# What Arrow Speeds & Arrow Weights do Olympic Archers Shoot?



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

Bear in mind that the “speedgun” for most international events is well in front of the shooting line. They are not exit bow speeds (And not wholly reliable). If you ask specific questions about specific archers, and the relevant date, somebody might know the detail you are interested in but it will be in the “I heard from a friend..” reliability level.

My understanding was that most “top” recurve archers were shooting 100gr to 120gr. (I heard from a friend…). There are exceptions of course.

I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed. They don’t care if they are getting the results. Obviously fast is good if still stable and in control but it is a relative thing. I used to have a Axis/FX setup that clocked 212fps (32” X10 410 with overnock and 100gr point). Horrible thing to shoot, tens and blues.

Stretch


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Most Olympic archers at the world level shoot 100gr to 120gr as Stretch said.

And as Stretch said speed isnt important at all on that level. FOC is much more important.

Generally X10s are a pretty heavy arrow. Most will be 300gr range for arrow. I remember when i shot from 36 lbs to 54 lbs my speed was generally 198 fps. As i went up in poundage, the arrow got heavier with the spine change so the speed stayed the same.
I think the fastest i ever shot was 205 fps.

Speed seems to be much more important to archers on the compound side of archery. I see quite a lot of posts about the speed of new bows etc.

On the recurve side, it has no real bearing on tuning or results. More important is reaching the target with good sight marks. as this can be gotten with a slow or fast arrow, and tunes tend to give you what you get.

the chronos are down range from the archers at world class events on Youtube. So take the measurements with a grain of salt.


Chris


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

chrstphr said:


> Most Olympic archers at the world level shoot 100gr to 120gr as Stretch said.
> 
> And as Stretch said speed isnt important at all on that level. FOC is much more important.
> 
> ...


Speed seems pretty important when you take wind into account. A faster arrow is less affected by wind.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I guarantee you, arrow speed is one of the least important considerations for a top Olympic division shooter. If it were, they’d all be shooting ACEs instead of X10s.

The flight time difference at 70 meters between a fast arrow and a slower one might be on the order of a tenth of a second, and the arrow isn't going to move much more sideways in that short a time, even in a crosswind. A dense, thin arrow will be less affected by wind than a wider, lighter one over the whole 70 meter flight.

Increased arrow speed only has significant value in unmarked distance shooting.


----------



## Steve P (May 14, 2009)

Speed is important in typing and Stash said it better than me. ;^)

Steve


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

MooseisLoose said:


> Speed seems pretty important when you take wind into account. A faster arrow is less affected by wind.


Not true. Momentum is more important for a cross wind. This is why top level RECURVE folks pay $240.00 for a dozen 120 grain TUNGSTEN points for X10 arrows.

BUT, the stainless points that are also 120 grain points are ONLY $38.00.
EVERYBODY in the compound world, knows that it's ARROW SPEED, that defeats the cross wind.
WRONG. To defeat a cross wind, go for the smallest diameter arrow, and go for MORE FOC.

That's why recurve folks shooting X10 arrows,
will pay $200 EXTRA, for $240 a dozen 120 grain points that are TUNGSTEN instead of stainless.
SAME EXACT weight, but HIGHER density, so the 120 grain TUNGSTEN points are shorter
than the 120 grain STAINLESS points.

That slightly shorter tungsten point, BOOSTS the FOC
and combined with the small outside diameter of the X10 arrows,
makes the X10 with TUNGSTEN points, best for defeating a cross wind, less aiming off.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

Steve P said:


> Isn't the advantage of an X10 over an ACE not only the smaller diameter, but the heavier weight? I would think that an ACE would be the faster of the two. Could an X10 be made as light as the ACE?
> 
> Steve


SPEED for a recurve is meaningless. SERIOUS.
400 spine ACE is 7.5 gpi. OD is 0.230 inches.
430 spine ACE is 7.0 gpi. OD is 0.224 inches.


410 spine X10 is 8.5 gpi. OD is 0.211 inches.
450 spine X10 is 8.1 gpi. OD is 0.207 inches

Yes, the X10s are heavier. Yes, the X10s are smaller diameter. IF you shoot FITA,
and you want the BEST for cross wind resistance (aiming off LESS),
go with what is proven. X10s with Tungsten points.

FASTER will not help you with a cross wind...especially if you shoot ACEs, cuz the outside diameter is LARGER
and this will hurt you. Cannot avoid cross sectional area, and aerodynamics.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

MooseisLoose said:


> Speed seems pretty important when you take wind into account. A faster arrow is less affected by wind.


the better FOC arrow is less affected by the wind.
Speed is not important at all in Olympic recurve archery. Compound archers seem obsessed with speed, possibly from hype by compound bow manufacturers.

Speed has nothing to do with Olympic recurve archery results in wind or without wind.

Cast, sight marks and FOC are what are important.

My slow arrows reach the middle in wind as good as fast arrows. Small diameter, heavy arrows with good FOC are what beat wind.

my arrows use to cost me on average $75 per arrow. And i would buy two dozen at a time. All to beat the wind. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

MooseisLoose said:


> Speed seems pretty important when you take wind into account. A faster arrow is less affected by wind.


Asks and answers his own questions. 

Can't argue with that logic.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

btw, aiming off for a skilled archer isn't much of a problem. I shot against world class archers who were aiming in the blue when I never left the red, and they were scoring better than I was.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

limbwalker said:


> Asks and answers his own questions.
> 
> Can't argue with that logic.


People can always count on you to provide constructive, worthwhile posts.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

Very under-rated but … in my opinion… flight stability is maybe the biggest thing. If the arrow is wobbling it will drift disproportionately. So if you have a twitchy tune sometimes bigger fletches can give you less drift and MORE PREDICTABLE drift. Obviously that has limits - don’t know where the crossover is - not suggesting 2317 with 6” feathers and 200gr points.

I do find 120gr points drift less but I also find they drop more when my release gets a bit crappy - sometimes a lot more - the difference is not enough for my personal incompetence level. When your X10 point option was 90-110 (yeah that far back) I hardly saw any difference on the target between 100 and 110. I think people over think this rather than shooting what they have.

In 1997 when I got my first X10 I was told “designed for 100gr”. I have never been able to prove that wrong.

Stretch


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

UK_Stretch said:


> Very under-rated but … in my opinion… flight stability is maybe the biggest thing. If the arrow is wobbling it will drift disproportionately. So if you have a twitchy tune sometimes bigger fletches can give you less drift and MORE PREDICTABLE drift. Obviously that has limits - don’t know where the crossover is - not suggesting 2317 with 6” feathers and 200gr points.
> 
> I do find 120gr points drift less but I also find they drop more when my release gets a bit crappy - sometimes a lot more - the difference is not enough for my personal incompetence level. When your X10 point option was 90-110 (yeah that far back) I hardly saw any difference on the target between 100 and 110. I think people over think this rather than shooting what they have.
> 
> ...


No worries or poor outcomes because of low FOC with your long draw?
Total arrow weight being a thing it seems like the heavier spines 450 and below take care of the weight issue with gpi of the heavy shaft and don’t “need” 10-40gns over in point weight because the total arrow is already heavy.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

MooseisLoose said:


> People can always count on you to provide constructive, worthwhile posts.


Actually, they can and have here for nearly 18 years now. But I'm guilty, as are most people, of being more responsive to people who are open to learning.

The folks who followed my post explained it to you well enough. I didn't need to type it out.

If you think speed is most important, then by all means make that your goal.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Personally, I'll take a forgiving well tuned arrow over high FOC, and this is from the only guy with 125 grain custom tungstens in his A/C/E's at the '04 trials. Drift, for an experienced archer, is not that hard to deal with. FOC only gets you so far.

The thing that kills most people btw isn't crosswind drift. It's headwinds and tailwinds. Especially tailwinds.


----------



## MrPillow (Apr 9, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> The thing that kills most people btw isn't crosswind drift. It's headwinds and tailwinds. Especially tailwinds.


How so?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Because they randomly and rapidly shift back and forth and you often can’t tell if you should be aiming a bit left or a bit right on any given shot.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

A couple of things, the tungsten point was developed to prevent bending. The stainless steel points were bending in the stramit targets thus causing problems for the expensive x10. Problem solved plus a larger profit margin. ACE's have been used to win some major events by some very capable archers, however, the mental side does not allow those who are weak minded to believe they can do well unless they use what everyone else is using. John is right about the wind knowledge. I have always been fascinated by people who believe they don't have to aim off because they are using x10's. The better the tune the less drift but also the better the form consistency, the less drift. All of these have to be taken into consideration when using a very heavy arrow. Front of center doesn't really play that much into drift as much as a perfect tune. I used to tell people that you tune your bow and once it is tuned really good, check the FOC and then you will know what a perfect FOC is.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

MooseisLoose said:


> Speed seems pretty important when you take wind into account. A faster arrow is less affected by wind.





nuts&bolts said:


> Not true. Momentum is more important for a cross wind.


