. If I input that to TAP and also subtract the 3/4" to use the charts, they both say 370 is a bit on the stiff side, as in beyond the 'green'. I have found that for the best results, TAP needs to show my arrows a little stiff, like up near 80-90% of the green area. I attribute this to the fact that the software calcs are based on standards that may be relatively slow compared to the capabilities of the newer equipment and strings, etc. I also believe its a given that stiffer arrows perform better (Read Joe Tapley's discussion of this at his web site). 

Dchan suggests the longer-than-usual arrow may have different characteristics, it may also be true that you have tested the envelop of how much stiffer than the "middle" one can go and achieve good results. 

Or, the rules don't apply to gorillas.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

dchan said:


> ...
> In other words, unless your shooting is spot on, stiffer arrows are more forgiving. Better groups can mean higher scores but errors can really create fliers in your group. So do you want 5 x's and a 4 for a 54? or 3x's and 2 10's and a 9 for a 59?
> ...


I wished my shooting to be spot on, hahaha! 
I used to shoot the arrows as per chart for many years: I simply didn't know better (pre-AT period) and "comparably" at local clubs my score was decent (ok, don't laugh: I did say comparably: low 270's recurve on vegas face with 3-5x's and occasional seven, no fliers). I assumed these are the limits to my abilities. Now, with properly spined arrows I just shot 284 with 12x's and no 7's or fliers, and I know I can do better. I actually revamped also my compound setups (gasp!) and while improvements are not so dramatic, they are substantial.
No extreme short/long draw here. I shoot 29" shafts with clicker: they should be right pat down the chart. On compounds I use either the same or slightly longer.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

dchan said:


> Heh. I knew the answer, just didn't want to blow your little game.
> 
> I guess I should have PM'd you my question and answer.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the standard most folks use for draw length is 1 3/4" past the plunger or grip throat and the Easton chart method for measuring (see "Determining Correct Target Arrow Length") usually comes up shorter than that. 

I would, and do, always err on the stiff side if I have to make a choice. No matter what the charts or software says, I think you have to make adjustments for your set-up and perhaps shooting style. As I've said, I need TAP to show my arrows pretty stiff. 

I believe based on Joe T's fascinating discussion, and other's, that stiffer arrows are more forgiving. In response to the top shooter's comments tho, I don't understand why an arrow that is more forgiving of bad releases would be less forgiving of a good one, and in fact be to its detriment? Hey, you're not trying to confuse me, are you?


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

It's only a guess but if you spine an arrow too weak, and you pluck the string, you will probably have an arrow that really bends. Maybe enough to bottom out the plunger or impact the riser on it's recovery.

If spined stiff, there's less chance an impact somewhere. 

I wonder if it works the other way too. a weak spine but well tuned bow might mean less time of the arrow touching the plunger and rest hence a better and cleaner flight. Does this mean tighter groups? and riser impacts due to poor releases would create fliers.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

dchan said:


> ...
> If spined stiff, there's less chance an impact somewhere.
> ...


Well, my experience shows that stiffer arrows on recurve gave me my money worth in purchase of fletching jig and broke wires of two magnetic rests... :embara:


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

scrounger said:


> Well, my experience shows that stiffer arrows on recurve gave me my money worth in purchase of fletching jig and broke wires of two magnetic rests... :embara:


Hmm. Stiff or weak is relative. Way over stiff would probably impact somewhere too. 

You're experience would make sense too. Depending on where in the recovery the arrow was when it passed the arrow rest.


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> If you use the Easton charts, you have to subtract 3/4" off of your draw length. That is where most folks go wrong when looking at the charts. If you use draw length, you will always be at least one category too stiff.


Perhaps I'm beating the proverbial dead horse, but I'm still curious about the 3/4". As posted earlier, my draw length and shaft length are exactly the same. Given that, why should I have to deduct anything?

Lee


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

spangler said:


> Right, but re-read what I said, you can have a certain release that makes arrows act dynamically stiffer or weaker and if it is repeatable have great success...you just need to find the spine arrows that fit your shooting.
> 
> Ah, nevermind I guess. The people that think the charts are off are still convinced that they are, and I'm convinced that they aren't skewed one way or another.


What you have not addressed is the fact the charts have changed over the years and that more than a few *******s are aware of this. As I said earlier, I can't speak to carbons, and I have the impression that is where you are coming from. Additonally, your thoughts on release do not address my comments about past experience. LIke you said, "aw nevermind".

