# Traditional shooting turbonock t-4 review by rick barbee



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is a review a prominent Trad shooter posted on At and a bunch of trad sites and it is going ballistic .

Turbo Nock Review

For the past year or so I have been reading about the Turbo Nocks.
These nocks are twisted/spiraled in the groove, so that they start
the spin of the arrow immediately upon exit from the string.

Now, I'll admit when I first started reading about them, I was very
skeptical about the claims made, and the word GIMMICK was foremost
on my mind, but I'm a tinkerer, and was very curious.

About three weeks ago my curiosity about these nocks got the best of me,
and I contacted Nick Snook at the http://www.turbonockfactorystore.com ,
and asked him if he would send me a few of these nocks to try out, and IF
I like them I would be ordering more.

Nick is a great guy to deal with, and obliged me very quickly.
Within four days of my request, and some discussion with him about what
nocks I needed to use I had them in hand.

The first thing I want to say about these is - They are exceptionally well
constructed. Tough, and very precise from the first nock to the last.
They are not snap on, yet fit the string very well with a very smooth
transition both on & off the string even with the twist. Due to the 
twist, snap on is completely unnecessary, and they stay on the string
very well.

The arrows I use are the Arrow Dynamic Trad series, and Nick did not have
a nock model that fit these shaft perfectly, but the T5 nocks fit just slightly
loose, and with Nick's help & a little creative fitting & gluing they aligned perfectly,
and were securely fitted into the shafts.

Now to the testing & comparison against my standard nocks:

Nick was a little stingy ( A little friendly picking on Nick) & only sent me two nocks to test,
but I immediately realized improved accuracy, and more stable arrow flight,
even in high wind. Although I have not chronographed these yet, I am convinced
I am also getting a faster arrow, because my point on went from 30 to 40 yards.

What I believe to be the improvement in the accuracy, stability, and speed of the
arrows with these nocks is due to the immediately initiated spin of the arrow at
exit of the string. This places less demand on the fletching which reduces drag,
and the fletching is simply maintaining the stability of the arrow that the nock
has already initiated.

I ordered four dozen of the T5 model from Nick the next day after my initial testing,
and fitted them to all of my arrows when they arrived. Two days later I went to an 
ASA format 3D shoot, and we shot in a 40mph wind for the entire 30 targets. 
The wind was so bad that we could not even shoot on the practice range, 
because it would blow your arrows off the shelf as soon as you lifted the bow to draw.
As luck would have it almost every shot on the 30 target course found us shooting
cross wind shots. For most it was very frustrating, and that's putting it mildly.

At that shoot I shot in a group of five. Three compound guys, and only two of us
trad guys. Everyone in my group was having pure HE Double Toothpicks with the wind
Everyone except me . On shots that were turning everyone else's arrows to more
than a 45 degree angle to the target my arrows would only do a little flutter, but never
turned, and never left the line I released them on.

I won that shoot in my class, and was up from second place by a wide margin of points.
Even tied & beat a number of the compound scores. I'm not bragging about my shooting
with that statement, because I am CONVINCED that using the Turbo Nocks in that very
windy environment at what already was a very tough shoot Made The Difference.

Thanks Nick for being such a Great Guy, and taking the time to work with me to Get It Right.

Signed:
A Very Happy Customer
Rick Barbeewould share it here alsol
Rick also makes Flemish Twist Strings.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

It would be interesting to see some numbers on this, particularly comparative launch speed and speed downrange at 10 yards or so. It avoids the additional initial drag by getting the arrow up to speed immediately off the string. I get that. I can see it possibly stabilizing an arrow more quickly.

However, it still does it by translating some of the the forward arrow speed into rotational speed, just like the fletching. Since a given fletching arrangement will have an eventual rotation per distance due to the air flow, if the nock sped up the rotation faster than that rate, the fletching would then have additional drag to slow down to that rate. So, I'm just interested in if anybody has any numbers.

On the wind thing, I'm thinking Rick simply shot better. Even if his arrows were spinning at a higher rate, that's not going to help avoid the wind one bit. In fact, the arrows would fly straighter if they turned into the wind sooner, rather than later. I've shot in fairly windy conditions, with the arrows going to the target at roughly 30 degrees, and while I wouldn't want to fling broad heads in a critical scenario that way, the actual deviation we were getting under 30 yards was relatively minor, compared to what we were expecting to happen. After the fact, it makes sense. The arrow turns into the wind, there's less wind resistance, and less lateral movement. An arrow that doesn't turn will get the full lateral wind resistance.

Nice review on Rick's part. Not ready to spend money on them, but I am curious


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BarneySlayer said:


> It would be interesting to see some numbers on this, particularly comparative launch speed and speed downrange at 10 yards or so. It avoids the additional initial drag by getting the arrow up to speed immediately off the string. I get that. I can see it possibly stabilizing an arrow more quickly.
> 
> However, it still does it by translating some of the the forward arrow speed into rotational speed, just like the fletching. Since a given fletching arrangement will have an eventual rotation per distance due to the air flow, if the nock sped up the rotation faster than that rate, the fletching would then have additional drag to slow down to that rate. So, I'm just interested in if anybody has any numbers.
> 
> ...


I'm skeptical as well Barney...the first thing that came into my mind was "Serving Wear"...and I clicked the link and watched the vid of two identical arrows tipped with BH's being shot off a hooter shooter...and there was like zero elevation difs between the two at 30yds but one was about 4"s left of the other...as I thought..."No duh...ya got one coming straight and clean off the string and the other has to spiral it's way off the string so of course there's going to be a delta in left/right but of course it was sighted to center with the sensational turbo-nock which somehow made it better?....but then he went on to show how the turbonocked arrow was exhibiting more penetration through 8"s of foam...again...this was "a no duh moment" for me as here the turbonocked arrow was sighted for center where the foam was all shot up while the standard nocked arrow was having to push itself through virgin territory.

Mr. Barbee is a great guy and a stellar shot...but no turbonocks for me.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I had a phone call from Walter Peterson. He was the longbow shooter shooting with Rick. Walter related to me that when everyones arrows were flying sideways in the wind. Ricks were just wobbling a little and flying quite well. I believe Walter placed 3rd in longbow. He ordered nocks based on watching what was happening. I think they are both going to a national shoot.

Randy Oitker who shoots on the outdoor channel's impossible shots .Tried to break the world distance record for accuracy using a setup with blazers and a straight nock. There was a slight crosswind and he could not hit the target. He then tried one of my other products that has the vanes molded into the nock and requires no additional fletching. and he broke a balloon at 250 yds in a crosswind.
Randy is going to try a quarter mile shot this summer. 

I am glad that you are curious. just as Rick was. at least you are thinking!

Bruce Lee used to say you can talk about fighting and you can practice fighting but if you want to learn to fight, you fight.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Going ballistic?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

When I developed the turbonock 15 years ago before I even thought about patenting it I wanted to determine if it truly improved arrow flight. My first prototype was a simple twisted nock with a left twist. I bought a dozen 2213 aluminum shafts and kept six just as they came from the store with 4 inch rt fletch. these were my control arrows . the others I set up with smaller vanes . one set had only 1.6 square inch of vane and the other had .8 square inch of vane.
I built a shooting maching and used a 70 lb proline compound bow. I did grouping shots out to 80 yds.
The photo is the actual target .from that 80 yd test. unlike Ricks shooting where you can just pass off what the turbonocks did as him having a good day shootingl
Here is what a shooting machine did in a cross wind 15 years ago.
The circle with the C group was the store out of the box arrows. the other two groups were the smaller fletched arrows with the turbonock prototype.
My question is. was the shooting machine having a good day in the wind when it shot the turbonock prototypes and a bad day when it shot the conventional nocked and fletched arrows.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

One thought, a faster rotating arrow may have a shaft air foil section that more closely resembles a long stretched out spiralling football? Thus it needs less fletch?

Also are not the fletch nock mentioned like vanes in that they are smaller in both length and cord perpendicular to the shaft? What effect does a good longitudinal fletch cross section have on fletch efficiency? Is the fletch discussed more of a solid wing with a good latitudinal cross section?

The plan shape of the fletch also shows a good clean release of flow?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Another thing I learned from the shooting machine was that the high rate of spin the turbonock delivers in effect makes and arrow perform as if it had a stiffer spine.

In this test at 20 yds. I used the shooting machine again with a long string attached to the trigger.
I did this test because I noticed that the turbonock arrows were flying straighter than the conventional nocked arrows even when I set up the bow 1/4 nock high out of tune. 
I then retuned the bow and tried the experiment above. I had six 1716 aluminum arrows spined for a max of 35 lbs.
I first shot the group with the regular out of the box 1716 arrows . they flew quiet erratic. On hit about 24 inch high and one about 24 inch low. and the large red circle is the group that the made when they did not go completely wild. Two of the arrows broke in two in mid air.( I took safety precautions and was a good distance away from the shooting machine)
I then shot the little 9/16 inch group with the same 1716 shafts only change was the turbonock prototype instead of a regular nock. 1716 shafts 70lbs turbonock = 9/16 inch group at 20 yds no flyers.

My question. was the shooting machine having a bad day with the underspined arrows and the conventional nock and a good day with the underspined arrows and the turbonock prototype? What made the shooting maching feel better when it shot the turbonock prototype?
After these tests is when and on when I decided to patent the concept.

You can talk about shooting you can reason your way into or out of anything . If you want to really learn about shooting ,
SHOOT. Give them a try if you do not like them send them back.
I double dog dare you!!!!!


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Another thought, if one makes a "burn a inch" error and cuts their dozen shafts to short, could these help?

As they are heavy???...for a nock???...do they stiffen a arrow shaft?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> I'm skeptical as well Barney...the first thing that came into my mind was "Serving Wear"...and I clicked the link and watched the vid of two identical arrows tipped with BH's being shot off a hooter shooter...and there was like zero elevation difs between the two at 30yds but one was about 4"s left of the other...as I thought..."No duh...ya got one coming straight and clean off the string and the other has to spiral it's way off the string so of course there's going to be a delta in left/right but of course it was sighted to center with the sensational turbo-nock which somehow made it better?....but then he went on to show how the turbonocked arrow was exhibiting more penetration through 8"s of foam...again...this was "a no duh moment" for me as here the turbonocked arrow was sighted for center where the foam was all shot up while the standard nocked arrow was having to push itself through virgin territory.
> 
> Mr. Barbee is a great guy and a stellar shot...but no turbonocks for me.



I assume you were talking about the video on you tube showing the turbonock penetration. and you decidded that the turbos were shot through shot up foam and the others were not. If you go back to the video where I show the back of the target you can see little difference. 

Here is a thought for you. 
What are the odds of me shooting three turbonock arrows into that foam and hitting the same equally shot up material to get virtually the same penetration. and also shooting the three unturboncked arrows into the same "virgin" foam and getting equally less penetration.

also 8 inches of indoor insulation is pretty much a self healing material. If I truely wanted to out penetrate consistently i would have to shoot all the turbonocked arrows down pre existing holes. What are the odds of that. 
There is photo on this site where an archer not affiliated with me did an accuracy test and gues what he inadvertently showed the same penetration difference, I will find it and post here.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

What is the weight like? Anything available to fit a G-uni bushing?

-Grant


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Well guys, I'll say it like this.

I'm not affiliated with Turbonock, or Nick in any way.
I pay for my nocks just like the next customer.

I've been shooting for a few decades now, and I know when something has had a positive impact on my shooting.
Skeptical I was, but no longer after trying them. Yes, I was shooting decent at that shoot, but not great,
and the nocks absolutely did make a big difference.

I wrote the review & shared it, because when I find something that works for me I want to share it with others
with the hope they will benefit from it as I did.

I'm also very VERY picky about my gear. If something don't work, I don't use it, and darn sure won't recommend it.

You can draw all the conclusions you want, but until your conclusions come from hands on experience they are a waste
of your time. 

Give the nocks an honest try. I think you'll be pleased with the results. 

Rick


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

grantmac said:


> What is the weight like? Anything available to fit a G-uni bushing?
> 
> -Grant


Sorry nothing to fit the G bushing. We do make overnocks that will fit the slim high penetration arrows like the Easton Injexion and Victory VAP


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Thanks Mr Barbee.
I found this picture posted on another thread comparing various fletchings.









The shooter was showing groups and inadvertently did my penetration experiment.

one of two things happened here. you decide.
1. The shooter was able to shoot all the Turbonock arrows into equally soft spots and all the FOB arrows into equally hard spots.
2. The Turbonock products because of their design and performance simply out penetrated the other products.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

So what is the weight of the overnock?

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

IMO...if the Turbonocks truly cause an arrow to out penetrate other setups...it's most likely based on this principle.

The Turbonocks cause the arrow to stabilizer quicker in flight.

An arrow flexing back and forth less as it recovers from the archer's paradox will always penetrate more than an arrow that hasn't recovered as much and/or is flexing more.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

If it works than it works  

I can see it being very beneficial when using small fletching etc but since I use 5 inch aggressive helical arrows the results might be negligible 

Neat idea


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

grantmac said:


> So what is the weight of the overnock?
> 
> -Grant


the t-4 overnock weighs 15 grains.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JParanee said:


> If it works than it works
> 
> I can see it being very beneficial when using small fletching etc but since I use 5 inch aggressive helical arrows the results might be negligible
> 
> Neat idea


It will improve you setup by mechanically spinning your arrow as it leaves the bowstring. this means you will not use up all the energy to initiate that rotation with just the fletching. the next time you fletch you can get the same accuracy with half the fletching and have flatter trajectory.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is a video . it is kind of long but at the end you can see entrance and exit wound comparisons . kind of cool

I have a slowmotion company in Ny scheduled to do high speed video shots of my products as soon as the weather warms up and we can shoot outdoors. They will be shot at i believe 4000 frames per second. so they should show what is happening.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

turbonockguy said:


> It will improve you setup by mechanically spinning your arrow as it leaves the bowstring. this means you will not use up all the energy to initiate that rotation with just the fletching. the next time you fletch you can get the same accuracy with half the fletching and have flatter trajectory.


I believe you that they impart a spin but I do not want half the fletching 

I like my big fletches with big Broadheads and my sometimes poor release 

My bow shoots pretty flat anyway  

So while I'm interested in your nocks I am not interested in reducing my drag but I do like rotation


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

I want some for my GT 5575 arrows ..

I've bought 50 2" Rayzr's going to do some 4x2's..and like the idea of this type of nock....with that small of fletchings..

Let me know what size to buy and I want flo yellow color. 

If Rick says they work..I know he ain't gonna bs anyone about this. .

Pm me the info and I'll put my order in..simple as that

Mac


----------



## newell38 (Aug 17, 2004)

Any plans on a glue on nock for wood shafts. I'd love to try your nocks but i only shoot wood.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

newell38 said:


> Any plans on a glue on nock for wood shafts. I'd love to try your nocks but i only shoot wood.


There is an easy way to use any nock on a wood shaft. Just find what size alloy shaft will fit tightly over the end and foot 1/2" of it along with the correct Uni bushing. A little heavy but EXTREMELY durable and accurate.

-Grant


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

grantmac said:


> There is an easy way to use any nock on a wood shaft. Just find what size alloy shaft will fit tightly over the end and foot 1/2" of it along with the correct Uni bushing. A little heavy but EXTREMELY durable and accurate.
> 
> -Grant


^^^This^^^


----------



## newell38 (Aug 17, 2004)

Thanks gentlemen


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Rick did a good review and looks interesting, simple ideas are always the best. :thumbs_up


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Am I missing something? A pack of GT nocks or Easton nocks are $8 last time I checked, or there about. Turbo nocks (the ones for fletched arrows) are only $10 a pack. That's hardly charging an arm and a leg by comparison. Of all the "gimmick" bows and products that flood the market these days, few are so reasonably priced compared to more standard products.

I think they look neat. The premise is simple, but if it works it works. Might have to give them a shot.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

Sorry if I missed this in one of the posts, do these nocks work better with right wing or left wing feathers or does it matter?


----------



## kmeininger (Nov 11, 2013)

Curious to what size serving would be nominal for the T4 nock?


----------



## mrjeffro (Jul 25, 2007)

High Plains said:


> Sorry if I missed this in one of the posts, do these nocks work better with right wing or left wing feathers or does it matter?


I was thinking the same thing


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I contacted turbonock after reading this. The nocks will spin the arrow clockwise as viewed from the rear, and spin the arrow in the same direction as a right wing fletch. Customer service has been excellent so far, I've got a dozen of the T4 nocks on the way. I've been looking to replace my Gold Tip nocks anyway, i am going to give these an honest try.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

High Plains said:


> Sorry if I missed this in one of the posts, do these nocks work better with right wing or left wing feathers or does it matter?


I asked this same questions. Had to do my own reveiw. Seem to work like Rick said. However, the fit is another story. G nock bushing would be the way to go. You can find the all kinds of combinations there. I have invested in gold tip arrows. Most of us that shoot lower poundage need a smaller fitting nock. 

once again Thanks Rick for the heads up.

Dan
Dan


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I contacted turbonock after reading this. The nocks will spin the arrow clockwise as viewed from the rear, and spin the arrow in the same direction as a right wing fletch. Customer service has been excellent so far, I've got a dozen of the T4 nocks on the way. I've been looking to replace my Gold Tip nocks anyway, i am going to give these an honest try.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> IMO...if the Turbonocks truly cause an arrow to out penetrate other setups...it's most likely based on this principle.
> 
> The Turbonocks cause the arrow to stabilizer quicker in flight.
> 
> ...


I think you would have to chalk it up more to "directional stability" as the net gain - reduction in arrow/shaft drag over distance. 

Tail drag dampens oscillations from paradox. It takes an amount of tail drag to dampen, no matter. A straight flu-flu would do it fastest but at a greater cost. Spinning drag just works similar to dampen but at a lesser cost. In the end, you can use up forward energy via drag to dampen the oscillations, but, you cannot dampen the oscillations and gain forward energy.


----------



## submarinokotbw (Aug 8, 2011)

Interesting... Worth a try for $10 i think.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Sanford said:


> I think you would have to chalk it up more to "directional stability" as the net gain - reduction in arrow/shaft drag over distance.
> 
> Tail drag dampens oscillations from paradox. It takes an amount of tail drag to dampen, no matter. A straight flu-flu would do it fastest but at a greater cost. Spinning drag just works similar to dampen but at a lesser cost. In the end, you can use up forward energy via drag to dampen the oscillations, but, you cannot dampen the oscillations and gain forward energy.


Sanford, Your right. One has to be careful to not use big fletching with these, causing to much drag. Result in lost of forward energy. Look at the model that is one unit. I like the Razor idea. But, they are not IBO legal. So for now what Rick said match off set or helical. 
Dan


----------



## zu! (Feb 19, 2014)

Will there ever be left wing Nocks and glue on versions for wood shafts? I get the aluminium sleeve at the nock end idea, but that adds too many grains to the read IMHO.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm no physics expert so I'm questioning the science here a little bit. A "normal" arrow, as pictures here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO102jz8sFM in this slo mo video begins to spin before it leaves the bow. It continues to power the spin throughout flight by virtue of the fletch angle on the shaft. With these, once the arrow leaves the bow it does so at maximum rotation with it decreasing thereafter due to the fletching cross section acting as a brake to rotation during flight. That assumes a straight fletch. With a helical fletch wouldn't the angle of the fetch necessarily have to match the rotation set up by the nock? Otherwise, wouldn't there be some unwanted disruption in rotation caused by the fletch either enhancing or degrading rotational velocity depending on fletch direction? 

This suggests the best and perhaps only time rotation benefits arrow flight is in the initial phase. Is that what's being put forward?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

ranchoarcher, the arrow cannot spin before it leaves the bow with either nock type, as it is anchored to the string. 

But, to the second part: the arrow begins to spin as soon as the drag of air across the vane can get it moving, reach its peak spin rate quickly, and then slow down with the arrow. IOW, arrow speed and rate of spin are complementary, but there is a lag in spin at the very beginning, even where the arrow is fastest.

You don't see the arrow initially spin the moment is leaves the string because other forces are working as well. Mainly, the initial deflection of the shaft, bending flex, is working a different drag, sideways, on the fletch. It seems the turbonock purpose is to overcome that - to impart a mechanical spin initially, causing the rotation to begin sooner.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

I guess I should have clarified my spin start. Between the time it leaves the string and is clear of the bow. In the vid it is plainly visible. However, the rate builds up to some maximum amount somewhere down range which I think everyone would agree on. With these, it seems to be suggested that imparting maximum spin immediately produces a benefit over having it build up. Question is, what benefit?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

ranchoarcher said:


> I guess I should have clarified my spin start. Between the time it leaves the string and is clear of the bow. In the vid it is plainly visible. However, the rate builds up to some maximum amount somewhere down range which I think everyone would agree on. With these, it seems to be suggested that imparting maximum spin immediately produces a benefit over having it build up. Question is, what benefit?


Yeah, is see what you were saying now. Clears the bow in front. Sorry.

I think the nock theory is that it takes more drag to build it up, drag which robs the arrow forward energy. 

IOW, the stationary fletch "wanting to spin" but can't due to other forces is more drag than fletch already spinning in face of these forces - assuming the nock profile didn't rob any energy to get the shaft spinning.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

No biggie. If it's about drag then the nock is just as if not more guilty. Either way, it takes a certain equal amount of energy to get the shaft spinning up to the same speed. That also assumes the maximum rotational speed is the same. It probably isn't. Do they list the rotation rate achieved? Even if it is the same, is it optimal for straight and stable flight? With fletching there is drag and other forces wasting energy. With this there would be frictional loss and simple resistance to change of state. What the difference is would be up to someone in a lab coat to explain. I guess it boils down to explaining why is it better to get a sudden maximum rotation before leaving the string over a more gradual increase down range. Does anyone even know when a "normal" arrow reaches maximum rotational velocity? Is it most straight at that point or some other?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

ranchoarcher, yes, a lab coat person could explain, but, I bet he would say in the end, "let's do some trial tests". In the end, it either makes a difference for us on paper or it doesn't. I've never used them to date.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Even with your big fletching the Turbonock will reduce the initial drag that is caused when your big non spinning fletch leaves the bowstring. You will see an improvement in trajectory. and more energy delivered to the target.
If you have a 200 fps bow you will get broadhead rotation of about 4000 rpm.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

You will get flatter trajectory and a broadhead rotating at around 4000 rpm is good thing for hunting.



JParanee said:


> If it works than it works
> 
> I can see it being very beneficial when using small fletching etc but since I use 5 inch aggressive helical arrows the results might be negligible
> 
> Neat idea


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I answered your pm

We have the nocks in green orange and white. If you want flo yellow you can use florescent magic marker on the white nocks


MAC 11700 said:


> I want some for my GT 5575 arrows ..
> 
> I've bought 50 2" Rayzr's going to do some 4x2's..and like the idea of this type of nock....with that small of fletchings..
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

OK, I took the time this evening to do a little shooting comparison
with the Turbonocks vs the AD standard nocks.

Took this opportunity, because I wanted to illustrate the difference in the wind.
Nothing scientific, but I'm happy. 






Rick


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

grantmac said:


> What is the weight like? Anything available to fit a G-uni bushing?
> 
> -Grant


The t-4 weigh about 6 grains.
we do not have one for the g-nock. I made a version that wold fit but it did not take hits well .


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

kegan said:


> Am I missing something? A pack of GT nocks or Easton nocks are $8 last time I checked, or there about. Turbo nocks (the ones for fletched arrows) are only $10 a pack. That's hardly charging an arm and a leg by comparison. Of all the "gimmick" bows and products that flood the market these days, few are so reasonably priced compared to more standard products.
> 
> I think they look neat. The premise is simple, but if it works it works. Might have to give them a shot.


When these were being sold in The retail stores. Cabelas etc .they were $18 to $20 A dozen.
Since I sell them on line and do not spend big bucks for the packaging I can sell them at a better price.

I am also looking form Mom & POP shops and have dealer pricing. I will not sell to big box stores. I grew up in a family archery shop and I want to benefit other family shops


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JParanee said:


> I believe you that they impart a spin but I do not want half the fletching
> 
> I like my big fletches with big Broadheads and my sometimes poor release
> 
> ...


Tht initial rotation produces a kind of domino effect. By spinning off the bowstring it reduces the energy you lose when just relying on wind resistance to rotate the arrow. This means less speed loss down range flatter trajectory, more kinetic energy delivered to the target.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

High Plains said:


> Sorry if I missed this in one of the posts, do these nocks work better with right wing or left wing feathers or does it matter?



The nocks rotate clockwise so you need a right fletch offset or helical right wing feathers


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

kmeininger said:


> Curious to what size serving would be nominal for the T4 nock?


I prefer bcy halo. and I lubricte the serving frequently.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> Thanks Mr Barbee.
> I found this picture posted on another thread comparing various fletchings.
> View attachment 1917065
> 
> ...


I can come up with 2 very quick explanations why they seem to "penetrate farther". 1. They aren't penetrating farther at all but rather the same amount but the turbo nock arrows are simply shorter. They may not be sticking out as far rather than sticking in farther. 2. The turbo nocks are so much heavier that they create a heavier arrow accounting for the greater penetration. Personally I feel the worst possible place to add weight to an arrow is the back. If you want to destabilize an arrow, decrease the FOC with more weight on the back.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I asked this same questions. Had to do my own reveiw. Seem to work like Rick said. However, the fit is another story. G nock bushing would be the way to go. You can find the all kinds of combinations there. I have invested in gold tip arrows. Most of us that shoot lower poundage need a smaller fitting nock.
> 
> once again Thanks Rick for the heads up.
> 
> ...


With your gold tips you do not need any bushing. the T-4 fits. poundage is no issue. I shoot goldtips off my 30 lb Bear temujin. my 43 lb Black Swan and my 50 lb Darton as well as my 60 lb High Country compound.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> I'm no physics expert so I'm questioning the science here a little bit. A "normal" arrow, as pictures here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO102jz8sFM in this slo mo video begins to spin before it leaves the bow. It continues to power the spin throughout flight by virtue of the fletch angle on the shaft. With these, once the arrow leaves the bow it does so at maximum rotation with it decreasing thereafter due to the fletching cross section acting as a brake to rotation during flight. That assumes a straight fletch. With a helical fletch wouldn't the angle of the fetch necessarily have to match the rotation set up by the nock? Otherwise, wouldn't there be some unwanted disruption in rotation caused by the fletch either enhancing or degrading rotational velocity depending on fletch direction?
> 
> This suggests the best and perhaps only time rotation benefits arrow flight is in the initial phase. Is that what's being put forward?


It really does not matter what size fletch or offset you use .you will get a benefit. Simply by giving your arrow an instant rotational boost stabilizes it. the size and angle of your fletching will take over down range.
But you will have save energy because your fletching did not have to start rotation only maintain rotation.
So the nock benefits all setups. Wit my turbonock Stealth on compound bows I can stabilixe an arrow with a fixed blade broadhead with only 1.8 sq.in. of vane set at 4 degrees offset.
This is way to small for any trad shooter to trust But it would work. I have some little gateway feathers that are the same size as blazers and the stabilize target arrows 

Again. you can think about shooting ,talk about shooting. talke yourself out of shooting .I find shooting to be more fun. I made this offer before and here it is again.

I double dog dare you to shoot them!! If you do not like them send them back!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

turbonockguy said:


> The t-4 weigh about 6 grains.
> we do not have one for the g-nock. I made a version that wold fit but it did not take hits well .


and those fit a standard uni bushing? If so that is a nice light weight you are getting.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> I guess I should have clarified my spin start. Between the time it leaves the string and is clear of the bow. In the vid it is plainly visible. However, the rate builds up to some maximum amount somewhere down range which I think everyone would agree on. With these, it seems to be suggested that imparting maximum spin immediately produces a benefit over having it build up. Question is, what benefit?


By imparting initial spin at the bow string you .have an arro that is first stable instantly. second. It rotates your arrow 2 times in the firs five feet of flight. without using wind resistance to do so . so you reduce energy loss.
over the entire flight.of the arrow. and deliver more energy to the target. 
also even agt 200fps you have a 4000 rpm broadhead hitting a target. you get profound entrance wounds with anyl brand broadhead.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

WOW!! I usually get about 5 inches better trajectory at 50 yds with my compound. your groups look about 8 inches???


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> I can come up with 2 very quick explanations why they seem to "penetrate farther". 1. They aren't penetrating farther at all but rather the same amount but the turbo nock arrows are simply shorter. They may not be sticking out as far rather than sticking in farther. 2. The turbo nocks are so much heavier that they create a heavier arrow accounting for the greater penetration. Personally I feel the worst possible place to add weight to an arrow is the back. If you want to destabilize an arrow, decrease the FOC with more weight on the back.[/QUO
> 
> 
> The arrows were the same length. on a conventional arrow adding weight at the back is not good. With a 4000 to 6000 rpm turbonock equipped arrow there is no issue.
> ...


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> Huntinsker said:
> 
> 
> > I can come up with 2 very quick explanations why they seem to "penetrate farther". 1. They aren't penetrating farther at all but rather the same amount but the turbo nock arrows are simply shorter. They may not be sticking out as far rather than sticking in farther. 2. The turbo nocks are so much heavier that they create a heavier arrow accounting for the greater penetration. Personally I feel the worst possible place to add weight to an arrow is the back. If you want to destabilize an arrow, decrease the FOC with more weight on the back.[/QUO
> ...


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> With your gold tips you do not need any bushing. the T-4 fits. poundage is no issue. I shoot goldtips off my 30 lb Bear temujin. my 43 lb Black Swan and my 50 lb Darton as well as my 60 lb High Country compound.


Thanks, I will be placing a order and giving them a try.
Dan


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Ok...now I'm a little confused about this..

I watched the video of the compound shots through Styrofoam. .and noticed a huge difference in penatration..this is in a Styrofoam box filled with red liquid. .not through hide muscle and bone...

So...before I spend $10...could someone explain to me why I would want to use these out of a trad bow for hunting?...

I understand why for target shooting..but unless I am using a right angle single bevel head I don't need something that is going to impede penatration...or am I missing something here. ..

So...I would love to hear about how these nocks are going to improve the penatration aspect of a double bevel head through the a game animal..when it didn't help off a compound through a Styrofoam box.......or are we to make sure we match them up with right angle single bevels for best usage and that was the purpose of the video...to show this..

Mac


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

MAC 11700 said:


> So...before I spend $10...could someone explain to me why I would want to use these out of a trad bow for hunting?...Mac


I think Rick's video of the long range difference in accuracy is enough to answer "why give it a try". I know you have a longer hunting range than most, Mac, and I would think that the difference in accuracy would be enough to warrant spending $10?

It works for you or it doesn't. We can talk about penetration tests until the cows come home but we all remember how well Sharp's tests were received, and like it or not he made every effort to do them right. Turbonockguy is offering a money back offer if you don't like them, so you try them and find out if they work to your satisfaction or they don't. 

I just think a lot of these comments are silly considering the price. This is $10. How much do we waste on bows, arrows, gloves, tabs, this, that, for a little better accuracy by comparison?


----------



## vhram (Jul 1, 2005)

I ordered a dozen to give a try.


----------



## zu! (Feb 19, 2014)

Mr. Turbonock, if you ever come up with a left wing version, I'd like to buy your nocks. I like to try new things, and I'm sure I can spare an arrow or two to try this. Heck, I even wouldn't mind that aluminium tube thingy that I have to jam into the back of my woodies if they weren't too heavy. I'd like to see how much it affects FOC and if there's any detrimental effect at all. But they have to match my left wing feathers. All I have are left wing feathers, and early on, I decided to choose left wing and stick with it. I don't do helical, but I have good offset, and my arrows spin good. 

But the nocks have gotta be left wing ;-)


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

zu! said:


> Mr. Turbonock, if you ever come up with a left wing version, I'd like to buy your nocks. I like to try new things, and I'm sure I can spare an arrow or two to try this. Heck, I even wouldn't mind that aluminium tube thingy that I have to jam into the back of my woodies if they weren't too heavy. I'd like to see how much it affects FOC and if there's any detrimental effect at all. But they have to match my left wing feathers. All I have are left wing feathers, and early on, I decided to choose left wing and stick with it. I don't do helical, but I have good offset, and my arrows spin good.
> 
> But the nocks have gotta be left wing ;-)


I think this is going to be a common thing with potential buyers,


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

kegan said:


> I think Rick's video of the long range difference in accuracy is enough to answer "why give it a try". I know you have a longer hunting range than most, Mac, and I would think that the difference in accuracy would be enough to warrant spending $10?
> 
> It works for you or it doesn't. We can talk about penetration tests until the cows come home but we all remember how well Sharp's tests were received, and like it or not he made every effort to do them right. Turbonockguy is offering a money back offer if you don't like them, so you try them and find out if they work to your satisfaction or they don't.
> 
> I just think a lot of these comments are silly considering the price. This is $10. How much do we waste on bows, arrows, gloves, tabs, this, that, for a little better accuracy by comparison?


I guess you missed the part where I said I know that they will work good for target shooting.....that's shown..

I could give a rats behind about kens test...I asked a legitimate question...and since thier video shows what I stated...feel that it is pertinent to this...regardless if you think it's silly...

We are talking about a compound bow shooting a broadhead that doesn't make it through styrafoam with their nock...and one with a regular nock easily passing through it.....

You think it's silly for me to ask if a right hand single bevel broadhead would be the better choice??

Whatever...