This is one of those AT things that I don't understand.
Possibly I'm just not processing some of it right.

Most (yes, also on the compound side) will claim speed is irrelevant and point at momentum instead. Also for hunting.
But half of momentum, for initial value at least though not necessarily retention, is speed.

Now: if weight rather than speed is a priority for crosswinds, I can understand that part.
But if speed is irrelevant and weight is everything, why go for the x10 when you could go for more gpi with an even heavier tip if more foc if desired?

If speed is irrelevant, why pull the back end of 40-something pounds? Just cast that heavy arrow at 20 lbs. It'll fly slower, but that's... not relevant somehow. 
Everyone's just pulling twice or more that... not to launch the same weight projectile faster to get more momentum... but because they're... masochists?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Nobody said speed is irrelevant, it’s just not as important as other factors.

Heavier draw weight = cleaner release plus the ability to shoot a heavier arrow, therefore more momentum. Also, very light bow with very heavy arrow = unable to get sight on target at 70m.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

Arrowbender said:


> This is one of those AT things that I don't understand.
> Possibly I'm just not processing some of it right.
> 
> Most (yes, also on the compound side) will claim speed is irrelevant and point at momentum instead. Also for hunting.
> ...


For a RECURVE shooter,
due to typical recurve arrow speeds,
and shooting 50 meters and shooting 70 meters,
the cross sectional area matters. X10s are smallest diameter for top level recurve arrows. Smallest outside diameter
means less frontal area, for a cross wind to push a recurve arrow sideways.

X10s are HEAVIER than ACE recurve arrows. HEAVIER 400-ish spine arrow means the 400-ish spine X10 is directionally more stable.

Tungsten points that weigh 120 grains, weigh the same as stainless steel 120 grain points.
TUNGSTEN points are higher density than stainless steel points.
So, TUNGSTEN points for a recurve arrow means you get a slightly LARGER FOC, cuz FOC matters for the recurve arrow, in terms of directional stability (tighter groups) when shooting in a cross wind.

This is why RECURVE folks will pay $240 for a dozen TUNGSTEN points,
instead of only $40.

Aluminum arrows are HEAVIER than carbon arrows.
Aluminum arrows are also HEAVIER than a hybrid aluminum core / carbon exterior arrow.

So, just fling an ALUMINUM arrow with 150 grain field points, and the aluminum insert,
at the 90 meter target, 100 yards away, with the 20 lb limbs, right? Well, the outside diameter on the aluminum arrow is HUGE, so an aluminum arrow with 150 grain field points and aluminum insert is not the ideal choice
for a recurve shooter, trying to reach the 90 meter (100 yard) target.

500 SPINE X10 arrow is 0.205 inches outside diameter.
Easton 2114 aluminum arrow is 510 spine, with an outside diameter of 21/64ths = 0.328 inches.
Easton 2212 aluminum arrow is 505 spine, with an outside diameter of 22/64ths = 0.344 inches.

So, the Easton X10 in 500 spine is 62% of the OD for the Easton 2114 arrow.
So, the Easton X10 in 500 spine is 60% of the OD for the Easton 2212 arrow.

So, SIZE matters, meaning Outside Diameter. Go smaller. Shoot X10s, if you are shooting top RECURVE scores
and shoot FITA FIELD or FITA OUTDOOR competition.

So, WEIGHT matters for the RECURVE arrow.

Easton X10 500 spine. 7.8 grains per inch. 0.216 inches OUTSIDE diameter.
Easton A/C/E 520 spine. 6.7 grains per inch. 0.205 inches OUTSIDE diameter.
Easton SuperDrive Micro 520 spine. 6.1 grains per inch. 0.218 inches OUTSIDE diameter.

So, if SPEED is everything, all the TOP recurve shooters would be shooting the Easton SuperDrive Micro arrows.
Nope. They don't. 

SMALLEST outside diameter...combined with smallest OUTSIDE diameter matters.
HAND sorted and weight matched and weight codes printed on the label (Easton X10s) also matters.
TUNGSTEN target points for slightly MORE FOC matters.

So, this is why folks who shoot at the TOP levels (recurve) will shoot Hand Sorted and Weight Matched
Easton X10 arrows, along with CRAZY pricey Tungsten Points.

SMALLEST OD. Easton X10 for recurve target arrows.
Highest grains per inch, amount Easton Target Recurve arrows. Easton X10 for recurve target arrows.
TUNGSTEN points. Only for the Easton X10 target arrows, for a reason.

So, for TARGET recurve,
at the top levels,
Easton X10 with Tungsten points...if the RECURVE shooter wants to shoot top of the line Easton target arrows.

Do, top level recurve shooters shoot ALL Carbon arrows?
Absolutely.

Would these top level recurve shooters, shoot BETTER, shoot HIGHER scores if they switched to
Easton X10s with Tungsten points?
Maybe. Maybe not.

WHY not?
Cuz aluminum core, carbon exterior arrows will take a PERMANENT BEND, if you are not careful.
The all carbon arrows are MUCH lower maintenance.

U saying you can UN-BEND an Easton X10?
Possible?
yes.
DIFFICULT to do? Extremely.

I spend an hour per aluminum arrow, to get the bent aluminum arrow back to Easton levels or straightness
or even STRAIGHTER than what comes out of the Easton factory.



Do I shoot Easton X10s with my recurve?
Nope, too pricey and I'm lazy...so I shoot all carbon target recurve arrows.

Do I have students who shoot Easton X10s with tungsten points?
yup. They shoot better than I do.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

UK_Stretch said:


> I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.





chrstphr said:


> And as Stretch said speed isnt important at all on that level.





Stash said:


> I guarantee you, arrow speed is one of the least important considerations for a top Olympic division shooter.





nuts&bolts said:


> SPEED for a recurve is meaningless. SERIOUS.





chrstphr said:


> Speed is not important at all in Olympic recurve archery.





Stash said:


> Nobody said speed is irrelevant, it’s just not as important as other factors.


Heh, ok.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

nuts&bolts said:


> For a RECURVE shooter,
> due to typical recurve arrow speeds,
> and shooting 50 meters and shooting 70 meters,
> the cross sectional area matters. X10s are smallest diameter for top level recurve arrows. Smallest outside diameter
> ...


Fair point, I did forget about OD.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

Stash said:


> Nobody said speed is irrelevant, it’s just not as important as other factors.
> 
> Heavier draw weight = cleaner release plus the ability to shoot a heavier arrow, therefore more momentum. Also, very light bow with very heavy arrow = unable to get sight on target at 70m.


Yup, the more recurve pounds on the fingers, the cleaner the FINGERS release, and actually easier to be consistent at long distance, with more pounds on the fingers. Then, we come into the stamina issue...finishing the ENTIRE recurve tournament still shooting strong. This is the issue I am working on with my 16 year old barebow recurve student. She poops out, runs out of stamina. Slowly building up her endurance. AS the pounds on the fingers go up, the scores go up, the group size shrinks. BUT, it's a slow process.

AT the lower pounds on the fingers for a recurve, gotta use the weaker spine ratings, so the arrows are all carbon to reach out to max shooting distances. As we are able to increase pounds on the fingers, I can switch her to ever stiff spine ratings, and the mass of the arrow gets a little heavier, and the momentum gets better, and the group sizes will get tighter, with the higher pounds on the fingers, cuz of the heavier arrow. I have her arrows using 140 grain target points, so the FOC is at the max, for whatever spine rating I have her shooting at.

More pounds on the fingers for a RECURVE shooter, the bow is more forgiving of form errors, so it's actually EASIER to control group size, as the pounds on the fingers increases.

LESS pounds on the fingers for a RECURVE shooter (due to stamina issues),
the bow is LESS forgiving of form errors, so the fliers end up flying FARTHER from the x-ring at distance. So, the LOWER pounds on the fingers, are more difficult to control, to get tighter groups. Scores will be lower, for low poundage recurve setups. We are limited by stamina for younger recurve shooters.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

UK_Stretch said:


> In 1997 when I got my first X10 I was told “designed for 100gr”. I have never been able to prove that wrong.
> 
> Stretch


I believe GT said that he did all the testing with a 100gr point. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Arrowbender said:


> Heh, ok.


Not sure i understand if your comment is dismissive or not, it's so short with no elaboration. Perhaps i miss your point. 
You are welcome to put emphasis on arrow speed all you want. 

But decades of experience and knowledge from the four you quoted all saying the same thing. 

i will also add in all the years competing...learning, talking with other archers at all levels of skill, not once did i have a conversation on the speed of my bow or speed of their bow/arrow or any conversation about arrow speed at all. 