Cheers


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

zydeco said:


> Perhaps I'm beating the proverbial dead horse, but I'm still curious about the 3/4". As posted earlier, my draw length and shaft length are exactly the same. Given that, why should I have to deduct anything?
> 
> Lee


From the Easton program.

"
Determining Correct Arrow Length
The Correct Arrow Length for any type bow (including bows equipped with overdraws) is determined by drawing back an extra-long arrow and having someone mark the arrow one inch in front of where the arrow contacts the arrow rest."

and from AMO

Officially - according to the standard AMO method - a bow's draw length setting can be found by measuring the distance between the groove of the nock - to a position 1 3/4" forward from the pivot point of the grip - when the bow is at full draw


Since the arrow rest on most bows is just about where the pivot point of the grip is, then there is a 3/4" difference between the measured AMO length and the easton method.

DC


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Seattlepop said:


> Dchan suggests the longer-than-usual arrow may have different characteristics...


And those different characteristics are outside the general rules, particularly once you get over 32". The problem is, once you start playing outside the rules finding the right arrows can get expensive. I was told by everyone I talked to or asked that the 370 ACE would be too stiff. Based on my previous experiences (many dozens of arrows) I took a chance and guessed right this time. I'm almost grateful I don't shoot good enough to justify trying X10s! (smiley face goes here)

Dave


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

zydeco said:


> What you have not addressed is the fact the charts have changed over the years and that more than a few *******s are aware of this. As I said earlier, I can't speak to carbons, and I have the impression that is where you are coming from. Additonally, your thoughts on release do not address my comments about past experience. LIke you said, "aw nevermind".
> 
> Cheers


I don't work for Easton. I don't have to "defend" them or their chart. I simply find that when read correctly the charts are pretty much on. My only point has been that if you shoot differently than the Easton chart is developed, then you will not find it accurate. 

I would expect that the charts have changed over the years responding to the majority of equipment that people are using. FF string vs. B-50, the average efficiency of limbs is most likely higher, the different materials used today translate into more energy being transmitted to the arrow. The arrows themselves are made differently perhaps, slightly changing the characteristics of them. If the equipment hasn't changed since the 1960's why shoot anything made beyond 1960?

I hope you find that I have addressed your comments about past experience to your complete satisfaction. If not, please PM me and I'll continue.

-Andrew


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

dchan said:


> From the Easton program.
> 
> "
> Determining Correct Arrow Length
> ...


I understand and your points are valid. Having said that, the two risers I shoot have significant dimensional differences. Those differences indicate the 3/4" rule is not hard and fast. In fact some bows will allow an archer to have an arrow length that matches draw lenght.

Thanks and Best Wishes

Lee


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

spangler said:


> I don't work for Easton. I don't have to "defend" them or their chart. I simply find that when read correctly the charts are pretty much on. My only point has been that if you shoot differently than the Easton chart is developed, then you will not find it accurate.
> 
> I would expect that the charts have changed over the years responding to the majority of equipment that people are using. FF string vs. B-50, the average efficiency of limbs is most likely higher, the different materials used today translate into more energy being transmitted to the arrow. The arrows themselves are made differently perhaps, slightly changing the characteristics of them. If the equipment hasn't changed since the 1960's why shoot anything made beyond 1960?
> 
> ...


Easy my friend. I wasn't calling your baby ugly, just trying to understand and if my comments inferred otherwise, you have my apology.

I was hoping you would keep an open mind and give thought and some credence to the experiences of others. While I'm no olympian, I'm not a total novice either. I didn't ask you to defend Easton's charts, and I'm sure you are correct about some of the factors that have influenced changes. 

Having said that, I cannot believe my release is so strange as to cause such a huge impact on spine, and I think that is a bit of a stretch. I would submit that if an archer's release is so strange as to make such a huge impact on tuning, then I think it unlikely that archer will be able to shoot accurately. My point about the older charts was that those charts were for me and a lot of other archers, spot on. If I could get my hands on my old Hoyts, Damon Howatts and Black Widows from the 60s, you can rest assured that is what I would shoot. Methinks you are not fully considering all that I have posted. I'll take Viper1's experience and advice any day. His reliance on past experience and understanding of the dramatic changes in Easton's charts gave me a common sense solution that worked. 

I was not seeking satisfaction, simply a dialogue. I guess the following comment you posted should have convinced me that dialogue had come to an end.