Mac


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> So...before I spend $10...could someone explain to me why I would want to use these out of a trad bow for hunting?...
> 
> Mac


I think we could ask, why does a hunter want helical on his fletch? In the scheme of things, it may or not matter, depending, but it doesn't cost anything more. If they are helical and spin minded on their arrows, a quick start to spin might be worth the price even without proven results. It ain't 10$ to play as has been shown. It's the difference between a pack price of regular and a pack price of turbonocks, about $2 for a dozen arrows. About $0.16 per arrow. Heck, wraps just for looks cost $1 per arrow.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Mac, it's $10. It substantially more expensive for him to buy the broadheads and arrows to test your question for you than it is for you to just try the nocks and see for yourself. If you don't like them you even get a refund. Same with everyone else who seems to have a problem with the nocks. 

I know you don't care about Ken's test, and that's the point. Unless you see it for yourself, most people won't change their thinking because someone else tested it.

So yes, I do think that's silly, and very childish, that some people are having a fit over "proof" for something so cheap. We're talking about nocks, not a $900 bow, or a $35 broadhead, or a set of $150 arrows. A set of nocks that you can return if you don't like them for a refund. No one says you have to even try them, either.


----------



## kmeininger (Nov 11, 2013)

I've been keeping an eye on this thread since I've been curious about these when I firsts stumbled across them a while back, and I see it’s become a touchy subject and some nerves have been a bit frayed. 

I’ve always taken reviews by other people with a grain of salt and try not to rule anything out till I had a chance to deal with it personally since everyone is different and there are always bad batches in the manufacturing world and I’ve always felt the ones with negatives talk louder than the ones with positive things to say. “Don’t knock it till you try it” as the old saying goes.

Ha ha see what I did there, why has no one said this yet and why isn’t this turbonock’s slogan yet.

But seriously the thing that gets me is there hasn’t been a single post yet from someone who has tried it saying it hasn’t improved some aspect of the flight of an arrow. This tells me it’s definitely worth a try the theory makes sense to me as do the physics and for 10 bucks why not?

The only down side I see is someone mentioned they’re not IBO legal, is this true and does that mean all national competitions as well? Can anyone verify this for me please?

Kyle


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

You kbow...I'm not knocking these nocks...pardon the pun...I'm asking a question...and you would think anyone with 1/2 a care for the animals they supposedly care about..would want to know if 1 type of broadhead may or maynot works significantly better...

Ohhh...the shame of mine to have actually questioned the validity of a manufactures claims. .when their own promotional video shows their nock..with their choice of head doesn't fair as well in passing completely through a Styrofoam box as opposed to a regular nock with the same head off the same bow...WOW...

You bet your last dollar bill I'm going to ask. ..the animals you hunt deserve it...and as a ethical hunter...I demand it...as you should too. ..

So...shame on your or anyone else for taking me to task for asking a perfectly valid question...

Mac


----------



## kmeininger (Nov 11, 2013)

Mac I'm not trying to call anyone out about their oppinions on the nock, I'm sorry I offended you it wasnt the intent.

You have a valid question, why dont you post the link to the video so we can all see what your talking about?


----------



## nw.primitive (Jan 11, 2012)

+1 on left wing version please.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

MAC 11700 said:


> You kbow...I'm not knocking these nocks...pardon the pun...I'm asking a question...and you would think anyone with 1/2 a care for the animals they supposedly care about..would want to know if 1 type of broadhead may or maynot works significantly better...
> 
> Ohhh...the shame of mine to have actually questioned the validity of a manufactures claims. .when their own promotional video shows their nock..with their choice of head doesn't fair as well in passing completely through a Styrofoam box as opposed to a regular nock with the same head off the same bow...WOW...
> 
> ...


I agree with you Mac. I'm not dumping on the turbonock products because I have yet to test them but the video does nothing really good for the turbonock products IMO. It only showed that Blazer vanes allow for more penetration than turbonocks through their chosen target media. He kept showing the larger entrance and exit wounds with the turbonocks but the only reason they were bigger was from it breaking the Styrofoam as the huge nock passed through it. Styrofoam will break out of the way. Flesh and skin won't break off but it will close back up making the larger entrance and exit wounds in the video worthless. All it showed was the added drag that the nock caused through their target.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

kmeininger said:


> The only down side I see is someone mentioned they’re not IBO legal, is this true and does that mean all national competitions as well? Can anyone verify this for me please?
> 
> Kyle


I thought this was probably not accurate, because I've read the rules several times and didn't see anything pertaining to nocks

Just did a look through on the rules again - There is nothing in the IBO rules concerning nocks. Not any nock of any type.
Seems you can use any nock you want to.

Rick


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

I get Mac's question, no one wants to shoot at an animal with a nock that impedes the penetration, if in fact this nock does, ? in a hunting situation, not a target .But watching the other video in the wind, at longer distance's, the Turbo seemed to shoot higher, and straighter, which would seem that it would get better penetration.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

zu! said:


> Mr. Turbonock, if you ever come up with a left wing version, I'd like to buy your nocks. I like to try new things, and I'm sure I can spare an arrow or two to try this. Heck, I even wouldn't mind that aluminium tube thingy that I have to jam into the back of my woodies if they weren't too heavy. I'd like to see how much it affects FOC and if there's any detrimental effect at all. But they have to match my left wing feathers. All I have are left wing feathers, and early on, I decided to choose left wing and stick with it. I don't do helical, but I have good offset, and my arrows spin good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry! I would like to , but to make a left twist t-4 production mold could cost $20,000.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

tpcowfish said:


> I get Mac's question, no one wants to shoot at an animal with a nock that impedes the penetration, if in fact this nock does, ? in a hunting situation, not a target .But watching the other video in the wind, at longer distance's, the Turbo seemed to shoot higher, and straighter, which would seem that it would get better penetration.


Here is a video of the first deer Randy Oitker took with My T-4 nocks on a fletched arrow and Muzzy Broadheads
At the end there is video of the wound. It even suprised Randy who has been sponsored by muzzy since he was 12 yrs old.






When this deer was dressed they examined the lungs and that rotation made hole went through both lungs before the spin stopped. I hope this answers questions about penetration and wound damage. The faster you spin your broadhead the more damage it will exact upon the target.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Thanks guys...that's precisely my point...

All I'm asking is. ..as a hunter...why would I use these if they are going to impede penatration...since this is exactly what their video shows..it's on their web site...Further. ..after reviewing their video....as a hunter...would using a right angle single bevel broadhead...would be the most logical and best choice here.....after all...since it is recommended that you use right wing feathers with this right angled nock...it seems to me that it would be the most logical thing to do. ..


I'll all for improved flight. ..but not at the risk of performance on game...which is why I am asking....

Good grief ...ask a legit question...and you would think I farted in front of the pope or worse to some here..which tells me they didn't even bother to watch the video before throwing their little hissy fit..

Mac.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

There is some discussion that since the arrow with low rpms passed through the backup target in my video that it is a more potent device. where my turbonock did not pass all the way through the backup target.

I just posted two turbo kills. the first was a pass through . the second was a shoulder shot as a result of the pronghorn jumping the sound of the bow. The arrow actually backed out of the wound. Not a pass through. But it generated a horrific entrance wound just as the one in Randys Deer. The pronghorn was down in 9 seconds.

When you shoot a low rpm arrow you may have a better chance of a pass through because you have a clean cut wound. and you pray for that pass through to allow the animal to bleed out.

Now the Turbonock will not allow for a Clean pass through . You may get a DIRTY pass through you may not but. the arrow is transferring the rotational energy to the animal. causing way more damage than a slow rpm arrow. 

I would prefer a profound bleeding entrance wound over two small clean wounds in a pass through. When an arrow passes through and keeps going that is wasted energy that could have been transferred to the animal.
IN 14years of our products being used. not one animal has complained. 

The new stealth adds another dimension to transferring energy to the animal in that the solid vanes are serrated 
and cause additional damage.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Mac, I didn't see your question until now, but I am with you.
With these nocks only having right twist, you need to have the fletching & broadhead bevels the same,
or they will work against each other, thus impeding both flight & penetration. 

Nick, all you need is 2000 1dz orders (plus a few for other expenses) to build that left twist production mold. 

Rick


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick Barbee said:


> Mac, I didn't see your question until now, but I am with you.
> With these nocks only having right twist, you need to have the fletching & broadhead bevels the same,
> or they will work against each other, thus impeding both flight & penetration.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

turbonockguy said:


> SOOOOOOOOOO how many do you want???


LOL, not me. I don't shoot left anything. 

Rick


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm sorry...I'm just having trouble understanding how an arrow that is virtually getting twisted off the string (as opposed to coming straight off the string) is somehow faster...I mean I get the increased spiral rotation thing making for an arrow that may correct itself sooner with less fletching drag but...well?...I'll just come out and say it...did I miss something a page or two ago but of all the expense it must've taken to come up with injection molds and whatnot to manufacture these turbonocks has no one run them across a $100 chronograph yet?...if so...where's the results cause that would substantiate some of the claims being made here but speaking as a lifelong aerospace machinist who deals with spiral flutes on tools day in and day out?...I can clearly see why the turbonocked arrows consistently hit in a different place than straight nocked arrows...because the spiral flutes on my mills and drills are designed to "Kick The Chips Out Of The Way"...much like a spiral nock will "kick" the arrow to a different POI as opposed to a straight nock coming off the string...could be higher...could be to one side or the other...then sight into the turbonock kicking off the string and call wherever the straight nock arrow impacts bad?...is this what we're doing here?...and the proof there would be...yep....has anybody bare shaft tested these things yet?...and the real test there would be to get straight nock bare shafts flying clean and then see what the turbonock does.

Now I'm not trying to discredit these turbonocks....I'm just playing devils advocate here and sharing what my mind see's...so I'm honestly curious and just laying it all out there in an attempt to better understand what just doesn't make sense to me at the moment....because if I had a twisted nock slot on my bareshafts?...I think I would play heck trying to get them to fly clean.

But I could be wrong...and I would love for someone to prove me so as then I'd get to learn something or we all learn together. 

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Bil, I'm guessing here, but I doubt you would see any difference shooting through
a chronograph at conventional distances. You would probably have to shoot through
it at a distance of 10 yards, or more (maybe less I don't know) to see any speed benefit.

Reason is - the nocks do not give you any kind of boost. They simply lessen the load
placed on the fletching to initiate spin, thus reducing drag, which reduces the overall loss of speed down range,
while adding stability to the arrow from the increased rotation, which also will equate to
less loss down range.

You spend money & tinker all the time, and good on ya for that. I love it. 
$10 ain't much to spend to satisfy your curiosity & need to tinker. 

Rick


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> I'm sorry...I'm just having trouble understanding how an arrow that is virtually getting twisted off the string (as opposed to coming straight off the string) is somehow faster...I mean I get the increased spiral rotation thing making for an arrow that may correct itself sooner with less fletching drag but...well?...I'll just come out and say it...did I miss something a page or two ago but of all the expense it must've taken to come up with injection molds and whatnot to manufacture these turbonocks has no one run them across a $100 chronograph yet?...if so...where's the results cause that would substantiate some of the claims being made here but speaking as a lifelong aerospace machinist who deals with spiral flutes on tools day in and day out?...I can clearly see why the turbonocked arrows consistently hit in a different place than straight nocked arrows...because the spiral flutes on my mills and drills are designed to "Kick The Chips Out Of The Way"...much like a spiral nock will "kick" the arrow to a different POI as opposed to a straight nock coming off the string...could be higher...could be to one side or the other...then sight into the turbonock kicking off the string and call wherever the straight nock arrow impacts bad?...is this what we're doing here?...and the proof there would be...yep....has anybody bare shaft tested these things yet?...and the real test there would be to get straight nock bare shafts flying clean and then see what the turbonock does.
> 
> Now I'm not trying to discredit these turbonocks....I'm just playing devils advocate here and sharing what my mind see's...so I'm honestly curious and just laying it all out there in an attempt to better understand what just doesn't make sense to me at the moment....because if I had a twisted nock slot on my bareshafts?...I think I would play heck trying to get them to fly clean.
> 
> ...


You and I are on the same page. I ordered a set of the T4 nocks last night to test some of these questions you just asked. I plan to test 4 different nocks that I have. The T4's when they come in, QAD's Tune A Nock, A standard CX nock and a Gold tip acculite nock. I'll first test with bareshafts and make all the arrows weigh the same with tape to make up the difference. Then I'll test fletched with Blazers and a right helical fletched from my AZ Mini jig. I figure 5-10 shots with each arrow configuration to get a good average to see if any have an advantage over the others. The "advantage" here is of course speed. If it's faster but the same weight, we can also assume that it'll penetrate deeper under identical circumstances.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> Bil, I'm guessing here, but I doubt you would see any difference shooting through
> a chronograph at conventional distances. You would probably have to shoot through
> it at a distance of 10 yards, or more (maybe less I don't know) to see any speed benefit.
> 
> ...


According to turbonockguy in this thread, post 4, http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2166874&p=1069791943#post1069791943
*"That little bump on the inside of your traditional nock that snaps onto the bowstring reduces arrow speed by about 6fps."*

Now if that's the case, my test will show it. If not, well then I'll try shooting at a longer distance over a chrono.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

MAC 11700 said:


> Good grief ...ask a legit question...and you would think I farted in front of the pope or worse to some here..which tells me they didn't even bother to watch the video before throwing their little hissy fit..
> 
> Mac.


Save it, Mac. You can test them yourself for free and report your findings. As I said, you have issue with others' tests, so just conduct your own.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Rick Barbee said:


> Bil, I'm guessing here, but I doubt you would see any difference shooting through
> a chronograph at conventional distances. You would probably have to shoot through
> it at a distance of 10 yards, or more (maybe less I don't know) to see any speed benefit.
> 
> ...


Cause outside of what's on (7) 5/16ths Sitka's?....I don't have a RW feather in the house...or clamp...and you know me Rick...always...

too the left baby! :laugh:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

kegan said:


> Save it, Mac. You can test them yourself for free and report your findings. As I said, you have issue with others' tests, so just conduct your own.


I don't need to test them..and my time and effort is anything but free...

I do believe Rick understands my concerns...with matching everything. .and what happens when you don't...so I'm sorry it's beyond your grasp....

I'm also sorry you don't have the khahoonies to ask a legit question from someone trying to hype a product here...but just because you won't. .doesn't mean I shouldn't ..

Also...I suppose I could just not say anything. ..but that's not in my nature. ..like about 1 large hole vs 2 complete holes from a pass through...and wasted energy and all that nonsense....naw...it wouldn't do any good...so I'll just quit now. .

Mac


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Saw in the size chart a reference to t-6 size......are they available?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

The continous insults are uncalled for; this has been three or four threads now where you fail to understand my point and simply resort to this kind of behavior.

The nocks improve accuracy. Accuracy is important, period. The information on penetration is not available or reliable. For someone unequipped to test the penetration of a single bevel broadhead out of a traditional bow using the product would cost considerably more expensive than a person who already has the arrows and broadheads. For someone with bias towards the product, the tests can easily be skewed simply by the interpretation of data, making them almost useless.

No one man's time is more valuable than another's unless they're curing cancer or solving world hunger.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MAC 11700 said:


> I don't need to test them..and my time and effort is anything but free...
> 
> I do believe Rick understands my concerns...with matching everything. .and what happens when you don't...so I'm sorry it's beyond your grasp....
> 
> ...



I have to agree Mac, sounds like someone is saying that a twisted nock will cause the broadhead to bore a big ol hole in the animal BUT, the friction actually interferes with penetration. 
I mentioned in another thread that if these have been in production for 15 years, and all that much better, then why are they still relatively unknown? :noidea: Maybe it's really the bees knees and just never got discovered but, I doubt that because there are too many people looking to buy something to help them gain an edge whether it works or not.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Rick, thanks again. I just place a order. It's a good price. I will report back.
Dan


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

kegan said:


> The continous insults are uncalled for; this has been three or four threads now where you fail to understand my point and simply resort to this kind of behavior.
> 
> The nocks improve accuracy. Accuracy is important, period. The information on penetration is not available or reliable. For someone unequipped to test the penetration of a single bevel broadhead out of a traditional bow using the product would cost considerably more expensive than a person who already has the arrows and broadheads. For someone with bias towards the product, the tests can easily be skewed simply by the interpretation of data, making them almost useless.
> 
> No one man's time is more valuable than another's unless they're curing cancer or solving world hunger.


And what part if my question is too difficult for the developer to answer kegan...

I fully understand what your point is....but why should I use these if they cant answer such a simple question...instead you say my question is unimportant, childish...and I should do my own testing...sorry...I feel that if they can't answer a straight forward question...they either dont have a clue..or don't care...being told...oh look what great performance a compound release shooter has gotten...seriously...since when was that ever relevant to a trad bow shooter? This is not ilrelavent. .or open to interpretation. ..their test failed ...it shows it...

You keep sticking up for them...how about you butt out and let them answer my question. ..or is this too difficult for you to do?...

And for the record. ..my time is valuble to me...regardless what you think. .and if these work better with a broadhead I or others dont use...or wish to retune and purchase...folks should know about it...

I'm sorry if you disagree. ..but that's just the way it's going to be. ..

Mac


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

The personal attacks and insults when someone disagrees is completely unnecessary. You do this on too many threads already.

I find the continued expectation of a *salesman* to slander his product to be both silly and childish. You're a grown man, you know how the world works anymore. You can ask until you're blue in the face but if you want genuine, unbiased results then no one will be able to provide them better than yourself: someone unbiased with the equipment tuned and knowledge of what to actually look for in the results. In what world would your results *not* be more beneficial to actual traditional bowhunters???

This is a product geared towards compounds, a larger market than traditional, and he appears to have very little interest in breaking into it beyond simply offering the product to us. Any tests done would most likely not be worth the money invested, so we would never _get_ the useable information that's clearly lacking. If the test _was_ conducted, the results could be interepretted differently in order to _favor_ the product being sold, making it less than helpful to anyone here interested in hunting with them out of a traditional bow. The argument for one large hole over two small ones is an example of skewing to sell the product.

I never said your question wasn't pertinent. Simply asking will most likely not get the answers we're looking for here. If the information that this product improves accuracy but at the cost of penetration on game is as important as you say it is, I have an incredibly hard time understanding why you would take his word on it rather than test and report the actual RESULTS. Unless you just want to bicker? It comes at no cost to you beyond shipping. We all value our time and the efficiency of our equipment. I am just shocked that you would expect an unbiased, factual response about a product from a person trying to sell it to you.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

A honest answer I do expect. .to expect any less is unacceptable. ....

I'm not in this to beta test for the company. ..and if they can't give a honest answer..they will never gain any trust from me...

Mac


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> A honest answer I do expect. .to expect any less is unacceptable. ....
> 
> I'm not in this to beta test for the company. ..and if they can't give a honest answer..they will never gain any trust from me...
> 
> Mac


I am not looking for beta testers . So something for you to think about. 
Discount everything I posted . Even discount mr. barbee's account of winning the shoot
In very bad weather as him just having a good day and everyone else having a bad day.
Just look at the 50 yd shooting video he posted
I estimate an 8 to 10 inch trajectory difference in his arrows and the only difference is the nocks

Barber is a new customer and contacted me after the tournament.
I asked if he would post a review. An honest review is what he did

If changing a nock for what ever reason can improve trajectory and resistance
To drift in crosswinds , perhaps it's worth a try!

I want to apologize to Mr. Barbee for getting him into this "debate"
I am working today at a show and may not be able to respond here
Until tonight. 
Sadly these silly fights happen a lot on this site. This makes me sad
I am in this sport because I love it ! If I can make improvements to the
Sport for those with open minds so much the better.
You can make assumptions and argue and mistrust until you are
Blue in the face. All my nocks do is obey the laws of physics
I figure all the time you have put into arguing if you value you time
Is more than the cost of my nocks?
I wonder what will happen when posts start on a new bowstring I designed
scary thought
Anyhow tonight I will post what I think of our sport as it exists toda

Again my apologies to Mr. Barbee! I asked him to be a staff shooter I
Would not blame him for not doing it.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Don't feel alone Mac, sent an email, a PM, and asked on this thread........and still didn't get an answer to my simple question.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I was impressed with these nocks, and as luck would have it I was able to become familiar with them
while shooting in pretty adverse conditions which lead to me being even more impressed.

I seldom post reviews, but occasionally will when I have found something that works for me.
When that happens, *I want to share* it in order to give *others the opportunity* to find out if
it will work for them also.

They absolutely do work for me. If they didn't, I wouldn't use them. Simple as that.
Whether or not they will work for you is yet to be seen, but you'll never know until you try them.

Nick, I very much appreciate the offer to become a Turbonock staff shooter.
As we discussed, there are several reasons why I am hesitant to do so, but rest assured - 
my decision one way or the other will not be affected by fear of ridicule or disagreement.
If I chose to represent a product I do it because I believe in it, and I don't have to be
a representative in any official capacity to do so. 

Rick


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> I am not looking for beta testers . So something for you to think about.
> Discount everything I posted . Even discount mr. barbee's account of winning the shoot
> In very bad weather as him just having a good day and everyone else having a bad day.
> Just look at the 50 yd shooting video he posted
> ...


All of this. .and still no answer to a very simple question...why is that?

As to Rick's review...I for one am glad he did it...and fwiw...go back and read what I said about it...

That said..getting a field point to a hay bale is not what I am asking about...questioning..debating...arguing..or anything else..Nor am I discussing the laws of physics of flight...what I am questioning is the physical characteristics of the best choice in broadheads...and trying to get a straight answer from you about it.....

Your promoting a product here...are you not?

You posted the video in question using broadheads...did you not..? This is not about accuracy. ..

Are you not familiar with the differences in traditional heads used by the majority of traditional folks ?

Somehow I am the heavy here...and this is ludicrous. ..

Personally. ..I don't care if your nocks cost 10 cents or 10 dollars each...if...if...if...they impede penetration.....and since your video shows them doing this in brittle Styrofoam no less. With A Compound Using A Release Aid .....I'm going to ask why you didn't try different heads in your testing. ..and if you did..which ones gave the best results...Why is it that you can't understand this ? I'm all for better accuracy...but not at the cost of seeing someone else using a poor choice of heads..if 1 is going to perform better. ..and BTW...pass through shots is what bowhunters strive for...not something that impedes this...It's not wasted energy as you have said...it is energy welk spent because the majority of folks on this or any other archery forum knows 2 holes completely through the vitals is better than 1...and regardless of how much energy goes out with the arrow on a pass through shot..matters not...This isn't about rifles and bullets. ..it's about arrows and razor sharp heads..

Ya know. ..I can accept a lot of things ...but what I cant accept is any manufacturer dodging a simple question...

A very simple question...that Rick fully understands...but you won't take the time to answer.....perhaps he can explain it better to you...so you can understand it's true importance since our trad bows have a fraction of the speed and energy that compounds generate. ..I feel no need to apologize to him since he understands what I have adked...and the reasons why...perhaps you should take a moment and read what he said about it...

I'll trouble you no more. ..hawk your wares all you want...but...know I'm not alone in wanting to know the answer to my question...and maybe...just maybe it might save someone loosing a deer...because of my responses here... if this upsets you..well..that's just the way I feel. ..

Mac


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't think anyone is slamming anyone here 

Mac is just asking questions 

I am interested in the nocks but I have a few questions 

I can see where these would help stabilize release shot arrows with small fletching or thobs and that is a good thing 

I shoot very big feathers with a lot of helical 

I do not do this because my arrows are not tuned 

I do this because I like big Broadheads and in my hunting conditions I am looking for an arrow that stabilizes quickly and deals with a possible poor release better 

In my situation I do not want to shoot less fletching 

I can see how these nocks would help the arrow shed less energy by getting them to spin quicker instead of counting on the drag of the fletches to get it going 

But I can also see my big fletching even thou it is right wing wanting to take control and the fletching will dictate the rpm of the shaft not the nock 

Being that the nock and the fletch are possible not timed for lack of a better word the same would it be the case that yes it will spin quicker but it will also buck the spin to get into the fletches rpm ? 

I am truly curious so any thought would be great 

As for not wanting an arrow to pass thru 

Well that's just silly 

I also like an arrow that snaps on the nock especially since switching to three under 

Do these snap on or just slide on ?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Rick Barbee said:


> Bil, I'm guessing here, but I doubt you would see any difference shooting through
> a chronograph at conventional distances. You would probably have to shoot through
> it at a distance of 10 yards, or more (maybe less I don't know) to see any speed benefit.
> 
> ...


Hey rick. I'm really glad you posted this video. I think the concept of creating the initial spin via the nock versus the air drag is entirely valid. nothing wrong with it. I also find this discussion actually interesting, though I can't say that I can keep up with all of it, but I'm glad I happened to skim your post.

Points I would like to bring up...

The initial spin generated by the nock is not free. While it is possible that the twist in the nock _may_ be more efficient at creating spin than the twist in fletching, the mechanics of it still take forward velocity and turn it into rotational velocity. In other words, the nock will both apply a counter-direcitonal twisting force on the string, and as such, pull the string forward _harder, over a longer distance_. So, actually, on a theoretical level, you _might_ expect a slightly slower arrow right out of the gate with a twisted nock, but it would slow down _less over the next 10-20 yards_ because it did not have _as much_ additional air drag related to spinning up the arrow. it may also have less drag _if_ the quicker initial spin caused the arrow to stabilize faster, making the shaft more aerodynamic because it is traveling through the air straighter, sooner. I say 'as much' for reasons below.

loss of speed downrange is entirely dependent on inertia (due to mass) and drag (due to fletching). Once the arrow as at its 'terminal spin rate', in terms of rotations per distance traveled, the drag imparted has nothing to do with how it got to that spin rate. The smaller the fletching, the longer it takes to get to that spin rate. If there is less drag at this point due to using the Turbo nock, it will not be because of the nock, it will be because you're using less fletching, if in fact you can with the same amount of stability, and the archer chooses to do so.


The additional frictional drag created by the twisting in the may possibly affect tune of arrow flight. By creating the spin off of the string, it changes how the string lets go of the arrow. Distances in impact height could possibly be related to that. I don't know, and wouldn't venture to guess what actually is the case, without a chronograph at say, 30 yards or so. Most people wouldn't be okay with shooting through a chronograph at 30 yards with a traditional bow. I'm not sure I'd be up for it...

In the longer distance video I saw, while I couldn't see the arrows fly at all, both of your shots looked amazing. Good shooting! It also looked like neither had substantial wind drift. 

George Chapman, who I was fortunate enough to have some time with before he passed, mostly learning compound shooting, but thankfully loved to engage in discussing all kinds of things, including finger shooting traditional bows (he convinced me to stop using my fingertips to hold the string, for one thing) explained that _most_ of the deviation caused from shooting in the wind came from the wind blowing the archer during the shot, not the actual effect on the arrow. His advice, wait until the wind stops where _you_ are, then shoot.

I did have an arrow blow off slightly at the Redding shoot, but I'm talking 101 yards, and it was a matter of about 18" from where I wanted it. Considering that the last 30 or so yards, much of the forward velocity, and that the crosswinds were pretty substantial, and that the arrow almost falling as much as it was traveling forward, almost just hanging in the wind, I'm guessing at about a 20 degree angle into the wind, while I should have made a slight correction to hit, the actual effect of the wind, all things considered, is minimal compared to what most people expect.

From a purely accuracy standpoint, we WANT the arrow to turn into the wind. An arrow traveling relatively into the wind will have less drag than an arrow traveling somewhat sideways _(relative to the air)_. From an aerodynamic standpoint, the orientation of the arrow towards the target, while it looks like it is affected less when it stays straight), in terms of trajectory, doesn't matter. An arrow traveling straight _through the air_ will drift less laterally than an arrow that remains straight oriented to the target.

Similarly, if the arrow is resistant to changing directional orientation laterally, the same would apply to it vertically. If this was the case, that would explain a higher point of impact, because the arrow would have a 'gliding' effect. I.e., it is not orienting itself into the flow of the air as it falls, and as such, creates an upwards drag, actually slowing the arrow, but causing a flatter trajectory. I remember seeing some Easton documentation, or maybe it was TrueFlight or Gateway, I don't remember, on long distance bare shaft tuning, and why lower points of impact associated with higher FOC in bare shafts were not in fact due to loss of speed, or higher rates of inherent drop, but aerodynamics related to the arrow _not_ correcting the directional orientation for the path of the trajectory. Much of this behavior diminished greatly with any kind of fletching applied, though less fletching, less directional correction through the air. In tests using the turbo nock with very minimal fletching, I can see an arrow maintaining much of the original spin rate right off the string, and relatively little aerodynamic directional correction for much of it's flight, behaving like a very stable bare shaft. With 4" or 5" feathers, not so much.

Now, this brings up an interesting issue, between target shooting and hunting. While accuracy is always nice in hunting, when shooting in wind, the arrow will be less affected by the wind if it turns into it, so that the shaft flies straight through the air. HOWEVER, in terms of penetration, we want the arrow traveling straight in relation to traveling through the target medium. As such, from a pure penetration standpoint, we want the arrow NOT to turn into the wind. BUT, we also want it to correct direction for fall. I don't see a way that you can have just one or the other. If you were shooting an animal in windy conditions, the ideal circumstances, from a penetration standpoint, shoot an arrow that does not directionally correct quickly (very high rate of spin, very little fletching), have it travel quickly, and not very far (get close), and use high FOC (so that the act of penetration inherently corrects the direction of the arrow through the target medium (flesh) more quickly, and with less loss of energy. Personally speaking, if I'm shooting in 30 mph wind, I'm not going to take a shot on a live animal.



regardless of the initial spin rate, the spin rate will move towards a rate dictated by the fletching. As mentioned before, what I would call the 'terminal spin rate', is ultimately set by the fletching orientation. A spinning nock may possibly provide value by getting it to that rate faster, and stabilize the arrow faster because of it. All in all, we would think a good thing. However, once the arrow reaches that spin rate, how it got there has nothing to do with what happens from that point on. What is more, as I mentioned, I said 'as much' additional drag as fletching that uses the air to impart the spin. Unless the nock absolutely nails the same spin rate as used by the fletching, there will still be additional drag until the arrow reaches that 'terminal spin rate'. If the initial spin rate is lower, the fletching still has to make up the difference. If the initial spin rate is higher than the inherent spin rate of the fletched shaft, then there will be additional drag used to _slow down_ the rotational velociy. in this case, you've used up forward velocity to create rotational velocity, and then used more to diminish it.

Regarding Mac's issue, spiraling an arrow through an animal will in itself create more cutting, because I spiral in a given direction is actually farther than a straight line. It would be similar to using a wider broadhead. However, if the spiral is significant, it's like using a knife at an angle. It may do some additional tearing, but you'll not likely get an efficient application of energy for the purpose of slicing. You could get additional tearing by using a duller blade too. What would _really_ be optimal, assuming that there is a higher rate of rotation on impact, would be a spiraled broad head that matched the twist rate of the shaft on impact. I don't know if there is any such product on the market, but I imagine you could sell them. Maybe Turbonock could get into that as well, as part of an entire optimized system.

So, all of these thoughts rambled out, I would clarify that while I don't have any interest in trying them for myself (as all of my current arrows are fletched the wrong direction), I wouldn't say that the notion that these products might be superior in a particular application is a crazy idea. If they work better for somebody, than they do. Nothing really to argue about that.

I would also say that if you want to maintain the imparted spin rate (which I assume is higher than most fletched arrows would do by themselves, looking at the twist rate of the nock), and keep the arrow's directional orientation as fixed as possible, for whatever reasons, use relatively little fletching.

I think it's a cool idea, and look forward to hearing more people's experience with it. If I change my fletching orientation, I might be tempted to try, just to see what happens


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

It's hard to follow Barney's post!
So, I will add this to Mac and other hunters. The Turbo nock spine rate is very little it only gets the fletching up to speed. As a hunter, I am not concern that the broadhead will try to bore a hole in the Animal causing lost in pentation. Use this to see for yourshelf.
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/millerformula.xls
Dan


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Break time:

Lets see if I can answer some of the questions where they relate to my experience so far:

Joe, from what I can see, the size of the fletching is only an issue if you are wanting to reduce it to gain more speed from even less drag.
I am using these nocks with 4" feathers, and a fairly radical helical. 
Yes, I agree the timing of the twist between the fletching & the nock probably has some degrading factor stacked against the initial benefit,
but not enough to eliminate the benefit, or even drastically reduce it.

These nocks are not snap on. If you are familiar with the old mercury speed nocks, then think of them with a twisted slot.
However, even though they do not snap on they stay secure on the string until you're ready for them to come off, and then they
come of very smoothly. I was actually shocked by how smooth the transition coming off the string is. As long as the twist of the
shaft does not have any resistance to it, the nocks slip from the string very nicely. I don't think you will find them being
non snap on an issue at all.

Barney, from what I can tell you are absolutely correct that the nock twist may reduce the point blank chronograph speeds
of the arrow, but since we are only talking about a mere 3/8 of an inch from the time the nock starts exiting the string until
it is in complete free flight, I would bet (not sure, haven't chronograph) that speed difference is very slight, as in 10ths of fps.
However, since there is that initial spin, the fletching is already in rotation, thus reducing the drag (usually 10 to 20 ft) that
the fletching has to place on it to set that rotation up, so while you may lose a little as it is coming off the string you make it
up *& then some* down range a few ft from the reduced drag. *You don't gain anything*. You simply are reducing the
amount of degradation of the flight by reducing the amount of drag the fletching has to place on the arrow in order to induce
the rotation & stabilize it. 