And i can assure you, I've had thousands of conversations about bows, gear, shooting, and form. Archers at tournaments love to talk to each other, it's a family reunion. And many I spoke with were at levels i could never attain. 

YMMV

Chris


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

chrstphr said:


> Not sure i understand if your comment is dismissive or not, it's so short with no elaboration. Perhaps i miss your point.
> You are welcome to put emphasis on arrow speed all you want.
> 
> But decades of experience and knowledge from the four you quoted all saying the same thing.
> ...


It's not being dismissive.
My point was that Stash (who, don't get me wrong, I do respect), was saying, that no one was saying, that speed is irrelevant.
But they did say that, repeatedly. Topic's full of it, and it's quoted.
It's not.
Especially when one wants to drag in momentum, for better or worse.
Look at the average men vs women's scores and look at the average draw weights.

Many people, quoted accordingly, DID in their own words say speed is irrelevant. And that's a contradiction. 
I'm not pointing that out to be petty, I'm pointing it out because I think that argument needs to be worded a lot more carefully than that.

AT often goes "Well yeah, I said that but duh, obviously it's not what I literally meant to say!" 
Ok. Then don't do that. Please please don't. Because newbies have access to the experts on here, and that's awesome squared, but they are taking the experts very literally.

I don't doubt for a second that the subject never came up between you and your pupils, because your average pupil was probably already getting enough speed (yup, speed) out of their setup to get the job done.
Now if they weren't... if that were an obstacle to them hitting the center ring with the arrow... you'd be bringing up ways to increase... what?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Because they randomly and rapidly shift back and forth and you often can’t tell if you should be aiming a bit left or a bit right on any given shot.


Precisely.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> however, the mental side does not allow those who are weak minded to believe they can do well unless they use what everyone else is using.


pure gold there.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

nuts&bolts said:


> Heavier draw weight = cleaner release plus the ability to shoot a heavier arrow, therefore more momentum. Also, very light bow with very heavy arrow = unable to get sight on target at 70m.





UK_Stretch said:


> I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.





chrstphr said:


> I think the fastest i ever shot was 205 fps.





Rick McKinney said:


> The better the tune the less drift but also the better the form consistency, the less drift.


Thank you all for your constructive feedback (except for limbwalker), I never expected so many people to pipe in with good stuff. Especially Rick McKinney, seems like there's a nugget of gold in every post of yours I read.

Now that the speed issue has been sorted out, can anyone talk about the arrow weight part of my post? Haven't seen much on that. I'm curious what arrow weight is considered a "minimum" to be able to effectively combat cross wind drift at 50-70 meters.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Arrowbender, the confusion in this discussion seems to be in the distinction between “relevant” and “important”. I looked through all the posts previous to your #20 and didn’t see the words “relevant” or “irrelevant”, hence I stand behind my “nobody said speed is irrelevant”. I do not consider the two terms to be interchangeable.

In any event, yes, of course arrow speed is both relevant and important in archery. You’re not going to get far in archery with an arrow travelling zero fps.

However, the discussion is about the importance of *marginal additional speed *compared to other issues, primarily higher momentum and good tuning, which I think most knowledgeable Olympic archers prioritize over a few extra feet per second of speed.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

MooseisLoose said:


> Now that the speed issue has been sorted out, can anyone talk about the arrow weight part of my post? Haven't seen much on that. I'm curious what arrow weight is considered a "minimum" to be able to effectively combat cross wind drift at 50-70 meters.


I don’t think it’s possible to quantify that. 

Everyone has a different arrow spine and length requirement, and different tuning variables. Once that's established through trial and error, the main decision comes down to selecting an arrow from among the thinnest and heaviest models that are available on the market.

I have no recollection of hearing any Olympic archer say anything like “I need a 425 grain arrow”. Bowhunters, well, every third post. 🙄


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> I guarantee you, arrow speed is one of the least important considerations for a top Olympic division shooter. If it were, they’d all be shooting ACEs instead of X10s.
> 
> The flight time difference at 70 meters between a fast arrow and a slower one might be on the order of a tenth of a second, and the arrow isn't going to move much more sideways in that short a time, even in a crosswind. A dense, thin arrow will be less affected by wind than a wider, lighter one over the whole 70 meter flight.
> 
> Increased arrow speed only has significant value in unmarked distance shooting.


It's not so much that speed doesn't make a difference in counteracting the wind - it does, and a very large difference at that as you pilots in the thread already know - it's that there are more than one ways to skin that particular cat.
Meaning, if you're already at the limits of speed - you can't increase it anymore without other major ill effects - that doesn't mean you're SOL. You can compromise on other aspects of the shaft that can also reduce the effects of the (relative) wind. You can increase the weight, or reduce aerodynamic profile, or both.

There was a thread on this topic up in the general forum a little while ago about this same topic.....

lee.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

chrstphr said:


> the better FOC arrow is less affected by the wind.
> Speed is not important at all in Olympic recurve archery. Compound archers seem obsessed with speed, possibly from hype by compound bow manufacturers.
> 
> Speed has nothing to do with Olympic recurve archery results in wind or without wind.


Not true. Like I mentioned earlier, this is one of the first things pilots learn in ground school when they're first learning to fly. It's vital to being able to get to your destination and back safely and without running out of gas . But it's not intuitive and not usually something known widely by the general public.

The basic idea is as follows: the shorter the flight time of the projectile/arrow/aircraft from start to finish, the less time the effects of the wind have to affect its ground track. So, the faster you can make it go, the shorter the flight time. Which in turn means the less correction you have to apply in the track through the airmass to insure the correct track over the ground (meaning, arrival at the correct destination).
And correspondingly for longer flight times.

A lot of flights have prematurely ended in fields with empty gas tanks by early pilots who didn't understand this in their flight plans when accounting for the winds to their destinations and back. 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

So unfortunately, the compounders turn out to be right. They don't necessarily know why they're right, but the description above is why.

That's not the whole story on compensating for wind, though, so in practice there are other ways to compensate for slow arrows so that the effect ends up negligible in practice.

But it certainly does make a difference...

lee.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Go outside on a windy day. Find a wall that is parallel to the wind direction. Mark an X on the wall at eye level. 

Now step back about 5 yards.

Take a ping ping ball and throw it as hard as you can at the X. See how far the wind moves it.
Then take a ball bearing and toss it gently at the X. See how far the wind moves it. 

Then tell me what’s going to be more accurate in the wind - a slow, heavy, small projectile, or a fast, light, large one.

Yes, the difference between a ping pong ball and a marble is much greater than an ACE and an X10, but the example illustrates the situation.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

Stash said:


> Arrowbender, the confusion in this discussion seems to be in the distinction between “relevant” and “important”. I looked through all the posts previous to your #20 and didn’t see the words “relevant” or “irrelevant”, hence I stand behind my “nobody said speed is irrelevant”. I do not consider the two terms to be interchangeable.
> 
> In any event, yes, of course arrow speed is both relevant and important in archery. You’re not going to get far in archery with an arrow travelling zero fps.
> 
> However, the discussion is about the importance of *marginal additional speed *compared to other issues, primarily higher momentum and good tuning, which I think most knowledgeable Olympic archers prioritize over a few extra feet per second of speed.


Argh, *"Marginal additional speed" *gets you additional momentum, because that is how momentum works, not according to me, not according to some internet back and forth, but according to physics. 
Saying additional speed is irrelevant compared to additional momentum makes no sense. One results in the other. Similarly, a good tune is important because it results in... yeah, exactly.
Cleaner flight, thus launching the SAME weight with less energy wasted, faster, resulting in more momentum.

The quotes are right there, I did not change them, and I think playing semantics games to say, afterwards, "well I didn't mean what I said because I didn't use the exact literal same word" is playing word games to escape prior statements.

Now it's:
"In any event, yes, of course arrow speed is both relevant and important in archery."

Well, ok. We agree that speed is both relevant and important in archery. 
Despite what seems like everyone previously stating the opposite, my bad, not my first language and all that.

You're obviously right that it's never going to be the one single determining factor in any competition. But it's obviously not irrelevant by any means, because... as we can see here... it's a requirement, in some ways. And it adds to momentum. Which is good. Including in cross winds.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

Stash said:


> Yes, the difference between a ping pong ball and a marble is much greater than an ACE and an X10, but the example illustrates the situation.


No, by using a grossly exaggerated example you've fallen into the same logical error the general archery and bowhunting sections always do when they're (endlessly) debating this through irrelevant examples, and it just confuses things more.

I'll throw a bowling ball now using the same force I used for the ping pong ball and the marble previously.
Oh dear.
It fell on my toe. Ouch.
Let me try a banana next.
This is silly.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

lamb said:


> moose gets his arse handed to him again lol


Huh? I got a lot of great feedback from high level competitive archers, which is exactly what I wanted.