"Ah, nevermind I guess. The people that think the charts are off are still convinced that they are, and I'm convinced that they aren't skewed one way or another."

Thanks for the offer of a PM, but no thanks.

Have a Great Thanksgiving

Lee


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

dchan said:


> From the Easton program.
> 
> "
> Determining Correct Arrow Length
> ...


Would appreciate your insight on the following. Page 16 of the Easton Tuning Guide has a footnote that suggests beginning recurve archers add 1/2 to 1" to their arrow length to accomodate an expected increase in draw length as the archer strenthens.

What is your view on how much this might affect arrow spine/shaft selection? 

Thanks,

Lee


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Since the arrow selection software that easton uses does not take into account draw length, just arrow length, It's not real critical. You do need to take into account the weight increase however. If you are on the edge of one of the weight ranges you might want stay on the stiffer end of the range.

The tuning guide is correct. Beginning archers will continue to increase their draw length as they mature. I would have to say that most increase by a lot more than 1/2-1". I made a change a few months ago and had to move my clicker back another 1/2 inch and I'm far from a beginning recurve archer.. The draw weight will increase as they draw further. Longer arrows will have a weaker dynamic spine. Maybe that is another reason their charts are "biased" towards the stiffer side. 

Something my coach told me when I started on my archery journey 25 years ago, still rings true. "The charts are just a starting place and will put you in the ball park"


----------



## zydeco (Jan 14, 2005)

dchan said:


> Since the arrow selection software that easton uses does not take into account draw length, just arrow length, It's not real critical. You do need to take into account the weight increase however. If you are on the edge of one of the weight ranges you might want stay on the stiffer end of the range.
> 
> The tuning guide is correct. Beginning archers will continue to increase their draw length as they mature. I would have to say that most increase by a lot more than 1/2-1". I made a change a few months ago and had to move my clicker back another 1/2 inch and I'm far from a beginning recurve archer.. The draw weight will increase as they draw further. Longer arrows will have a weaker dynamic spine. Maybe that is another reason their charts are "biased" towards the stiffer side.
> 
> Something my coach told me when I started on my archery journey 25 years ago, still rings true. "The charts are just a starting place and will put you in the ball park"


Thanks, that helps. Once I discovered Archer's Advantage, I find shaft selection more precise since that software takes into account more variables and thus gives greater fidelity - at least I think so.

I understood the reason for the footnote in the tuning guide, but was just curious about your thoughts relative to shaft selection.

Once again, thanks and hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

Lee


----------



## Museves (Nov 17, 2007)

I m using 2 size stiffer than the "recommended" and with bareshaft tuning going a yard and half to the left. But i still get a good group at 20yards. If you are shooting indoor, it wouldnt be much of a problem. The real problem lies if you are shooting 70meters where you need quiet a tuned setup. Even so, its all depends on your shooting.

As for arrow chart, i totally agree with Dchan, its just a starting place. I have shot 2 size above the recommended because i want to shoot it with my style. Also, stiff > soft. Stiff = less stress on limbs as more energy is transfered, while vice versa on soft. Thats what i think if we apply the "physic" here.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Seattlepop said:


> Anyone who uses their draw length to determine arrow spine on the Easton charts will automatically be at least one spine too stiff. Who can tell me why?


String interference or bow torque. 
I have found very reliable success for my recurvers using the charts. The cases I have see where it was not working those shooters were doing something wrong. Those who were too stiff were torqing the bow. Those too weak were touching the side of their face with the string.


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

To All,

Thank you for all of your input. I am curently shooting a W&W Winstar II with Medium Samick Universal Carbon Limbs, W&W flipper rest, Shibuya DX Plunger, 12 strand B50 String, and a Cavilier Elite tab. I use a clicker and due to a clicker extension plate on the riser I have some room to play with when it comes to arrow length. The latest set of arrows are ACC 3-04 with blazer mini's, G nocks, and 100 Gr. ACC one piece points which measure 28 7/8" (nock groove to end of shaft) which is the longest I can get through the clicker. At my anchor I am holding 36#. According the the easton target chart arrow length Vs. weight I am in the T4-T5 group. the recommended ACC shaft is a 3-04. I have also tried the X7 1914,Cartel Triples 800, McKinneys , and even Beeman Carbon Flash 750. 
Here is the million dollar question. How does one go about selecting the correct size of arrow shaft using the manufactures printed info (arrow charts) . Is it as simple as taking the printed info (Arrow charts) and going two sizes smaller? what about three sizes? Like many, I do not have the funds to simply buy an unlimted number of shafts and components to experiment (reason for the carbon flash). I realize that the variables in ability and equipment are endless. maybe the best corse of action at this point is to forget about the arrows and equipment and just SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT concentrating more on form.