To summarize - I agree that you would have to chronograph at longer distances to get any measurable difference in the readings
of speed, but I don't think it would have to be at 30 yards. 5 to 10 yards would probably do it.

Nope, neither arrow was suffering extreme wind drift, but if you look at the stills of the arrows in the bale,
you will notice the turbonocked arrow was straight in, where the other was at an angle 
(tail left with the wind direction) every time.

A straight, non wobbling entry will give you better penetration over the contrary every time.
You'll also notice the turbonocked arrows are penetrating quite a bit deeper even though they were
passing through the cardboard when the other was not. The density of the hay bale will be different
from one spot to another, but not enough to make that much difference every shot.

I think that addressed most of your questions & points where they apply to my experience so far.

Now these are just my observations, and NO nothing really scientific, but I REALLY like what I am seeing,
and the results I am getting so far. I'll do more testing as I find time for it, and testing with broadheads
is #1 on the agenda. 

Rick


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Rick Barbee said:


> Break time:
> 
> Lets see if I can answer some of the questions where they relate to my experience so far:
> 
> ...


Thanks Rick that's all I needed to know  

When I get a chance I will pick some up


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Wow. Big debate. I got my dozen T4 nocks yesterday. Glued them in my GT Ultralite 400 spine shafts with 5 inch right wing parabolic feathers with helical. I wanted to post after more shooting but I feel inclined to post now. I have just a few quick and immediately noticeable observations:

1. Immediate improvement in bare shaft tuning. I am not a great shot and I do not bare shaft well. I immediately was able to bare shaft out to 30 yds. I am guessing this is due to the rotation being imparted onto the bare shaft.
2. I can see the arrow visually rotating to the right (clockwise).
3. I am NOT getting the occasional wobbly arrow flight that I would get from a less than perfect release. These arrows stabilize quickly and stay on target.

I was able to quickly tune the arrows to 2 completely different rigs. My accuracy improved immediately. I believe the rotation imparted onto the arrow immediately as it leaves the string allows the arrow to stablize very quickly. I have not significantly tested these nocks yet to give my opinion on a flatter trajectory or ability to cut through the wind during flight. However, I am impresesed enough that I will be ordering more next week.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Wow. Big debate. I got my dozen T4 nocks yesterday. Glued them in my GT Ultralite 400 spine shafts with 5 inch right wing parabolic feathers with helical. I wanted to post after more shooting but I feel inclined to post now. I have just a few quick and immediately noticeable observations:
> 
> *1. Immediate improvement in bare shaft tuning. I am not a great shot and I do not bare shaft well. I immediately was able to bare shaft out to 30 yds. I am guessing this is due to the rotation being imparted onto the bare shaft.*
> 2. I can see the arrow visually rotating to the right (clockwise).
> ...


Thanks Tony!....the bare shaft info was what I was looking/waiting for...but I'm screwed...cause I AM NOT buying a right wing clamp and feathers to re-fletch every freaking CF arrow I have! LOL!

Looks like turbonocks are a winner folks....and just when I was thinking how ridiculous....5 pages about a nock? :laugh:

now...let me practice...

I AM NOT buying a right wing clamp...I AM NOT buying a right wing clamp...I AM NOT buying a right wing clamp...I AM NOT buying a right wing clamp...

Dang it!....it's not working.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Wow. Big debate. I got my dozen T4 nocks yesterday. Glued them in my GT Ultralite 400 spine shafts with 5 inch right wing parabolic feathers with helical. I wanted to post after more shooting but I feel inclined to post now. I have just a few quick and immediately noticeable observations:
> 
> 1. Immediate improvement in bare shaft tuning. I am not a great shot and I do not bare shaft well. I immediately was able to bare shaft out to 30 yds. I am guessing this is due to the rotation being imparted onto the bare shaft.
> 2. I can see the arrow visually rotating to the right (clockwise).
> ...


Out of curiosity do you think they will stay on the string for stringwalking? That is kind of a deal breaker for me.
Also do they add or reduce arrow length compared with the standard GT nock?

Anything that gets the arrow straightened out faster is a real perk for us darkside aimers, reduces the mistune from a long crawl.

-Grant


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

What ever you do.I thank you for your candid review and responses.
Thanks!
Nick Snook


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks Tony!....the bare shaft info was what I was looking/waiting for...but I'm screwed...cause I AM NOT buying a right wing clamp and feathers to re-fletch every freaking CF arrow I have! LOL!
> 
> Looks like turbonocks are a winner folks....and just when I was thinking how ridiculous....5 pages about a nock? :laugh:
> 
> ...


OK OK OK 
I am going to check with Specialty Plastics in St Peters MIssouri. They do my injection molding. Possibly they can
do a mirror image of my original T-4 design and save some money on a mold. I am not promising I can do it. If I can I will . It can take up to six months to get a new mold running. I will keep an update if I can get it financed.
Why cant turkeys be bred with just right wings???


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> What ever you do.I thank you for your candid review and responses.
> Thanks!
> Nick Snook


Well Nick?...since I gave you and Mr. Barbee such a hard time up front being the inquisitive and skeptical soul I am?...maybe I can talk myself into buying a right wing clamp and "maybe" share a key selling point here with you...cause I'm thinking...

Gee....if I go "right wing"?...my points will tighten up instead of loosening up all the time! :laugh:

that said?...there's no guarantee I'm going to switch as I have probably close to 100 LW fletched arrows laying around...but even so?...I'd like to thank you for stepping out of the box...putting yourself out there at a personal and financial risk...and being one of the true contributors and innovators of this sport we all love and enjoy so much! :thumbs_up

Best Wishes on all your future endeavors, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

LOL Bill, I didn't take your questions (or anyone elses) as giving a hard time. 

By the way - when you buy those new broadheads, don't forget to get the new right wing feathers, jig & clamp. 

Rick


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Bill,

Thrown them on some bareshafts before you invest in a clamp and feathers. If they do what they are supposed to do then you should be able to see the difference even better without feathers.

-Grant


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

[/GMAPSAVED][/GMAPSAVED]

I want to apologize to those several folks who I have not responded to directly. I have been doing this while on the road to the National Dog Agility Trials in Harrisburg Pa. and I am spending a good part of the day dealing with customers . I make a living designing specialty jewelry. mostly for the Dog Show and Dog Agility community.
Trying to respond on my I phone drives me crazy.

Seems like the big question is the penetration issue in the video where you see an arrow with a muzzy and blazers 
on the back go through the back stop target and my Turbonock not got the whole way through.
I was in hope that someone would look and do some common sense thinking.

The first arrow that went the whole way through was spinning very slowly , made a relatively small wound. and lets say that that back up target was somewhat equal to a deer , then that first shot was a pass through.

Now the Arrow With the "Big" Turbonock stealth that has a nock on the back with solid vanes that have serrated edges just like a plastic knife. The muzzy Passed through the Block and created an exit wound. About 1/4 of the arrow was still in the block with the nock with the serrated blades on it. Also take into account this arrow hit the first target with the liquid in it and created a massive wound and a second massive wound as the nock with vanes passed through.
Lets say that the back up target is a deer running . It already has a massive entrance wound, an arrow sitcking out the exit wound and a 4 bladed nock inside the animal as it is running. Every time that animal moves that internal nock is moving and causing more internal damage, and trauma.

I would say that massive damage and continuing damage to the animal would be more effective in bringing the animal down than just a clean pass through.

Again look at the pronghorn video. High shoulder shot through bone and not a pass through and a 7 second kill
and the first video high lung shot with regular fletching but a massive entrance wound. 9 second kill.

I would say both types of turbonocks are proven to enhance wounds which leads to faster humane kills

There has been concern about having the beveled broadhead match the pitch of the nock and the fletching.
I have found this is no real issue when the broadhead is rotating at high speed. Straight ,two blades ,three blades, four blades , and aerodynamics like the Crimson Talon work quite well.

If you have a broadhead that is aerodynamically set to rotate left , that would not work;
for Example there is a Badger Broadhead on the market. one has offset blades for left spin and one for right.

I have found that when you spin a broadhead at high speed it will actually fly straighter than one spinning at low speed. The reason is the same as when you see a funnel in a tornado or the open area in the center of your commode when you flush. as air or liquid is rotated it is forced away from the center of the rotation causing an area of less air pressure. less air pressure = less drag.
If you create a vortex it will move the liquid or air more efficiently through the vortex. 
That is why your poop disappears easily (usually ) in the commode and why your cows disappear in a tornado.
And why broadheads fly straighter.

A little experiment I did and will make a video of when I get home to show this vortex effect when I get back to my shop.
If you have an electric drill and a gallon can of house paint you can do the vortex experiment.
1. get and arrow shaft and mount any broadhead on it. insert the other end into a variable speed drill
2. open can of paint. 
3 insert broadhead in can so that you can still see the back of it.
4. start drill slowly. you will see the paint swirl.
5. increase the speed slowly. as the rpms increase you will see the paint start to pull away from the blades.
6 go to full speed on the drill and you will see the entire broadhead spinning and no paint within the boundary of the blade and the shaft. (That area with out paint is an area of less pressure. )
That paint is much thicker than air and you power drill will probably rotating around 700 rpm. and in essence it has created a vacuum in the paint. 
When you shoot an arrow with a turbonock you will spin a broadhead 4000 to 7000 rpm depending on bow speed , through the atmosphere. Those rotating blades of the broadhead will create a partial vacuum in the air just like in the paint .allowing the broadhead to pass through the air quite efficiently. 
This greatly reduces the left and right drift that commonly occurs when shooting broadheads at lower rpms.

Some people think that as soon as the high rpm broadhead hits an animal is stops spinning. True if you hit bone, but if you hit flesh that rotation will continue a good way through the animal causing massive trauma.

In the first video Randys deer showed rotation through both lungs.
If this does not make sense to you think about this.

YOu are driving down the road at 80 mph. A deer jumps on the road 50 feet in front of you. YOU slam on the brakes. Will you car stop before or after you hit the deer?
The momentum of the car in motion will allow the car to move through or over that deer for some distance before stopping. 
The Turbonocked arrow spinning at several thousand rpms can not stop instantly. and since it is flying faster than the car, It will continue to rotate in the flesh until the resistsance can take the energy out of the rotation.
By then The damage is done.

So in essence The Turbonock in a way changes the way arrows use the laws of physics to create more traumatic wounds. 
You can not use the conventional thought used with conventional arrows that a pass through = a clean kill
It depends what the passthrough hits.
With the turbonock and regular fletching you get a more massive entrance wound and more internal damage
with The Turbonock Stealth and Vortex (for compounds) you get the additional wound damage of a second broadhead.

I think I answered to all concerned that we discontinued the t-6 for the g-nock. They would break to easily from hits.
We are working on designing overnocks for wood shafts.
I am also looking into the possibility of getting a left twist mold made for the t-4. If I can it will take up to 6 months
I hope I have updated all the unanswered questions.
Sorry for the delay and I thank those who have showed patience.
I have to work all day tomorrow.so I will not be able to respond until tomorrow evening.
If you PM me I may be able to Iphone you back
.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Out of curiosity do you think they will stay on the string for stringwalking? That is kind of a deal breaker for me.
> Also do they add or reduce arrow length compared with the standard GT nock?
> 
> Anything that gets the arrow straightened out faster is a real perk for us darkside aimers, reduces the mistune from a long crawl.
> ...


Grant,

The arrows with the Turbonocks are approximately 5/16" shorter than arrows with the standard Gold Tip nock as measured from arrow tip to the valley of the nock. The TurboNock valley is closer to the rear of the shaft. Being a gap shooter this may be why I am not noticing a change in trajectory (although I haven't thoroughly tested that yet). 5/16" less in arrow length would effectively change my aim point, as I aim off the arrow tip. I have been aiming at the same point and have not noticed a significant change in point of impact, but the Turbonock arrow is shorter and hitting the same point (Normally I have to aim lower with a shorter arrow). So in essence, I may be actually getting a flatter trajectory. I should also mention here that I am shooting lower poundage bows, a 70" ILF target set up 45#@30, and a 62" Omega Delta 40#@30. Mr. Barbee noticed a much greater change in trajectory but I believe he shoots significantly more draw weight.

Secondly, these nocks do not snap on. They twist on and they hold the string very well. I've noticed no issues with this. I don't think stringwalking would be a problem. In fact, once these nocks are placed on the string, they don't slide down the string very easily, and a lower nock locator on the string is practically unnecessary. 

I will reiterate that I have been able to more quickly and easily tune both of these bows with the TurboNock, and I am a lousy bow and arrow tuner. My release is such that I often shoot a lousy bareshaft, but today I dropped a bareshaft in the 10 ring at 30 yards, which is extremely rare for me. I am currently contemplating how I can rig these nocks up to some wood shafts, most likely I will foot the rear with aluminum shafting. I need all the help I can get when I shoot wood arrows. :shade:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> [/GMAPSAVED][/GMAPSAVED]
> 
> I want to apologize to those several folks who I have not responded to directly. I have been doing this while on the road to the National Dog Agility Trials in Harrisburg Pa. and I am spending a good part of the day dealing with customers . I make a living designing specialty jewelry. mostly for the Dog Show and Dog Agility community.
> Trying to respond on my I phone drives me crazy.
> ...


Wow, the only way to get a response is to post something negative. I posted a spine rate calculator, which showed that the initial rate to be very low when the turbo knock leaves the string. Any case. I ordered two dozen and will be doing my own. Tests.
Dan
Dan


----------



## mrjeffro (Jul 25, 2007)

grantmac said:


> Out of curiosity do you think they will stay on the string for stringwalking? That is kind of a deal breaker for me.
> Also do they add or reduce arrow length compared with the standard GT nock?
> 
> Anything that gets the arrow straightened out faster is a real perk for us darkside aimers, reduces the mistune from a long crawl.
> ...



Good question


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

They should work fine for string walking. The twist in the nock holds securely and does not require a speed bump like other nocks.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

This may have been covered already, if it has I apologize. Do they cause excess serving wear? Speck


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

One video of one shot is not substantive proof.

One still pic of one guy shooting at 20 yards is not substantive proof.

The paint can is a flawed analogy. Plunge the spinning broadhead forward into the formed vortex just as happens with an arrow in flight. See what happens.

The force applied to the animal by the spin IS greater. A 500 grain arrow spinning at 4000 rpm applies .004 ft-lbs KE rotational energy to the target/animal. This is a BEST case scenario with all calculations rounded UP and assumes that the entire mass is concentrated at the outside edge of a broadhead of 1" cutting diameter. This made the calculations easier, but real world application is significantly less than this best case.

Arrows kill by cutting and bleeding, not blunt force trauma like a bullet.

Even if the arrow passes through both sides of the animal, an arrow stuck in the animal plugs the hole. Short of a drop dead heart shot that ruptures the heart, the plugged holes lead to less external bleeding, and a harder and longer trail to follow. This is regardless of other internal non-heart related damage that that additional .004 ft-lbs of KE causes.

Further testing by random folks here in terms of target accuracy is called for and would be a good thing. However I'm thinking that for hunting this may not be the way to go. No true advantage coupled with other potentially detrimental aspects such as reduced penetration, regardless of broadhead used. 

The hype of more applied force and vacuums doesn't help much either.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

No mention of blunt force trauma just traumatic wounds.
There are a lot more videos on you tube. I just did not post here. Lots of still photos also.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

ahhh....I say give credits where credit due...and after some time to think about it?...I think Nick is definitely onto something here with his turbonocks and knows they work but is having difficulty explaining and conveying exactly why it is that they do as reduced fletching drag resulting in a claimed increase of downrange velocity may "touch on" some of the secondary effects of his turbonock design but I'm of the opinion that the "Primary Reason" they seem to correct themselves in rapid fashion and fly straighter sooner and according to Mr. Barbee's reports?....demonstrate a serious benefit when it comes to shooting in windy conditions is this...it's the increased...

*"Gyroscopic Effect"*

that the turbonocks induce the moment the shaft leaves the string.

Cause even a slight increase in Gyroscopic Effect can and does Stabilize the crap out of things that fly and is how and why a missile can be launched from one continent and strike a spot on another continent with pinpoint accuracy.

To verify this...if there are any of you out there that have a bicycle in the garage...take off one of the wheels and hold the axel ends in either hand...at static?...you can move it freely....but then have somebody give it a good spin?.....and it will lock your hands in place.

And I guess the broadhead penetration debate is...well?...debatable...(as it always seems to be)...but increased gyroscopic effect resulting in increased dynamic spine in flight, increased stability and increased accuracy isn't...and would be awfully nice things to have...whether target shooting or hunting...and especially so on a windy day. 

Peace, Out. Bill. :cool2:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I put my order in for a couple dozen. Knowing Canada Post they will be here in 2-3 business weeks 

If they can make bareshaft tuning a stringwalking rig any easier then I'll be buying more in the future.

-Grant


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

Im waiting for Ricks broadhead test, all other points seem to be very positive,


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

turbonockguy said:


> No mention of blunt force trauma just traumatic wounds.


Yes I know. My reference to that is related to what happens with a wound that is not immediately on the spot lethal withing seconds of the hit. If you have an arrow stuck in the hole, its plugging the hole. 

And honestly I'm just not seeing .004 ft-lbs of additional KE as being particularly significant, that's all.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

An animal with a massive entrance wound like the turbonock enables broadheads to do even without a passthrough
tend to bleed out profoundly. The most common comments I get from hunters using my nocks is they get to see the animal go down. This is real life shooting. Perhaps your calculations are correct . You seem a little negative. So I probably can not get you to try them. The offer is there. If you do not like them send them back.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Bender said:


> And honestly I'm just not seeing .004 ft-lbs of additional KE as being particularly significant, that's all.


and I agree with you there Bender....it's not....at all....and if you notice?...no "proof of speed increase" has been offered up yet from what I've read so far...and I think that whole line of thinking is more in keeping with the turbonock namesake than it is the reality of why these things work...in my world?...theye would be called....

*"GYRONOCKS"*

and grant....I think you're going to love these things for SW'ing...did you read UrbanDeerSlayers post regarding his bare shafting experience?


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

A few posters here got the old wheels turning some more which is part of the issue, things spinning and the weird things that happen. If an arrow goes straight its cutting path is merely the length of the wound channel. Easy to measure. Spin that broad head and the length of the cut is now equal to the spiral which is a lot longer. Picture a spring and unwinding it. That doesn't matter to me here in So-cal since there isn't anything to hunt that doesn't have a tree hugger standing guard over it. Even the squirrels at the range are protected.

The other day I was at the range trying to hit a tiny target (not that squirrel, I promise) at 60 yards and there was some good crosswinds that came up. I noticed how the arrow leaned into the wind point first. That's to be expected. If that arrow were spinning at a couple thousand RPM things might be different. Taking Jinksters analogy of a clockwise spinning bicylce wheel, picture the arrow in the same sort of configuration and motion. You'd be looking down the shaft with that tire representing a cross section. If you apply pressure to the three oclock position which would match up with a left to right cross wind and tip leading the fletch into the wind viewed from the rear, the shaft would tilt up. Wind coming from the opposite direction would tend to drive the tip down with it being the equivalent of pressure at the 9:00 oclock position viewed from behind. If this is the dynamic wouldn't that create more calculation headaches accounting for wind and gyroscopic precession?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

ranchoarcher said:


> If this is the dynamic wouldn't that create more calculation headaches accounting for wind and gyroscopic precession?


Only if you thought about it! :laugh:

Spin the wheel baby...then take notice that while you can move the wheel forwards and backwards...as well as side too side?....in an extremely square fashion?.....it will heavily resist...

"Tilting it"

here....let me save you folks the trouble of R&R'ing a bicycle wheel...






the benefits of these turbonocks have very little (if anything) to do with any claimed slight increases in velocity....which I don't doubt that they do "downrange"....but thus far?...no one has proven those claims....which in reality...(and I'm just taking a SWAG here)...probably isn't much different than the flatter trajectory one might glean from shooting a lighter arrow or a slightly heavy draw weight bow...but neither of those would "fully" account for the level of claimed increases in accuracy and tighter groupings...as a bad shot with a slightly faster rig is still going to be a bad shot....as the proclaimed benefits others are experiencing and sharing here would elude to a serious "Gear Based Advantage/Improvement" and not that somehow a nock magically transformed them into instantly becoming a better archer.

The real problem here that's causing so much distention and skepticism is that it's primary attribute has been entirely overlooked by it's inventor...and he's not to be chastised over that...it happens often when folks stumble upon things...then take their best crack at explaining why they work as they view it...just ask me...I'll tell ya...cause at times I'm an expert at doing just that as well! :laugh:

And due to the above?....the true benefit of this product is accidently being overlooked and inadvertently...but ultimately...miss-represented. 

and no...I didn't sleep at a holiday inn express last night....but I have spent my adult life as an R&D aerospace machinist/fabricator....much of it military based...and more recently?...I've been working with a crew of engineers that are developing hypersonic missiles capable of approaching Mach7 that can strike anywhere in the world in about 45 minutes...and sometimes I have questions?...and sometimes?....they smile and have answers. 

They....and I...would've dubbed them..."GyroNocks". 

and again...peace....out.....Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Keep this in mind. A cut 10" long is 10" long regardless of whether that cut is straight or wound into a spiral. Making that cut requires a certain amount of energy. In order for the spiral cut to actually make a truly longer cut more energy must be applied. 

Will an additional .004 ft-lbs of energy make a significantly longer cut? Is it even enough to keep the arrow spinning much past initial skin contact and create a spiral wound? If an arrows rotational KE were enough to create any spiral wound, then ALL arrows fletched with offset or helical fletching would create wounds of a significant spiral path even without the Turbonock. 

Am I being negative? Yes and no. I would try them for accuracy testing. I wouldn't try them for hunting. 

Will I be trying them right away? Unfortunately no. I am on a path that calls for me shoot wood arrows until sometime after August. I purposefully choose to not deviate from that path at this time. 

As for speed tasting I'm going to share a link that a friend of mine shared with me:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1055528

Again only one man's test. take it for what's worth. Nothing is definitive until somebody's. ANYBODY'S, results can be duplicated.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Bill,

I think the perceived downrange speed advantage is down to two factors. Both of which you are basically on about but I will rephrase in a way that makes sense to me (gotta love "active listening" now being part of military leadership training).

1) The gyroscopic effect COULD be correcting the arrow from paradox faster and through the use of less air resistance. This one does make sense to me. If the arrow can stabilize with fewer cycles of flex then it exposes less side area to the apparent wind with each cycle. If the cycles are less intense due to dynamic spine increase from gyroscopic force (not sold on this theory) then the same effect is felt.
2) The "pre-spin" of the arrow up to an RPM which roughly matches the natural RPM of the fletching for a given arrow speed should reduce the drag caused by those fletches stabilizing the arrow.

I'm going to address #2 as it relates to large fletching with big helical in a totally unscientific, unverifiable way. I honestly don't think this nock is capable of spinning an arrow hard enough to make it so the fletch is being driven rather than driving the rotation. At best it might put them into a no-drag situation for a very small space of time. If anything I think this nock could reduce the large initial loss of velocity seen with big fletching. I will perhaps try them on a few flu-flus for fun, maybe do some clout shooting with them.
Plus if you really think the fletches are being driven then in theory they are providing propulsion to the arrow 

-Grant


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

It seems I should have more kill photos so when I get home Monday I will compile what I have into a slide show and post it.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I guess you could have for a very short time have the energy that has started The spin propel the arrow .
When Pse tested the original dead turbonock through a whisker biscuit

```

```
They found it would accelerate through the whisker biscuit. All other types of fletching lost speed passing through the whisker biscuit.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grantmac said:


> Bill,
> 
> I think the perceived downrange speed advantage is down to two factors. Both of which you are basically on about but I will rephrase in a way that makes sense to me (gotta love "active listening" now being part of military leadership training).
> 
> 1) The gyroscopic effect COULD be correcting the arrow from paradox faster and through the use of less air resistance. This one does make sense to me. If the arrow can stabilize with fewer cycles of flex then it exposes less side area to the apparent wind with each cycle. If the cycles are less intense due to dynamic spine increase from gyroscopic force (not sold on this theory) then the same effect is felt.


Okay then...here we go...discussion on...at this point?...if it is the "speed increase" thing I presuming you're attempting to mentally digest here?....then yes, yes and yes...but these are all secondary affects induced via the primary force of "Gyroscopic Effect"....can it increase spine value?....only if you believe in "centrifugal force" and that the force applied is not great enough to violate or compromise the structural integrity of the tubular object being spun...as any force applied is in fact "force"...which strengthens things like my wife and I placing our body weight against our garage door to keep it from being blown down in hurricane Francis....for a minds-eye visual here?...imagine a 6' length of aluminum pipe...it's 3"s in diameter with a .050" wall thickness...just sitting still between the jaws and the tailstock of a lathe...now lean on it in the middle...and it deflects....now...whip that puppy up to 2,000rpms and try to deflect it with a roller wheel....this is the centrifugal force of whish I speak but it too is a secondary affect and the result of...the primary force of "Gyroscopic Effect"....and IMHO?....the slight claimed (and yet unproven) increase of downrange velocity would not account for the levels of increased accuracy some are claiming to have experienced here....as that would be like saying that my group sizes got cut in 1/2 because I bought 3# heavier limbs. 




grantmac said:


> 2) The "pre-spin" of the arrow up to an RPM which roughly matches the natural RPM of the fletching for a given arrow speed should reduce the drag caused by those fletches stabilizing the arrow.
> 
> I'm going to address #2 as it relates to large fletching with big helical in a totally unscientific, unverifiable way. I honestly don't think this nock is capable of spinning an arrow hard enough to make it so the fletch is being driven rather than driving the rotation. At best it might put them into a no-drag situation for a very small space of time. If anything I think this nock could reduce the large initial loss of velocity seen with big fletching. I will perhaps try them on a few flu-flus for fun, maybe do some clout shooting with them.
> Plus if you really think the fletches are being driven then in theory they are providing propulsion to the arrow
> ...


I hve to leave for Church right now...but for the most part?...I might agree with you there...to an extent...but remember....this nock is inducing the benefits of the gyroscopic effect at the most critical of moments....the moment the arrow leaves the string....10yds downrange?...it's spent and spin has been relegated to the fletchings but the arrow had already corrected itself 9 yards ago....and I'll expand on this later as get this...what if your fletchings pitch/helix twist rate is < that of the "gyronock"? :laugh:


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

turbonockguy said:


> I guess you could have for a very short time have the energy that has started The spin propel the arrow .
> When Pse tested the original dead turbonock through a whisker biscuit
> 
> ```
> ...


Any idea of the net gain in speed through the whisker biscuit? 

1)As compared to other fletch through a biscuit? 

2)As compared to a Turbonock through a drop away rest? 

3)As compared to other fletch through a drop away? 

Now all arrows accelerate through the rest, regardless of what rest or what fletch, or what nock you use. But the additional drag of the biscuit makes it all rather more complex. 

So the Turbonock is not only able to overcome frictional losses through the biscuit but to actual screw itself through the material with a net gain?

We're not suggesting that there actually IS such a thing as a free lunch are we?

If there is a net gain in speed then yes it would seem that the nock spiral is over spinning the arrow faster than the fletch spiral. We're converting forward motion to spin. Thrust is generated. But all energy conversions happen at a loss. 6 of one half dozen of the other.

How thick is a whisker biscuit? 1/2"? Traveling at say 300 fps leaving a compound bow, the Turbonocks were in contact with the biscuit for what? Aprox 0.00014 sec. Not much time to apply force against the biscuit material.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

While I do not argue that a Turbonock will get an arrow up to maximum angular velocity faster than relying on the drag from fletching, and that that ability is a positive thing, I have some trouble with some of the claims being made in this thread.

Given that an arrow equipped with a Turbonock starts out spinning faster, I’m not sure that an arrow with a Turbonock has more angular velocity _down range_ than an arrow spun by traditional fletching. I think the Turbonock effect will be most noticeable close to the bow and diminish as the range increases. 

I think the arrow will ultimately stabilize at an angular velocity that is determined by the offset of the fletching, whether that is the built in fletching of the Turbonock or the fletching on a normal arrow. The offset of the Turbonock doesn't look to be any greater and is probably less than the offset most of us use (definitely less helical than I use) so I doubt _by the time the arrow reaches the target_ it is spinning significantly faster than an arrow spun by fletching alone. 

In fact, I think compared to an arrow with a strong helical fletching the Turbonock arrow may actually have _less_ angular velocity _at the target_. 

_Fun with numbers:_

Turbonock claims an angular velocity of 4000 revolutions per minute:
>(4000 revolutions/minute) * (1minute/60seconds) = 66.7 rev/sec 
>At an arbitrary 200 fps, not accounting for loss of velocity due to drag, time of flight to 20 yards is 0.3 seconds. 
>(66.7 rev/sec) * (0.3 sec) = approximately 20 revolutions between the bow and the target 20 yards away, or one revolution per yard of forward motion.


Looking at a traditionally fletched arrow, lets conservatively assume a 2[SUP]0[/SUP] offset for each five-inch feather. 

_More fun with numbers:_

>[Tan (20)] * (5 inches) = 0.175 inches offset for the tip of the arrow. Since that is a two dimensional calculation in a three dimensional problem, lets again be conservative and figure 0.15 inches around the circumference of the shaft.
>Circumference of the shaft is the diameter * pi and the diameter of the shaft is 0.288 inches.
>(0.288inches) * (pi) = 0.904 inches.
>(0.904 inches) / (0.15 inches) = 6.03 fletches for the complete circumference of the shaft, lets round down to 6 fletches even.

I think the maximum angular velocity that could be achieved by this fletching configuration is:

>(5 inches) * (6 fletches/revolution) = one revolution for every 30” of forward motion.
>30” = 2.5 feet = one revolution for every 2.5 feet of forward travel.
>(1 revolution/2.5 feet) * (200 feet/second) * (60 seconds/minute) = _4800 rpm_

I tried doing some measurements on one of my normal arrows, an ACC 3-60 with three five inch feathers in a strong helical pattern, lets just say it’s tough to do accurately. I thought the six fletches to span the circumference seemed low, and even though the measurements seemed to confirm that number, lets again be conservative and say it takes nine fletches for the complete circumference.

>With nine fletches you get one revolution for every 45" of forward motion and the downrange angular velocity is _3200 rpm_.

Please correct my math or reasoning if I am incorrect. These jottings assume 100% efficiency of the fletching and several conservative assumptions.

Ultimately, I think that the claim of 4000 rpm for the Turbonock as being significantly higher than for a normal arrow at the target to be questionable. 



Aside from the fun with numbers, I’m not buying the “massive wound channel” and “devastating effect” that is being claimed for Turbonocks. Not only do I not believe the wounds created by an arrow with a Turbonock will be significantly different than those produced by a normal arrow, I just find that kind of promotional rhetoric annoying. As Bender pointed out, there isn’t that much angular momentum in play and even if there were, if the terminal angular velocity difference between a Turbonock equipped arrow and a normal arrow is similar, why wouldn’t the normal arrow achieve the same "massive" and "devastating" damage?

Another way to look at it; how thick is a broadside deer, maybe 18”...at most? That amounts to approximately ½ of a revolution as the arrow penetrates the body, assuming full penetration. 



As far as accelerating through a Whisker Biscuit, come on. Once the arrow has left the string there is no more acceleration…period, and I don’t care who measured it.



I’m not trying to be totally negative, just trying to step back from the advertising hype and look at thinks a little more scientifically. I think the Turbonock is a very interesting idea and I think the potential gain in downrange velocity is a worthy issue to explore. Unfortunately all I have are left wing clamps so I will not be testing them on my own. I’m looking forward to reports from those who try them.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> An animal with a massive entrance wound like the turbonock enables broadheads to do even without a passthrough
> tend to bleed out profoundly. The most common comments I get from hunters using my nocks is they get to see the animal go down. This is real life shooting. Perhaps your calculations are correct . You seem a little negative. So I probably can not get you to try them. The offer is there. If you do not like them send them back.


If you were to shoot an animal from above, say out of a tree stand or down a steep slope, your one massive wound will not bleed as much as 2 cleaner holes one high and one low. Ever seen an elk that's hit high and there was no pass through? It takes a long time to fill that chest cavity with blood before it starts coming out. If you have a hole in the bottom of the chest, all that blood will begin to run out immediately. IMO, 2 holes is better than one any day of the week.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> If you were to shoot an animal from above, say out of a tree stand or down a steep slope, your one massive wound will not bleed as much as 2 cleaner holes one high and one low. Ever seen an elk that's hit high and there was no pass through? It takes a long time to fill that chest cavity with blood before it starts coming out. If you have a hole in the bottom of the chest, all that blood will begin to run out immediately. IMO, 2 holes is better than one any day of the week.


Does that really depend on the shot? A deer does not have to bleed out to die quickly. Massive internal bleeding kills.
Look again at the pronghorn video on this thread. shoulder shot. no pass through- 7 second kill !