If that's what you call getting my ass handed, I'm glad to have it happen any time I ask a question on here 🙂


----------



## jason miller (Oct 3, 2006)

Wind drift is determined by both velocity and ballistic coefficient. Ballistic coefficient is a relationship of a projectile’s aerodynamic shape and it’s mass. Using the same input energy, two projectiles with similar aerodynamic shapes but different mass and therefore velocity(and ballistic coefficient) will exhibit relatively small differences in down range ballistics with the lighter and faster projectile shooting a bit “flatter” and the heavier projectile showing slightly less wind drift.


Balance, or FOC, has no direct bearing on ballistic coefficient of any arrow. In rifle bullets, the most aerodynamic bullets with the best downrange ballistics are all balanced toward the rear due their their absence of lead in the nose. Having a fast enough twist rate to fully stabilize the bullet and get rid of any wobble is essential to getting the best downrange ballistics possible, though. If FOC makes any difference in the ballistic coefficient of an arrow, it is only as a reflection on its how quickly the arrow flies straight and how absolutely straight it flies.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

MooseisLoose said:


> Thank you all for your constructive feedback (except for limbwalker), I never expected so many people to pipe in with good stuff. Especially Rick McKinney


You must have found it inconvenient when he agreed with me not once but twice. But some people need an enemy and I'm big on service so I'll be your huckleberry. LOL


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

jason miller said:


> Wind drift is determined by both velocity and ballistic coefficient. Ballistic coefficient is a relationship of a projectile’s aerodynamic shape and it’s mass. Using the same input energy, two projectiles with similar aerodynamic shapes but different mass and therefore velocity(and ballistic coefficient) will exhibit relatively small differences in down range ballistics with the lighter and faster projectile shooting a bit “flatter” and the heavier projectile showing slightly less wind drift.
> 
> 
> Balance, or FOC, has no direct bearing on ballistic coefficient of any arrow. In rifle bullets, the most aerodynamic bullets with the best downrange ballistics are all balanced toward the rear due their their absence of lead in the nose. Having a fast enough twist rate to fully stabilize the bullet and get rid of any wobble is essential to getting the best downrange ballistics possible, though. If FOC makes any difference in the ballistic coefficient of an arrow, it is only as a reflection on its how quickly the arrow flies straight and how absolutely straight it flies.


I was wondering how long this thread would continue before the 30-06 vs 6.5PRC would come up


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

You know, Arrowbender, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been thinking about the wrong thing, momentum. I should have been considering inertia. Thinking about the movement of an arrow towards the target, but should have been thinking only about the movement of an arrow at 90° horizontally. I made a mistake. There, you can quote me. 😄

Another experiment, then.

Hold different arrows horizontally in a crosswind, and drop them. Let’s say, from a height that takes approximately 1 second to fall, about 5 meters. Compare how much the wind blows them sideways and see how far they get blown further from straight down - thin heavy ones and thick light ones.

Easy enough to measure how far each gets blown by the wind per unit of time during the falling and compare that to the time they would be in flight on their way to the 70m target.

Example: in a particular crosswind, arrow A, lightweight, wider diameter, moves 30 cm downwind in a 1 second fall, shoots at 200 fps (average speed) takes 1.15 seconds, should drift 34.5 cm. Arrow B, heavier, thinner diameter, moves 25 cm downwind in the fall, shoots at 180 fps, takes 1.27 seconds, should drift 31.8 cm.

Now, these are made-up numbers of course, and one of those “spherical chicken in a vacuum” things. But might be close to reality in comparing something like an ACE to an X10.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

limbwalker said:


> You must have found it inconvenient when he agreed with me not once but twice. But some people need an enemy and I'm big on service so I'll be your huckleberry. LOL


I have no clue what you're talking about. You were disputing FOC, I didn't mention FOC once. I don't think of you as an enemy, in fact I don't even think of you at all. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to this thread, you must care a lot to do so. But you keep bumping my thread to the top of the page, so thanks I guess? I suspect you're still salty about that time I called you out for talking trash about Jake Kaminski.

Oh and I greatly admire Rick McKinney. He's given a ton to the archery community, so he should serve as someone for you to aspire to. And his arrows are top-notch (I've bought several dozen for my barebow rig). He's a true sportsman and is a positive force in the archery community, as is Kaminski. I think very highly of them both.


----------



## jason miller (Oct 3, 2006)

Maggiemaebe said:


> I was wondering how long this thread would continue before the 30-06 vs 6.5PRC would come up


Differences in arrows are probably more like comparing a 140 Berger with a 147 ELD.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> Go outside on a windy day. Find a wall that is parallel to the wind direction. Mark an X on the wall at eye level.
> 
> Now step back about 5 yards.
> 
> ...


Well, take the same wind and the same ping pong ball and throw it at the wall 5 times faster than you did before. See how far the wind moves it now compared to the 5x slower trip to the wall. That's where you'll see the effects of different flight times from point A to B.

But your point is well taken - making it heavier/reduced aerodynamic profile/both is exactly what you do as a practical solution when you can't go faster with the ping pong ball...

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

MooseisLoose said:


> I have no clue what you're talking about. You were disputing FOC, I didn't mention FOC once. I don't think of you as an enemy, in fact I don't even think of you at all. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to this thread, you must care a lot to do so. But you keep bumping my thread to the top of the page, so thanks I guess? I suspect you're still salty about that time I called you out for talking trash about Jake Kaminski.
> 
> Oh and I greatly admire Rick McKinney. He's given a ton to the archery community, so he should serve as someone for you to aspire to. And his arrows are top-notch (I've bought several dozen for my barebow rig). He's a true sportsman and is a positive force in the archery community, as is Kaminski. I think very highly of them both.


Just having fun at your expense. I admit it. You rubbed me the wrong way by already having an answer to your own question when there were at least two Olympic archers willing to reply to your question. That's all.

And I never trash talked Jake. But you wanted to turn my comments into that which is why I say you need an enemy. Might want to ask yourself why friend.

The 2nd part of this post I agree with. Rick has given a ton back and would be -as an archer- someone for anyone not named Darrell Pace, to aspire to. His book was all I needed to make an Olympic team, which I would think is the highest praise one could get as an author.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

jason miller said:


> Differences in arrows are probably more like comparing a 140 Berger with a 147 ELD.


Comparing spin-stabilized projectiles with arrows is a fool’s errand, but I think you know that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL


----------



## jason miller (Oct 3, 2006)

My original point was that ballistic coefficient and velocity determine downrange drop and wind drift for any projectile and that just like proper barrel twist fully stabilizes a bullet to help it achieve its maximum ballistic coefficient, a properly tuned arrow that recovers from paradox quickly and flies as true as possible will also get down range more efficiently. 

Is there something wrong with that logic?

The post you quoted was in response to someone posting that I was comparing a 30-06 to a 6.5 PRC. I was simply replying that comparing arrows out of one bow is more like comparing two bullets from the same rifle, not two different cartridges and bore diameters.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

This is another of those “how did we get here threads”.

If you read “I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.” And your mind transposes that statement to “don’t care” or “doesn’t matter” - then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation - you’re seeing words that are not there. Just concentrate on your shooting.

The top archers cares about results - if shooting different limbs, heavier limbs, different string, lighter or heavier arrow etc etc gets them the results that is what they shoot. They are likely shooting a “typical” draw weight so speed will be enough. Do they pick the 210fps setup of the 202fps setup? They pick the one that works best across a range of conditions. (Exceptions of course apply - I recall Vladimir Escheev (did I spell that right?) always tuned for speed). But Nespoli - who has probably the fastest bow on the mens line - says he shoots what he shoots because IT WORKS BETTER FOR HIM. (And I think he prove that in Tokyo - respect earned).

Very few actively go in search of “more speed”. They go in search of results.

Stretch


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Just about anything you do to get more speed will affect tune and arrow flight. If you tune for results as Stretch correctly points out most do, speed is simply not a big priority. If you want more speed you increase the draw weight then work the other variables like arrow selection for the best tune and groups. But most find a weight range that they can be consistent with and go from there. You end up with the speed you end up with. Not that it does not matter, just way down the list. 

If you want speed, btw, Rick’s arrows have a relatively high spine to weight ratio. I have them and x10s and like them but do find they drift a bit more. Mainly don’t happen to tune quite as well at the setup I prefer. If the did happen to tune better or I change my weight I could easily shoot them. The point is the tune and grouping is more important than speed. It is just one factor but I don’t think most rate it as a high priority. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

UK_Stretch said:


> This is another of those “how did we get here threads”.
> 
> If you read “I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.” And your mind transposes that statement to “don’t care” or “doesn’t matter” - then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation - you’re seeing words that are not there. Just concentrate on your shooting.
> 
> ...