Thanks again I really do appreciate all of your help

Todd.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Marcus said:


> String interference or bow torque.
> I have found very reliable success for my recurvers using the charts. The cases I have see where it was not working those shooters were doing something wrong. Those who were too stiff were torqing the bow. Those too weak were touching the side of their face with the string.


Yes, even tho I was responding to one post, my statement was too general. I should have considered the broader audience and said "...for those of you who find the charts result in too stiff a spine, here's a possible reason, or..look at this and see if you can you guess why", etc.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

wte said:


> The latest set of arrows are ACC 3-04 with blazer mini's, G nocks, and 100 Gr. ACC one piece points which measure 28 7/8" (nock groove to end of shaft) which is the longest I can get through the clicker. At my anchor I am holding 36#.


That looks like you should be in a tunable range with those ACC's

Go Shoot... The only thing I might suggest is go through a full initial setup.

String/limb alignment, Plunger depth, nock set etc..

Then with all the gear on the bow (stabilizer, sight, etc) do some clearance tests. (powder or lipstick test) and make sure you are getting good vane clearance. Then form form form..

DC


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

wte said:


> ...12 strand B50 String...


The above is a variable that could throw the charts off. My understanding is Easton calculates the "recurve" side on a modern (ILF limbs, metal riser) recurve with modern (FF, etc.) string.

Dave


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

wte said:


> To All,
> 
> Thank you for all of your input. I am curently shooting a W&W Winstar II with Medium Samick Universal Carbon Limbs, W&W flipper rest, Shibuya DX Plunger, 12 strand B50 String, and a Cavilier Elite tab. I use a clicker and due to a clicker extension plate on the riser I have some room to play with when it comes to arrow length. The latest set of arrows are ACC 3-04 with blazer mini's, G nocks, and 100 Gr. ACC one piece points which measure 28 7/8" (nock groove to end of shaft) which is the longest I can get through the clicker. At my anchor I am holding 36#. According the the easton target chart arrow length Vs. weight I am in the T4-T5 group. the recommended ACC shaft is a 3-04. I have also tried the X7 1914,Cartel Triples 800, McKinneys , and even Beeman Carbon Flash 750.
> Here is the million dollar question. How does one go about selecting the correct size of arrow shaft using the manufactures printed info (arrow charts) . Is it as simple as taking the printed info (Arrow charts) and going two sizes smaller? what about three sizes? Like many, I do not have the funds to simply buy an unlimted number of shafts and components to experiment (reason for the carbon flash). I realize that the variables in ability and equipment are endless. maybe the best corse of action at this point is to forget about the arrows and equipment and just SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT concentrating more on form.
> ...


This thread points out that one size does not fit all, and we have different needs and perspectives. Some have found the charts helpful, others not. I feel sorry for folks who get caught in the "what arrow/spine should I buy" quandry because there are so many factors to consider. Too often, critical information needed to make that decision is missing. I personally don't know how anyone can choose an arrow without knowing, in this order, 

#1-usable FOC (ie, how much pt wt can I shoot effectively), 
#2-drawlength (AMO), 
#3-measurement in addition to drawlength (ie., do you want 1" of shaft in front of the plunger?), 
#4 ACTUAL weight on the fingers (too many diff in brands/models to use a generalized 2-3# per inch), 
#5 how to use this data with purchased software (you may have to make adjustments per your set-up). 

It may sound extreme, to a beginner especially who's overwhelmed by the potential costs of the sport, to recommend spending the money for software and a digital scale. But after three different recurves of two brands, 6 different limbs of 3 brands, 2 compounds (I shoot fingers) of different ATA's using target and hunting arrows, all with changes in drawlength and wt (surgery & rehab, blah blah blah) the two things that have without question given me the best return on investment are purchased software and a digital scale. 