If you have a massive entrance wound bigger than a 50 cal slug. you will get a bleed out. look again at the wound on Randy Oitkers deer. Massive entrance. 9 second kill. you can talk and think and make opinions but in 14 years the product has a good record. Randy has had only one animal not go down on camera. It still went down.
Monday I will post 14 years of images .Satisfied hunters. and also from tv shows I sponsored. 

go back and look at the boxes with the liquid video. Sure you can reason that it is only plastic and does not count, One person decided that the larger wound in the box was done by the nock so in some way that does not count. A wound is a wound is a wound. If I can run second set of blades down a wound path it is bound to create more damage and bleeding whether or not it is a passthrough.
If I can place a high rpm broadhead into an animal whether i get a pass through or not I can always expect at least one wound bleeding massively and most shots will produce a passthrough anyhow.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> Does that really depend on the shot? A deer does not have to bleed out to die quickly. Massive internal bleeding kills.
> Look again at the pronghorn video on this thread. shoulder shot. no pass through- 7 second kill !
> 
> If you have a massive entrance wound bigger than a 50 cal slug. you will get a bleed out. look again at the wound on Randy Oitkers deer. Massive entrance. 9 second kill. you can talk and think and make opinions but in 14 years the product has a good record. Randy has had only one animal not go down on camera. It still went down.
> ...


Pronghorns are weak animals compared to an elk or even a deer. If you get one lung and no pass through on an elk, it could go miles and you need it bleeding OUT, not in, to track it. In some cases, even if the animal does die quickly, if there is no or a minimal blood trail, it could take you a long time to find your animal. I shot a deer on the edge of a marsh one time and heard it crash. However there was a ton of thick brush between me and it, I couldn't watch it down. Because I didn't get a passthrough, the blood trail was weak and very difficult to follow. I walked past it twice before stumbling on to it in a grid search. It ran 75 yards.

I'm not arguing that you won't kill an animal without 2 holes in it but I have first hand experience to know that 2 holes bleed more and make better blood trails than 1 hole.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> While I do not argue that a Turbonock will get an arrow up to maximum angular velocity faster than relying on the drag from fletching, and that that ability is a positive thing, I have some trouble with some of the claims being made in this thread.
> 
> Given that an arrow equipped with a Turbonock starts out spinning faster, I’m not sure that an arrow with a Turbonock has more angular velocity _down range_ than an arrow spun by traditional fletching. I think the Turbonock effect will be most noticeable close to the bow and diminish as the range increases.
> 
> ...



When the Pse engineers did the test and the turbonock arrow accelerated , with all their engineering knowledge they could not believe or understand what happened. just like you ! so they reworked their equipment and recalibrated and did the test again. Same thing happened.

You claim this is impossible and you seem well versed in the science and math involved, but you are overlooking one little law of physics.
Think about this.

The arrow with the turbonock has a twisted nock. as soon as it leaves the bowstring it is spinning.It now has some rotational energy in it. The solid vanes also have a 4 degree pitch in them. As the already rotating arrow hits the whisker biscuit bristles the rotational energy actually pushes the vanes through the biscuit. Much in the same way you can squeal tires on a standard shift car. Store up energy in the flywheel then slip your foot off the clutch.

Another reason that enabled the Turbonock not to lose speed with the pass through the whisker is the material it is made of. NYLON. The same material as the bristles on the whisker . nylon passing throu nylon bristles has very little resistance, minimal drag, as compared to pushing high drag synthetic rubber vanes through the whisker.
So Some energy transfer into the whisker, minimal drag and it pops out just like a tiddelewink .

So the equipment was correct. What happened takes an overall look at the process. 

With all your math calculations. in real life and real time the turbonck did only what physics allowed it to do .It was just not what the engineers expected. 

You missed factoring into your figuring that additional factor. 
I am not trying to put you down . those engineers missed it also and could not figure out why.
I am not an engineer but I am pretty good at figuring out cause and effect problems.

I have said this many times on this thread. 
you can study fighting, you can practice fighting, you can think about fighting , If you want to learn to fight, Fight!
You can study shootin, you can think about shooting, you can dream about shooting. You want to shoot, Shoot!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

It's really pretty simple...

The Gyroscopic Effect: Increases axial stability

The Centrifugal Force: Increases dynamic spine (slightly)

and both of these occur the moment the nock leaves the string...with near immediate effects at the arrows most critical and vulnerable moment...the launch.

But a word of caution here...as I also now believe that a shooter would be best served by first tuning their bow with a conventional nock and then go to the turbonock....as the turbonock may be capable of masking slight tuning issues.

Just an addendum after-thought here...Peace, Out, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

What was the speed difference?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Another person posted some mathematical statements and conclusions Just a little before you. and also basically said the turbonock accelerating through the whisker did not happen.
Well It did! 
I am not trying to put him down either ,but you can not rewrite history just because with the knowledge you have does not allow you to accept it. 
I did not know the Turbonock would do that but when I was told what happend It took me about 5 minutes go through the process and figure it out. Again I do not have a degree in engineering, but I am good at cause and effect problem solving.

25,000 years arrows have had only straight nocks and fletching. 
Why the turbonock exists.
I grew up in a gunshop-archery shop. When I was very young I tried to figure out how bullets could group better than arrows without any feathers. My dad explained rifling to me. 
45 years later I finally figured out how to make arrows group better. give them the equivalent of rifling. Twist the nock!! No one in 28,000 years has any engineering data on an arrow with a twisted nock so it is reasonable to understand why engineers overlooked the rotational energy. It is not written in any text book. If you do not have pre existing knowledge it is hard to know what to look for. I was horrible in mathe in school. but I learned to load ammunition and learned to make bowstrings. Fletch arrows. and use what I made. I have also flown in open cockpit aircraft. and have a real life real time understanding of wind resistance. 
What the engineers could not understand I could but only because of life experiences.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> Another person posted some mathematical statements and conclusions Just a little before you. and also basically said the turbonock accelerating through the whisker did not happen.
> Well It did!
> I am not trying to put him down either ,but you can not rewrite history just because with the knowledge you have does not allow you to accept it.
> I did not know the Turbonock would do that but when I was told what happend It took me about 5 minutes go through the process and figure it out. Again I do not have a degree in engineering, but I am good at cause and effect problem solving.
> ...


Okay...it's official...I'm back to skeptical again! :laugh:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Easykeeper said:


> While I do not argue that a Turbonock will get an arrow up to maximum angular velocity faster than relying on the drag from fletching, and that that ability is a positive thing, I have some trouble with some of the claims being made in this thread.
> 
> Given that an arrow equipped with a Turbonock starts out spinning faster, I’m not sure that an arrow with a Turbonock has more angular velocity _down range_ than an arrow spun by traditional fletching. I think the Turbonock effect will be most noticeable close to the bow and diminish as the range increases.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Just re-read my three post. Plus the twist rate calculations. It only add a very small amount of twist to start the fetching. Once the fetching take over that it. No more that that. The gain is, as I said in the initial launch, shorting the oscillation stage. Better tune.
Dan


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

What was the speed difference?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

I don't have fun with numbers as Easykeeper does but, I did get a kick out of reading his evaluation. It also pretty much confirmed what I have been thinking to some extent. I can see where the twisted nock could add some amount of spin to the initial launch of the arrow. But, that can't happen until the nock actually leaves the string and it does so very close to the riser so it seems to me there would only be a few feet of arrow flight before the normal fletching took over. Not doubt that even a small amount of spin is beneficial but, how much actually takes place in a couple of feet? My opinion is, probably not much, while at the same time that little bit could in fact have some very desirable effect on the overall performance of the arrow. I just can't believe it's all that significant downrange.
Obviously Mr. Barbee observed a fair amount of improvement in arrow flight to convince him to do a positive report on his results. I will not argue that at all but, I do have a hard time believing that little bit of spin at the very beginning will have any effect on broadhead performance or moon phases or anything else.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Look how this goes around in circles. I believe- I dont believe. 
bottom line.
The T-4 nock will spin any arrow with or without a broadhead 2 times in the first five feet of flight.
A conventional nocked and fletched arrow on average rotates that same arrow 2 times in 20 yds!

YOu can choose to believe this or not. 
The nocks do not care. 
They will improve arrow flight. no matter what your beliefs are. They work for Republicans and Democrats,

I am not making up what happened with the Whisker Bist shooting by PSE. Yet people choose not to believe it
just because it is outside their realm of understanding.
That is sad.

ON monday when I get back to the shop I have an Experiment I did showing part of what PSE found out.
I was able to show the difference in drag passing through the Whisker. between nylon vanes and synthetic rubber vanes. I predict some will look at it and immediately decide I rigged the experiment. .

I have my original Whisker I got from Ike Brainwith at the firsgt ATA show I attended. It is still in good shape after
having 20,000 plus shots through it. I have an original turbonock Hunter that has over 10,000 shots through that biscuit. virtually no wear. anyone who uses the whisker knows what it does to conventional fletching.

In my simple mind this would demonstrate that somehow the nylon on nylon reduces friction compared to other materials. an analogy. put two nylon washers on a bolt and you have friction reducing slip washers. put a rubber washer on a bolt with any other material steel, plastic , nylon and you will have a lot of friction.
I have never had a turbonock nylon vane waffle from passing through a whisker.

When you make calculations they are useless unless you taken into account what ALL the physical process are you are trying to put into the equations.


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

And I though Info-mercials were only on late night TV....
Six pages for an ad?


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Bill 2311, A+ on the sig, lots of truth in those words.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Wow, this thread has developed a life of it's own !!!!! LOL !!!!

Rick


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Rick Barbee said:


> Wow, this thread has developed a life of it's own !!!!! LOL !!!!
> 
> Rick


Hey!...don't blame us Rick!...YOU SIR....created this monster! :laugh:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Bender said:


> What was the speed difference?


Tony chrono'd his Saturday. The turbonock was 1 fps faster, which you could chock up as shooter variation. His score was good, but not phenomenal. A better test would be to see if they improve one's average "permanently". He is going to lend me some to try.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> Tony chrono'd his Saturday. The turbonock was 1 fps faster, which you could chock up as shooter variation. His score was good, but not phenomenal. A better test would be to see if they improve one's average "permanently". He is going to lend me some to try.


Tony?....Kegan?...thank you...I was just fixing to shower up and head 10 minutes up the road to bass pro to buy a RW bitz clamp and feathers today...

and real happy I didn't just start stripping off LW feathers! :laugh:

cause the way I see it?... you two just delivered the...










punch! :laugh:

Good job!...now will someone please que MLK's "I had a Dream" speech! :laugh:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Jinks, from what I saw the Turbonock function like a large, helical fletching, without slowing the arrow. Everyone seems to agree that big, aggressively helicale feathers stabilize an arrow more quickly, which is preferable for hunting. I'm interested in seeing how much more forgiving they are score wise and shooting broadheads.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Sorry, let me clarify.

What was the rate of acceleration of the Turbnock through the Whisker Biscuit?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rick Barbee said:


> Wow, this thread has developed a life of it's own !!!!! LOL !!!!
> 
> Rick



Time for some Texas style Barbee broadhead testing. Sand might not work though it sounds like you could shoot one into the ground and get a GUSHER. Them thar nocks can do bout anything.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> Jinks, from what I saw the Turbonock function like a large, helical fletching, without slowing the arrow. Everyone seems to agree that big, aggressively helicale feathers stabilize an arrow more quickly, which is preferable for hunting. I'm interested in seeing how much more forgiving they are score wise and shooting broadheads.



Which would seem that any initial acceleration gain would be immediately negated as soon as those big ol' feathers put the brakes on by creating drag to stabilize the arrow.
But, then Rick showed the results with the camera, hard to argue with that. Still can't understand something that good which has been around for fifteen years not being more widely recognized in the industry. After all, most people are constantly searching for some kind of miracle device to help them shoot better.


----------



## Roger Savor Sr (Feb 16, 2014)

Wow......This is something. I don't quite understand getting emotional over something like an arrow nock, especially given that it's a ten dollar item. Again, wow. Wouldn't it have just been easier and less time consuming for some to have just bought the darned things and tried them? I went outside today and shot my bow - it was very relaxing.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

What about torque on the arrow shaft? I'm not an arrow engineer but are arrows designed to withstand the sudden rotational acceleration from 0 to 3200 or what ever it is within an inch or so of space in the nock groove? I'm looking at it from a safety perspective here. A wimpy shaft with a massive broadhead on it being spun up to that speed in an inch of forward movement is what I'm picturing. Could the shaft twist on the riser. If so, what kind of strains of that nature are arrows able to safely handle? A slo-mo video would be nice to see showing the tip and nock movement during that moment in time.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> Jinks, from what I saw the Turbonock function like a large, helical fletching, without slowing the arrow. Everyone seems to agree that big, aggressively helicale feathers stabilize an arrow more quickly, which is preferable for hunting. I'm interested in seeing how much more forgiving they are score wise and shooting broadheads.


Kegan...there are so many things at play here that I'm getting confounded myself...as follows....

1. At this point I'm almost inclined to believe that the turbonocks may be of best benefit with no fletchings at all...because if there are any fletchings?...I'm thinking they will over-ride the effects of the turbonock within the first few feet of flight...which also brings me too...

2. With the turbonocks spinning the arrow as it comes off the string...is this not negating the desirable effects of tail-drag (along with spin) that the fletchings are there to produce?...as the turbonock has now effectively robbed them of the wind load...and I believe this is why Mr. Barbee had an apparent advantage shooting in strong winds...his fletching where being mechanically driven VS relying on oncoming air that was afflicted by a cross-wind breeze.

I dunno...we're on page 7 here before we heard a single number as it relates to claimed velocity gains and then after all the hoopla that number is finally produced by one of own and turns out to be...

"1 fps"?

Other than that?...what do we have?...a guy who killed a deer and Mr. Barbee who can shoot his butt off won a tourney on a windy day?

along with some very questionable explanations of why they work?

My jury just headed back into the deliberations room.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Bender said:


> Sorry, let me clarify.
> 
> What was the rate of acceleration of the Turbnock through the Whisker Biscuit?


A pse engineer phoned me after they tested my nocks and told me that they did high speed
Video that verified the rotation at 2 in5 feet . I asked them for a copy of the video and the engineer
Said he could not do that. He told me they test shot them to 80 yds with good
Results. He did not mention the chronograph test!
A few months later a good friend of mine who was a pse staff shooter

Called me and told me about the whisker biscuit test. For some reason
Pse did not want that information made public??
My friend (a real friend) thought I should know. He did not know what the
Rate of acceleration was , just that it had the guys stumped as to why it happened.
What is really crazy is this whole thread!!!
Does everyone have cabin fever?? It is just a freakin nock
Albeit a really good one.

The theories being proposed as to why it should not work are getting
Really weird. 
Barbee shot them and saw an improvement! Yep he actually shot them. They were an improvement!


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Claims with no supporting data. 

You might have been ahead to have left out the part about the PSE tests.

Like I said, ALL arrows accelerate through the rest. At draw and anchor, arrow speed is zero. After release, when the nock passes the rest the arrow has accelerated to what ever its highest speed will be.

That PSE engineers were at a loss to explain that kinda makes me wonder.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I did indeed shoot into a chrono with Kegan yesterday. Same arrows, Turbonocks and GT nocks. The chrono was within a few yards of me. There was no real difference in speed of the arrow off the bow, we were not willing to risk damaging the chrono to test down range speed. 

As I have previously mentioned that I am not a great arrow tuner and I usually can't bare shaft to save my life. There is no doubt that the imparted spin created by the turbonock is providing increased stabilization to the shaft when I am shooting it. I shot 2, FITA 600 rounds yesterday at 20 yds, for a total of 120 arrows, from 2 different bows, both shot off the shelf, and 2 different sets of arrows. I did shoot a 504, with my indoor rig. I have shot over 500 only one other time in the past, but generally shoot in the 480s. Now, time will tell if my scores will continue to improve, but I did not have the abundance of wobbly arrow flight that I often get with conventional nocks when my form is imperfect. I believe that the Turbonocks imparted spin of the arrow served to improve stabilization of the arrow and improve my arrow flight. I can visually see the arrow spinning in the air, and do not get the sort of "knuckleball" arrow flight that I occasionally got with the conventional nocks. 

I will let you all know what kind of results I get with hunting but that will have to wait until whitetail season. However, I will say this: an arrow with improved flight and improved stability will make me more accurate and a more effective hunter. So, for that reason alone a Turbonock will be on my hunting shafts and any sharp broadhead on the other end will do the deed.


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

We have two experienced archers saying good things about the nocks based on using them vs negative diatribes from alleged experts who haven't used them. If everybody had a thought process similar to some of the naysayers people would be complaining about the price of hay instead of gas. I need some new nocks and will give turbo a try.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I'd consider being within 1fps of a conventional snap-nock immediately off the bow to be a VERY good. We're talking about an arrow which is now spinning as though the fletching has been imparting drag for at least 10yds, maybe more but without any of the velocity loss. That doesn't take into account any decrease in drag during the initial paradox correction. 

In my experience almost any arrows of the same weight will give very similar velocity readings right out of the bow regardless of fletching or state of tune. But there is a world of difference between an untuned shaft with full height flu-flu fletching and a perfectly tuned arrow with small mylar vanes once you get past the first 20yds or so. But if you evaluated their performance based-upon initial velocity then you could easily conclude that it would be similar.

-Grant


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I did indeed shoot into a chrono with Kegan yesterday. Same arrows, Turbonocks and GT nocks. The chrono was within a few yards of me. There was no real difference in speed of the arrow off the bow, we were not willing to risk damaging the chrono to test down range speed.
> 
> As I have previously mentioned that I am not a great arrow tuner and I usually can't bare shaft to save my life. There is no doubt that the imparted spin created by the turbonock is providing increased stabilization to the shaft when I am shooting it. I shot 2, FITA 600 rounds yesterday at 20 yds, for a total of 120 arrows, from 2 different bows, both shot off the shelf, and 2 different sets of arrows. I did shoot a 504, with my indoor rig. I have shot over 500 only one other time in the past, but generally shoot in the 480s. Now, time will tell if my scores will continue to improve, but I did not have the abundance of wobbly arrow flight that I often get with conventional nocks when my form is imperfect. I believe that the Turbonocks imparted spin of the arrow served to improve stabilization of the arrow and improve my arrow flight. I can visually see the arrow spinning in the air, and do not get the sort of "knuckleball" arrow flight that I occasionally got with the conventional nocks.
> 
> I will let you all know what kind of results I get with hunting but that will have to wait until whitetail season. However, I will say this: an arrow with improved flight and improved stability will make me more accurate and a more effective hunter. So, for that reason alone a Turbonock will be on my hunting shafts and any sharp broadhead on the other end will do the deed.



You basically confirmed most of my beliefs about the turbonocks. The one that really stands out is the fact that the whole idea is new to you. I don't understand how that could be unless the original marketing was all wrong, yet you seem to have not heard of them before. There must be thousands of other people in the same boat. I have been aware of them for several years but never thought of trying them before. I'm just fascinated that so many people don't know about these.:dontknow:


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

p508 said:


> We have two experienced archers saying good things about the nocks based on using them vs negative diatribes from alleged experts who haven't used them. If everybody had a thought process similar to some of the naysayers people would be complaining about the price of hay instead of gas. I need some new nocks and will give turbo a try.


If it had just stayed at "Turbonocks spin up the arrow faster and sooner and thereby may improve accuracy," that would be fine. Its the claims of boring a big ol' hole in an animal and that you can get something for nothing that have some folks balking. This is pretty much regardless of anybody's "expertise" or lack thereof.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Bender said:


> If it had just stayed at "Turbonocks spin up the arrow faster and sooner and thereby may improve accuracy," that would be fine. Its the claims of boring a big ol' hole in an animal and that you can get something for nothing that have some folks balking. This is pretty much regardless of anybody's "expertise" or lack thereof.



Absolutely, the old 'as seen on tv' hype kinda muddies the water to some extent as in TMI. Rick Barbee showed us exactly what you mentioned about better accuracy and everybody here believes him, nuff said. I expect that he will do some more practical testing based on questions raised in this thread, he usually does, and I am looking forward to it. But, Rick's a Texan, so don't be surprised if he drills an oil well with an arrow using turbonocks and a big 'ol Texas sized broadhead. :wink: Ever hear of Pecos Bill?


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

Bender- If they improved accuracy the target archers would already be using them . Large entrance wound and small or no exit wound may or may not be a good thing-I hunt but have nowhere near the experience to get into that one.

I may have gone off the deep end with my comment and apologise for any offense taken.

What intrigues me is the claim that the nocks reduce the downrange drop or decelleration of the arrow. If true they would be great for getting different bows to shoot to the same point of aim which is a big problem for me. I could use the turbos on the slower bows and regular nocks on the fast ones. That plus a small amount of arrow weight juggling woukld solve a big issue for me. So I'll give them a trry and see what happens.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Bender said:


> *If it had just stayed at "Turbonocks spin up the arrow faster and sooner and thereby may improve accuracy,"* that would be fine. Its the claims of boring a big ol' hole in an animal and that you can get something for nothing that have some folks balking. This is pretty much regardless of anybody's "expertise" or lack thereof.


Exactly, and that is the crux of the issue for me. Over the top promotional rhetoric with claims of performance that doesn't hold up against even a little simple math.





> Originally posted by turbonockguy:
> The arrow with the turbonock has a twisted nock. as soon as it leaves the bowstring it is spinning.It now has some rotational energy in it. The solid vanes also have a 4 degree pitch in them. As the already rotating arrow hits the whisker biscuit bristles the rotational energy actually pushes the vanes through the biscuit. Much in the same way you can squeal tires on a standard shift car. Store up energy in the flywheel then slip your foot off the clutch.
> 
> Another reason that enabled the Turbonock not to lose speed with the pass through the whisker is the material it is made of. NYLON. The same material as the bristles on the whisker . nylon passing throu nylon bristles has very little resistance, minimal drag, as compared to pushing high drag synthetic rubber vanes through the whisker.
> So Some energy transfer into the whisker, minimal drag and it pops out just like a tiddelewink .


Another example that sounds good but in my opinion is seriously lacking in scientific evidence. When the Whisker Biscuit first came out there were high speed videos and photos showing that as the fletching encounters the bristles that make up the rest, the bristles are deflected away and there is very little contact between the fletching and Whisker Biscuit. So what is the Turbonock pushing against? And the idea of exchanging angular momentum for forward motion, I want to see the math on that one especially since the claim is based on contact with the bristles...which isn't supposed to be happening. I will still stand by the idea that once the nock has left the string there is no more acceleration imparted in the forward direction. Obviously angular acceleration is still in play but that will come at the _expense_ of forward momentum.

I don't know that a one foot per second velocity difference is significant, but lets assume it is. I believe that UDS used his chronograph correctly and his readings are accurate and will assume they reflect a true difference of one foot per second between the Turbonock equipped arrow and a normal nock coming off the bow. Isn't it enough to say this is due to the reduced drag produced by the initial angular velocity imparted by the Turbonock and may lead to potentially better down range energy retention? That can easily be measured with a chronograph downrange and is a potentially worth effect. Why get into unverifiable "engineer baffling" claims of some magical forward acceleration after the nock has left the string?

I still have seen nothing to lead me to believe that the angular velocity down range is in any way improved by the Turbonock and yet the claims of massive and devastating tissue damage available only by using the Turbonock are still there...in my opinion..._bogus_.

Bender nailed it. Talk about what the Turbonock _can_ possibly do, skip the part that in my opinion is nothing more than snake-oil. If you are going to be posting claims on a forum like this you have to expect people to call you on things you can't seem to back up.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Well guys, again - nothing scientific. 
All I can do is offer the experience I am having with these nocks.

I've had a number of requests for a broadhead test so here is a quickie:

Again, nothing scientific, but yeah I'm even more convinced. 

30 yards in a 17 mph crossing head wind.
Identical arrows except for the nocks.
Three ends of two with each arrow.
I got better penetration, and better accuracy with the Turbonock each end.
I could see the standard nock arrow wobbling in the wind every shot.
The Turbonock arrow spun cleanly to the target every shot.

Draw your own conclusions.





































Rick


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Rick, that is the kind of claim that in my opinion Turbonock should be standing on, not the pseudoscience that the other claims are comprised of. 

Your anecdotal evidence should be reproducible by other people or shooting machines. The lower impact point of the arrow without the Turbonock should show up as slightly less downrange velocity. A worthy effect and again easily verified and measured with a chronograph.

Thanks for the report...:thumbs_up


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Is there no one here who trusts their shooting enough to put a couple over the chrono at 15yds.

Tell ya what...if somebody will order me 2 dozen of these things to fit some standard GT5575 Shafts?...I'LL buy the chrono and I will....

as long as nobody tries to make me hold and aim! :laugh:


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You basically confirmed most of my beliefs about the turbonocks. The one that really stands out is the fact that the whole idea is new to you. I don't understand how that could be unless the original marketing was all wrong, yet you seem to have not heard of them before. There must be thousands of other people in the same boat. I have been aware of them for several years but never thought of trying them before. I'm just fascinated that so many people don't know about these.:dontknow:


Yes, they are new to me. I've been shooting only 2 years, and this is the first I heard of them. Spend the $10 and see for yourself. Just shot some turbonocked arrows through my new Imperial, and they were spitting out of the bow through wind gusts and right on target. I'm ordering some more.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I was asked about serving wear.

Yes, there seems to be a slight bit more serving wear with these nocks,
but nothing I am concerned with. I've shot them a lot since I got them,
and my serving is holding up just fine.

Rick


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Is there no one here who trusts their shooting enough to put a couple over the chrono at 15yds.
> 
> Tell ya what...if somebody will order me 2 dozen of these things to fit some standard GT5575 Shafts?...I'LL buy the chrono and I will....
> 
> as long as nobody tries to make me hold and aim! :laugh:


I'm going to do it but I need the nocks to show up first. I'm not going to use my trad gear though. I'm not good enough of a shot to get repeatable results so I'm going to use my compound in order to get a more consistent and accurate data set. I'll try them off my trad gear and see if I notice any difference but I KNOW I'll see a difference, if there truly is, with my compound.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Getting safe data downrange is pretty easy so long as you set-up the chrono behind a target.

I order 2 dozen and I would be happy to see if I can do a back-to-back test between these and regular nocks with both my compound and recurve including downrange speed readings.

The only problem is this: unless you have two chronos and can sync both readings it's a little unreliable. The only thing you can do is shoot a lot and do some serious averaging. I'm pretty good with getting consistent chrono numbers but I haven't tried it while shooting for accuracy. 20 shots should do it.

-Grant


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Bender said:


> Claims with no supporting data.
> 
> You might have been ahead to have left out the part about the PSE tests.
> 
> ...


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Bender said:


> If it had just stayed at "Turbonocks spin up the arrow faster and sooner and thereby may improve accuracy," that would be fine. Its the claims of boring a big ol' hole in an animal and that you can get something for nothing that have some folks balking. This is pretty much regardless of anybody's "expertise" or lack thereof.


I am showing you the holes on the videos and that is just two. They look quite profound to me.
What I do not have are wound images done with trad bows. I would sure like to get some
I just got back from a show and am a little tired .Tomorrow I will go through my files and post photos of kills and wounds. These are all from compound bows. 
Until recently I have had basically no interest in my product from the Traditional market.
A few months ago Robert Wood won the Arkansas State Championship Trad Recurve. He has been posting a lot of stuff on You Turbe
Goes by ripfletching on You tube.
I guess this interest started there and has spread.
So now all the same arguments against my product have started again. Just research the hundreds of Turbonock posts since virtually the beginning of Archery Talk. ( I used to post as nick Snook until I became a Sponsor) 

and yet My product does have a following. mostly from those who actually tried them and liked them. 

And if you do your research you will find that most who have had complaints are those who would not read the tuning directions.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> I gave an honest answer to a question.
> 
> And you are still missing the point.
> 
> ...


This is where you're losing people. You're claiming that your nocks going through the biscuit creates "free energy". Free energy is impossible to create. If this were true, those PSE engineers would have made some way to build a free energy machine using what they found from the test and would have a nobel prize and be billionaires by now. You can not get acceleration by pushing a substance through any other substance. Not even pushing ice through ice will cause zero drag. There is some amount of friction with every substance in the universe. The only place there is no friction is in a vacuum that is devoid of air.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Huntinsker said:


> This is where you're losing people. You're claiming that your nocks going through the biscuit creates "free energy". Free energy is impossible to create. If this were true, those PSE engineers would have made some way to build a free energy machine using what they found from the test and would have a nobel prize and be billionaires by now. You can not get acceleration by pushing a substance through any other substance. Not even pushing ice through ice will cause zero drag. There is some amount of friction with every substance in the universe. The only place there is no friction is in a vacuum that is devoid of air.


Unless the biscuit is adding more twist just like a longer barrel on a rifle. Go back and take a look at the calucator. I posted on 105.
It may help some of you to understand. The thurbo nock version with hard 4 dregee vanes will cork screw thru, nylon/on nylon, I think he said, can add a extra 1" or so twist. This in turn will speed up the RPM further stablizing the arrorw during the arrow's oscillation stage. From Easton Arrow tuning Guide. "Arrow nodes- as the arrow oscillates, the nodes remain in direct alignment to target. the front node is usually closer to the front end of the arrow than the rear node is to the nock end. This is due to the mass weight of the point-nodes will always be located closer to the heavier mass." Assuming the arrow is not spining once the arrow starts spining it will stablize the oscillation. 
Dan
Dan

Guns enthusiast have this pretty well explained.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I have been going through old photos trying to get some hunting photos with the Turbonocks. Most do not show the wounds basically no one was looking at the wounds. I kept getting feedback from hunters that the kills were dropping quickly.

This series I took on a hunt with friends near Nordmont Pa. The deer was shot by a 12 year old . his first Archery deer.
This was a 15 yd shot and he took it with the deer facing him dead on. Hit the left side of the neck under the shoulder then ran down the outside of the ribcage. Not a pass through. The deer bled out 20 yds from where it was shot. We pulled the arrow out to show how far it penetrated. Then back at camp we skinned the deer to look at the damage.
This was with a muzzy .























His brother also took one


I will try to get more photos up tomorrow. At the very least these show my product has been used in successful hunts. and not always with perfect hits.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Unless the biscuit is adding more twist just like a longer barrel on a rifle. Go back and take a look at the calucator. I posted on 105.
> It may help some of you to understand. The thurbo nock version with hard 4 dregee vanes will cork screw thru, nylon/on nylon, I think he said, can add a extra 1" or so twist. This in turn will speed up the RPM further stablizing the arrorw during the arrow's oscillation stage. From Easton Arrow tuning Guide. "Arrow nodes- as the arrow oscillates, the nodes remain in direct alignment to target. the front node is usually closer to the front end of the arrow than the rear node is to the nock end. This is due to the mass weight of the point-nodes will always be located closer to the heavier mass." Assuming the arrow is not spining once the arrow starts spining it will stablize the oscillation.
> Dan
> Dan
> ...


The reason the Turbonock exists is that I grew up in a gunshop - Archery shop. I loaded ammo & built and fletched arrows!
I never fletched a bullet!!!!!
45 years later I decided to try rifling on arrows. it worked.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> This is where you're losing people. You're claiming that your nocks going through the biscuit creates "free energy". Free energy is impossible to create. If this were true, those PSE engineers would have made some way to build a free energy machine using what they found from the test and would have a nobel prize and be billionaires by now. You can not get acceleration by pushing a substance through any other substance. Not even pushing ice through ice will cause zero drag. There is some amount of friction with every substance in the universe. The only place there is no friction is in a vacuum that is devoid of air.


You still are not getting it. 
Nothing is free.

The nock is twisted !
It has to spin off the bowstring.
It has taken some mechanical energy from the thrust of the string and the twisted nock makes the arrow spin instantly.
All other arrows going through a whisker biscuit are not rotating.
The arrow weighs lets say 400 grains. that is mass in rotation. stored up energy!
when the solid 4 degree vanes come in contact with the bristles they are already in rotation and that will put pressure on the bristles at an angle that makes the arrow accelerate out the other side of the bristles.
As I said in another post 
tomorrow I will re do an experiment that shows the difference in fletching passing through a whisker. I can not show this from shooting/ 
but you will be able to see half of what happens.
As soon as the weather warms up I am going to have slomo video done .


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> The reason the Turbonock exists is that I grew up in a gunshop - Archery shop. I loaded ammo & built and fletched arrows!
> I never fletched a bullet!!!!!
> 45 years later I decided to try rifling on arrows. it worked.


I just got the Turbonocks. So I showed them to my cousin that make match AR's and all he said was "Brilliant". Why did we think of that.
Dan


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

I have to admit I'm a bit intrigued by these. But, I do have some questions. 

Is there any actual backing the claim of increased speed downrange? For example, spin wings (curled Mylar vanes) are designed to cause a large increase in rotation over standard fletches but I've never heard they provide any difference in speed downrange compared to similar weight vanes. I don't buy into anecdotal evidence of "my point on was further so the speed must have increased" because there are a lot of factors that can increase PO distance. Just the simple fact the nock twisting may cause a vertical lift at launch could easily affect PO.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I just got the Turbonocks. So I showed them to my cousin that make match AR's and all he said was "Brilliant". Why did we think of that.
> Dan


LOL !!! My patent Attorney is also an aerospace engineer and does the intellectual property work for Penn State University.
His office is in the Belfonte Airport which he owns.
When we had our first meeting and I laid the original Turbonock on his desk .He looked at it then kind of glared at me and said "why didn't I think of that?" 
I responded ., " Well you are and engineer. I am an artist. He kind of smiled. We are good good friends. he is working on another patent for me that involves improved aerodynamics for arrow flight. ( thats is all I can say now)


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

$10 isn't much. I'll buy a dozen and try them out on my longbow and recurve.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Str8 Shooter said:


> I have to admit I'm a bit intrigued by these. But, I do have some questions.
> 
> Is there any actual backing the claim of increased speed downrange? For example, spin wings (curled Mylar vanes) are designed to cause a large increase in rotation over standard fletches but I've never heard they provide any difference in speed downrange compared to similar weight vanes. I don't buy into anecdotal evidence of "my point on was further so the speed must have increased" because there are a lot of factors that can increase PO distance. Just the simple fact the nock twisting may cause a vertical lift at launch could easily affect PO.