Agree with Stretch. The basic practical "mental game" for items like dealing with the wind are the same as for basically everything in archery:

Bows & arrows are compromises, not more-X-is-better or less-X-is-better.
The best compromise on a piece of gear is found by trial-and-error, and not back-of-the-envelope (or even Phd. level) math.

The problem with lowering the priority of the latter is it can distract you into holding ideas that are wrong ("speed doesn't matter", etc.) as well as tie you to the bench, tape measure and micrometer instead of out on the line shooting. This is a particularly obnoxious problem on the compound bow, which has many more moving parts and therefore offers many more opportunities to seduce the archer into a long, dreary life in the shop, and away from actually shooting the bow.

As for the current topic of dealing with the wind, the practical reality is that all of the items we're talking about affect the performance of the shaft in the wind, and they all interact with each other. The effects of changes in speed can be counteracted by the changes in overall weight which can be counteracted by changes in aerodynamic performance which can be counteracted by ....

So ultimately the true answer is you have to find the best performing setup The Old Fashioned Way by trial-and-error with different setups. What we know about the various effects of different dimensions can be guidelines to help us get into the ball park. But at the end of the day we just have to experiment to find the right combination.

That's a roundabout way of saying more or less nothing at all. But that's the practical reality. The right gear can only really be found by actually shooting it. And shooting it some more. The result may or may not correspond to our best guess about the right combination, and we have to be prepared for that too.

Strange but true.

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

To Lee's point about "trial and error" - Very few, if any, archers have put in enough objective testing to truly know the difference between limbs or arrows or risers or pick whatever piece of equipment you want to talk about. Even the best archers in the world who shoot full time only have a "feeling" that they shoot a certain thing better than another thing. There are two things going on here. First, most amateurs aren't skilled enough to objectively test equipment and second, they lack the time required to objectively test equipment.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> To Lee's point about "trial and error" - Very few, if any, archers have put in enough objective testing to truly know the difference between limbs or arrows or risers or pick whatever piece of equipment you want to talk about. Even the best archers in the world who shoot full time only have a "feeling" that they shoot a certain thing better than another thing. There are two things going on here. First, most amateurs aren't skilled enough to objectively test equipment and second, they lack the time required to objectively test equipment.


Totally agree. And we have this same argument format on a wide number of topics, including this one, up in the compound forums too. And the results tend to be the same.

You have the camp that says "don't worry about why X produces result Y. Just do X and it'll give you Y" and then you have the camp that says "Here's why X produces result Y. Accordingly, that's how you know you're doing what isn't X and getting what isn't Y all the time. That can help you decide whether you even want to try X or not., etc". And varying gradations in between.

I tend towards the latter camp, because I think that, in general, it's better to know than to not know. Depending on how much it costs to know, I think knowing yields a better result than not.

As for this particular topic, one thing I do think is true is that it tends to produce detectably better results at the target when you're dealing with the extremes.

For example, for sheer physical endurance reasons, I shoot compound at peak weights at least a full 20lbs less than my competitors do. So if I want to be competitive, optimizing both the speed and the aerodynamic advantages of my setup for the particular conditions is vastly more important than it is for my competitors. They may get the same results at 50 meters shooting a XX75 and an X10, or if there's an improvement with the X10, it's negligible. OTOH, because I'm shooting the same bow up to half the peak weight lighter, I stand to gain a lot more if I experiment with my outdoor arrows, knowing what I know about how lift, drag and momentum contribute to performance in the wind.

And so on. That's the general idea.

Most folks who aren't hindered in that way aren't as affected by these phenomena and they can safely ignore them. Up to and including incorrectly concluding "they don't make any difference"....

lee.


----------



## archerynooblol (Nov 6, 2010)

nuts&bolts said:


> Not true. *Momentum* is more important for a cross wind. This is why top level RECURVE folks pay $240.00 for a dozen *120 grain* TUNGSTEN points for X10 arrows.
> 
> BUT, the stainless points that are also *120 grain points* are ONLY $38.00.


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

Stash said:


> You know, Arrowbender, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been thinking about the wrong thing, momentum. I should have been considering inertia. Thinking about the movement of an arrow towards the target, but should have been thinking only about the movement of an arrow at 90° horizontally. I made a mistake. There, you can quote me. 😄
> 
> Another experiment, then.
> 
> ...


Heh, pretty sure you've some examples of me being wrong you're sporting enough not to bring up 

I do understand your point re weight, I do agree. And N&B did also point out the OD being important, which I had forgotten to consider.
But at lees has said better than I could- none of this makes speed unimportant or irrelevant to the issue.

I'll keep reading as I think it's been really interesting so far but I'll bow out of commenting - as another user said, " then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation". 
I genuinely do seem to be interpreting those quotes I, er, quoted incorrectly then. 
Let's chalk it up to it not being my first language, my apologies.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Arrowbender said:


> I'll keep reading as I think it's been really interesting so far but I'll bow out of commenting - as another user said, " then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation".
> I genuinely do seem to be interpreting those quotes I, er, quoted incorrectly then.
> Let's chalk it up to it not being my first language, my apologies.


everyone is free to post their opinion.

To elaborate on my quote "speed is irrelevant" . For a english second language reader, i should have been much more precise. Poundage or bow limb load is needed for any distance in shooting an arrow out of a bow. Arrow speed coming out of that bow is a byproduct of that. There will always be some speed or the arrow falls flat to the ground and the speed will then be the falling speed in gravity. To say speed isnt NEEDED is ignoring reality and physics.

In the context of shooting and tuning a bow for groupings at 18- 90 meters, speed is not a factor to consider for that. Archer form, Archer body and face specifics, bow poundage, sight marks, arrow diameter, arrow weight, arrow spine, point weight, FOC, fletchings all are more important.

Arrow speed is a byproduct of all those things and no archer i know starts out saying i need a 240 fps arrow to shoot 70 meters. Once all tuning is done and the bow is consistent and accurate at said shooting distance, then speed could be checked, but then it has no bearing. It will be what it is.

If its 198 fps or 204 fps or 175 fps, all irrelevant. Does the arrow reach the target? Is the sight mark such that it can be used? Does the arrow fly mostly straight to target without fishtailing or minnow-ing? Is the bow poundage or load something the archer can handle?

All of this is more important than what the speed is.

I could say the same thing for string blur. Makes no difference really where it is, as long as you have it in the same place each time. Is one side of the pin better than the other? up for debate. Is string blur important? Many archers never pay attention to it at all. And shoot very well.

I guess i posted assuming that the language would be understood without its context. So for that, I am at fault.

I guess i could make the comparison i have owned and driven cars for 40 years. Never once have i figured out the top end speed any of my vehicles could go, nor did i care. I needed the cars to function to get me from A to B, and do the jobs i required. The top speed of the car was irrelevant as long as it could do the speed limit.

So in the end, arrow speed isnt relevant to the end result of tuning a bow and shooting the distance you need as something to worry about. If your bow wont cast more than 5 feet, doesnt matter the speed. And to cast 70 or 90 meters, the bow already has enough poundage and enough speed so i dont need to worry what exactly that speed is. Enough to target is enough speed.

So Speed is relevant to the physics of casting an arrow 70 meters,.

how much speed i have to do that is irrelevant to me as an archer as long as the bow sends the arrow that distance.

We also need air to shoot an arrow 70 meters. But i never worry about how much or how thick air there is that i am shooting in. Sea Level vs 6000 feet above sea level, just changes my sight marks slightly. So the sea level reading i am at is irrelevant, yet I need air for archery.

Lastly, say you shooting X10 arrows. At 42# i have an arrow speed of 196fps and i shoot 550 spine arrow. To go faster i need basically more poundage on the bow. Yet doing so makes me have to get the next arrow spine up to 500 which is stiffer and heavier than the previous arrow. So now i shoot 46# 500 spine and guess what? My arrow speed is 196 fps. Because as i go up in poundage the arrow spine changes for the tune thus negating the speed. And even if i gained or lost 2 fps, i wouldnt notice it due to the load draw changes and change in tune on the bow.
Thus again in that context i say, the speed is irrelevant.

I hope i have clarified.

Chris


----------



## Arrowbender (Nov 7, 2018)

chrstphr said:


> everyone is free to post their opinion.
> 
> To elaborate on my quote "speed is irrelevant" . For a english second language reader, i should have been much more precise. Poundage or bow limb load is needed for any distance in shooting an arrow out of a bow. Arrow speed coming out of that bow is a byproduct of that. There will always be some speed or the arrow falls flat to the ground and the speed will then be the falling speed in gravity. To say speed isnt NEEDED is ignoring reality and physics.
> 
> ...


You have, and thank you for taking the time. 
Also, a thank you for all others who have expressed their thoughts and taken the time to get into detail.