At one point I had the software and a Cordova spring scale, but my arrows weren't acting like TAP predicted. Oh no, it must be the software. Worse yet, it must my form! Its the tuning "Death Spiral"!. Got a digital, found my spring scale was off by 3lbs! Problem solved. Tuning Nirvana. Now I can tune according to the guidelines in Frangilli's excellent book and actually get results, work on my form without worrying about whether or not its my "tune". Some folks have recommended just shooting, don't worry about tuning. I suppose there is a law of diminishing returns somewhere, where the lines on the chart converge, beyond which form is so bad there really is no point to tuning, but for me I can't see how I can work on my form while my arrows are flopping all over the place. 

Lots of opinions and perspectives on this board. Get the software and a digital scale, figure out what you need (items 1-5), form your own opinion and perspective, be happy. 

5c


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop,

Thanks for your input. At times it does feel like a "Death Spiral" and no matter what you do, you simply do not get the results that you were looking for. You and others have made mention of software that may help in the arrow selection process. Can you tell me where to obtain such software and if there is a selection to choose from is one more desirable than the other?

Thanks,
Todd


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

wte said:


> Seattlepop,
> 
> Thanks for your input. At times it does feel like a "Death Spiral" and no matter what you do, you simply do not get the results that you were looking for. You and others have made mention of software that may help in the arrow selection process. Can you tell me where to obtain such software and if there is a selection to choose from is one more desirable than the other?
> 
> ...


Gawd I hate the "Death Spiral". Sometimes is has been just one little thing overlooked. Mostly its been from making too many changes at once, or having overlooked something I end up chasing something else. Take one thing at a time. 

The software is available at Lancaster's, maybe others, or check them out directly at their sites:

http://thearcheryprogram.com/
http://www.archersadvantage.com/
http://www.pinwheelsoftware.com/sfa.aspx

I use TAP (The Archery Program) and I'm used to it, haven't used the others so can't recommend one over the other. I think they all get good reviews. I would check them all out and see which has the look and feel you like. TAP is pretty easy for the basic features I use, although not without its little faults, like having to check "recurve" every time I re-load a file. But that's really picking nits. They must all use the same algorithms/calculations and rely on information the manuf's provide them, so I don't think any one is more accurate than the next. My guess is that the one you pick and become familiar with will become your favorite. You might do a board search on the brands and see if there are any reviews...

Any reviews out there...?


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Seattlepop said:


> I personally don't know how anyone can choose an arrow without knowing, in this order,
> 
> #1-usable FOC (ie, how much pt wt can I shoot effectively),
> #2-drawlength (AMO),
> ...


Sounds extreme to me too.

I'm in the "form first" category as well. (sounds funny coming from someone who loves to tinker with gear as many of my friends will tell you)

Case in point is today I went out and set up a range so some friends could shoot. Wanting to work on form today for myself, I grabbed the 14 lb long limbs ILF bow with clicker, sight and stabilizer to shoot between waves if people. I decided to shoot my own arrows because I wanted the same draw Length for the purpose of practice.

So here's what's being shot... ACE's 520 spine, 100gn points arrows cut from the back 29" arrows kurly vanes, pin nocks. These would normally be tuned for my 42lb's on the fingers through the clicker.

Have to set up the sight way left to keep the arrows on the bale but 2" groups are not a problem at 18M. The are hitting the bale tail left almost 20 degrees off square but they are grouping fine. I'm sure the bare shaft would be several feet off the bale.

My conclusion? 

For beginners, if they have a "target weight range" buy arrows to match close to their target range and too long.. Save the rest of the money until your form settles down and the bow weight is closer to your target range.

Get them over spined, figure out how to tune out any fletch or arrow contact and let them fly all funny. If you are watching them fly that means you are peeking which is a no no anyway.

DC


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Seattlepop said:


> The software is available at Lancaster's, maybe others, or check them out directly at their sites:
> 
> http://thearcheryprogram.com/
> http://www.archersadvantage.com/
> http://www.pinwheelsoftware.com/sfa.aspx


Near as I can tell, none of the above will work with my Mac. Lot of Mac using archers going to be disappointed about that. Oh well...

Dave


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Dave T said:


> Near as I can tell, none of the above will work with my Mac. Lot of Mac using archers going to be disappointed about that. Oh well...
> 
> Dave


Pinwheel OnTarget2 shows this for the download versions, not sure about the CD. You could email and ask. But all three levels of the downloadable product for On2 show:

Pinwheel System Requirements

* Windows 98SE,ME,2000,XP,Vista, and *Macintosh Computers Running Virtual PC*
* Internet Explorer 5.0 or Higher
* Try Before Purchasing

I don't have Apple/Mac so don't know if V-PC requires anything special. TAP and AA don't show any Mac versions like you said. Tony...?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Pinwheel OnTarget2 shows this for the download versions, not sure about the CD. You could email and ask. But all three levels of the downloadable product for On2 show:
> 
> Pinwheel System Requirements
> 
> ...