They can increase speed right at launch to some degree .but they can get to the target faster by losing speed at a lesser rate.

The T-4 twists on the bowstring it has to twist to get off the string. so your arrows are spinning instantly, using a small amount of energy from the launch process. Now since your arrow is already spinning. It reduces the energy lost when an arrow with a straight nock has only the wind resistance from the fletch to make it spin. and once the arrow is spinning that same fletch robs energy for the entire flight of the arrow.
To get the most benefit from the t-4 is to go to smaller fletching. Since you do not need the fletching to initiate rotation just maintain rotation you can easily reduce your fletching 50% and still have the accuracy. and Since the arrow is slowing down at a lesser rate you will get flatter trajectory.

My original Turbonock Stealth which has solid nylon vanes as part of the nock will stabilize fixed blade broadheads with only 1.7 square inch of vane area. and the Turbonock Vortex with only .7 square inch of vane area will stabilize mechanicals.
I would not go that small for traditional setups. but I get good performance with 3 and 4 inch feathers. I also did a four fletch with the 2 inch gateway feathers that are shaped like blazers and they worked quite well.

So just putting a t-4 on your existing shaft and fletching will make an improvement. and the next time you fletch go smaller .


Also the high rpms coupled with smaller fletching greatly reduces drift in cross winds. and trajectory will be flatter shooting into a headwind also.


----------



## ProperNoun (Dec 30, 2013)

turbonockguy said:


> The reason the Turbonock exists is that I grew up in a gunshop - Archery shop. I loaded ammo & built and fletched arrows!
> I never fletched a bullet!!!!!
> 45 years later *I decided to try rifling on arrows.* it worked.


Thanks so much for introducing that word into my vocabulary, it really helped me understand what you're trying to do here. So rifling is an established concept with established benefits. The question is does your product reproduce these benefits. It would seem so.. 

check out minutes 1:10 - 2:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXg3qciky3o 

at this point i'm inclined to believe the positive reviews, what's the diameter of the T5?


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

This is great.

Fantastic claims backed by mysterious super secret missing data.

Really don't think I'm "missing" anything here.

Well, its back to work for me now.

Its been fun!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

When I got home, I put one on each of my and my son arrow. Not a lot of light to do much other than just shoot. We both shot at 20 yards. Both of us shot the turbonocks into the center of the spot. The other two each were close but not always in the spot. So after a few rounds we watched each other's shooting. We could tell the turbonocks were spinning faster. No indication of faster arrow speed, but spinning was consistently faster. This was only visualize by standing behind and slightly off to the side. Next, I pluck off a few shots of each. Standard knocked arrows went to the left which is normal for me. The turbonocks did a spiral and hit closer to the point of aim, not off to the left. We both were impressed. I changed the field points out and put in heavier. From 80 to 100 a 20 grain change. Which tune best on a two inch shorter shaft. This mis-tune should impact to the right of the spot, which it did we the standard GT nocks. The turbonock arrow, also tipped with the heavier point did a pretty good spiral but hit closer to center. This was a quick look at them and appears to be Inline with Rick and others have stated.
Dan


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Unless the biscuit is adding more twist just like a longer barrel on a rifle. Go back and take a look at the calucator. I posted on 105.
> It may help some of you to understand. The thurbo nock version with hard 4 dregee vanes will cork screw thru, nylon/on nylon, I think he said, can add a extra 1" or so twist. This in turn will speed up the RPM further stablizing the arrorw during the arrow's oscillation stage. From Easton Arrow tuning Guide. "Arrow nodes- as the arrow oscillates, the nodes remain in direct alignment to target. the front node is usually closer to the front end of the arrow than the rear node is to the nock end. This is due to the mass weight of the point-nodes will always be located closer to the heavier mass." Assuming the arrow is not spining once the arrow starts spining it will stablize the oscillation.
> Dan
> Dan
> ...


That may be but added rotational velocity will not increase forward velocity. It actually will decrease forward velocity. You can't put a force on something in any different direction than the direction of travel and increase that speed. The only way to make an arrow fly faster is to put more force directly behind it in the direction of travel. The reason a longer barrel may increase muzzle velocity is that as the powder burns, it allows for a more complete burn while the projectile is still within the barrel. If the powder isn't all burned by the time the bullet has left the barrel, you're wasting that energy. Now if the powder gets completely burned and then there is still a couple inches of barrel left, you actually lose velocity because of the drag of the rifling without any more energy from the powder burn. That's one reason you see longer barrels on larger caliber and loads, it takes longer for the powder to burn so you can have a longer barrel before you lose performance.

Unfortunately there is no barrel on a bow so there's no way to increase velocity from slamming any type of fletching into an object. Even if that object is made of the same material.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Hunt, The force that is behind the arrow is trying to move the arrow left to right with a standard nock as it pushes forward creating oscillation in the shaft between the point weight a the string itself, as stated by the above quote. Therefore forward velocity is loss. What was initially put in is not coming out. The turbonock is dampening that oscillations by using rotation force as it leave the string. Less lose is what I am saying. Since it difficult to measure this force as the arrow leave the string. Most measurement are made several yards down range. Then it appears to have increase velocity. However, as you state nothing has been gained. It's just a little more energy efficient, in the turbonocks case.
Dan


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Bender said:


> This is great.
> 
> Fantastic claims backed by mysterious super secret missing data.
> 
> ...


This is sad.

I replied honestly and you seem to figure something sinister into my responses.

I always wondered why Pse would not release the high speed video and why they would not tell me about the speed increase.

Mr. Shepley seemed quite open and friendly at the Ata Show when we met.

Look how you tried to dramatize what I said to make it look bad.

There was no super Secret info. It was just Pse 's choice not to make the info public. My pse staff shooter friend , I guess he had a conscience , and provided me with the info., 

In hindsight I can think of some reasons why they did but you would probably twist my responses into something negative. and since it would only be conjecture on my part. I will leave you with. what I said in the beginning.
I gave you an honest response.

perhaps you shoud "think" about your signature.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ProperNoun said:


> Thanks so much for introducing that word into my vocabulary, it really helped me understand what you're trying to do here. So rifling is an established concept with established benefits. The question is does your product reproduce these benefits. It would seem so..
> 
> check out minutes 1:10 - 2:00
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXg3qciky3o
> ...


The t-5 fits the Hit shafts. Axis, full metal jacket, beman black max


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Hunt, The force that is behind the arrow is trying to move the arrow left to right with a standard nock as it pushes forward creating oscillation in the shaft between the point weight a the string itself, as stated by the above quote. Therefore forward velocity is loss. What was initially put in is not coming out. The turbonock is dampening that oscillations by using rotation force as it leave the string. Less lose is what I am saying. Since it difficult to measure this force as the arrow leave the string. Most measurement are made several yards down range. Then it appears to have increase velocity. However, as you state nothing has been gained. It's just a little more energy efficient, in the turbonocks case.
> Dan


This seems to make more sense but I'm not sure that's actually how it would work since the arrow bending happens well before it leaves the string. Since it bends as soon as the string is released, that energy is immediately lost no matter what nock is on the shaft. And since it's already bent, it will have to bend back the other way once it leaves the string because it physically has to. Maybe the turbonock decreases that second and third bend but I don't think it really can with the small amount of rotation that would happen in that few inches of flight.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> This seems to make more sense but I'm not sure that's actually how it would work since the arrow bending happens well before it leaves the string. Since it bends as soon as the string is released, that energy is immediately lost no matter what nock is on the shaft. And since it's already bent, it will have to bend back the other way once it leaves the string because it physically has to. Maybe the turbonock decreases that second and third bend but I don't think it really can with the small amount of rotation that would happen in that few inches of flight.


I think that little initial twist the nock imparts on the arrow does more than you think










These are the results I got shooting extremely underspined arrows at 70 lbs.

With the regular nocks Two broke in mid air. there were several flyers 20 inches off target and a 6 inch group with the ones that made it. 
The turbonock prototype on the same shafts delivered a 9/16 inch group at 20 yds.








This is the shooting machine I built to do the testing. It was anchored quite well into the ground.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I talked to our physics engineer at work today. Well i got a ear full. I think i was lost from the start. He went on and on. Here is one part that I did retain. LOL. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentofInertiaRod.html 
However, this was only a fraction of his talk. I think the key that i miss was the fact that since the nock is glued in the whole arrow, fletching, and point, is one big nock. It begins to Dampan the arrow's wobble at launch. well look at the physics. above or not. LOL. The example only deal with a solid rod. So there is more to that. I hope you get it. I didn't. LOL. After shooting them last night and this morning. I like them. 
Dan


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Wow, this thing is still going ?!!!?? LOL

I've been shooting for a very long time. It don't take much for me to recognize even
very subtle differences in how my rigs are shooting whether they are positive or negative.
The positive difference with these nocks isn't subtle at all. It was very pronounced from
the very first shot.

Physics or not, real world testing & experience with these nocks show me they work
to my benefit both in stabilization of the arrow & delivered energy.

I'll keep using them, AND I'll keep recommending them. 

Rick


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> Wow, this thing is still going ?!!!?? LOL
> 
> I've been shooting for a very long time. It don't take much for me to recognize even
> very subtle differences in how my rigs are shooting whether they are positive or negative.
> ...


Me too!
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rick Barbee said:


> Wow, this thing is still going ?!!!?? LOL
> 
> I've been shooting for a very long time. It don't take much for me to recognize even
> very subtle differences in how my rigs are shooting whether they are positive or negative.
> ...




:jeez:Quit being so practical. LOL, I have the same idea as you on this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize if something works better or not in practical application. 
Of course I apply that theory to almost everything archery related. Simple, if you want to know how something works, go shoot it. You will soon have the answer, if it's better that's great, and if not it's back to the drawing board.
However, in this case, any claims beyond what you and a few others have reported will remain suspect in my mind.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Interesting statistic between those who have tried and liked them vs. those who haven't and decided they won't.

Usually you only see people really in favor of a product if they either genuinely see a big difference or it was very expensive.

-Grant


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

My nocks showed up today so hopefully in the next week or two I'll be able to put them through the paces. Going to do some chrono and accuracy testing and see what happens.

First impressions: I'm not in love with having to glue them into the shaft. I understand why but I don't like the idea of not being able to easily change nocks if one gets damaged. I also know that they are supposed to be put in with the included hot glue stick but I'm not crazy about heating a carbon shaft to remove the nock. Maybe I'll use cold melt instead.

They seem to be made well and feel nice and durable. The fit on my center serving is much tighter than my normal nocks so I don't think you'll have to worry about them falling off the string. That said, it's a little too tight for my liking but I'm not going to reserve my string to test them out. 

Hopefully I'll gather some good data to report.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> My nocks showed up today so hopefully in the next week or two I'll be able to put them through the paces. Going to do some chrono and accuracy testing and see what happens.
> 
> First impressions: I'm not in love with having to glue them into the shaft. I understand why but I don't like the idea of not being able to easily change nocks if one gets damaged. I also know that they are supposed to be put in with the included hot glue stick but I'm not crazy about heating a carbon shaft to remove the nock. Maybe I'll use cold melt instead.
> 
> ...




YOu do not have to heat the carbon shaft !!! Heat the glue stick with a hair dryer or a heat gun on low. when the end of the stick is hot 
just twist the end of the nock into the glue to get some on it. then push the nock with the hot glue into the carbon shaft.

to adjust or remove . you can run hot tap water over the end of the carbon shaft or use the hairdryer.
You only have to get it up to about 120 degrees which will not damage the carbon.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> YOu do not have to heat the carbon shaft !!! Heat the glue stick with a hair dryer or a heat gun on low. when the end of the stick is hot
> just twist the end of the nock into the glue to get some on it. then push the nock with the hot glue into the carbon shaft.
> 
> to adjust or remove . you can run hot tap water over the end of the carbon shaft or use the hairdryer.
> You only have to get it up to about 120 degrees which will not damage the carbon.


Thanks for the reply. I know not to heat the shaft to install but rotating or removing them was what I was a little worried about. Didn't realize hot water was enough to soften that glue.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

grantmac said:


> Interesting statistic between those who have tried and liked them vs. those who haven't and decided they won't.
> 
> Usually you only see people really in favor of a product if they either genuinely see a big difference or it was very expensive.
> 
> ...


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I've been shooting these nocks for about 5 days now. I just got a new Imperial Longbow and have been shooting my GT Ultralite 500s with turbonocks out of this bow. I refletched them with 4" shield after using 5" feathers in the past. There is no doubt that this arrow is spinning more than an arrow with a traditional nock. Also, they do appear to resist wind gusts. I shoot low poundage around 42#@30, so my arrow flight is not very fast to start with, so there is some movement from the wind gusts at 30+ yds , but the tail of the arrow does not get pushed sideways and the arrow keeps spinning through it to stablize and hit the target. 

All in all, there is no doubt to me that these nocks are improving arrow flight. I ordered a bunch more. To all the naysayers, you really need to get some and shoot them and see for yourself. For $10 these may be the best bargain in archery.

Now, I just have to do some tinkering to get these on some wood shafts......:darkbeer:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Well, I suppose I'm on the list of those you speak of who might not try out turbonocks. And that's probably true because I have a good supply of nocks on hand and no reason for new ones. I also like my nock to snap on the string, whether that's good or bad doesn't matter, it's what I like.
I do believe the idea of a little twist upon departure from the string could be beneficial to some extent. That's as far as it goes for me.
But, I just discovered mechanical nocks. Now that's a horse of a different color there, they do all kinds of waaay cool stuff and won't fall of the string and scare the deer away if you happen to be a klutzy hunter.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

What ever works for you! best of luck.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

You know I was perfectly happy to walk away. But you seem to want to drag me back. 

Never said I wouldn't try 'em. Just not until certain other projects are done.

Has nothing to do with what I "think." I KNOW there ain't no free lunch in physics. 

As it stands now we have one data set completely contrary to your claoms, from widgeon, and one other data set suggesting a gain of only 1 fps. You yourself provide no data to support your claims. Everything else so far is purely subjective.

The fantastic claims with no supporting data are just too much to swallow. It really doesn't make you or your product especially believable. But people will believe whatever they want. 

In the meantime though, you're more than welcome to leave me out.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Many here seem overly concerned with the validity of claims that the turbonock improves velocity and makes larger wounds when hunting. I can neither prove nor disprove these claims. However, there is no doubt to me that they impart a rotational force onto the arrow that improves arrow stability and therefore improved arrow flight. This is after 5 days of shooting them personally. These nocks have improved the consistency of my arrow flight and therefore my accuracy, which is most important in shooting for a better score and efficiently killing a game animal. An arrow that is using less energy to stabilize itself will be more efficient and more effective. In my opinion, 1 fps faster or a larger wound doesn't mean a darn thing if you miss your mark.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

I might give it a shot but would need to know which of the following would they fit on. Goldtip trad 3555, Victory vforce 600, carbon express 3050 or 2040. Didn't see any of these listed in the ones they do fit. If there is a detailed chart, a link? And which of the versions if more than one. Would prefer to use nock only without having to strip fletching off existing arrows. For ten bucks, might as well satisfy my curiosity. I've spent that much in electricity to power my laptop reading this thread so far.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I'm really on the fence about these, as I prefer to shoot straight fletch, but I ordered 2 dozen for my axis shafts anyway, hate the fact I just bought new acc;s and can't get some to fit them......


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Many here seem overly concerned with the validity of claims that the turbonock improves velocity and makes larger wounds when hunting. I can neither prove nor disprove these claims. However, there is no doubt to me that they impart a rotational force onto the arrow that improves arrow stability and therefore improved arrow flight. This is after 5 days of shooting them personally. These nocks have improved the consistency of my arrow flight and therefore my accuracy, which is most important in shooting for a better score and efficiently killing a game animal. An arrow that is using less energy to stabilize itself will be more efficient and more effective. In my opinion, 1 fps faster or a larger wound doesn't mean a darn thing if you miss your mark.


The issues I have is simple...anyone claiming a pass through with a proper Broadhead is inferior to 1 hole and wanting to leave the arrow in so the animal can run with it half in and half out doesn't understand traditional archery.

I've been hunting with traditional bows since 1963 and have seen this happen..and none have been pretty.Now...I am all for better accuracy..that is a very desirable thing to gain....but...just because compound shooters accept this type of behavior doesn't make it right for those shooting light poundage trad bows.

I've had many clean pass through shots with normal 2 and normal 3 blade single and double bevel heads and the animals have dropped insight...and as I have said before I have only lost 2..I've had good hits..and some not so good hits...and seen 1 lung hits with the arrows chewing up the insides too...

If these nocks stop or impede the penetration off a light poundage bow..are folks here going to accept the outcome?

I for one will never accept this type of shot nor advocate it..even though it has worked for others...but I know that the chance of loosing a deer with it is a real likelihood...Not all animals react the same..some are more high strung than others..

Now...in all fairness here...if they improve accuracies...and allow complete pass through shots...I'll sing their praise everywhere...and he can take that to the bank...

Mac


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> I might give it a shot but would need to know which of the following would they fit on. Goldtip trad 3555, Victory vforce 600, carbon express 3050 or 2040. Didn't see any of these listed in the ones they do fit. If there is a detailed chart, a link? And which of the versions if more than one. Would prefer to use nock only without having to strip fletching off existing arrows. For ten bucks, might as well satisfy my curiosity. I've spent that much in electricity to power my laptop reading this thread so far.


The T-4 has the same size insert as the Easton Super nock. If fits like 95 percent of all carbon shafts. The will fit your gold tips. and the others.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> The issues I have is simple...anyone claiming a pass through with a proper Broadhead is inferior to 1 hole and wanting to leave the arrow in so the animal can run with it half in and half out doesn't understand traditional archery.
> 
> I've been hunting with traditional bows since 1963 and have seen this happen..and none have been pretty.Now...I am all for better accuracy..that is a very desirable thing to gain....but...just because compound shooters accept this type of behavior doesn't make it right for those shooting light poundage trad bows.
> I've had many clean pass through shots with normal 2 and normal 3 blade single and double bevel heads and the animals have dropped insight...and as I have said before I have only lost 2..I've had good hits..and some not so good hits...and seen 1 lung hits with the arrows chewing up the insides too...
> ...


Everyone seems to read more into what I post.

Obviously a passthrough is preferable. The Turbonock with its high rate of spin enhances wounds so if you do not get a pass through , which has a higher rate of happening with lower poundage trad bows. The entrance wound created will increase the odds of you recovering the animal with just one exit wound.Traditional shooters would be using the T-4

Now with compound bows using the Vortex or the Stealth the Wound damage is greatly increased because the solid vanes act as a second broadhead.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Bender said:


> You know I was perfectly happy to walk away. But you seem to want to drag me back.
> 
> Never said I wouldn't try 'em. Just not until certain other projects are done.
> 
> ...


I wish you the best. just dont believe everything you think,


----------



## Widgeon (Jul 17, 2009)

It looks like I might have to do some more testing with Turbonocks! Years ago I did a big fletching test (http://archeryreport.com/2009/10/fletching-review-speed-drop/) that focused mostly on speed and drop. I'd like to do more testing on accuracy and KE/momentum retention and this thread may push me over the edge of doing so with Turbonocks. Back when I did my testing, I used the DeadX version which apparently isn't made anymore and included the built-in fletchings. I think I may have to do some testing with the T-4 version with traditional fletchings.


----------



## Widgeon (Jul 17, 2009)

I will add one quick point right now, doing penetration testing in foam and trying to equate that to penetration in animals is not a good idea. The physics behind how the arrow penetrates the media is completely different. Granted, it's usually the easiest type of target to try to compare penetration, and I don't discount the results in this thread completely, just a warning that foam has a different set of rules that it plays by. Generally speaking, a faster/lighter arrow may have the advantage in foam over a slower/heavier arrow that will have the advantage in non-collapsing materials. At this point I am NOT making any judgements on how Turbonocks perform in penetration testing, just point out the drawbacks of testing in foam.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

My only real concern with these is getting good fletch clearance. I shoot vanes from a rest which means they have to pass without contact. Generally this isn't such a problem with arrows that aren't rotating past the rest and have good amounts of paradox which is still getting sorted out well past the bow.
Generally it's fairly easy to just rotate the nock so that the vanes clear nicely, but that is with an arrow which doesn't start rotating until it's past the rest.

Has anyone who is currently trying them tried a clearance test?

-Grant


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Grant,
I'm not shooting these off a rest but im getting phenomenal flight off the shelf of my Imperial longbow. I used to turn my old GT nocks to get better fletching clearance, not having to do that at all with these. I think i read an earlier post on this thread from turbonockguy, stating that the nocks impart a rotational force only, and do not interfere or change the normal parardox as the arrow leaves the string. I will be interested as to your impressions when you get your nocks.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> Everyone seems to read more into what I post.
> 
> Obviously a passthrough is preferable. The Turbonock with its high rate of spin enhances wounds so if you do not get a pass through , which has a higher rate of happening with lower poundage trad bows. The entrance wound created will increase the odds of you recovering the animal with just one exit wound.Traditional shooters would be using the T-4
> 
> Now with compound bows using the Vortex or the Stealth the Wound damage is greatly increased because the solid vanes act as a second broadhead.



I have heard that when a man finds that he's digging himself into a hole, the first thing he should do is STOP DIGGING. But you seem to like the digging so,,,

"Everyone seems to read more into what I post". Do ya think they are reading into it, or are they just reading your words exactly as they are written? Now friend, I'm not one to press a man for evidence unless he's making a pretty outrageous claim without anything to back it up at all. Nothing, notta thing. I have stated several times that I believe that some amount of twist applied to the arrow as it leaves the string is a good thing, possibly enhancing the flight and resulting in improved accuracy. That was demonstrated by a guy that I trust, even if he's a Texan but, that's as far as it goes for many of us. Claims of boring a hole through an animal is just a tad unbelievable. That's it, leave that part out or be prepared to back it up somehow. It's a rather tall order to expect folks to believe that all that stuff happens as the result of twisting the arrow as it leaves the string. Maybe at least kill a hog or something and film it in slow motion as it bores that hole. Otherwise most rational people will find it unbelievable and are very likely to challenge the claim. And if the hole boring impedes penetration, it's game over. Heck, let's face it, you're own video proof is what started all this in the first place. Do you not see that?


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Grant,
> I'm not shooting these off a rest but im getting phenomenal flight off the shelf of my Imperial longbow. I used to turn my old GT nocks to get better fletching clearance, not having to do that at all with these. I think i read an earlier post on this thread from turbonockguy, stating that the nocks impart a rotational force only, and do not interfere or change the normal parardox as the arrow leaves the string. I will be interested as to your impressions when you get your nocks.


I'm not sure about that because some of the arguments being made on behalf of the turbo nocks, mostly by DDSHOOTER, explain that the added rotational force reduces or dampens the oscillation of the shaft so that it doesn't take as long to recover from that initial bend. If that argument is true, that it spins the shaft enough to stabilize it directly off the string, it has to effect the natural paradox. I think the only way to know what's truly going on with these nocks is to shoot a lot of high speed footage.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

turbonockguy said:


> Everyone seems to read more into what I post.
> 
> Obviously a passthrough is preferable. *The Turbonock with its high rate of spin enhances wounds so if you do not get a pass through , which has a higher rate of happening with lower poundage trad bows. The entrance wound created will increase the odds of you recovering the animal with just one exit wound.Traditional shooters would be using the T-4*
> 
> Now with compound bows using the Vortex or the Stealth the Wound damage is greatly increased because the solid vanes act as a second broadhead.


Aside from this being unintelligible, you have yet to show where Turbonocks produce a higher rate of spin _at the target_. You probably wouldn't get so much negativity if you would just stick with the claims that can be proven either mathematically or empirically.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I have heard that when a man finds that he's digging himself into a hole, the first thing he should do is STOP DIGGING. But you seem to like the digging so,,,
> 
> "Everyone seems to read more into what I post". Do ya think they are reading into it, or are they just reading your words exactly as they are written? Now friend, I'm not one to press a man for evidence unless he's making a pretty outrageous claim without anything to back it up at all. Nothing, notta thing. I have stated several times that I believe that some amount of twist applied to the arrow as it leaves the string is a good thing, possibly enhancing the flight and resulting in improved accuracy. That was demonstrated by a guy that I trust, even if he's a Texan but, that's as far as it goes for many of us. *Claims of boring a hole through an animal is just a tad unbelievable.* That's it, leave that part out or be prepared to back it up somehow. It's a rather tall order to expect folks to believe that all that stuff happens as the result of twisting the arrow as it leaves the string. Maybe at least kill a hog or something and film it in slow motion as it bores that hole. Otherwise most rational people will find it unbelievable and are very likely to challenge the claim. And if the hole boring impedes penetration, it's game over. Heck, let's face it, you're own video proof is what started all this in the first place. Do you not see that?


The new add copy might go something like this..._"It's like throwing a power auger through an animal!"_


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

wow....10 pages....about a nock....with a twist...you guys are some kind of serious! :laugh:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Easykeeper said:


> The new add copy might go something like this..._"It's like throwing a power auger *half-way* through an animal!"_


Fixed it for ya!

-Grant


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

grantmac said:


> Fixed it for ya!
> 
> -Grant


:chortle:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Easykeeper said:


> Aside from this being unintelligible, you have yet to show where Turbonocks produce a higher rate of spin _at the target_. You probably wouldn't get so much negativity if you would just stick with the claims that can be proven either mathematically or empirically.


I'm sure they do have a higher spin rate at the target...if they are spinning so much faster in the beginning...it stands to reason they are..but...and this is a rather large but...the premise of having enough rotational spin on the arrow to actually bore through anything in an animal is what is hard to agree to.

I am no scientist..physics major..just a life long mechanic..who enjoys fixing things...who loves hunting...and looking at the supplied turbonocks videos and trying to follow all of the explanations given is rather confusing to say the least. Especially with what is being said here...on post #81



> There is some discussion that since the arrow with low rpms passed through the backup target in my video that it is a more potent device. where my turbonock did not pass all the way through the backup target.
> 
> I just posted two turbo kills. the first was a pass through . the second was a shoulder shot as a result of the pronghorn jumping the sound of the bow. The arrow actually backed out of the wound. Not a pass through. But it generated a horrific entrance wound just as the one in Randys Deer. The pronghorn was down in 9 seconds.
> 
> ...


Then this reply...



> Everyone seems to read more into what I post.
> 
> * Obviously a passthrough is preferable.* _The Turbonock with its high rate of spin enhances wounds so if you do not get a pass through , which has a higher rate of happening with lower poundage trad bows. _The entrance wound created will increase the odds of you recovering the animal with just one exit wound.Traditional shooters would be using the T-4


To me the premise of a jagged tear which is exactly what you are going to get with spinning a double bevel head through a target as opposed to a right angle single bevel head goes completely against all common logic...and as a result was the whole point behind my original questioning this product.

Now if someone would kindly test this with your turbo nocks I for one would greatly appreciate it...see...I just don't believe a light poundage trad bow shooting a double bevel head is going to provide enough penetration to get a clean pass through shot and normal hunting yardages...I just don't.maybe a good right hand single bevel.. If a compound can not shoot through styrafoam using these nocks as his video shows on his web site...what is a 35-40 trad bow going to do at 20-25 yards ?

As I said in the beginning...my concerns is for the lighter poundage bows here and using the best broadhead to ensure adequate penetration...but I have serious reservations about the validity of some of the claims here when the manufacturer is somehow trying to equate transferring energy into the animal with arrows...

Now if someone chooses to take umbrage at my post...then before you do..take a look at twisting a single bevel head through a object as opposed to a double bevel...this simple exercise should be more than enough to show you exactly why I have concerns...

I've been blessed with being able to draw shoot and harvest many animals with my bows...and all have been fairly heavy draw weights...but even a lughead like myself can see the trend is to shoot much lighter bows..and since I know full well the best thing we can hope for is a complete clean pass through shot..it's imperative for those shooting the lighter draw weights to ensure this happens..so...my original question remains valid here...Why as a hunter would I use these especially with a broadhead that is going to do more harm than good as I believe will happen...and so I am hoping Widgeon or someone can do one of his comparison test to see the differences...and ease my concerns about them..My gut tells me if you match the blade bevel correctly then it is going to do much better job....but I don't know if it's going to be enough to offset it with the lighter poundage bows and allow a clean pass through...which is what I know to be the best we can strive for ...

Mac


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Widgeon said:


> It looks like I might have to do some more testing with Turbonocks! Years ago I did a big fletching test (http://archeryreport.com/2009/10/fletching-review-speed-drop/) that focused mostly on speed and drop. I'd like to do more testing on accuracy and KE/momentum retention and this thread may push me over the edge of doing so with Turbonocks. Back when I did my testing, I used the DeadX version which apparently isn't made anymore and included the built-in fletchings. I think I may have to do some testing with the T-4 version with traditional fletchings.


The Dead X has been replaced with the Vortex


----------



## p508 (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm going to try the turbo nock for target shooting but I really have doubts about them for hunting. The claims about their creating a large wound channel that causes heavy bleeding even without a pass thru may be true with a compound with high kinetic energy but the average trad bow is a slug in the speed dept.compared to wheel bows. I'm beginning to wonder if extra spinning on impact would slow down the trad bow arrow to the point where there is very little penetration. All the quick kills mentioned by turbonock guy were with arrows that were probably moving at somewhere between 250 and 300 FPS not 150-200 fps at the point of impact .


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> View attachment 1923915


I'm personally not seeing a micro cutting edge there. IMO...some of the claims seem like hype and/or exaggerations...the other claims I believe.

I can definitely see an advantage with using these nocks with smaller fletching for increased downrange speed and increased arrow stability...but larger wound channels or better penetration.....mmmmmm...not convinced...yet.

I do plan on testing some of these out.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Well...I'll bite..

If these serrated plastic vanes thingies won't stabilize a traditional 1 PC cut on contact head...then I suppose that it's being suggested to use a mechanical head?

Oh boy...just what we need...I bet ole sharp would love these for his rages....lol...lol...lol

Mac


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

If only they were offered in a Wool plaid pattern,, I might just bite,,, till then they just sound a little too fabulous.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I will add that the micro serrated edges on the T4 nocks are not razor sharp to the touch, but they do cut, I have a habit of turning my head to see down the arrow shaft, and with my high anchor my nose can get in the way. Sliced my nose open like a razor blade with a good amount of bleeding that followed, lol. Wasn't a deep cut, but it looked like it was sliced by a sharp razor.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> Well...I'll bite..
> 
> If these serrated plastic vanes thingies won't stabilize a traditional 1 PC cut on contact head...then I suppose that it's being suggested to use a mechanical head?
> 
> ...


We actually make two sizes. the one in the photo will stabilize mechanicals. with .7 sq . inch of vane. 
We make one with larger vanes 1.7 sq. inch of vane that will stabilize fixed blades. The serrations are small but they are there. You can see them on the website.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I will add that the micro serrated edges on the T4 nocks are not razor sharp to the touch, but they do cut, I have a habit of turning my head to see down the arrow shaft, and with my high anchor my nose can get in the way. Sliced my nose open like a razor blade with a good amount of bleeding that followed, lol. Wasn't a deep cut, but it looked like it was sliced by a sharp razor.


I thought you were shooting these with feathers? The nock part of the product should be totally smooth :confused2:

-Grant


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

grantmac said:


> I thought you were shooting these with feathers? The nock part of the product should be totally smooth :confused2:
> 
> -Grant


I am shooting the T4 nocks with 4" feathers. The nock has a ridge on each side sort of like a locator thats on those traditional glue on nocks for wood arrows, but I think it is a serrated edge. Anyhow, i though about filing it down but i think it serves to make the nock more rigid and sturdy. Shouldn't be a problem unless you shoot like I do with an anchor just under the eye, and turn your nose to see over the shaft. Im still shooting them.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

I don't know for certain but I don't think the t4 nocks have the serrated edges. Mine didn't have any that I noticed and it doesn't say anything on their website about that being a feature.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> I don't know for certain but I don't think the t4 nocks have the serrated edges. Mine didn't have any that I noticed and it doesn't say anything on their website about that being a feature.


The serrated edges are on the leading edge of the solid vanes on the Stealth, and Vortex version of the nock.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I am shooting the T4 nocks with 4" feathers. The nock has a ridge on each side sort of like a locator thats on those traditional glue on nocks for wood arrows, but I think it is a serrated edge. Anyhow, i though about filing it down but i think it serves to make the nock more rigid and sturdy. Shouldn't be a problem unless you shoot like I do with an anchor just under the eye, and turn your nose to see over the shaft. Im still shooting them.


Do not file that little ridge down. It strengthens the nock and those little ridges do provide an aerodynamic benefit. When they are rotating they create a vortex that reduces drag at the back of the arrow. Its not much, but every little bit helps.
most modern aircraft that cruise at 500 mph or more. have small tabs on the trailing edge of the wings that create vortices that allow air to pass more smoothly off the trailing edge of the wing. They are not serrated.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> The new add copy might go something like this..._"It's like throwing a power auger through an animal!"_


Did you view the first video posted of Randly Oitkers monster Buck? I know Randy did not go to that deer and hand rip the hole.
It was done with a muzzy rotating at high speed
here it is again. I know the claims I make seem fantastic, but so are the wounds. This video is not faked.
.