Not sure what to conclude yet for me personally, but I need to reread this thread a good few times and let it sink in. I'd love more takes, if anyone is willing.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Chris, Good explanation and on point for some of us. Everyone has a philosophy on what works and what does not work. I'm ok with that. I tell my students to try everything if they can. That way when they go to a tournament and someone is doing something that didn't work for you, you will not feel mentally disadvantaged because you KNOW it doesn't work for you. 

As for speed. I probably said this before on another thread, but my first world title was with the slowest bow speed of the men's field clocking in at 179 fps. This was with a 51# otf and the 2115's were too stiff. So I raised the brace height to 10.5" with a 68" bow. It slowed my bow down substantially but it gave me the results I was seeking. I was humiliated by a few people until I won. Their comment was that since I had a super slow bow I was not going to do well. Hmmmm, I wonder what I could have done with a perfect setup? (snicker) I could have let it bother me, but I was more focused on competing and beating my nemesis (DP). He won the title two years ago and won the Gold Medal at the Olympics and he was truly the one person everyone was going after. Oh, and I didn't know this at the time but I measured my FOC later and it came out at 5.6%. I had light points in it because I couldn't get the distance if I went with heavy points. My arrow just barely cleared the sight pin at 90 meters. The winds were strong at this event and I was comfortable on how to aim in the wind. 

Going forward to 6 years later and I was using the AC 1308-3 (I think) I was using a 70 grain point because that was all they had at the time. We learned so much during those years on speed, spin and FOC. The arrows were much skinnier than the aluminums but the weight was virtually the same. In reality I did not notice much difference between the two shafts but since I was sponsored, it was wise to use the new AC arrows. Again, I won due to figuring out what works for me and not anybody else. My brace height was normal however, my tiller became radical with a 5/8" difference (positive). This was because it helped my aim tremendously allowing my grip to be fully relaxed. The weird part was that the arrow flew well until about 70 meters and then they literally popped over due to drift. We attributed that to too much spin on the shaft causing the arrow to "parachute" the last 20 meters. The spin was faster than the speed of the arrow. Not a good thing at 90 meters! After winning that title I tried some new "Futura" points developed by the Troncoso family. It was one of the first 100 grain one piece "bullet" point and it worked great! Most of us headed in that direction at the time. It was very rare to have a point heavier than 70-80 grains back then. This was revolutionary! 

Going forward to 4 years later, Beman came along and beat the pants off the AC arrow literally dominating the World Championships. This caused Jim Easton to scribble on a napkin developing the beginnings of the barreled shaft. Thus the ACE shaft was born. Super fast and very critical since most of us were used to a heavier sluggish shaft. It was amazingly super fast. I shot it at the 1988 Olympics and got 220 fps out of it. I felt it was too fast and a few years later I complained to Jim about the speed being too fast so they made up some "BB's" (for big barrel). That was the arrow I used to shoot the 1352, however, in the wind it was a bit squirrelly since the diameter was the same as the ACE. That was when the engineers got to work developing the X10. The same weight as my "BB's" but a lot skinnier and have proven to be the magic elixir. I didn't shoot the regular x10's due to my departure from the company. However, the x10 has proven to be long lasting and as I have told people that would listen, other arrows will shoot just as good but not better and "professional" archers always go where the money is if everything is equal. 

One thing that Earl Hoyt told me years ago was that you have a "law of diminishing return". This essentially means that you look for the ultimate but you may try to go beyond that but it doesn't really help. Look for that one magic that gives you the best performance no matter what people say. Use what works even if it defies logic and science. Once you include yourself (human), most of science gets screwy anyway. It's just a good place to start and look for what works for you. 

Sorry my posts just get longer and longer....


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Some of the (eight) shooters using the ‘big barrel’ ACE’s I made for the Barcelona Games also used the first tungsten point I had developed at that time- for greater FOC with the heavier shaft. 

(Nothing to do with ”preventing bending”- that point had a tungsten head with an aluminum shank.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Chris, Good explanation and on point for some of us. Everyone has a philosophy on what works and what does not work. I'm ok with that. I tell my students to try everything if they can. That way when they go to a tournament and someone is doing something that didn't work for you, you will not feel mentally disadvantaged because you KNOW it doesn't work for you.
> 
> As for speed. I probably said this before on another thread, but my first world title was with the slowest bow speed of the men's field clocking in at 179 fps. This was with a 51# otf and the 2115's were too stiff. So I raised the brace height to 10.5" with a 68" bow. It slowed my bow down substantially but it gave me the results I was seeking. I was humiliated by a few people until I won. Their comment was that since I had a super slow bow I was not going to do well. Hmmmm, I wonder what I could have done with a perfect setup? (snicker) I could have let it bother me, but I was more focused on competing and beating my nemesis (DP). He won the title two years ago and won the Gold Medal at the Olympics and he was truly the one person everyone was going after. Oh, and I didn't know this at the time but I measured my FOC later and it came out at 5.6%. I had light points in it because I couldn't get the distance if I went with heavy points. My arrow just barely cleared the sight pin at 90 meters. The winds were strong at this event and I was comfortable on how to aim in the wind.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post Rick.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Some of the (eight) shooters using the ‘big barrel’ ACE’s I made for the Barcelona Games also used the first tungsten point I had developed at that time- for greater FOC with the heavier shaft.
> 
> (Nothing to do with ”preventing bending”- that point had a tungsten head with an aluminum shank.)


So tungsten points for ACE's were already available in Barcelona? For better FOC?
Passed many years asking for Tungsten points for ACE's, even asking for them to Jim E. , until we decided to make our own supporting Jason McK to have them for Athens (and Limbwalker got them too). Still here, those points, a girl in my club used them last week to weaken her stiff ACEs..
George, I knew many of the stories behind "official" opinions on arrows, but frankly, this is the first time I hear about tUngsten points available in 1991 already ...
May be you can also tell now for instance why X10 today have nothing to do with X10 made in 1996, what happened to the special X10 for London, and why also ACE's are no more (unfortunately) the same as they were in 1996...
Just curious..
P.S.
Missing Joe Tapley comments ...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

This discussion comes out every 3 or 4 years, and still answer is same: refer to Joe Tapley's studies and software to get the answers you need.
In the real top level archery world:

Very few top level archers have the knowledge to understand exactly what they are using and why, they almost all refer to their coaches for tuning and material choice. Coaches don't want to take any risk, so at the end everyone using the same things at same poundage. (example: new Korean coach of the French team has imposed to all archers to switch from any type of vanes they were using to Spin Wing only, and almost all followed)
Very few care of arrow speed in target, simply because these days the "standard poundage" is > 50# to 55# for men, variations on X10 you can get from there are negligible if you don't go >> 60#
They still do care of arrow speed in Field (and 3D for BB) , to get better sight marks
Compound look to speed because they can have more speed without more pounds, and speed does matter a lot to group in a 4 cm ring at 50 mt, but 140-150 gr Tungsten points are what they wanted for the wind, and they got them
Then there are the secrets in new materials under development, but they are kept secrets. You can sort them out when some results are not corresponding to the poundage used, for instance .. After 20 years, apparently, some of them can be disclosed, so most probably I will not be here on time to know about today's secrets.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Arrowbender said:


> I'll keep reading as I think it's been really interesting so far but I'll bow out of commenting - as another user said, " then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation".


Just a quick AT tip: when you hear this - AkA the "reading comprehension" accusation - you automatically know "a-priori" that the poster has little to no idea what he's talking about. Or if he does know, he has little to no idea how to actually talk about it....
Just another tool to keep around in your AT toolbox to help filter the proverbial wheat from the chaff.

lee.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Vittorio said:


> P.S.
> Missing Joe Tapley comments ...


I was thinking the same. Joe had some great stuff on this topic.

From the physics point of view people tend to conflate heavy and skinny as desirable. It is really just the skinny.... heavy is a side effect. To make a hollow column thinner with the same stiffness (spine) you need to increase wall thickness (increase weight) or change materials, but we need to keep prices at something people will buy and X10s are probably pushing that limit already.

But as usual, I think Rick nailed it with:



Rick McKinney said:


> Once you include yourself (human), most of science gets screwy anyway. It's just a good place to start and look for what works for you.


I for one am a very mediocre recreational archer and when shooting in windy conditions I know I am far more affected than the arrow - I will get more value trying to maintain stability and stick to my process (and time my shots) than worrying about which arrows I should be using. I doubt I'm alone there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tassie_devil said:


> I was thinking the same. Joe had some great stuff on this topic.
> 
> From the physics point of view people tend to conflate heavy and skinny as desirable. It is really just the skinny.... heavy is a side effect. To make a hollow column thinner with the same stiffness (spine) you need to increase wall thickness (increase weight) or change materials, but we need to keep prices at something people will buy and X10s are probably pushing that limit already.
> 
> ...