OnTarget2 does not work any stock Mac. It is no more "Mac Compatible" than any PC progam. While it is possbile to run PC programs on a Mac using special software and a copy of Windows that does not connote "Mac Compatibility" any more than the ability to retrofit cars with train wheels means that all cars are Railroad Compatible.

To use OnTarget2, or any PC program, on a Mac you to have to install Windows on your mac at a significant additional expense, either by using Virtual PC and a Purchased copy of Windows on G4 an G5 Macs or by installing Windows XP SP2 or greater using BootCamp on a a newer Intel-based mac. TAP and AA are just as Mac compatible/incompatible as OnTarget2.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Warbow said:


> OnTarget2 does not work any stock Mac. It is no more "Mac Compatible" than any PC progam. While it is possbile to run PC programs on a Mac using special software and a copy of Windows that does not connote "Mac Compatibility" any more than the ability to retrofit cars with train wheels means that all cars are Railroad Compatible.
> 
> To use OnTarget2, or any PC program, on a Mac you to have to install Windows on your mac at a significant additional expense, either by using Virtual PC and a Purchased copy of Windows on G4 an G5 Macs or by installing Windows XP SP2 or greater using BootCamp on a a newer Intel-based mac. TAP and AA are just as Mac compatible/incompatible as OnTarget2.


Thanks Warbow! I was thinking about buying OT2 and I would have been (expletive deleted) off to find out I had to buy and install Windows. You have saved me, and other computer illiterates, a lot of trouble.

Dave


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Thanks Warbow! I was thinking about buying OT2 and I would have been (expletive deleted) off to find out I had to buy and install Windows. You have saved me, and other computer illiterates, a lot of trouble.
> 
> Dave


No prob. I'm a mac user and frustrated by the PC-only world of archery software  I tried the demo of OT2 on a partially functioning PC laptop long enough to learn how to use it but I'm holding off on buying OT2 until I have a more reliable computer to run it on...

My next Mac will be one of the current Intel ones and I'll be biting the bullet and installing a copy of Windows on it using the special method Apple has made called "BootCamp." 

BootCamp (but not a copy of Windows) is now included on all new Macs as part of the Leopard operating system and allows you to install a copy of Windows and restart you Mac as a regular Windows PC. If you buy additional 3d party software such as VMWare Fusion you can start your copy of Windows on your mac without having to restart the mac or leaving the Mac operating system. Either way, you'll have to shell out way more than the cost of OT2 to buy Windows (or Windows and Virtual PC for older macs) if you want to run OT2 on a Mac.

PS
In addition to waiting for a new computer I'm also sort of waiting for the recurve addition to OT2 to come out--if ever. OT2 is set up for compounds. There are no profiles for recurves but you can set the specs by hand for them. Here is the thread on that subject if you haven't seen it already.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Interesting stuff. Like I said, I had no idea whether V-PC required anything extra or not. Seems like it does!

I have a question on the recurve verson of OT2 and the linked thread... Are the manufacturers of risers and limbs going to provide performance specs like they do with compounds? If not, isn't it pretty much a "s.w.a.g."?

TAP has a "recurve" selection button which has a default performance factor of "1". I assume you can change the factor to something else to account for a setup's specifics. For instance, I just played with it a minute and here's the picture of my set-up with a factor of "1", and the second pic is with the factor set at "1.015". As you can see, I can move the results closer to the center of "green" by increasing the performance factor. Is that what ON2 is going to do? 

Or is this really about sight tapes for recurves? And how big a market is there?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Interesting stuff. Like I said, I had no idea whether V-PC required anything extra or not. Seems like it does!
> 
> I have a question on the recurve verson of OT2 and the linked thread... Are the manufacturers of risers and limbs going to provide performance specs like they do with compounds? If not, isn't it pretty much a "s.w.a.g."?
> 
> ...


Yeah, Virtual PC costs extra _and_ you need a copy of Windows (some versions of VPC came with Windows for an additional charge).