Here is the pronghorn again , Not a pass through but a 7 second Kill. I know pass throughs are considered the best way to kill. and the turbonock products will pass through, But when you do not get a pass through and that does happen. why not have a massive entrance just in the event you do not get a pass through.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is an old video I did showing how the original Turbonocks were a benefit to Whisker Biscuit shooters.
I know this is not traditional shooting but the issue came up in this thread.
I hope today to do a video this test again with the improved Vortex and Stealth and t-4 on some fletching

This may give some insight into why when Pse tested these through the whisker they got a speed increase.

In the video I just dropped the Turbos. I did not spin them and look at how they come out the other side.
Think what would happen if the turbo was already spinning because of twisting off the bowstring?


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> This is an old video I did showing how the original Turbonocks were a benefit to Whisker Biscuit shooters.
> I know this is not traditional shooting but the issue came up in this thread.
> I hope today to do a video this test again with the improved Vortex and Stealth and t-4 on some fletching
> 
> ...


Cool vid. They are definitely rotating. You can see it with the naked eye when you shoot them.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2OMy_-ruLU&list=PL7C5883178317814F

I have known the Oitker family since Randy was I believe 14. He was not allowed to shoot my big nocks because he was sponsored by a fletching company. When I introduced the T-4 at the AtA show I Gave Randy some and two days after the show he took the firs monster buck. All the kills on the video are with the t-4

I ran out of time to finish the whisker biscuit test today and I am doing a show this weekend. 
I did find a video that Randy Oitker did a few years ago. showing Kills all with the T-4 nock. including a 4 second kill on a pronghorn
I know these are not done with a traditional bow. but this is what I have at this time. I am hoping some of the new Trad shooters will in the future contribute images.

I learned to shoot longbow when I was three. In 1959 I actually got to shoot with Howard Hill. and he shook my hand. I should never have washed it!! In 1960 at age 12 I took my first deer with a Red Wing Hunter recurve. and my second deer with a 300 Savage rifle.
I have shot recurve until the late 1990s when I invented the original Turbonocks. The would not work with Traditionals setups. So I learned to shoot the compounds. There is a difference!! To me shooting a compound is a skill. shooting a longbow or recurve, instinctive(or barebow) is an Art!!
When I developed the T-4 I never tried to promote it in the Traditional community. do not know why , just did not do it.
A few months ago on of Black Swan Archery's Staff shooters. Robert Wood contacted me and wanted to try the T-4s with his trad setup.
He won the Arkansas State championship and Shooter of the year. He did a lot of posts on you tube under the name ripfletching, and I guess from there the T-4 is starting to gain acceptance in the Traditional Community.
I have gone back to Traditional myself and will only use the compound when I need to do test shooting.
I have been shooting indoors at 7 yds all winter , With my new Black Swan Hybrid Bow. I have extreme cabin fever and can not wait to shoot it outdoors.








This was the firs animal taken with my original DeadX nock. and a Spitfire Broadhead, 70 lb pse and pse200 shafts. by Terry Whitford. of Redhawk Archery.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is one of Robert Woods Videos. He recently moved to Rapid City SD. and He and his son took 1st and 2nd in a tournament.
He was using the T-4 and his son was actually shooting the vortex on his setup. It will work on some setups if you have a fairly large window and a plunger to keep the shaft somewhat away from the riser. I got the Vortex to work on my old Bear Temujin . I am not recommending using the vortex on a trad bow unless you are fairly good at tuning. I put some masking tape on my riser before I shot the vortex in the event it contacted the riser .


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

wow....don't file the little razor sharp ridges down cause they add needed structural integrity?...so leave it there to slice up your face?...really?.....

Tony...file it off...in my line of work it's a common occurrence in the manufacturing of plastic products...it's called "Mold Flashing"....and I'm almost certain that this guys keepers were counting on....

*"The 12 Hour Vibration Finishing Process"*

to remove that crap...and it didn't....so file it down or head to wally world for the party size box of band-aids! :laugh:

and for some reason?...I keep thinking....dang...this guy can't be this ignant so...it must be a promo keep it at the top of the page kind of deal is all I can figure.

oh...and don't take any aspirin when shooting these things...thins your blood....you'll be leaving a trail. :laugh:


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is a photo from the early 1950s My dad is left back. the guy in camo was Airforce and got this cool military camo. It was the first camo any of us had ever seen. We lived near Olmsted AFB where my dad worked.









This is my dad in the background in the black suit.
He was sent on detached service to repair a crashed C124 globemaster in Thule Greenland. While there he started an archery club and as far as I know it is still functioning. I think at the time 1952 it may have been the northernmost archery club in the world.








This was my first tournament 1953. I am on the right, my dad is behind me. 
I have archery in my blood.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> wow....don't file the little razor sharp ridges down cause they add needed structural integrity?...so leave it there to slice up your face?...really?.....
> 
> Tony...file it off...in my line of work it's a common occurrence in the manufacturing of plastic products...it's called "Mold Flashing"....and I'm almost certain that this guys keepers were counting on....
> 
> ...


In all the years of marketing the T-4 this is the first report of anyone getting cut with that nock. We have had no one even get cut with the Stealth or Vortex. The littlre ridge on the nock is about 1/32 inch high and is not sharp. Odds are he had a better chance of the fletching scratching him. 

There is no flash on this product. all the nocks go through a 12 hr vibration process .


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Seems like some folks on this thread think I may be a little off. or crazy? They may be right.
I failed algebra in high school. I just do not see things mathematically. but I do have a knack of making machines work better.
In the 1970s I was designing belt buckles and could get no company interested in my designs. So I bought a casting machine and went into business for myself. The salesman tried to sell me plating equipment stating that as good as the casting machine was you would always get imperfections in the casting. I took a pass on the plating equipment. Studied the machine and the mold making process. I then modified the machine and the mold making process and three months later had my buckles in the Sears Catalog. 

This video is something else Crazy I have been working on. 
I was always amazed by the old Kam Act that Martin made in the 70s. that had no cable guard and was synchronized cam to cam not cam to bowlimb. The design of the bow was a little complex with the timing cable running through the riser on pulleys.
I simplified the design and made a bow with no cable guard or cam lean, or cable rollers.
Crazy HuH??


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> wow....don't file the little razor sharp ridges down cause they add needed structural integrity?...so leave it there to slice up your face?...really?.....
> 
> Tony...file it off...in my line of work it's a common occurrence in the manufacturing of plastic products...it's called "Mold Flashing"....and I'm almost certain that this guys keepers were counting on....
> 
> Wow, that there some good advice. Now instead of touching his nose, let's make it blow up in his face? Come on Bill. Really!


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Got some of the vortex on the way. When they arrive I'll test them out from 10 to 80 yards at the range and see what they do. If they work as advertised I won't miss the target and nail the stupid squirrels running around behind the targets causing me to lose my concentration. :wink:


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> Got some of the vortex on the way. When they arrive I'll test them out from 10 to 80 yards at the range and see what they do. If they work as advertised I won't miss the target and nail the stupid squirrels running around behind the targets causing me to lose my concentration. :wink:


I have had success with some bows shooting the vortex off the shelf. It worked on my old Bear Temujin, and on my Darton, and on the new Black Swan. I could not get it to work on my Martin Hatfield.

I suggest when you shoot the vortex put some masking tape on the riser if you do not have some kind of covering where the arrow passes the side of the riser. 
If you can not tune them, Send them back . I will give you a refund or replace them with the t-4.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> JINKSTER said:
> 
> 
> > wow....don't file the little razor sharp ridges down cause they add needed structural integrity?...so leave it there to slice up your face?...really?.....
> ...


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

turbonockguy said:


> This is an old video I did showing how the original Turbonocks were a benefit to Whisker Biscuit shooters.
> I know this is not traditional shooting but the issue came up in this thread.
> I hope today to do a video this test again with the improved Vortex and Stealth and t-4 on some fletching
> 
> ...



How is the response of the arrow with a Turbonock going through the Whisker Biscuit any different than any other arrow fletched with offset or helical fletching. The response you show has nothing to do with the Turbonock, simply a reaction between the bristles and any angled surface. Any offset or helical vane or feather fletched arrow would react the same, Turbonock or not.

*And why even bring up the Whisker Biscuit, who has them on their recurves or longbows anyway?*


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Easykeeper said:


> How is the response of the arrow with a Turbonock going through the Whisker Biscuit any different than any other arrow fletched with offset or helical fletching. The response you show has nothing to do with the Turbonock, simply a reaction between the bristles and any angled surface. Any offset or helical vane or feather fletched arrow would react the same, Turbonock or not.
> 
> *And why even bring up the Whisker Biscuit, who has them on their recurves or longbows anyway?*


Kind of with you there. Except feather will clasp more their hard plastic vanes. We don't use rest. Well not all of us do, right?


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I need to clarify the nose cutting incident. Things get easily misinterpreted here. 

First, I cut my nose often primarily when I am first tuning my set up. Due to a high anchor the nock comes across my nose when I release the arrow. If my arrow set up is too weak, I tend to smack my nose. I have been cut by all types of nocks. Once I am tuned I do not have this problem. 

Secondly, I was trying to explain that this cut was very clean like a paper cut, where usually I lose a chunk of skin. I was trying to clarify that the edge of the T-4 turbonock at high speed does impart a clean cutting of soft tissue and therefore may also do the same on a game animal during a passthrough.

Thirdly, should this in no way deter anybody from using these nocks. The stabilization gains that I am getting are substantial, and I ordered 6 dozen more. Some are getting passed out to friends to try out, but I will be using these for ALL of my setups, and am currently working on an aluminum shaft footing so I can use these on wood shafts. 

Lastly, to all the naysayers, spend the $10 and try them. I can't understand how you can spend so much energy discrediting a product that you have never even used.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Easykeeper said:


> How is the response of the arrow with a Turbonock going through the Whisker Biscuit any different than any other arrow fletched with offset or helical fletching. The response you show has nothing to do with the Turbonock, simply a reaction between the bristles and any angled surface. Any offset or helical vane or feather fletched arrow would react the same, Turbonock or not.
> 
> *And why even bring up the Whisker Biscuit, who has them on their recurves or longbows anyway?*



TURBOboost !!!


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I need to clarify the nose cutting incident. Things get easily misinterpreted here.
> 
> First, I cut my nose often primarily when I am first tuning my set up. Due to a high anchor the nock comes across my nose when I release the arrow. If my arrow set up is too weak, I tend to smack my nose. I have been cut by all types of nocks. Once I am tuned I do not have this problem.
> 
> ...



LOL, if the arrow bites you on the nose, you might be getting a leeetle too intimate with it. :wink:

I hope I'm not too worn out after expending all the effort to type this, but maybe it won't take too much out of me. Actually I don't see anyone discrediting the product. What I see is some fairly outlandish claims that have been made for a product that likely contributes a little boost to stabilization of an arrow in flight and probably nothing more. Some people have questioned those claims and the explanation is more ra ra ra look how wonderful this stuff is. Ten pages, most of us would be willing to let it go and accept that the guy has a product that some people will like and others won't, just like any other product. But no, the promoter keeps coming back with bigger and bigger claims and nothing for proof except ra ra ra look how great it is. 
I know that you and Rick observed some degree of improved performance in arrow flight and both of you reported your observations to the rest of us. We trust you guys but, neither of you have mentioned an arrow acting like a drill bit in your target. That's the only part I've seen questioned. The people doing the questioning all have some mechanical or engineering background and it's a bit harder to pull the wool over their eyes with any amount of ra ra ra look how great this stuff is.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> LOL, if the arrow bites you on the nose, you might be getting a leeetle too intimate with it. :wink:
> 
> I hope I'm not too worn out after expending all the effort to type this, but maybe it won't take too much out of me. Actually I don't see anyone discrediting the product. What I see is some fairly outlandish claims that have been made for a product that likely contributes a little boost to stabilization of an arrow in flight and probably nothing more. Some people have questioned those claims and the explanation is more ra ra ra look how wonderful this stuff is. Ten pages, most of us would be willing to let it go and accept that the guy has a product that some people will like and others won't, just like any other product. But no, the promoter keeps coming back with bigger and bigger claims and nothing for proof except ra ra ra look how great it is.
> I know that you and Rick observed some degree of improved performance in arrow flight and both of you reported your observations to the rest of us. We trust you guys but, neither of you have mentioned an arrow acting like a drill bit in your target. That's the only part I've seen questioned. The people doing the questioning all have some mechanical or engineering background and it's a bit harder to pull the wool over their eyes with any amount of ra ra ra look how great this stuff is.


:thumb:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> In all the years of marketing the T-4 this is the first report of anyone getting cut with that nock. We have had no one even get cut with the Stealth or Vortex. The littlre ridge on the nock is about 1/32 inch high and is not sharp. Odds are he had a better chance of the fletching scratching him.
> 
> There is no flash on this product. all the nocks go through a 12 hr vibration process .
> View attachment 1924810


well maybe you should've "de-flashed" your own dang "model nock" prior to taking the pic below....



DDSHOOTER said:


> JINKSTER said:
> 
> 
> > wow....don't file the little razor sharp ridges down cause they add needed structural integrity?...so leave it there to slice up your face?...really?.....
> ...


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

turbonockguy said:


> I have had success with some bows shooting the vortex off the shelf. It worked on my old Bear Temujin, and on my Darton, and on the new Black Swan. I could not get it to work on my Martin Hatfield.
> 
> I suggest when you shoot the vortex put some masking tape on the riser if you do not have some kind of covering where the arrow passes the side of the riser.
> If you can not tune them, Send them back . I will give you a refund or replace them with the t-4.


The martin has an elevated wire rest and plunger so its worth a shot. If not that there is the samick athlete with the same set up. The buffalo has a narrow riser which may provide enough clearance with the right spine. Since the dynamic spine is heavier I could probably get away with shooting a 600 spine on its 50lb limbs with light tips. Will play with it and see what happens.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Shooting these nocks side by side with standard nocks, it is easy for me to see the differences, and the benefit from the turbonocks.

While my camera does not do good enough slow motion to catch rotation, or anywhere near it, I think you will be able to plainly see the difference in the two arrows. I can. 






Which is the turbonock, which is the standard nock, and why do you think so?

Rick


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

The second arrow shot has the turbonock and is spinning so fast you can not see it as well?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> well maybe you should've "de-flashed" your own dang "model nock" prior to taking the pic below....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> well maybe you should've "de-flashed" your own dang "model nock" prior to taking the pic below....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> Shooting these nocks side by side with standard nocks, it is easy for me to see the differences, and the benefit from the turbonocks.
> 
> While my camera does not do good enough slow motion to catch rotation, or anywhere near it, I think you will be able to plainly see the difference in the two arrows. I can.
> 
> ...


I believe it is the second arrow. The sound of the arrow in flight is a bit higher pitched from spinning faster. Also, the first arrow is not spinning as fast because I can see that the fletchings are red, the second arrow is a blur.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> :thumb:


I keep comming back I do not see bigger claims just honest responses to those yes even engineers who possibly do not take into account What this product does.
You can talk about them think about them make all kind of negative claims about them. But you have not shot them ! 
So one more time!
I double dog dare you to try them. If you do not like them send them back. Look at all the time you are wasting just thinking and making suppositions about them. I now have several videos on this thread showing wounds. and not one of the naysayers mentions them. it is as if the proof does not exist.
Not one of those animals complained about being hit with an arrow with one of my nocks on it.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> TURBOboost !!!


I think the whisker biscuit thing got started when I made the "outlandish claim" that Pse had done a test that showed the nock actually accelerated out of the whisker. From what I was told from a pse shooter friend was that they could not figure out why. Some on this thread have stated that it is impossible. 
I am not an engineer. but I am pretty good at figuring our cause and effect problems. 
It made simple sense to me that others overlookes.
1.The twisted nock on the turbonock instantly starts the arrow spinning.So there is now along with it forward motion rotational motion. 
2 In the video dropping arrows through the whisker, the Nylon turbos require much less energy to pass through the whisker. 
3.I figured with the minimal drag of the turbonock vanes through the whisker and the already rotating arrow provided enough energy to actually accelerate through the whisker. 
If you looked at the other arrows after they passed through the whisker had minimal rotation, yet the turbo got a mechanical boost and was rotating much faster than the fletched arrow.
I am in the process of redoing this experiment with the new nocks.

Pse would not release the high speed video. At that time they were heavily promoting the Whiskers on their products. Perhaps having a non Pse product improve the performance of their products was not part of their business plan.
After all these years I have the opportunity to actually get some quality high speed video done. as soon as the weather warms. I will post it whether it is positive or negative to my products.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> I keep comming back I do not see bigger claims just honest responses to those yes even engineers who possibly do not take into account What this product does.
> You can talk about them think about them make all kind of negative claims about them. But you have not shot them !
> So one more time!
> I double dog dare you to try them. If you do not like them send them back. Look at all the time you are wasting just thinking and making suppositions about them. I now have several videos on this thread showing wounds. and not one of the naysayers mentions them. it is as if the proof does not exist.
> Not one of those animals complained about being hit with an arrow with one of my nocks on it.


Thanks for staying positive and explaining things. I posted the picture of one of 24 nocks that clearly show a clean finished product you sell. Thanks again. The reason you have increase sells is that most can see the benefits of a more accurate arrow. However, they are afraid of being nickpicked at and told that they should bleed out. 
Dan


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I think it is time to take a deep breath and enjoy this sport. When I was a kid I got to see my hero Howard Hill shoot two arrows off a longbow. Now Randy Oitker is up to 7 arrows bareshaft. This video is my favorite and was shot at Harrisburg. He is sponsored by Mathews,Muzzy,Bohning,Easton, and yet without my little nock this does not happen.
Just think only one of those arrows can possibly be in tune and yet he would make this shot over 90% first try.
How can an out of tune bareshaft arrow make repeatable shots?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

one more to lighten up this thread. Randy recently did this on Impossible shots. I sponsor him but I certainly can not afford to sponsor the show. near the end of this program Randy Bareshfts and opens a safety pin. T-4 on his arrow.
Yeah I know this is "trick" shooting and has no bearing on real archery! or does it??
Think if possible. There is no way I could have doctored this shot. This is called reality.
This sport can be fun if you let it!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

one more.
Remember I sponsor Randy not Impossible shots. The big companies sponsor that show.
Randy spins A coin. Bareshaft. because he could not do it with fletching. Then announcer claims he used a heavier arrow bareshaft. Look very carefully at what is on the back of that "heavier" arrow.

this comes up at the very end of the video.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

turbonockguy said:


> I keep comming back I do not see bigger claims just honest responses to those yes even engineers who possibly do not take into account What this product does.
> You can talk about them think about them make all kind of negative claims about them. But you have not shot them !
> So one more time!
> I double dog dare you to try them. If you do not like them send them back. Look at all the time you are wasting just thinking and making suppositions about them. I now have several videos on this thread showing wounds. and not one of the naysayers mentions them. it is as if the proof does not exist.
> Not one of those animals complained about being hit with an arrow with one of my nocks on it.


Actually, I would try them but all my clamps are left helical and I don't feel like buying a Bitz clamp and a bunch of feathers just to try your nocks. I trust Rick Barbee and UrbanDeerSlayer posted honestly about how they worked for them and I am intrigued about the effects of the initial spin your nocks produce. It seems like a worthy avenue to pursue and I would try them if it weren't inconvenient, so I'm satisfied in that area to read the results from posters I have come to respect. The thing is, I'm not unhappy with the way I'm shooting now so the monetary outlay really isn't worth it to me.

That part is a good idea and I commend you on it.

Like others have said better than me, it's not that claim that rubs people the wrong way. What takes your sales pitch into the annoying territory for some is all of the unsupportable voodoo and pseudoscience crap that I don't see you supporting in any way other than claiming you have some special insight and understanding of the principles involved that goes beyond trained engineers basic science. I don't have to try them to shake my head at this part of your marketing plan. 

Nobodies mentioning the wounds because they aren't any different than any other archery related wounds. We've all seen "massive and devastating" damage caused by broadheads and Turbonocks had nothing to do with it.

Most of us are not as gullible as you seem to think we are.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ummmm...trick shooting IS also real archery :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Instead of using hot glue, can you use teflon tape or grocery bag material to secure the nock?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Ryddragyn said:


> Instead of using hot glue, can you use teflon tape or grocery bag material to secure the nock?


Now that's an idea! Have to try that whenever I see Tony.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Ryddragyn said:


> Instead of using hot glue, can you use teflon tape or grocery bag material to secure the nock?


No. I tried it. The nock will creep around on you just a tiny bet every shot.
The hot glue really is no big deal.

Rick


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> Actually, I would try them but all my clamps are left helical and I don't feel like buying a Bitz clamp and a bunch of feathers just to try your nocks.  I trust Rick Barbee and UrbanDeerSlayer posted honestly about how they worked for them and I am intrigued about the effects of the initial spin your nocks produce. It seems like a worthy avenue to pursue and I would try them if it weren't inconvenient, so I'm satisfied in that area to read the results from posters I have come to respect. The thing is, I'm not unhappy with the way I'm shooting now so the monetary outlay really isn't worth it to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you do not understand something you call it voodoo? Psuedo Science? I do not thnk in engineering language or terms that does not mean I can not think.
My brother was an engineer. worked for Rayethon grew up in the same gun shop archery shop.
He was the first person I let shoot my prototypes. When He finished he looked at me and jokingly said.."you are my darn little Hippy Artist brother I am an engineer. Why did I not think of this. We had a good laugh!
My patent attorney is also an aerospace engineer. Does intellectual properties for Penn State.
When I laid the prototype on his office desk He looked at it and asked " Why didn't I think of this?
I may not be able to explain in precise engineering terms. but what I make works. I do not think voodoo would make my nocks work.

I think have figured out how to measure rate of acceleration from high speed video so as soon as it is done I will post and we will see if the info I got about Pse is a fairy tale or not! I will post either way.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Please send me some turbonocks, I have always wanted to shoot the moon with an arrow. Surely I can hit it with turbonocks.:teeth:

See, this is not about the product in any way, that's the part you seem to be missing but, I guess it's just what the doctor ordered in the way of free advertising. I think everyone has said that they believe the nocks do most likely enhance arrow flight to some degree. It's been demonstrated to us by people we trust. But, the ra ra ra is stealing your thunder and you have failed to grasp that fact to the point of convincing some that this product might be just another gadget that someone is trying to sell them.
Now, if you really know business, you could try to get some of these people to accept your offer of a half dozen free nocks to try for themselves. Let's face it, if all the people participating in this thread were working with you instead of against you, as you seem to think, you would be on your way to developing a fairly large part of the traditional market. The cost would be minimal and if your claims prove to be true, I'm sure you would see a new direction in this thread. These guys are honest people who want some proof of your claims, not more ra, ra, ra, look how wonderful my nocks are. Cause that ain't gittin us nowhere friend.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GREAT post, Forest! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Thanks. I'm sure you have seen the number of views to this thread. Approaching 5,000, that's not chump change there, that's a lot of people out there who are following it for a reason. That reason is probably an interest in the product being discussed and if it were me I would be trying to get as many promoters in this forum as possible, even if it cost me a few dollars to do so.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Wise advice, Forest! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Thanks. I'm sure you have seen the number of views to this thread. Approaching 5,000, that's not chump change there, that's a lot of people out there who are following it for a reason. That reason is probably an interest in the product being discussed and if it were me I would be trying to get as many promoters in this forum as possible, even if it cost me a few dollars to do so.


So your just the guy. Send him some, already. I would very interested in that. 
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> So your just the guy. Send him some, already.
> Dan



Maybe, I'm not so sure of that because I am not too wild about the hot glue requirement. I know Rick said it's no big deal and I believe him. I also know that if it made a serious enough impact on accuracy that I might be convinced to change my position.
Another thing I know Dan is marketing. I can name a good number of trusted regulars in this forum whose opinions are very well respected. You know who they are and if they were singing the praises of turbonocks the demand would increase dramatically. You may also know that this forum has a very large following, many who never, or hardly ever post. That's a market to be courted, not blasted.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Please send me some turbonocks, I have always wanted to shoot the moon with an arrow. Surely I can hit it with turbonocks.:teeth:
> 
> See, this is not about the product in any way, that's the part you seem to be missing but, I guess it's just what the doctor ordered in the way of free advertising. I think everyone has said that they believe the nocks do most likely enhance arrow flight to some degree. It's been demonstrated to us by people we trust. But, the ra ra ra is stealing your thunder and you have failed to grasp that fact to the point of convincing some that this product might be just another gadget that someone is trying to sell them.
> 
> Now, if you really know business, you could try to get some of these people to accept your offer of a half dozen free nocks to try for themselves. Let's face it, if all the people participating in this thread were working with you instead of against you, as you seem to think, you would be on your way to developing a fairly large part of the traditional market. The cost would be minimal and if your claims prove to be true, I'm sure you would see a new direction in this thread. These guys are honest people who want some proof of your claims, not more ra, ra, ra, look how wonderful my nocks are. Cause that ain't gittin us nowhere friend.



YOu are not a very good mind reader . You state that you think that I think all the people are against me.
From what I see there are just a few that post that are negative. and they are not the ones In my opinion will ever be customers. 
From what I see most folks just look and see what is happening here and with all the negativity from just a few. 
My sales are increasing dramatically. A good many have already accepted my fair offer. Try them ! If you do not like them send them back. 
From what I am seeing in online sales the majority that are following this.are willing to try.
I can not read your mind ,but I get the impression that you feel that a lot of people are in agreement with the few here that are spouting negativity.
I believe that most on archery talk have common sense.
Again I make this offer even to you.
Try them. If you do not like them send them back.
You seem to be trying to put a lot of drama into this thread.
I feel I have posted a good bit of proof of what my products do. 
some of what is happening here makes me sad.
The one post a gentleman jumped all over me by showing an enlargement of my t-4 photo showing a rough edge along the entire outline of the nock and then calling it flash.
That nock photo was a digital cutout of a photo that was mounted on a black background as was done to highlight the text. Whenever you enlarge digital images to that extent you will see the pixels around the cutout.
I think he assumed the nock was from a two piece mold and that was flash on the dividing line .
When actually because of the twist in the nock we use a three piece mold . and there are no mold separations where those pixels are. The mold actually separates about midpoint vertically on the nock and the twist in the throat rotates out.
Some of you are looking so hard for the bad that just is not there.
I just can not accept that you are the spokesman for most people on archery talk.
I do appreciate your advice on marketing, But I will keep doing it my way.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> YOu are not a very good mind reader . You state that you think that I think all the people are against me.
> From what I see there are just a few that post that are negative. and they are not the ones In my opinion will ever be customers.
> From what I see most folks just look and see what is happening here and with all the negativity from just a few.
> My sales are increasing dramatically. A good many have already accepted my fair offer. Try them ! If you do not like them send them back.
> ...



Whoa there little buddy, I never said that I was the spokesman for most people on archery talk. I just gave you some reasonable advice, for free. Next time it will cost ya.  Maybe I can talk all the respected members whose word on any archery topic is considered to be pretty much the gospel into sending you an order, spending time testing your product, posting their favorable opinions, if they are such, or returning it if they aren't impressed and waiting for you to give them a refund. Yeah, right!!! I ain't that damned good. I'm just a country boy who knows how to smooth talk the people I want to buy from me.

But this very post has answered the question of why after fifteen years so many people are unfamiliar with the product. Thank's for making it clear. Once again you cry that some guy pissed in your cornflakes instead of courting him. A guy who would in fact tell the world in a loud voice if he liked your product. :thumbs_up Roll on.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Rick Barbee said:


> No. I tried it. The nock will creep around on you just a tiny bet every shot.
> The hot glue really is no big deal.
> 
> Rick



Would AAE maxbond glue (watered down super glue) be ok to use? I wonder since super glue is generally not very good about sudden shock. I was concerned about it breaking free and spinning in the shaft versus spinning the shaft. 


One thing I would suggest to the people of turbonock is to update the web site. It's ambiguous and animated gifs are very much out of date. There should be a distinct "order" section. Having links at the top of the page in the various sections without clear identification as to those being the order links needs fixed. As simple title in those tables saying "ORDER" would be enough. I almost gave up trying to buy them since it wasn't clear where do you order from. People expect simple and you gotta make it idiot proof. Another area that needs work is the sizing chart page. It should have multiple tables, one for each type of nock. Within each it should give specific information about diameters compatible with and lots of examples to arrows they fit. Most people have no idea what the inside diameter is of the arrow they shoot. You need to tell them it fits XYZ shaft because they aren't going to look it up. As it is, it's too compressed having them all in one small area. It might be better to give each type of nock it's own page to accommodate the amount of information each needs in order to be informative enough. Same goes for the tuning section. Too much in too little of space.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

ranchoarcher, I did the same thing when the thread first started, went to the website. I was curious about price compared to real nocks but I could not find it quickly so I figured with such a high demand product they might only sell wholesale to retailers. So, I went to a large retailer site and found 96 items listed but no turbonocks. Oh well, I don't give up that easily so I checked another, nope no turbonocks. By now I'm starting to wonder about this great idea since I didn't see any, not one twisted nock of any kind in my search. I would have thought that a product that great would be extremely popular after fifteen years on the market.
I have been wrong before and it might happen again someday, but I don't think it's this day. And I stayed at Holiday Inn Express in downtown Rancho Cucamonga once, shows how smart I am huh.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> ranchoarcher, I did the same thing when the thread first started, went to the website. I was curious about price compared to real nocks but I could not find it quickly so I figured with such a high demand product they might only sell wholesale to retailers. So, I went to a large retailer site and found 96 items listed but no turbonocks. Oh well, I don't give up that easily so I checked another, nope no turbonocks. By now I'm starting to wonder about this great idea since I didn't see any, not one twisted nock of any kind in my search. I would have thought that a product that great would be extremely popular after fifteen years on the market.
> I have been wrong before and it might happen again someday, but I don't think it's this day. And I stayed at Holiday Inn Express in downtown Rancho Cucamonga once, shows how smart I am huh.



I used to have the nocks in most of the wholesalers and also Cabelas.
I also had them marketed By Bohning.
I got fed up with the entire culture of the Archery business community.
So I shut everything down and went strictly internet.
With the online store I can offer the nocks at a better price to archers than what they were sold for in the big box stores.
The nocks were sold in the $20.00 range when they were in the stores.

I ship them in simple sandwich bags rather than fancy clamshell packaging. I found through a lot of very intense testing that the nocks sold in the sandwich bags performed just like the nocks in the fancy packaging.

On another thread on this site one archer who was doing a review of my product made a point of not liking my packaging. he then posted photos of mediocre groups shot with my products. I could tell just by looking at the photos he had not retuned the bow to shoot my nocks. He did admit that he had not. I offered to help him tune the bow and he got a bit insulted and the string went down hill from there.

In your research you seem to be hunting for the negative. I am still puzzled how you could not find the price info on my site. and my site is quite easy to find. I think you can just click on my avatar, or on the banner that comes up on the bottom of this page. 



www.turbonockfactorytore.com
Most people do not seem to have the problems you did finding the price. you just click on the product.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> Would AAE maxbond glue (watered down super glue) be ok to use? I wonder since super glue is generally not very good about sudden shock. I was concerned about it breaking free and spinning in the shaft versus spinning the shaft.
> 
> 
> One thing I would suggest to the people of turbonock is to update the web site. It's ambiguous and animated gifs are very much out of date. There should be a distinct "order" section. Having links at the top of the page in the various sections without clear identification as to those being the order links needs fixed. As simple title in those tables saying "ORDER" would be enough. I almost gave up trying to buy them since it wasn't clear where do you order from. People expect simple and you gotta make it idiot proof. Another area that needs work is the sizing chart page. It should have multiple tables, one for each type of nock. Within each it should give specific information about diameters compatible with and lots of examples to arrows they fit. Most people have no idea what the inside diameter is of the arrow they shoot. You need to tell them it fits XYZ shaft because they aren't going to look it up. As it is, it's too compressed having them all in one small area. It might be better to give each type of nock it's own page to accommodate the amount of information each needs in order to be informative enough. Same goes for the tuning section. Too much in too little of space.


Most do not seem to have problems with the sizing. it is not as complex as you make it to be.
I do answer the phone and reply to e-mail questions.
Basically for the T-4 and trad shooters. The t-4 fits most carbon shafts and the easton super unibushing.
It is machined to fit a little loose in the shafts and that is so the hot melt glue has space to make a strong bond with the shaft.
(I do not recommend any other type of glue.) I found this to work best.
If you shoot the hit shafts like axis or black max or full metal jacket the t-5 work.
the new t-4 overnock will fit the slim shafts like the easton injexion.

Bottom line , the design of my webite seems to work for most people and I do not think changing it will affect the performance of my products. I ship them in plastic sandwich bags. I have had complaints from some they do not like the packaging??


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Whoa there little buddy, I never said that I was the spokesman for most people on archery talk. I just gave you some reasonable advice, for free. Next time it will cost ya.  Maybe I can talk all the respected members whose word on any archery topic is considered to be pretty much the gospel into sending you an order, spending time testing your product, posting their favorable opinions, if they are such, or returning it if they aren't impressed and waiting for you to give them a refund. Yeah, right!!! I ain't that damned good. I'm just a country boy who knows how to smooth talk the people I want to buy from me.
> 
> But this very post has answered the question of why after fifteen years so many people are unfamiliar with the product. Thank's for making it clear. Once again you cry that some guy pissed in your cornflakes instead of courting him. A guy who would in fact tell the world in a loud voice if he liked your product. :thumbs_up Roll on.