At nearly 6'5" with a 32.5" draw, I know that battling the wind against my body is a much higher priority than finding arrows that drift less. We don't shoot in a wind tunnel. Wind practice is as much about learning to shoot while being buffeted by wind gusts as it is about learning to aim off. There have been days when I wished I was a short guy with a larger "counterweight." LOL


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> There have been days when I wished I was a short guy with a larger "counterweight." LOL


You greatly overestimate the advantages of that condition...😄

Wasn’t there something about smaller (female) archers wearing backpacks full of rocks during a windy tournament once?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> So tungsten points for ACE's were already available in Barcelona?


That's news to me. Of course I was only the number one archer in the world and top sponsored archer for Easton at the time. Why would they share that with me?


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Vittorio said:


> May be you can also tell now for instance why X10 today have nothing to do with X10 made in 1996, what happened to the special X10 for London, and why also ACE's are no more (unfortunately) the same as they were in 1996...
> Just curious..


You cannot answer a question when the question isn’t based on facts. 

It’s the same sort of question as “Do you still beat your wife?”


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> You cannot answer a question when the question isn’t based on facts.
> 
> It’s the same sort of question as “Do you still beat your wife?”


George, Michele is using X10 410 in these days, and still have some X10 410 he got from Rick McKinney in Atlanta in 1996.
They react and tune very differently, now they are quite forgiving, similar to ACE's of the past.
Same for 1996 ACE's and Ace's from 2 years ago (but opposite, they are worse than the old ones and more fragile ) .
Of course technology for any product evolves over the years, but who makes the product usually knows ...


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Stash said:


> You greatly overestimate the advantages of that condition...😄
> 
> Wasn’t there something about smaller (female) archers wearing backpacks full of rocks during a windy tournament once?


 I do believe this was the Mexican men at a World Cup event a few years ago.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Cephas said:


> I do believe this was the Mexican men at a World Cup event a few years ago.


No, it was the Colombian women’s compound team, using water bottles in backpacks, at the 2013 World Championship in Belek, Turkey.

(Not rocks, not Mexican team, not men, not a World Cup, and arguably, more than “a few years ago”. 🤣)


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> At nearly 6'5" with a 32.5" draw, I know that battling the wind against my body is a much higher priority than finding arrows that drift less.


You sound like a big dutch guy I shoot with. In club shoots, where lanes aren't assinged, he is a big part of the wind strategy, we all try and get the position next to him and use him as a wind break!


----------



## spruis (Jan 15, 2015)

Rick McKinney said:


> Chris, Good explanation and on point for some of us. Everyone has a philosophy on what works and what does not work. I'm ok with that. I tell my students to try everything if they can. That way when they go to a tournament and someone is doing something that didn't work for you, you will not feel mentally disadvantaged because you KNOW it doesn't work for you.
> 
> As for speed. I probably said this before on another thread, but my first world title was with the slowest bow speed of the men's field clocking in at 179 fps. This was with a 51# otf and the 2115's were too stiff. So I raised the brace height to 10.5" with a 68" bow. It slowed my bow down substantially but it gave me the results I was seeking. I was humiliated by a few people until I won. Their comment was that since I had a super slow bow I was not going to do well. Hmmmm, I wonder what I could have done with a perfect setup? (snicker) I could have let it bother me, but I was more focused on competing and beating my nemesis (DP). He won the title two years ago and won the Gold Medal at the Olympics and he was truly the one person everyone was going after. Oh, and I didn't know this at the time but I measured my FOC later and it came out at 5.6%. I had light points in it because I couldn't get the distance if I went with heavy points. My arrow just barely cleared the sight pin at 90 meters. The winds were strong at this event and I was comfortable on how to aim in the wind.
> 
> ...


Rick, didn't Rabska's study of the arrows used at the 1996 Games show that the winners were using arrows 1-1.5 groups stiffer than the current chart recommended and there was decline performance as the arrows were less and less stiff? (My 2115's were too stiff . . .)


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

I thought this was an interesting article (one of three) on modeling arrows in Bow International:

Modeling Arrows in Flight

Here is the first one:

Modelling arrows – how to select the best arrow for any situation


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

spruis said:


> Rick, didn't Rabska's study of the arrows used at the 1996 Games show that the winners were using arrows 1-1.5 groups stiffer than the current chart recommended and there was decline performance as the arrows were less and less stiff? (My 2115's were too stiff . . .)


Can you provide a link to that? I really want to check that out.

I've read about a number of archers who prefer a weaker arrow, albeit slightly.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 4, 2012)

Interesting post. I am intrigued with how often archery folks use physics to “prove” a point, or explain a point. I’m sure it’s a wonderful theoretical discussion, but I’m much more in the McKinney camp where he suggests to his students “try everything – that way you know what works for you and what doesn’t” that, to me, makes the most sense. Instead of asking everyone what their opinion is, (even though it is very interesting) I think one would benefit much more by going out and experimenting to see what works best for them. What works for me, may not work for you. 

One of the things I picked up from Rick was to look at what the top shooters are shooting, they shoot their setup for a reason – it works for them. When there was a great debate about which were better, straight vanes or spin wings, I tried both all of one summer season. For me, the straight vanes worked best, I knew that because my own experimentation “proved” that – for me. A few years later, I tried the same experiment again, with much different results. That year, the spin wings easily outscored the straight vanes on almost every occasion. Just showed me that experimentation works. Since my form had improved, my shooting style had changed a bit and I needed to change what I was shooting.

I think sometimes we get too caught up in the minutiae to actually go out and experiment and see what really works for us. By the way, on that basis, I tend to respectfully disagree with Limbwalker when he said the average shooter isn’t skilled enough and doesn’t have enough time to objectively test equipment. I’m not sure exactly what he means by objectively, but I think that if I’m an average shooter, I am probably the best one to determine what works for me, since I’m the one doing the shooting. Looking at things objectively implies that one isn’t influenced by personal feelings or opinions, however, it’s pretty difficult to eliminate your feelings and opinions, it is probably much better to remain open to others’ opinions as well as your own; that works for me as any other opinion I get just helps me understand a bit better. As Rick once said "I’m not a shooting machine" I'm not either, I make mistakes, thus I need to do the best I can knowing I make mistakes, the better my experimentation is and the better I “know” my own shot, the better I will perform.

Good post, thoroughly enjoyed it and gained some additional info and a few things to try out on my own as well.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

spruis said:


> Rick, didn't Rabska's study of the arrows used at the 1996 Games show that the winners were using arrows 1-1.5 groups stiffer than the current chart recommended and there was decline performance as the arrows were less and less stiff? (My 2115's were too stiff . . .)


I honestly don't recall this information. I think it depends on the type of arrow used. Possibly the barreled shaft might require a bit stiffer since spine is determined for 28" and since the back end of the shaft is normally the weakest section the actual dynamic spine will be a bit weaker than the static spine. A parallel shaft spine is consistent throughout the shaft thus the dynamic spine is very similar to the static spine. 

I do recall that the Beman shafts shot best being a bit weak in relationship to spine. 

Alan Rasor gathered the information at the 1996 Olympics and he collected a lot! Rabska and I were busy in the equipment repair booth working on equipment that was a bit off for about 75% of the archers. It was a cluster if ever there was one! I am sure information has been shared somewhere on this board but I have no clue where it is. I probably have it in one of my many boxes in storage but looking for it might be a very monumental task! Suffice to say the info is available but good luck finding it!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Alan Rasor gathered the information at the 1996 Olympics and he collected a lot! Rabska and I were busy in the equipment repair booth working on *equipment that was a bit off for about 75% of the archers. * It was a cluster if ever there was one! I am sure information has been shared somewhere on this board but I have no clue where it is. I probably have it in one of my many boxes in storage but looking for it might be a very monumental task! Suffice to say the info is available but good luck finding it!


I think most recreational archers would be shocked at how poorly tuned and set up the bows are for - as you say - probably 75% of archers shooting international events. I'd say about half the men and 90% of the women's setups are not properly aligned or tuned. At least, that was my experience.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

I am not saying this is the right answer to the question above but bear in mind at the1996 Olympics there was no published X10 spine chart. So there was a lot of “he’s shooting 410 and he should be shooting 430” as proof that you needed stiffer arrows but as you can now see the 430 ACE and the 410 X10 are equivalent on the chart.

That was well known by spring 1997 when I was first shooting them (and there was a published chart) but it still kept reverberating around the shooting fields that “you had to go up spine”. Although I must say that it took a while for the X10 to get traction in the UK - most 1200+ archers stayed with ACE for a year or two. It did not help that two of our Olympians did not get on with the X10 so there was a lot of “you need to cut at least an inch off the back” and “they’re only for 70m” kind of dumb talk. I always found the spine chart a bit stiff but with the X10 only just so and set personal bests all year at every distance.