I'm not sure what to do about the performance factor. nuts&volts describes working backwards by tweaking the performance factor number until the sight tape matches the 20 and 60 yard marks. I don't use sights so that method doesn't help me  Perhaps in the future...

There are some other issues I had with OT2, one was that it didn't define its terms. While you could switch it to "recurve" you had to manually enter certain other terms. It asked for "bow length" but didn't say whether that was AMO bow length or the the notch to notch string length. Recurve bow length is never the same as the string length but that seems to be what [email protected] means since the bow length box normally aks for "axle to axle" distance when it is in the normal "compound" mode.

Also, OT2 asks for AMO draw length, but does it really want your true draw length plus 1.75"? It is hard to know. Perhaps I missed something.


----------



## Lane Puckett (Feb 21, 2005)

Is it possible for wte to continually add point weight until he gets it to bare shaft then go see what the groups show? Even if he has to add internal point weight.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Lane Puckett said:


> Is it possible for wte to continually add point weight until he gets it to bare shaft then go see what the groups show? Even if he has to add internal point weight.


How do we know to add wt? Are the arrows too stiff?

We can only guess because we have limited data from wte. We would need his drawlength, for example, in order to input the basic data. I'll play with some numbers just to show why I enjoy using the software. He says he has room to play with because he has a clicker extension. Some of them can go way past 1" out from the riser, but lets use a compromise 3/4". He also says his 3-04's are 28 7/8" (28.9", I can only input 10ths for arrow length) groove to shaft end and that this is the longest he can get throught the clicker. With pts I'll guess its another 1/2" so arrows are actually around 29.4" groove to pt tip. Lets say this is at the clicker. How do we figure drawlength. To continue this w.a.g. (I can't call it s.w.a.g.), I'll use my Matrix which is 2" from plunger/pivot. To back into the 1.75" past pivot for the AMO, I would subtract 3/4" past the riser edge for the estimated clicker location, less another 1/4" to get to 1.75" past the plunger, or 1" to deduct from his full arrow length. So his drawlength would be calculated at 29.4" less 1" or 28.4". 

Laughing out loud and rolling on the floor at this point is HIGHLY acceptable! 

So, the results show that the arrow is actually a little on the weak side. I don't show it, but using these highly questionable projected numbers I show that these arrows might fly satisfactorily with 85gr pts. FOC would suffer, but for indoors they might be fine. Assuming any of these numbers are any where near close! And my apologies to wte in advance.

Anyway, you can see why these software programs can be fun.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> How do we figure drawlength. To continue this w.a.g. (I can't call it s.w.a.g.), I'll use my Matrix which is 2" from plunger/pivot. To back into the 1.75" past pivot for the AMO, I would subtract 3/4" past the riser edge for the estimated clicker location, less another 1/4" to get to 1.75" past the plunger, or 1" to deduct from his full arrow length. So his drawlength would be calculated at 29.4" less 1" or 28.4".


...thank goodness that AMO brace height, one of the bow set up questions in OnTarget2, is just pivot point to the string. It is about the only AMO measurement that is 1:1 with the actual measurement--unlike AMO string length which is based AMO Bow Length Standard, which "is designated to be three inches longer than AMO Bow String Master that braces bow at proper String or Brace Height." So, an AMO 68" bow uses an AMO 68" string which is 65" long because the AMO bow length is the AMO Bow String Master length plus 3", except it's not because everybody uses AMO Bow String Master length plus 4" for recurves, or not. :zip:


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

I have a Mac and use Virtual PC with Windows XP to run the archery programs. On the subject matter of arrow spine I have found with the compound bow shooting FS that an arrow that is stiffer in spine has been the winner. That is not saying any size stiffer but one to two sizes up from the Easton Chart. Too stiff and you lose bow to arrow efficiency. I have found the arrows to hold up better and longer. Indoors shot a 2512 X-7 with only one inch cut off a full length shaft using a nibb point at 26" draw length @ 50#. This has worked for Vegas wins with the X-7's and World Championship wins with ACE's but an inch longer than draw length.
Finger shooting is completely different.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> ...thank goodness that AMO brace height, one of the bow set up questions in OnTarget2, is just pivot point to the string. It is about the only AMO measurement that is 1:1 with the actual measurement--unlike AMO string length which is based AMO Bow Length Standard, which "is designated to be three inches longer than AMO Bow String Master that braces bow at proper String or Brace Height." So, an AMO 68" bow uses an AMO 68" string which is 65" long because the AMO bow length is the AMO Bow String Master length plus 3", except it's not because everybody uses AMO Bow String Master length plus 4" for recurves, or not. :zip:


Brace height on TAP is measured from string to pivot. You quoted my bass-ackward way to try to figure out what wte's drawlength was with the limited info we had to work with.