Wow !! little buddy. like me or not and your interpretations of how I respond to you are really out there.
Perhaps you should think of me as being like forestgump. I may not be the sharpest lightbulb in the drawer or the brightest light in the closet. but somehow I figured out a better way to stabilize arrows. it is that simple.
The rest is just smoke in the water, oops wind.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Wow...

This train wreck just keeps going and going doesn't it.

Unreal 

Mac


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> No. I tried it. The nock will creep around on you just a tiny bet every shot.
> The hot glue really is no big deal.
> 
> Rick


Agreed. I use a heat gun like Turbonockguy suggested. A stick of hot glue is provided for you with the nocks that you order. A little heat from the gun, not enough to damage the shaft or melt the nock, glue it up and slide it in. 

You can also remove them the same way very easily.


----------



## ProperNoun (Dec 30, 2013)

i'm with ranchoranger on this one, take it as constructive criticism. The website could use some work in my opinion. I also had trouble figuring out where to actually order the nocks on the site and the sizing chart wasn't so helpful to me since i don't shoot anything you reference. It's why i asked you about the diameter of the t5 a few pages back..


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> I want some for my GT 5575 arrows ..
> 
> I've bought 50 2" Rayzr's going to do some 4x2's..and like the idea of this type of nock....with that small of fletchings..
> 
> ...


The T-4 will fit we have green orange white. The white will take flo magic marker


----------



## dwilkis (Aug 15, 2009)

When it comes time to refletch an arrow, will the turbonock fit in a bitz or do you have to replace it with a trad nock to fit the jig?


----------



## Roger Savor Sr (Feb 16, 2014)

Good question, dwilkis.

It isn't at all that I don't appreciate what some don't like in the Turbonock guy's presentation, but then I don't understand why they actually care as much as they do. I mean, why not get over that, buy the damned $10 bag of nocks and see if they do anything for your shooting. Really, it all sounds like a goofy debate in philosophy using semantics. In other words, it's a bunch of bs.......Just sayin'.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

dwilkis said:


> When it comes time to refletch an arrow, will the turbonock fit in a bitz or do you have to replace it with a trad nock to fit the jig?


I don't use a bitz. I use a JoJan.

With the JoJan, the turbonocks did not as easily center into the nock receiver as do the standard nock, 
but as long as I paid attention to the centering with each arrow I had no difficulty doing the job.

I do not glue my nocks prior to fletching. I do the fletch job, and then rotate the nocks to where I want
them, place a mark from nock to shaft while oriented, then glue them in place with the marks aligned.

Rick


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Because of the twist in the nock you may have to put in a straight nock to fletch.
The turbos if you use the hot melt glue come out quite easily. run hot tap water over the end of the arro or heat with a hair dryer.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Roger Savor Sr said:


> Good question, dwilkis.
> 
> It isn't at all that I don't appreciate what some don't like in the Turbonock guy's presentation, but then I don't understand why they actually care as much as they do. I mean, why not get over that, buy the damned $10 bag of nocks and see if they do anything for your shooting. Really, it all sounds like a goofy debate in philosophy using semantics. In other words, it's a bunch of bs.......Just sayin'.


I agree with you!! I have been saying just from the start . Try them . If you do not like them send them back.
Perhaps I should not have put in the "I double dog dare you" But I am at the age where if it ain't fun I do not do it. and I am enjoying what I do at this time.
I think a lot of this is Cabin fever.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Roger Savor Sr said:


> Good question, dwilkis.
> 
> It isn't at all that I don't appreciate what some don't like in the Turbonock guy's presentation, but then I don't understand why they actually care as much as they do. I mean, why not get over that, buy the damned $10 bag of nocks and see if they do anything for your shooting. Really, it all sounds like a goofy debate in philosophy using semantics. In other words, it's a bunch of bs.......Just sayin'.


Thank you.
Dan


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

I received my order of turbonocks this morning. I will do my best to do an objective review of them. I don't have a horse in this race/flame war, just wanting to see if they will help my shooting.

One quick first impression though: the mold flash "issue" is completely non-existent. There is no flash on the edges whatsoever. I can see a faint trace of the mold lines, and they are where the manufacturer said the mold lines meet. So that was a problem that was apparently invented out of thin air... 

I took one nock and actually tried to deliberately cut myself with it. They'd make a poor suicide tool. No idea how someone could cut their nose with it when shooting.


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

I bought a dozen t4 nocks last week based merely due to curiosity and Rick's review.
I was able to try them out yesterday for the first time.
For me personally, I did not notice a whole lot of benefit on 20 yards an in shots. (negligible) 
However, I noticed a vast improvement on shots past 20 yards.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

irishhacker said:


> I bought a dozen t4 nocks last week based merely due to curiosity and Rick's review.
> I was able to try them out yesterday for the first time.
> For me personally, I did not notice a whole lot of benefit on 20 yards an in shots. (negligible)
> However, I noticed a vast improvement on shots past 20 yards.


Irish, shoot them at 20 yards with 20 mile an hour cross wind. 
Dan


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I recieved my t5's today, shot them in both no, and 20+ mph cross winds, didn't notice any difference in my lighter bows(50#), but they did seem to do better out of my heavier 74# hybrid with 480gr. arrows, left me with the impression the faster the arrow the better they worked.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Irish, shoot them at 20 yards with 20 mile an hour cross wind.
> Dan



Twenty knot crosswind is easy to come by in Arizona, Ohio maybe not so much.

But here's something I have been asking since the beginning and have yet to see any explanation for. Maybe you can explain this to a dumb ol' country boy.
I have a compound bow from the early nineties which has steel cables and little round wheels for cams. I also have a 2004 compound with a single cam and modern string and cables. A vast improvement over the older one but, it's not parallel limbs which are a vast improvement over the 2004 bow. Notice the trend, each newer model has some feature that's a vast improvement over the older which pretty much makes the older stuff obsolete as soon as the better mousetrap hits the market.
I have not seen that with turbonocks. My research shows that the old straight style still rules the roost in the nock world. Now, I may be just a dumb country boy but, it seems to me that a new revolutionary invention always sets the trend for the future. No matter what it may be. Others scramble to catch up. But, wouldn't ya just know? Turbonocks, as wonderful as they are, have not created that kind of excitement in the market. Not even a ripple in that large ocean of archery products much less a wave. I would very much appreciate it if you can explain this in terms that a dumb country boy can understand because so far, it has managed to completely confuse me.
I don't want you guys to feel like I'm trying to be mean and nasty or hurt anyones feelings. I'm not meaning to piss in anyones cornflakes, I just don't understand and would like a simple explanation from those more knowledgeable than myself on the subject.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

My big question is...are Olympic archers using them?

I would think if they were that good and could show noticeable improvement in arrow stability and accuracy at longer distance... those archers would be all over these nocks by now.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

voodoofire1 said:


> I recieved my t5's today, shot them in both no, and 20+ mph cross winds, didn't notice any difference in my lighter bows(50#), but they did seem to do better out of my heavier 74# hybrid with 480gr. arrows, left me with the impression the faster the arrow the better they worked.



That seems reasonable, the faster arrow benefits more from the initial twist somehow.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> My big question is...are Olympic archers using them?
> 
> I would think if they were that good and could show noticeable improvement in arrow stability and accuracy at longer distance... those archers would be all over these nocks by now.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I didn't check that, maybe it's because they don't want to take a chance on advanced string wear.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I didn't check that, maybe it's because they don't want to take a chance on advanced string wear.


They make their living on shooting a bow long ranges for accuracy. I think they'd be willing to use a few extra strings per year if their bank account gets filled using these nocks.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I didn't check that, maybe it's because they don't want to take a chance on advanced string wear.


Based on Rick's review...serving wear was increased but not enough to concern him so based on that I wouldn't think that would be too much of a concern for an Olympic archer who would jump on any equipment advantage in regards to increased accuracy at longer distances and cross winds.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

All that seems reasonable, I'm just grasping for straws here. There must be some reason, I just can't figure it out. If it's not an inferior product and it's not lack of good marketing strategy, then what? It has to be something. The only thing left is the possibility that the buying public is just too dumb to see the greatness of these things. I find that pill hard to swallow. But, I have admitted that I was wrong once before and it likely will happen again someday, hardly any doubt, but this one has me stumped.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> My big question is...are Olympic archers using them?
> 
> I would think if they were that good and could show noticeable improvement in arrow stability and accuracy at longer distance... those archers would be all over these nocks by now.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I never went after the olympic market in the beginning because the t-4 was not in production.

I did have an archer Take my original deadX to Vegas , And Atlantic City. He had won I believe the Ill state championship, and a Pse Invitational Championship with my nocks. At Vegas he shot a 298 day one. 299 day 2 and a 300 day three after putting new cams on his bow overnight. came in 50 th. My nocks never caught on with the big time shooters. It usually cost big bucks to sponsor one. They do not shoot products for free. If you check the history of the big time pro shooters in general. you will find they follow the money.

When I used to follow what was going on in that sport . Hoyt used to have the most wins, then Mathews started getting more wins.
Was it better bows or was who was paying more for better shooters? I would not like to answer that here. it would start another fight.

I can not afford to spend big bucks to buy the shooters. but I hope to continue slowly building my business as I have done for 15 years.
getting happy customers. I make enough money to go and hunt, and am saving up for my Ferrari 4wd SUV. So perhaps with this new interest in the nock I can get one soon? I am happy with my Silverado 4wd but one can dream.

Something to think about. When I first went to the AMO show. ( now the ATA) I was approached by several of the major Archery publications. They all were very excited about my products and all wanted to write reviews. I thought that was cool and asked what they needed. I was going to give them samples on the spot. They all gave the same response. All you have to do is give us some samples and buy a 1/2 page of advertising. HMMMMMMM that in most cases was some free samples and several thousand dollars in advertising.
I asked each on in turn. If I pay you lets say the $3000 for the ad and your reviewer does not like my product , what happens?
What do you think they replied?
I chose not to pay for the reviews!
I think that was the first step that got me to not do what everyone else in this business does. I can still sleep at night.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> All that seems reasonable, I'm just grasping for straws here. There must be some reason, I just can't figure it out. If it's not an inferior product and it's not lack of good marketing strategy, then what? It has to be something. The only thing left is the possibility that the buying public is just too dumb to see the greatness of these things. I find that pill hard to swallow. But, I have admitted that I was wrong once before and it likely will happen again someday, hardly any doubt, but this one has me stumped.



Forest. I just responded to a question on why not Olympic shooters. I think it may answer your question. You are not dumb!. I have found that in general the archery business community treats us that way. Noticed I said us. I chose to leave the ATA.

Have you ever read a negative review in a major archery magazine? I have been on the inside doing business with some of the big players. Some things I have seen. I had one company offer to buy me out in my second year I was excited. their stuff was all "made in the USA" The owner of the company told me he could take my molds to China and get them done for less than half what I was paying.
I just looked at him. and asked. But your products are made in the USA?? He responded, "ASSEMBLED IN THE USA" 
This was probably step 2 as to why I left the ATA!

Did you know if you have a factory on the island of Guam you can say made in the USA ! Walmart knows that.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

I don't think you would necessarily have to "go after" the Olympic market. If something is known to work, they'll find it and at least try it. I don't think you'd have to pay them much if they shoot better with your product. Free nocks and they wouldn't mind another small name stitched on their shoulder especially if those free nocks meant a few extra thousand in the bank every year. What I think you're lacking is new and convincing evidence of what your product can do. The earlier pics you posted showing your "shooting machine" and the cardboard target was hard to tell what actually was going on on the target. Random writing and seemingly random holes in the target. Also, it wasn't super believable. I've seen even the cheapest arrows with factory nocks shoot better groups at 80 yards with a human behind the bow than your shooting machine did. It makes the results seem a little unreliable. 

IMO, you need an independent party test for you. It needs to be done with a semblance of scientific method and there needs to be a large enough data set to achieve repeatable/believable results. If your nocks work, they'll sell themselves.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> I don't think you would necessarily have to "go after" the Olympic market. If something is known to work, they'll find it and at least try it. I don't think you'd have to pay them much if they shoot better with your product. Free nocks and they wouldn't mind another small name stitched on their shoulder especially if those free nocks meant a few extra thousand in the bank every year. What I think you're lacking is new and convincing evidence of what your product can do. The earlier pics you posted showing your "shooting machine" and the cardboard target was hard to tell what actually was going on on the target. Random writing and seemingly random holes in the target. Also, it wasn't super believable. I've seen even the cheapest arrows with factory nocks shoot better groups at 80 yards with a human behind the bow than your shooting machine did. It makes the results seem a little unreliable.
> 
> IMO, you need an independent party test for you. It needs to be done with a semblance of scientific method and there needs to be a large enough data set to achieve repeatable/believable results. If your nocks work, they'll sell themselves.



HMMMMM? 9/16 inch group at 20 yds with a 1716 shaft at 70 lbs with the turbonock prototype vs 40 inch overall group with same arrows and a straight nock? (including two breaking in mid air) The benefits of high rpm arrows seems pretty convincing to me in what happened there??








You see random holes.? I even marked them. The little group to the left of the yellow target 9/16 inch was the Turbonock prototype.
The larger circle was where some of the arrows grouped from the same arrows with straight nocks. and the red lines point to the high and low flyers. if you include the high and low flyers the non turbonock 1716 arrows at 70lbs were making a 40 inch group at 20 yds and they were dangerous!! I was testing to see whether high rpm arrows had any effect on arrow spine. This test I believe shows positive results
.Please do not try this test with a hand held bow!!!!!! I had two straight nock arrows break in mid air and one piece stuck in the ground about 10 ft from the bow. I wrote the word "OOPS" where the flyers hit. At the very least this shows high rpm arrows can be safely shot with lighter spines safely. (as long as you do not go under the minimum weight recommended by the bow manufacturer.

I will at this time take half of your advice. Over the past few days We have sold a lot of nocks. I think mostly because of this weirdly wacky viral thread.
I think I will wait and see what happens with the sales and comments from the new shooters, whom I expect at least a few will post here. Some have already.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I didn't check that, maybe it's because they don't want to take a chance on advanced string wear.


Another reason that the olympic archers are not shooting my nocks is that I may not have the size nocks they use. I they mostly use little g-nocks on really skinny arrows. I think my new overnocks would work on a lot of the smaller shafts.
one thing i learned about distance shooting.
When I first started this business I had a college student shoot his big fat X-7 (vegas shafts) with my Turbonock Hunters. at 100yds 
at a local fairgrounds.






Yeah I know this is not a great group. but this is X-7s in the wind. I was happy with the results. so was Dustin Yokum


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

While your test does seem to show a benefit if you choose to shoot underspined arrows, most competitive or even avid shooters don't bother shooting improperly spined arrows. This test implies that your nocks may help a properly spined arrow but that's not what it showed. If I wanted to shoot underspined arrows, your nocks might be the ticket to mask my poor decision however I still don't know that they'll do anything for properly spined arrows. 

In scientific testing, you can't assume that something will work on one substrate because it worked on another. You have to prove it. Also, I and just about everyone who's ever purchased an item knows that the company who makes a product isn't necessarily the best source for impartial information or review on that product. Not saying you're not a trustworthy guy but I don't trust anyone who has money to gain or lose if a product works or not. That's where the impartial, third party review comes in. Also, that third party needs to know what they are doing to perform a good test and needs to show methods and results so others can try to replicate the results. If they can't be replicated, they don't mean anything. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough either. Three or four people saying "Yep, they work" isn't evidence or proof. I hope everyone comes back with good things to say but I think it would be a good idea for you to invest a little money and prove that these things work to the masses. Not a few hundred people who's seen this thread. I think you have a great resource in Widgeon who can post his results in Archery Report. If I were you, I'd have a dozen of each of your nocks to him in the mail like yesterday. It'd be a small price to pay for a guy who knows what he is doing and at least to my knowledge, doesn't need payment for the results.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Can someone perform a simple test to compare trajectory? One of the claims I've heard is the increased downrange speed and flattened trajectory. I know enough about ballistics and I've tested plenty of different sized fletches. What I want to see is simple. Can someone shoot two arrows with the same fletch, weight, etc, so the only difference is a standard nock and turbonock and compare actual trajectory? The easiest method I can see to test is to start at close range, maybe 10 yards, and shoot at the bullseye with the arrow point on the bull. Obviously the arrow will hit high but repeat the test going back every 5 or 10 yards until your point on than keep going. I want to see if the impact points remain the same at close range, mid range, and long distance. 

We've heard the turbonocks hit higher longer distance but I want to know if they hit higher at the close stuff too. For example, if you normally have a 12" gap at 20 yards and a 35 yard point on with standard nocks and with turbonocks you have an 18" gap at 20 yards and a 40 yard point on I don't see that as any real advantage. But, if both arrows have 12" gaps at 20 and the Turbonock pushes the point on out further I see that as an advantage. Flatter trajectory over a greater distance gives more room for error. If I can keep a very tight short and mid range gap but push my PO out I'll happily buy some of these. 

Thanks for anyone who takes the time to test this. 

Chris


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> My big question is...are Olympic archers using them?


2 reasons:
#1- They don't fit the arrows used by Olympic archers.
#2- Easton and Beiter don't make them. Olympic archers are conservative in a way that makes even the Neo-Traddie look like a raving progressive.

-Grant


----------



## ProperNoun (Dec 30, 2013)

Just got my turbonocks today. Though i might have to wait till the weekend to shoot em  here's some initial feedback..

(EDIT: I'm bought the T5's)
the finish is good- nothing sharp on 'em
THEY FIT my carbon express predator ii 800 arrow shafts!! I went into this blind and figured.. $10 isn't much, if they don't fit my arrows i'll just give them away on here (sorry guys :tongue. But they are, in fact, a perfect fit.

so, turbonock guy, it's probably worth noting on your sizing chart that these'll fit the Carbon Express Predator ii 700 & 800. Useful information for those shooting a lower poundage


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> Another reason that the olympic archers are not shooting my nocks is that I may not have the size nocks they use. I they mostly use little g-nocks on really skinny arrows. I think my new overnocks would work on a lot of the smaller shafts.
> one thing i learned about distance shooting.
> When I first started this business I had a college student shoot his big fat X-7 (vegas shafts) with my Turbonock Hunters. at 100yds
> at a local fairgrounds.
> ...


This is why I asked 14 pages ago if you had one that fits Uni-bushing. I knew then it was more geared toward bigger shafts.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Twenty knot crosswind is easy to come by in Arizona, Ohio maybe not so much.
> 
> But here's something I have been asking since the beginning and have yet to see any explanation for. Maybe you can explain this to a dumb ol' country boy.
> I have a compound bow from the early nineties which has steel cables and little round wheels for cams. I also have a 2004 compound with a single cam and modern string and cables. A vast improvement over the older one but, it's not parallel limbs which are a vast improvement over the 2004 bow. Notice the trend, each newer model has some feature that's a vast improvement over the older which pretty much makes the older stuff obsolete as soon as the better mousetrap hits the market.
> ...


Ok, I will bit? Did your own research. Ok. What "old straight nock" are you referring too. Is there one out there that fits all arrows. Your research should indicate that each arrow manufacturer has their own. Let say a top pro gets a Easton endorsement, will they continue endorsing him if he add a different nock to his arrow? I think no. If they pay for him to shoot for them then he is required to only carry their brand. Do your know why bow manufacturer require Pro shop to sign a contract. I have several friend that can't own another bow brand while they are co-op shooter. While at less they can't shoot another bow at any sponsor event.

The Turbonocks guy can't get into that market unless he cuts a deal with that manufacturer or sell his patent. So he adapted to as many as he can, in order of keeping cost down in order to sell to the general public. Such as myself. But, that's another's dumb country boys take. See I like to try different things that don't cost me a bunch of money. Heck, I pick up and old bearcub bow when I started into the traditional world. Now I have a TradTech Titan lll presently shooting it without a grip. I warf it. Well I think that what you guy call it. Rick's video got my interest. well you know my story. 
Dan


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> While your test does seem to show a benefit if you choose to shoot underspined arrows, most competitive or even avid shooters don't bother shooting improperly spined arrows. This test implies that your nocks may help a properly spined arrow but that's not what it showed. If I wanted to shoot underspined arrows, your nocks might be the ticket to mask my poor decision however I still don't know that they'll do anything for properly spined arrows.
> 
> In scientific testing, you can't assume that something will work on one substrate because it worked on another. You have to prove it. Also, I and just about everyone who's ever purchased an item knows that the company who makes a product isn't necessarily the best source for impartial information or review on that product. Not saying you're not a trustworthy guy but I don't trust anyone who has money to gain or lose if a product works or not. That's where the impartial, third party review comes in. Also, that third party needs to know what they are doing to perform a good test and needs to show methods and results so others can try to replicate the results. If they can't be replicated, they don't mean anything. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough either. Three or four people saying "Yep, they work" isn't evidence or proof. I hope everyone comes back with good things to say but I think it would be a good idea for you to invest a little money and prove that these things work to the masses. Not a few hundred people who's seen this thread. I think you have a great resource in Widgeon who can post his results in Archery Report. If I were you, I'd have a dozen of each of your nocks to him in the mail like yesterday. It'd be a small price to pay for a guy who knows what he is doing and at least to my knowledge, doesn't need payment for the results.


I would gladly give Widgeon some. how do I contact him?

If P then Q ??
If you look at this test as a test to allow people to do something stupid and shoot underspined arrows you are totally missing the point.

underspined arrows do not fly well the fletching on its own was not enough to correct for all the profound bending and gyrations the arrow was going through..
By just adding that twisted nock. and spinning that arrow like a bullet. the spine problem was overcome. and the accuracy was greatly improved.
If the high rpms will overcome massive problems like that . Would it not make sense that less drastic forces an arrow encounters in flight would also be overcome ?

Lets take shooting in a 30 mile per hour cross wind? Do you think a high rotatiion arrow would be able to fly straighter?

The answer to that question is the very first post in this thread!

If you remember. Rick Barbee blew away the competition and even dusted some compound shooters in that tournament.

I know one response was that Rick just had a good day. If that was totally the reason, then for some reason other than the 30mph cross wind, was not the reason all the other archers had a bad day?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> This is why I asked 14 pages ago if you had one that fits Uni-bushing. I knew then it was more geared toward bigger shafts.
> Dan


There are different unbushings. super uni bushing. and that size nock is kind of a standard in the industry. Most carbon shafts can use that nock. The G-nock unibushing is much smaller and will not fit. I tried to get a turbo to work with the little g-nock and I did, but they would break too easily when hit. and were difficult to remove.

Some have complained about the sizing chart. basically if you shaft is the same size as a #2 yellow school pencil the Turbonocks Fit.
it is that simple.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Ok, I will bit? Did your own research. Ok. What "old straight nock" are you referring too. Is there one out there that fits all arrows. Your research should indicate that each arrow manufacturer has their own. Let say a top pro gets a Easton endorsement, will they continue endorsing him if he add a different nock to his arrow? I think no. If they pay for him to shoot for them then he is required to only carry their brand. Do your know why bow manufacturer require Pro shop to sign a contract. I have several friend that can't own another bow brand while they are co-op shooter. While at less they can't shoot another bow at any sponsor event.
> 
> The Turbonocks guy can't get into that market unless he cuts a deal with that manufacturer or sell his patent. So he adapted to as many as he can, in order of keeping cost down in order to sell to the general public. Such as myself. But, that's another's dumb country boys take. See I like to try different things that don't cost me a bunch of money. Heck, I pick up and old bearcub bow when I started into the traditional world. Now I have a TradTech Titan lll presently shooting it without a grip. I warf it. Well I think that what you guy call it. Rick's video got my interest. well you know my story.
> Dan


Thanks Dan!!
You seem to be one of the few who has some knowledge how the industry works.

The first day , the first time I went to the AMO (ATA) event . There was great interest in my product. At one time . I was talking to Pete Shepley who came into the booth. and was showing interest in the nock. I gave his company some nocks to test.

While Shepley was Talking to me. The President of a very large Arrow company and his entourage all walked up to the stand. The president saw Mr.Shepley and looked at me, If looks could kill, I would not be writing this now. He motioned to all his group to move on.
Strange thing I noticed was they all had their name cards hanging around their necks, backwards so you could not identify them or their company. Well I recognized the president. and when I had a break I went to their booth and introduced myself. (Yeah I was a litle cocky ) Over the course of the show they all came back to my booth individually and examined my product. Still with their name badges reversed. Really gave me the CREEPS!!!!

I had another very prominent company owner come and talk to me. He was very interested in my product and asked if I would consider selling it. He then told me how this Archery business community works.
He asked me if I had a patent. I said yes. He asked do you have patent insurance? I said no. I did not know such a thing existed.
He told me to get it as soon as possible. I listened to him and got it at the show.

This is why. He told me . If I decide I want your product I will just take it ! You have one and an half years to sue me. If you do not ,you patent is void. It cost basically $250,000 just to walk into federal court to sue me. So I paid $7000.00 a year in Patent insurance.
for $250,000 + coverage. He told me it is much easier to steal and wait and if you do not get sued you are ahead. If you do get sued. you just settle and it is usually a better deal than offering to buy a product outright.

He was being honest and helpful even though what he told me was scary. And I thanked him. We have communicated several times over the years. In all honesty if I had not bought that insurance. as a business man He probably would have ripped me off , before someone else did. He had a conscience and at least gave me the information to protect myself.So at this time the nocks are still mine. Thanks to him.
Did you ever notice how all the big bow companies seem to eventually "share" the same technology ? I think it may be because they are all friends and want to help each other out? I could be wrong????????


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> This is why I asked 14 pages ago if you had one that fits Uni-bushing. I knew then it was more geared toward bigger shafts.
> Dan


The Turbonocks fit the X7 which is a bigger shaft, but with the Super unibushing in it it takes a standard Easten super nock that also fits most carbon shaafts ..244 to .246 id. It is kind of an industry standard. My new turbonock With the textured ends is slightly smaller than the easton supernock. To allow for the hot melt glue to bond to the shafts. 
I made a smaller T-5 to fit the HIT technology shafts. AXIS.,Black Max, & Full Metal Jacket.
I made a T-6 for the little g-nock bushing but was not happy with it. It would break to easily when hit with another arrow and also was difficult to remove when broken. 
I did then come up with the overnock concept that gives a really strong attachment to the new slim high penetration shafts like the Easton Injexion and the Victory VAP. This overnock is just a slice of a carbon shaft glued on. Anyone with a cutoff saw can make these.
I charge $5.00 extra to do this and assemble them in my shop.
These overnocks may just fit some of the olympic shafts. Perhaps this thread will get at least one crazy olympic shooter to try them.
Perhaps just one Olympic shooter will look at that 100 yd group shot by Dustin Yocum that I posted earlier, with big fat X7 shafts in a cross wind and do a little thinking.


----------



## Tracker12 (Sep 22, 2003)

So the T5 will fit an FMJ 400?


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> I would gladly give Widgeon some. how do I contact him?
> 
> If P then Q ??
> If you look at this test as a test to allow people to do something stupid and shoot underspined arrows you are totally missing the point.
> ...


Your using anecdotes as evidence again. One guy's experience in uncontrolled conditions is not evidence. I know Mr. Barbee is a respected guy but it's still just a guys story. And I know you have a letter from another shooter that day corroborating that "evidence" but multiple people have seen big foot too. Not saying your nocks and their supposed benefits are imaginary but you need data as proof, not just some stories. You say that the "answer" to the crosswind shooting is in Mr. Barbee's story but your first story of a guy shooting well in wind isn't an answer. It may allow you to hypothesize that the nock and extra rotation is to account for the better shooting but a hypothesis is just the first step. After you hypothesize, you then test your hypothesis in controlled trials to prove it or disprove it. 

One time I played a golf tournament in 40mph winds and won. My ball flew straighter and with better flight than the other guys and I had an easier time navigating the course because of it. One could assume that my ball was better suited for windy play or that my clubs some how added just the right spin to it to be stable in the wind. Or one could say that I won because I grew up in on the edge of the Sandhills in Nebraska where the wind blows all the time and that I was well accustomed to playing in high winds. Well my gear was second hand and my balls were middle of the line from walmart. It wasn't my gear. That's why you can't use stories as "proof" of anything. Too many variables and not enough control.

I know your underspined arrow test is supposed to prove a correlation to the spin and arrow stabilization but again, you can't paint such broad strokes. Just because it helps a severely underspined arrow doesn't mean it helps a correctly spined arrow enough to notice. It's reasonable to assume it will but you still need to prove it. And if it helps an underspined arrow, does it hurt an over spined arrow? Who knows? It needs to be tested. 

Some of your claims are very reasonable. Unfortunately none have been proven. Some of your claims are a bit out there and likely can't be proven or the evidence be replicated. Stick to the reasonable claims and prove them and then you'll have a strong argument for your product. 

As far as contacting Widgeon, he commented on this thread. Shoot him a PM.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Your using anecdotes as evidence again. One guy's experience in uncontrolled conditions is not evidence. I know Mr. Barbee is a respected guy but it's still just a guys story. And I know you have a letter from another shooter that day corroborating that "evidence" but multiple people have seen big foot too. Not saying your nocks and their supposed benefits are imaginary but you need data as proof, not just some stories. You say that the "answer" to the crosswind shooting is in Mr. Barbee's story but your first story of a guy shooting well in wind isn't an answer. It may allow you to hypothesize that the nock and extra rotation is to account for the better shooting but a hypothesis is just the first step. After you hypothesize, you then test your hypothesis in controlled trials to prove it or disprove it.
> 
> One time I played a golf tournament in 40mph winds and won. My ball flew straighter and with better flight than the other guys and I had an easier time navigating the course because of it. One could assume that my ball was better suited for windy play or that my clubs some how added just the right spin to it to be stable in the wind. Or one could say that I won because I grew up in on the edge of the Sandhills in Nebraska where the wind blows all the time and that I was well accustomed to playing in high winds. Well my gear was second hand and my balls were middle of the line from walmart. It wasn't my gear. That's why you can't use stories as "proof" of anything. Too many variables and not enough control.
> 
> ...


All I can do at this time for you and your suspicions they do not work is make you the same offer.
Try them if you do not like them send them back. Then you will have your own personal data as to whether they work or not for you.
and you can cut back on all the time you spend typing here.
Thanks for the Wiedgon in.fo


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> All I can do at this time for you and your suspicions they do not work is make you the same offer.
> Try them if you do not like them send them back. Then you will have your own personal data as to whether they work or not for you.
> and you can cut back on all the time you spend typing here.
> Thanks for the Wiedgon in.fo


I already have a dozen t4 nocks to test and I will take you up on your offer if I feel they are so bad to warrant a refund. However, I think you are misunderstanding my comments. I'm not doubting some of your claims but I'd like to see actual evidence that proves it. Not because I don't believe you but because I feel if a company claims their product does something, they should have actual evidence to prove it. I can use my deductive reasoning skills to assume that If the arrow spins more, it'll be more stable but you haven't proven that your nock in fact does cause an arrow to spin more. Show a high speed video of them spinning off the string. Prove it. Take measurements and document the spin rates that your nock actually creates. I can understand how it does it but you'd be way ahead if you proved it. Mythbusters uses high speed footage to measure speed and rotation and all kinds of different things all the time. Find someone to make a cool highspeed video like that for you and post it on your website and youtube. It'd be great advertising. Use that video to count the number of revolutions and the amount of distance traveled and get your spin rate. Do the same for the competition's nocks and put them to shame. It'd be impressive and people would remember something like that.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Huntinsker said:


> Your using anecdotes as evidence again. One guy's experience in uncontrolled conditions is not evidence. I know Mr. Barbee is a respected guy but it's still just a guys story. And I know you have a letter from another shooter that day corroborating that "evidence" but multiple people have seen big foot too. Not saying your nocks and their supposed benefits are imaginary but you need data as proof, not just some stories. You say that the "answer" to the crosswind shooting is in Mr. Barbee's story but your first story of a guy shooting well in wind isn't an answer. It may allow you to hypothesize that the nock and extra rotation is to account for the better shooting but a hypothesis is just the first step. After you hypothesize, you then test your hypothesis in controlled trials to prove it or disprove it.
> 
> One time I played a golf tournament in 40mph winds and won. My ball flew straighter and with better flight than the other guys and I had an easier time navigating the course because of it. One could assume that my ball was better suited for windy play or that my clubs some how added just the right spin to it to be stable in the wind. Or one could say that I won because I grew up in on the edge of the Sandhills in Nebraska where the wind blows all the time and that I was well accustomed to playing in high winds. Well my gear was second hand and my balls were middle of the line from walmart. It wasn't my gear. That's why you can't use stories as "proof" of anything. Too many variables and not enough control.
> 
> ...


Hunt, we went over the math on post 202? 

This is my practice shoots at 30 yards yards , no wind. Two arrows, the one on the left is the turbonock. As you can see it is level in the target were as the standard GT nock is in a slightly down angle.







Dan


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Dang nice shooting! So at 30 yards there is no difference in the POI? I don't think you can count the angle of the arrows as a result because your target doesn't exactly look to be a consistent substrate through and through but I'd expect to see a different POI if you were getting more velocity or at the very least, less drag.