I also don’t agree with the idea that you need to be an elite archer to test equipment. Maybe if you were trying to test for others it would add credibility but when you are testing you are often going for what you like the feel of and if you like the feel it builds confidence and confidence wins tournaments. The absolute performance may not be different but the confidence makes it so. You also see what works best for the mistakes you make - catching 8’s instead of 7’s of 6’s on bad shots.

Also vane testing is easy, some things work some things don’t, at 90m it always shows. At 70m it usually shows. Inside that and seeing a difference is most likely coincidence.

Stretch


----------



## Propknut (Apr 8, 2018)

There is a whole lot of noise about a simple question.

45# otf
400 spine
378 grains
203 fps


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Propknut said:


> There is a whole lot of noise about a simple question.
> 
> 45# otf
> 400 spine
> ...


31” draw length?


----------



## Propknut (Apr 8, 2018)

ryan b. said:


> 31” draw length?


Yes, 31” draw length


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I think most recreational archers would be shocked at how poorly tuned and set up the bows are for - as you say - probably 75% of archers shooting international events. I'd say about half the men and 90% of the women's setups are not properly aligned or tuned. At least, that was my experience.


Actually John, Hoyt made a major flaw in the design of the Avalon riser which caused a crack and potential breakage. Instead of fixing the problem they just brought more risers to the Olympics to replace those that cracked. One of the Australian youngsters (Jackson Fear I think) who shot PSE at the time found out about it and went around checking all Hoyt bows and informed the Hoyt shooters that their riser was cracking. Created quite a stir to say the least and we were very busy replacing about 50+ risers. The Korean team came into the booth at the end of the event and dumped (literally) all of their Hoyt Risers on the floor and took home the replacements. Even the president of Hoyt at the time said they would fix it by making the hole smaller. He was an engineer too! Jim Easton called him on it and it was finally fixed. The other problem was since most of the risers were a bit off (bent) we had to work on the limbs to get them to align properly. I felt like I was at a beginners event and fixing simple problems that should never have existed, especially from a reputable company.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I think most recreational archers would be shocked at how poorly tuned and set up the bows are for - as you say - probably 75% of archers shooting international events. I'd say about half the men and 90% of the women's setups are not properly aligned or tuned. At least, that was my experience.


Heh. The same problem exists over on the compound side too, tho there, that's virtually always because the shooters aren't properly aligned and tuned. The bows don't shoot straight because they're not being shot straight - and the bow is getting all the abuse because of it.

Just read the average "what is going on here, guys!?! I got my cams slammed all the way to the left/right, the rest is up against the shelf and I swapped all my limbs all around 14 times and my bareshafts are still going into the woods!! Why can't <insert innocent manufacturer here> build a decent bow!!??" thread up in the General forum and you'll see what I mean.

But even the lucky few of us that eventually stumble on figuring it out (you can't tune any better than you can actually shoot) have some kind of compromise in the bow or the tune, or both, somewhere. On my Supra Focus, I just live with a knock-right in my tune, but at least I have an inkling of *why* I have to live with it. So I tend to shoot decent groups with it anyway and I don't have to tear it up in the shop all weekend instead of enjoying it shooting it at the range.

So, at least for us down here in the Great Unwashed of archery, there's a lot of laser focus on items that don't help us put the stick in the dot, and only tie us to the press and workbench instead working on non-problems at the bow press all weekend. Much of which go away on their own if we just go out and shoot more.

The elite level compounders report similar things too here and there. Like Steve Anderson, who says he basically doesn't bareshaft tune, and when he does check it, "there may be a little knock right in it, I dunno". And others like Reo Wilde intentionally setup their bows with a knock-high/left in the tune because he finds it groups better. At least that's what I hear; I've never talked to a high level pro personally (yet).

I'm as guilty as anyone else right now, though I have an incipient injury in my right shoulder (again) that's keeping me here on AT and not out shooting. I think I caught it in time though, so hopefully I can return to taking my own advice soon.

But on recurve, I know much less since I can barely execute a shot on that bow, so I trust what you're saying. Especially given the same syndrome on compound....

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick that is a nightmare scenario. 

My experience of course isn't as vast as your own but working with senior US teams for a short period and Jr. USAT and Jr. World archers for years, I just learned to expect that one out of four or five actually had a properly set up and tuned rig. It was my experience that about 2 out of 5 coaches that I worked with actually understood correct alignment and tuning. Some of the stuff I heard sounded more like witchcraft than physics. LOL 

I remember watching one of our archers in Turkey shoot arrows that barrel rolled out of the bow all day long as they struggled (and failed) to make the 64 cut. Afterwards they were pretty upset so I asked if they wanted me meet me over at the practice range. They did and I took a good look at their bow. It was a complete mess. I offered to fix it and they told me not to touch it because their coach had set it up that way and they didn't trust me to know more than their coach. So off they went shooting that crap setup at USAT after USAT in the following years. I wonder what that archer might have been able to do had they any understanding at all about how to properly set up and tune their own bow.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John,
I know what you mean. I was helping a young archer and felt his tune was a bit touchy. I asked if I could help him and he said yes. I felt his shaft was way weak and asked him about it. He said it worked for him. I ordered some stiffer shaft and when I got them in I asked him if he cut any off the back. He said yes, about 3"!!!! I told him it would be better to use the correct spine and not cut anything off the back. He agreed and set a world record the next week. Sometimes you just got to wonder what goes on in either the archer's head or the coach's.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> John,
> I know what you mean. I was helping a young archer and felt his tune was a bit touchy. I asked if I could help him and he said yes. I felt his shaft was way weak and asked him about it. He said it worked for him. I ordered some stiffer shaft and when I got them in I asked him if he cut any off the back. He said yes, about 3"!!!! I told him it would be better to use the correct spine and not cut anything off the back. He agreed and set a world record the next week. Sometimes you just got to wonder what goes on in either the archer's head or the coach's.


Sounds familiar.

There is a good amount of information one needs to actually understand, and then test with trial and error to better understand, before someone is actually in a position to understand tuning. 

There are two big challenges for an archer or coach to overcome -

1) understanding arrow selection, including the difference between static and dynamic spine and how arrow setup and component selection affects dynamic spine, and
2) understanding basic bow setup, starting with alignment of the limbs and the limbs being aligned in plane with the riser, centershot adjustment, tiller, nock height, string selection etc., etc.

What I feel like I've seen more of is that people are trying to tune arrows to bows that are not set up and aligned correctly.

A common problem is people feel they have selected the wrong arrow, or just not knowing all their options for adjusting the dynamic spine of the arrow they have selected. 

About 10 years ago, I had a former RA and someone that you know well and shot with many moons ago Rick, come to me because they just felt they weren't getting everything out of their equipment. Their tune was squirrely and unforgiving. Trouble was their bow was not aligned and on plane and once we got it there, their tune cleaned up, the bow sounded better and they immediately started grouping better. Needless to say they left a much more confident archer too.

I pray that every serious archer or coach will eventually have that "light bulb moment" that I clearly remember having in late 2002. One day, all the Easton Tuning Guide and all the related physics made sense and tuning after that became pretty simple. But it was a years-long process to get there without an experienced mentor.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

It’s interesting that you mention that traveling to events is generally part of a vacation. Most of us were chastised earlier for saying so. It’s true that it’s much easier to travel to an event if I can convince my girlfriend that there will be something for her to do while we’re there (other than watch paint dry archery).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> It’s interesting that you mention that traveling to events is generally part of a vacation. Most of us were chastised earlier for saying so. It’s true that it’s much easier to travel to an event if I can convince my girlfriend that there will be something for her to do while we’re there (other than watch paint dry archery).


I never looked at events as "vacation" when I was running a JOAD club. It was anything but. But if it's just me and my wife in someplace interesting, that's a whole other animal. The stage 2 of the 2012 trials turned out to be a great vacation for us. We still talk about that trip.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

It is bonkers how many coaches “do stuff” to archers rather than taking them on a journey together. While some folks absorb “technical detail” like a sponge and love it, the others still need a basic technical understanding. As a coach you need to find the right balance but zero technical is not an option. I have no time for coaches who are not interested in creating independent archers. Archers who don’t need a coach standing behind them every arrow and checking the kit all the time. Makes me nauseous. (And yes, I know there are much better archers than me who have no clue…)

Sometimes everyone needs help because they cannot see the wood for the trees. 

Stretch


----------



## Maggiemaebe (Jan 10, 2017)

^This is the whole reason why I showed my son how to make his own strings and build arrows, and why he does his own bow mechanicing and tuning. Yes, we'll do these things together if it's an area where he's not yet competent but once he is, he's on his own. How the heck is he going to be able to be a competitive archer when he leaves home if he can't take care of his own stuff? It is a parent/coach's job to prepare our kids for life after us!!!


----------