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop,

Thank you very much for including a sample of the software. It would appear that the data is correct with the exception of the string material (I use B-50). Would a different string material have that much of an impact? If not, then maybe I do have the correct shaft and my problems may not be equipment related but archer related. Quite honestly, that would be a relief.
By putting the equipment issue aside I could focus my attention elsewhere.

Thanks,
Todd


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

wte said:


> Seattlepop,
> 
> Thank you very much for including a sample of the software. It would appear that the data is correct with the exception of the string material (I use B-50). Would a different string material have that much of an impact? If not, then maybe I do have the correct shaft and my problems may not be equipment related but archer related. Quite honestly, that would be a relief.
> By putting the equipment issue aside I could focus my attention elsewhere.
> ...


Todd:

What is your draw length?
What is the brace height on your bow?

This would make the calculations much easier.

When you use a Dacron string,
because a Dacron string has more stretch than Fastflite,
then the arrow will behave stiffer (less energy transfer).

Same arrow. Same shooter. Same draw length.
Use a Fast Flight string.

Same arrow will show weak and behave weaker,
because the Fast Flight string has less stretch,
and therefore transfers more energy to the arrow,
at the same draw weight (weight on the fingers).


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

wte said:


> Seattlepop,
> 
> Thank you very much for including a sample of the software. It would appear that the data is correct with the exception of the string material (I use B-50). Would a different string material have that much of an impact? If not, then maybe I do have the correct shaft and my problems may not be equipment related but archer related. Quite honestly, that would be a relief.
> By putting the equipment issue aside I could focus my attention elsewhere.
> ...


I missed the dacron string! I changed the selection to dacron, amazing what a difference it makes. See pic, line on the right side of stiff is the same settings with dacron string. I never would have thought dacron made that much difference. 

Turns out Lane's suggestion was actually a good one if you have some pt wt you can add just to see if they fly better.

Otherwise I would also put a faster string #1 on my list . Its the least costly change and and will let you know immediately whether the arrows are responding the way they should, ie, react much weaker, then work toward a middle ground. For example, use a faster string and back off the limb wt a couple of pounds if you can.


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop,

Just an update that I thought you might be interested in. I went to the range today and replaced my 12 strand B-50 string with a 14 strand string made of DynaFlite 97. The difference was unbelievable. With no other adjustments to the bow or arrows, bareshafts that were once hitting approximately 8 inches to the left (Right handed shooter) of the group now were hitting approximately 4 inches to the right of the group. A few minor adjustments to the plunger spring tension and the bareshafts were in the group. The advice that you and others had made regarding the string was priceless. Thank You!

Todd


----------



## djhohmann (Nov 4, 2005)

*Correct "spine"*

I was shooting at the range last night; 2014 X7 30” shafts and one of my arrows was consistently dropping off to the left. I’d shoot 2 arrows in the gold and the third in the 5/6 ring. Shot 3 ends this way. I took the arrow out of my quiver and set it on my case complaining all the way. Our range master asked if he could check out the arrow. He rotated it, spun it, looked it up and down and then took a magic coin out of his pocket and turned the knock 110 degrees or so. I took the arrow and promptly placed it in the exact center of the target! I realized that when I had purchased my arrows they hadn’t been “spined.” I’m ordering up a new set of arrows and will have the current set I’m using now “reset” i.e., spined and fletched with the correct alignment to the plunger and string. The difference at 20 yards was over 4 inches.


----------



## lyfestyl (Nov 1, 2005)

*Which arrow???*

Opening an older post...need help. Yet to shoot my first arrow with new (to me) recurve, account no arrows as yet. I posted yesterday the sale on Platinum Plus Easton's $30 per doz. Please suggest which spine.

25" Samick Athlete riser with long Ultra Agulla 32lb. limbs. I have a 29 1/2" draw with my compound bows. I am sure this is correct. As far as the PP arrows 1816's have been suggested, but the charts show 1916 or 2013. What do you suggest, and when you go down from the recommended pick, just what is going down one step?? 

Scott


----------