I know we theoretically calculated the math using numbers that are reasonable but if you want to prove it, you have to measure it.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> I already have a dozen t4 nocks to test and I will take you up on your offer if I feel they are so bad to warrant a refund. However, I think you are misunderstanding my comments. I'm not doubting some of your claims but I'd like to see actual evidence that proves it. Not because I don't believe you but because I feel if a company claims their product does something, they should have actual evidence to prove it. I can use my deductive reasoning skills to assume that If the arrow spins more, it'll be more stable but you haven't proven that your nock in fact does cause an arrow to spin more. Show a high speed video of them spinning off the string. Prove it. Take measurements and document the spin rates that your nock actually creates. I can understand how it does it but you'd be way ahead if you proved it. Mythbusters uses high speed footage to measure speed and rotation and all kinds of different things all the time. Find someone to make a cool highspeed video like that for you and post it on your website and youtube. It'd be great advertising. Use that video to count the number of revolutions and the amount of distance traveled and get your spin rate. Do the same for the competition's nocks and put them to shame. It'd be impressive and people would remember something like that.


The spin rate was calculated by PSE using high speed video 13 years ago. They would not release the video but the engineer working on the project did give me the data. Two revolutions in the first five feet. I wish they would have released the video.
A conventionally fletched arrow like box store arrows with about 2 degrees of pitch make two revolutions in 20 yds.

I have mentioned earlier that I have a slow motion shoot scheduled as soon as the weather warms up. 


Emmy Award winning videographer Alan Titel will be doing the video. You can see his work on You Tube. just type in UltraSlo
I hope this video will help . but it still will not show what happens after the arrow gets some distance away. High speed photography 
does not have a great depth of field and focus is critical. But hopefully you will see the twist happen.
I am also if time permits shooting it through a whisker biscuit and see if we can recreate the acceleration report I got from my friend who was a PSE shooter.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Dang nice shooting! So at 30 yards there is no difference in the POI? I don't think you can count the angle of the arrows as a result because your target doesn't exactly look to be a consistent substrate through and through but I'd expect to see a different POI if you were getting more velocity or at the very least, less drag.
> 
> I know we theoretically calculated the math using numbers that are reasonable but if you want to prove it, you have to measure it.


I would like to see more than two arrows shot. It may help either the believers or disbelievers think.
Perhaps shoot three regular at one target and three turbos at a target beside it. but close enough to see elevation differences.
You are a good shot and I would not shoot more than three , you would be increasing odds of trashing your arrows. then perhaps try 40 yds.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Hunt, we went over the math on post 202?
> 
> This is my practice shoots at 30 yards yards , no wind. Two arrows, the one on the left is the turbonock. As you can see it is level in the target were as the standard GT nock is in a slightly down angle.
> View attachment 1928368
> ...




So, your evidence is that two arrows shot from the same distance are in the target at 'slightly' different angles. Not extremely convincing since other factors could influence the angles. The result also conflicts with other peoples experiences. They reported an impact point several inches higher than standard nocks indicating some possibility of improved arrow flight by the turbonock.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Huntinsker said:


> Dang nice shooting! So at 30 yards there is no difference in the POI? I don't think you can count the angle of the arrows as a result because your target doesn't exactly look to be a consistent substrate through and through but I'd expect to see a different POI if you were getting more velocity or at the very least, less drag.
> 
> I know we theoretically calculated the math using numbers that are reasonable but if you want to prove it, you have to measure it.



Apparently we were typing at the same time but I still agree with you. Even less drag would be an improvement to some degree but, it needs to be measured and demonstrated to be considered as proof of anything. And those things are lacking in this case.


----------



## Tracker12 (Sep 22, 2003)

turbonockguy said:


> All I can do at this time for you and your suspicions they do not work is make you the same offer.
> Try them if you do not like them send them back. Then you will have your own personal data as to whether they work or not for you.
> and you can cut back on all the time you spend typing here.
> Thanks for the Wiedgon in.fo



Sounds like a put up or shut up offer Give the nocks a try and give a stand up report.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> I would like to see more than two arrows shot. It may help either the believers or disbelievers think.
> Perhaps shoot three regular at one target and three turbos at a target beside it. but close enough to see elevation differences.
> You are a good shot and I would not shoot more than three , you would be increasing odds of trashing your arrows. then perhaps try 40 yds.



There you go, stretch it out there and film it no matter the costs involved. Show proof that you have a superior product and it won't take long to catch on with the general archery community. That assumes that you put effort into marketing it to them in an effective manner. Any product that's really better will always replace the former less effective product. Of course, millions have been squandered trying to sell things that never made it also.
One thing that's for damned sure though, if you are reluctant to spend the money to reach the targeted market, it doesn't matter how good the product is, it will remain the tiny fish in a very big pond.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> The spin rate was calculated by PSE using high speed video 13 years ago. They would not release the video but the engineer working on thr project did give me the data. Two revolutions in the first five feet. I wish they would have released the video.
> 
> I have mentioned earlier that I have a slow motion shoot scheduled as soon as the weather warms up.
> 
> ...


That's great! I look forward to seeing that footage. I could watch high speed footage all day if life didn't get in the way. 

I'm not certain so maybe you could fill me in, if it's been mentioned before I apologize, but did PSE test turbonocks that had a spiraled throat? I'm not sure what you had out 13 years ago. Also, did they mention the arrow velocity? If you had the actual velocity, you could calculate the spin rate in RPM. 

If the arrow they shot was traveling 200fps at 1 revolution per 2.5', that would be 80 revolutions/sec or 4800rpm. No too shabby. However if the arrow was going 300 fps, that would mean 7200rpm which is much more impressive. If you could measure numbers like that compared to standard nocks and the same fletching, you'd have something to take to market.......literally.

I just found this "article" with some interesting info on it. I don't know of the author's credentials but his writing makes him seem at least a reasonably bright fellow and his stuff is pretty impressive. This "article" is called "Fletching Matters" if it matters to anyone. http://www.freewebs.com/johnske/fletchingmatters.htm

Like I said, I'm not sure who this guy is but I'm saving this website for future reference and reading. Maybe someone could fill me in on who he is.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

There have been a lot of orders lately and I want to post this gluing demo, It works for the overnocks but also works for gluing in the Regular nocks. I do offer the Turbonocks with the Overnock already glued on for $5.00 more per dozen. If you have a cutoff saw and want to try this and save money you can do this yourself.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

There have been a lot of orders lately and I want to post this gluing demo, It works for the overnocks but also works for gluing in the Regular nocks. I do offer the Turbonocks with the Overnock already glued on for $5.00 more per dozen. If you have a cutoff saw and want to try this and save money you can do this yourself.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I did this yesterday at noon.
Just now getting a chance to upload it.






Rick


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

turbonockguy said:


> The spin rate was calculated by PSE using high speed video 13 years ago. They would not release the video but the engineer working on the project did give me the data. Two revolutions in the first five feet. I wish they would have released the video.
> A conventionally fletched arrow like box store arrows with about 2 degrees of pitch make two revolutions in 20 yds.
> 
> I have mentioned earlier that I have a slow motion shoot scheduled as soon as the weather warms up.
> ...


Actually, The math indicates (if someone had took the time to look at it) was 1.34 turns during BH with a average recurve specs. Remember arrows average length of 29". Dan


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_46JCYuqzk
I picked up some of these bagers at the Ohio Show. They make a right wing and a left wing version. I was impressed just looking at them. The right wing should compliment the Turbonock.
I will be using these in my upcomming high speed video.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick Barbee said:


> I did this yesterday at noon.
> Just now getting a chance to upload it.
> 
> 
> ...


UHHH ! WOW! THANKS! one question. Is that an outhouse on the right????? If so it could be causing a disturbance in the air pressure and quality that is making the regular nocked arrow group spread. ???


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> So, your evidence is that two arrows shot from the same distance are in the target at 'slightly' different angles. Not extremely convincing since other factors could influence the angles. The result also conflicts with other peoples experiences. They reported an impact point several inches higher than standard nocks indicating some possibility of improved arrow flight by the turbonock.


What other people. Are those people shooting fast light light arrows? I always get a difference in angle between the two different nocks. Lets boil it down. ok. Faster spine rate. Flatens out the wobble in the shaft as it is leaving the bow. Right. Ok. It takes X amount of yards for Standard Nock to do the same thru dragging air across the off angle fletching. What I have shown here is the difference in my setup. My setup POI is 30 yards. I thinks that means flat shot to the target, shooter line of sight. If one arrow is showing that is starting to decay at that distant, Then it should show a slight down angle. IF I take and shoot these same to arrows with my compund that is 200 fps faster both of them will be flat into the target at 30 yards and my POI will move out to 40 or so. So what your saying is if A arrow is faster than B arrow then at ever distance (starting from the front of the bow) will be higher for A arrow. Right.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> I did this yesterday at noon.
> Just now getting a chance to upload it.
> 
> 
> ...


Nice shooting Rick. Just think how good the groups would be using a sight.
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Rick!....You're Right!...It Does Work!....I just got back in from shooting two of my GT5575's off my 44# Herters Perfection Magnum and WOW! 

One arrow I equipped with a standard white nock...

The other arrow?....I used orange....and guess what! :laugh:


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Rick!....You're Right!...It Does Work!....I just got back in from shooting two of my GT5575's off my 44# Herters Perfection Magnum and WOW!
> 
> One arrow I equipped with a standard white nock...
> 
> The other arrow?....I used orange....and guess what! :laugh:




Uhhhh Jinkster it was not the color of the nock that made the differnce. The orange one was the T-4.
I guess you will now want him to shoot a white t-4 and an orange regular nock just to be fair????


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I am very impressed how many posts this thread has gotten....

Reminds me that I have work to do, and really shouldn't be here...


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> I did this yesterday at noon.
> Just now getting a chance to upload it.
> 
> 
> ...


Nice video Rick but I'm wondering something. Did you tune your bow for the turbonocks after getting them and shooting with them for a while? I know in Widgeon's Archery Report that he did a few years ago, he said that they turbonocks required additional/different tuning. If you bareshaft tune now, do you get good results with the regular nock too or are they no longer tuned as well? Not knocking the video or you, just curious is all.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Forest, I have posted this before. Take a Rifle same caliber same bullet , same barrel lenght, only difference one smooth bore, one has rifling. The velocity will be about the same for both at the muzzel. However, the gun with riflings will shoot the bullet further, because it applied Ratational velocity to the bullet. At some point in the trejectory the smooth bore bullet will start to loose it's forward velocity.
Dan


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Huntinsker, 

I know you're not knocking, and it's a very valid question.

I did not have to make any tuning adjustments at all.
I thought at first I might need to raise the nocking point due to the turbonocks being slightly
larger in diameter, but that proved to be unnecessary. 

I have not bare shafted at all with turbonocks, but I did with the standard nocks, and the arrows
are tuned to the bow.

Rick


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> Huntinsker,
> 
> I know you're not knocking, and it's a very valid question.
> 
> ...


Good deal. That's a positive for the turbonocks then. Thanks for the response.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

*bareshafting.*






When Arvid Danielson sent me the Black Swan Bow , He set it up with a plunger and a little carpet.
I was working on a new set of arrows and had not fletched them so I bareshafted them. It was only 7 yds indoors ,but they seemed fine.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> Huntinsker,
> 
> I know you're not knocking, and it's a very valid question.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up

I would be interested in seeing a video of you shooting bareshafts with the different nocks and seeing how they compare.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> I would be interested in seeing a video of you shooting bareshafts with the different nocks and seeing how they compare.
> 
> Ray :shade:


LOL Ray - have I ever told you how much I HATE fletching arrows? 

I might do a bare shaft video someday soon, but honestly I'm tired of all this testing. I just wanna shoot. 

Really need a better video camera, that will do real good slomo.

Rick


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Forest, I have posted this before. Take a Rifle same caliber same bullet , same barrel lenght, only difference one smooth bore, one has rifling. The velocity will be about the same for both at the muzzel. However, the gun with riflings will shoot the bullet further, because it applied Ratational velocity to the bullet. At some point in the trejectory the smooth bore bullet will start to loose it's forward velocity.
> Dan



I started to post this little tidbit for you in response to post #352 and let it slide. 'When a man finds that he's digging himself into a hole, he really should just stop digging.'


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> Uhhhh Jinkster it was not the color of the nock that made the differnce. The orange one was the T-4.
> I guess you will now want him to shoot a white t-4 and an orange regular nock just to be fair????



:yo: It was a joke. Lighten up.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> I am very impressed how many posts this thread has gotten....
> 
> Reminds me that I have work to do, and really shouldn't be here...



Some of us are helping the turbonock guy out by keeping it rolling. He's reporting a substantial sales increase so it looks like lots of people are responding to the thread with orders for the product. Can't beat that with a stick!


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rick Barbee said:


> LOL Ray - have I ever told you how much I HATE fletching arrows?
> 
> I might do a bare shaft video someday soon, but honestly I'm tired of all this testing. I just wanna shoot.
> 
> ...



Maybe,whatever bout all that but Mr. Rick, you have confused me, that's not too hard to do ya know. You became my hero a couple of weeks ago by hitting golf balls at fifty yards and now suddenly you can't hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle. What's up with that ?  Turbonocks mess you up?


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Maybe,whatever bout all that but Mr. Rick, you have confused me, that's not too hard to do ya know. You became my hero a couple of weeks ago by hitting golf balls at fifty yards and now suddenly you can't hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle. What's up with that ?  Turbonocks mess you up?



LOL - Some days you're the windshield. Some days you're the bug. 

Rick


----------



## zu! (Feb 19, 2014)

Lol! Enough talk guys. If these ever come out in left wing for wood arrows, I'm definitely going to try them. Can't believe it...so many pages!!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I started to post this little tidbit for you in response to post #352 and let it slide. 'When a man finds that he's digging himself into a hole, he really should just stop digging.'


We shall see who digging?
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> What other people. Are those people shooting fast light light arrows? I always get a difference in angle between the two different nocks. Lets boil it down. ok. Faster spine rate. Flatens out the wobble in the shaft as it is leaving the bow. Right. Ok. It takes X amount of yards for Standard Nock to do the same thru dragging air across the off angle fletching. What I have shown here is the difference in my setup. My setup POI is 30 yards. I thinks that means flat shot to the target, shooter line of sight. If one arrow is showing that is starting to decay at that distant, Then it should show a slight down angle. IF I take and shoot these same to arrows with my compund that is 200 fps faster both of them will be flat into the target at 30 yards and my POI will move out to 40 or so. So what your saying is if A arrow is faster than B arrow then at ever distance (starting from the front of the bow) will be higher for A arrow. Right.
> Dan



Ok Sir, this is what I meant by 'digging' in this particular case. When I see that a person is obviously stalking my posts and his writing style is becoming slurred or scattered in some way, I prefer to just let him go but, you have been persistent.

1. What other people.- If you had paid attention you should have known that Rick Barbee and Urbandeerslayer had both reported their results with turbonocks.
2. are those people shooting fast light light arrows? - I have no idea but, I don't believe they were.
3. I always get a difference in angle between the two different nocks.- I guess I should assume that you mean between a turbonock and a standard nock.
4. My setup POI is thirty yards. - Once again, I must assume you really meant to say POD for point on distance. 
5. So what you are saying is if A arrow is faster than B arrow then at ever distance ( starting from the front of the bow ) will be higher for A arrow. Right. - I had a hard time following this sentence, but if I understand it correctly, then I do think arrow A might show a higher impact point.
6. We shall see who digging?- Ok, maybe you're right.

Mr. Dan, I really don't like to let these exchanges deteriorate to a personal level but, if someone appears to be stalking my posts or attempting to spin a web of some kind, then I will call it to their attention. Sometimes I try to be nice about it , others, not so much. Please, stop the digging.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rick Barbee said:


> LOL - Some days you're the windshield. Some days you're the bug.
> 
> Rick



Good one. But now you force me to assume that the arrows were not tuned to the warf bow and the turbonock arrows performed better under those conditions. If so, then that's a definite plus. Arrows without enough foc can act squirrely sometimes and the video seems to show that the turbonocks contributed to stabilization downrange. Not an expected result, in my opinion but, a benefit if true. What says you?


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> When I see that a person is obviously stalking my posts and his writing style is becoming slurred or scattered in some way, I prefer to just let him go but, you have been persistent.


Oh, the irony


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> :yo: It was a joke. Lighten up.


I was just joking back at you:tongue:


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Good one. But now you force me to assume that the arrows were not tuned to the warf bow and the turbonock arrows performed better under those conditions. If so, then that's a definite plus. Arrows without enough foc can act squirrely sometimes and the video seems to show that the turbonocks contributed to stabilization downrange. Not an expected result, in my opinion but, a benefit if true. What says you?


Something to think about.
One of my early tests on the shooting machine. I borrowed my brothers old 70 lb proline bow. He said it may not be tuned as the grandkids were messing with it. He was right.

I shot it with my original 22213 out of the box easton arrows with 4 inch fletch at 20 yds. and those arrows porpoised like crazy and only held a 4 inch group . so before I tuned the bow I shot the turbonock prototypes. from the same out of tune bow.
and got 2 inch groups. To me that proved that high rpm arrows can correct to some degree tuning issues.
The turbonock arrows only had three 3/4inch vanes I cut by hand.??????? How could that out stabilize three 4inch fletch from and out of tune bow?


Hey you two !!!! Stop fighting you are both thinking- Keep thinking!!!


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Damn infomercials...where's that remote


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here was one of the first tests I did when I bought a hootet shooter.
This was done with a Css Compound. and Montec broadheads.
The Tubonock t-4 were the white and black. the conventional straight nocks were orange.
Similar results to what Barbee did.

All the holes on the left target were shooting in with the hooter shooter.
When I shot the blazer I had to dial in the sight again. I wanted to use the orange dots as reference points.

What this shows again is trajectory improvement just by using the T-4 nock.
You could argue that the T-4 pulls the arrow to the left and makes it shoot high ?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> You could argue that the T-4 pulls the arrow to the left and makes it shoot high ?


nope...we don't hafta argue...it's..."a law"....of physics....and the result of...

*"Torque Induced Rotational Inertia"*

think about it...as the turbonock leaves the string it's got the shaft spinning hard too the right...wanting to spin/climb upwards and into the bow but when met with the resistance of the risers shelf and window?...the energy has to go somewhere as it blows upwards and away from the bow...and I'd almost be willing to bet a cup of coffee that a left handed shooter would experience a difference of POI exactly opposite of that...where the arrow shaft would spin hard right away from the bow and?...possibly downward.

The recent reviews I've read thus far (on several forums) indicate that archers with moderate to lower draw weight bows are experiencing little to no difference speed/accuracy wise when using the turbonocks...some even claiming a couple FPS loss of initial velocity as compared to a standard nock...however the archers with faster more powerful weight bows (such as Mr. Barbee and those with 60+LB Bows) are experiencing a slightly elevated level of gyroscopic stability with claims of reduced overall group sizes when shot at longer distances from higher poundage bows.

But I pity the instinctive shooter who has his current rig tuned to shoot where they look...then switches over too turbonocks...as based on the above?...

they will strike high/left or low/right pending right handed or left handed archer...

but with consistency! :laugh:


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> View attachment 1929521
> 
> 
> Here was one of the first tests I did when I bought a hootet shooter.
> ...


What was the thickness difference between the turbonock and the conventional nock. Also what was the nock point configuration on the bow? I ask because when broadhead tuning a compound bow, the thickness of one wrap of serving can mean the difference of several inches of difference in POI at 30-40 yards. I've seen it a lot when tuning my bows and helping my buddies tune theirs. Not saying it happened but if the point was a little lower because the straight nock was a little skinnier and angled the shaft more downward, that could easily account for the lower POI.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> nope...we don't hafta argue...it's..."a law"....of physics....and the result of...
> 
> *"Torque Induced Rotational Inertia"*
> 
> ...


Thank you. For those that's point of impact, POI. In the wind is really were the difference. The inertia can be adjusted if you know how to tune for it?
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Any testing done with a compound bow and plastic vanes of any type is useless in the trad forum. So far, all we have of any value is testimonials by a couple of forum members, which has more value in than any 13-15 year old compound evidence. It's a good thing that we have been sticking to the possibility of some potential for arrow flight stabilization instead of big hole boring claims.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Any testing done with a compound bow and plastic vanes of any type is useless in the trad forum. So far, all we have of any value is testimonials by a couple of forum members, which has more value in than any 13-15 year old compound evidence. It's a good thing that we have been sticking to the possibility of some potential for arrow flight stabilization instead of big hole boring claims.


Do you truly believe that once the arrow is flung into the air that it knows or cares what type of bow launched it?

I kind of figured that the laws of physics would act upon the high rpm
Arrow equally . The only difference would be the speed of the arrow.
That is why I showed the groups from my hooter shooter tighter groups than Barbee, but similar trajectory performance.
High rpm arrows do make more traumatic wounds! You choose not to believe it.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> nope...we don't hafta argue...it's..."a law"....of physics....and the result of...
> 
> *"Torque Induced Rotational Inertia"*
> 
> ...


The left or right spin of an arrow will not affect the vertical flight as you described. 
If you aim high right or left spin you will hit high - aim low right or left spin will hit low.
My prototype t-4 nocks were left spin and the production version right spin for one simple
Reason! Most broadheads have right hand threads and I actually had a Broadhead
Unwind and separate from the arrow with the left spin nock
The turbonock really creates a lot of torque. And that is the reason for the profound
Entrance wounds in the videos . Some say there is nothing special about
Those wounds. But those wounds are common for arrows using my nocks
Basically any Broadhead rotating several thousand rpm will make
A profound wound - something to do with inertia.
Inertia is the reason you can not stop a car instantly it will travel some distance.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Got some preliminary results. I'll preface this by saying I was told it would take some tuning to get the vortex to work right in a trad bow. 

The vortex has 4 built in vanes which are about 3/8 inch high above the surface of the nock. I would suggest being at minimum EXTRA EXTRA careful using either of the two vaned nocks on a trad bow. If you have a nice wood riser, I'd say don't do it. Those vanes are hard plastic and if your tune isn't spot on and your release just as repeatable and perfect you may get some unwanted racing stripes in your riser. 

I tried it on a martin saber which is a metal riser and uses a plunger and wire rest. The center shot is very deep so there is about zero chance of fletch to riser contact. This bow is unique in that regard. For the rest using bows where the arrow sits close to the riser, read on. When the vanes on the vortex strike something unintended, like the plunger in my case, you will see a dramatic and erratic flight path due to there being no give in the fletch material. In my opinion these two, the vortex and stealth, should not be used in anything other than a compound with a fall away rest. Turbonock should post that warning on those pages with emphasis added. 

I'm not saying they don't work. The couple times it didn't strike the plunger the flight looked very good. Arrows were in the target right where aimed and in a perfect straight line pointing back to me. It did appear from my point of view during the shot that the flight itself was straighter. This is why I'm still interested in the concept and think it is viable. I'm sure it is possible to tune these to work on a recurve but in most cases the consequence of mistakes along the way will make it not worth while. 

I've already ordered some T-4 models to test out. I tried the vortex with the intent of being able to avoid fletching. Looks like I'll need to keep the fletching jig around a while longer. The vortex nocks will be re-assigned to testing on the compound.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Turbonock Guy, you have to think out of the box. Most of these traditionalist tune thier bow by bareshaft tuning? Not the same as a compound or Oly recurve were it a rest or sight adjustment.
Here a video that can, i hope, answer why higher poundage bow see more difference than light poundage. As I and now Rancho have reported the arrow flys flatter with the Turbonock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAEn5cAS6V4
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> The left or right spin of an arrow will not affect the vertical flight as you described.
> If you aim high right or left spin you will hit high - aim low right or left spin will hit low.
> My prototype t-4 nocks were left spin and the production version right spin for one simple
> Reason! Most broadheads have right hand threads and I actually had a Broadhead
> ...


Well Nick?...thus far I've read anything and everything from you yourself inferring that you have no clue how or why they work (and btw...that part I believe) too the engineers at PSE are still baffled toooo....you flat out refuting the basic principles that do make sense as to why certain folks, with certain weight bows under certain conditions do experience "a difference" using your nocks...and the real forces at work here are exactly as I've described.

*The Torque Induced Inertia:* is what's causing the arrows to not share the same POI as standard nocks.

*The Gyroscopic Effect:* is inducing and elevated level of axial stability into the shafts and is what's causing them to group a bit more consistently on longer shots with high poundage bows.

*Reduced Wind Load:* on the fletchings is what's causing them to not be as influenced by crosswind shooting conditions.

And your...."wound channel theory"?...please Nick...we're shooting arrows...not drill bits! :laugh:


But I gotta hand it to you in one area Nick...you've been very shrewd when it comes to spending your sponsorship dollars...as here we have a thread that's 16 pages long and has been at the top of the page for what?...two weeks now?....with an abundance of coy explanations yet very little (if any) controlled condition test results.

I have one question for you...is your patent/rights for sale?

And it's an honest question....cause at this point?...I'm having a hard time believing you're here to sell nocks.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Could very well be that the bow must be capable of delivering a decent amount of energy to the arrow 
in order to reap any benefit from these nocks. 

Heck I don't know, but you guys shooting those weenie bows might have some problems. 

Heh Heh, lets see where that one takes us. Should be good for at least two more pages. 

Rick


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> Do you truly believe that once the arrow is flung into the air that it knows or cares what type of bow launched it?
> 
> I kind of figured that the laws of physics would act upon the high rpm
> Arrow equally . The only difference would be the speed of the arrow.
> ...



Sure, of course I'm gullible.:wink:
It's not a matter of whether the arrow cares or not. It' a simple matter of speed difference and how it affects arrow flight. I'm not an engineer nor physics professor but I have shot enough arrows from different bows to know that much. To be very truthful, I have serious doubt that a slight twist applied at the launch of the arrow has any great benefit. If it were not for Rick Barbee I wouldn't believe it for a second based on your own promotional information. That's just being downright honest with ya.
As far as my believing the story about 'traumatic wounds', my good friend, that's totally a non issue. For that matter, an issue that I would politely forget, if I were in your shoes. Your own video showed an issue with penetration which some people noticed and questioned. Your answer was basically that a pass through on an animal is not all it's cracked up to be. In case you failed to notice, that didn't fly too well with the trad audience.
So, you can fight me or be nice and smile for the camera, while at least pretending to be trying to sell your product to a group of people who DO shoot traditional bows and who DO think that penetration is important. I can respond either way, work with you or against you. You seem to think that as long as this thread is rolling, it's good for business. To some extent that might be true, some people will buy snake oil just to check it out. Others need a little convincing.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

One last bit of technical data. The test bow had 50lb limbs on it. Not macho but certainly not weenie class either.  Wait a sec. We're trad shooters. We have no class.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rick Barbee said:


> Could very well be that the bow must be capable of delivering a decent amount of energy to the arrow
> in order to reap any benefit from these nocks.
> 
> Heck I don't know, but you guys shooting those weenie bows might have some problems.
> ...



Thank you Rick, I do believe that might be the case.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Sure, of course I'm gullible.:wink:
> It's not a matter of whether the arrow cares or not. It' a simple matter of speed difference and how it affects arrow flight. I'm not an engineer nor physics professor but I have shot enough arrows from different bows to know that much. To be very truthful, I have serious doubt that a slight twist applied at the launch of the arrow has any great benefit. If it were not for Rick Barbee I wouldn't believe it for a second based on your own promotional information. That's just being downright honest with ya.
> As far as my believing the story about 'traumatic wounds', my good friend, that's totally a non issue. For that matter, an issue that I would politely forget, if I were in your shoes. Your own video showed an issue with penetration which some people noticed and questioned. Your answer was basically that a pass through on an animal is not all it's cracked up to be. In case you failed to notice, that didn't fly too well with the trad audience.
> So, you can fight me or be nice and smile for the camera, while at least pretending to be trying to sell your product to a group of people who DO shoot traditional bows and who DO think that penetration is important. I can respond either way, work with you or against you. You seem to think that as long as this thread is rolling, it's good for business. To some extent that might be true, some people will buy snake oil just to check it out. Others need a little convincing.











This is my grand nephew getting a handshake from Tom Jennings. He won the kids shootout at thePa. Bowhunters fesitval a few years ago. 25 lb bow turbonock deadx. Whiskerbiscuit. Othe kids were also using whiskers.
Final shoot out was who could get closest to the spot I believe 20yds. the other kids shooting whiskers you could see their arrows drop . Corry Snook did the bullseye. 
His older brother James Hunter Snook won the same event also in previous year. They both also placed at the Harrisburg sports show 3dshoot several times in the kids division. both used old bows with a single pin sight.
and were competing against kids some with $1000.00 setups and target bows. In all the competitions I witnessed of them shooting . They had profound trajectory improvement over their competition even at 25 pounds thrust.
Cory Was staying on target with me and my CSS System on the 40yd practice range at the Pa bohnters Festival.
Yep he is a Potter County Stump Shooter. 
Even at low speed you still get 2 revolutions in 5 feet. The 25 lb bow no matter what speed it was launched still rotated about 24 times in 20 yds where the other fletch 2 times in 20 yds. and used wind resistance to inintiate that rotation. More drag= less trajectory.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

I asked this question a few pages back and never got any response. Can someone just do a simple test and compare point of impact by shooting with the point on the bullseye at several distances. Compare the actual impact and post it. It's relatively simple. 

Here's a basic fact. Point of impact, higher or lower, in and of itself means very little. You can't make a blanket statement that arrow A hits higher than Arrow B so it must be faster. Especially when you are dealing with variables like different nock thickness, directionality imparted mechanically, etc. It's not really any kind of stretch to posit that a nock that twists off the string doesn't impart some type of rotational lift immediately off the string. This alone would change the angle at launch a few degrees and would cause vertical differences compared to a conventional nock. 

If you really want to see what the actual speed or trajectory difference you have to shoot with some type of reference at various differences and compare the difference in drop, not the impact points. If arrow A drops 8" from 40 yards to 50 yards and Arrow B drops 10" than arrow A is faster. You would have to plot out the actual differences over several different distances to figure out any meaningful results. 

For example, I tested this on one of my old rigs a few years back. I shot a Hoyt Excel with Samick limbs off a basic rest. I compared 4" feathers to 2" Blazers and compared actual differences in drop to see what kind of downrange difference there was. From 0-30 yards the arrows followed the same trajectory, although the vertical impact was slightly different. From 30 to 40 yards the Blazer dropped about 2" less. From 40 to 50 yards I saw about 5-6" less drop and 50-60 I think it was about 10" less drop with the Blazers. 

Until you either test speed downrange or compare actual trajectory differences it's very difficult to substantiate any type of claim of increased downrange speed.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I do take issue with the snake oil comments.
Snake Oil salesmen rarely offer refunds, if they do you can not find them.

I am here, click on my web address on my signature, click on my avatar, click on the turbonock banner. you will get me.

YOu brought up the penetration issue. and speak again as if you are speaking for the Traditional archers, on this site. Perhaps some ? You called the non passthrough an issue. It would have been with a trad straight nock.
the pronghorn was hit in the shoulder bone and the arrow broke. Nothing would have passed through. It was a bad shot and you can see the pronghorn jumped the sound of the bow. Yet it went down in about 7 seconds.
You call that an issue I call that a good thing. It did not suffer from a bad placement shot.

I have been hunting Traditional since 1960 and did so until I invented the original Turbonock . I needed kills with the product. It seemed compound shooters did not "believe" high rpm arrows improved kills. or that high rpm arrows can improve accuracy. I just showed a few of the videos to show just how potent my products make arrows.
Most turbonock kills have been passthroughs. Most all of Randy Oitkers kills were pass throughs including the monster Buck and the other buck and also the 4 second pronghorn kill. YOU seem to just disregard these videos.

I showed the bads shots also that were not passthroughs. The Pronghorn 9 second Kill because of the massive entrance wound.The 12year old's doe. 20yd bleed out not a passthrough. That deer would have been bear or coyote meat if it were not for the massive entrance wound. Perhaps you should go back an look at it.

I have hunted trad probably longer than you? I have seen reality. A passthrough is preferable with any shot.
I have seen deer hit with regular fletch and nocks that when there is not a passthrough take hours of tracking to find , and hours of suffering for the deer. I have found deer carcases in the woods with arrows sticking out . 

Odds are in favor of losing your deer with a conventional nock and fletched arrow if you do not get a passthrough.one small entrance wound !

And this does happen in traditional hunting more frequently than compound. NO matter how careful you are!!!!
My product pretty much guarantees a Massive entrance wound. much larger than the arrow shaft. so in the event of a non passthrough your odds of retrieving your game in timely manner is greater. and with less suffering for the animal. 
If this common sense does not make sense to you ! I do not know what else to tell you.

It is not that the turbonocks reduce penetration, like you tend to see ,They will pass through ,and they truly cause more traumatic entrance wounds. I would call that "INSURANCE" not "SNAKE OIL"


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Well Nick?...thus far I've read anything and everything from you yourself inferring that you have no clue how or why they work (and btw...that part I believe) too the engineers at PSE are still baffled toooo....you flat out refuting the basic principles that do make sense as to why certain folks, with certain weight bows under certain conditions do experience "a difference" using your nocks...and the real forces at work here are exactly as I've described.
> 
> My patent is not for sale!
> 
> ...


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

So, basically nothing matters, you've told us over and over that turbonocks can overcome anything.:set1_polevault: The mention of whisker bisquit rest tells me that the kids were shooting compounds and I've told you that any data based on compounds is useless here in the trad forum. And, just about anyone can adjust a compound bow to hit a spot at twenty yards without 'seeing the arrow drop'.
I think you are trying to show that there is still a huge benefit even at low energy levels. That may be true, I have no way to prove nor disprove it. Two revolutions in five feet doesn't seem like very much to me. Having never done any measurements or serious scientific testing I can only go by what I have personally observed in the past. One thing I have seen is an arrow shot from a light bow with just a slight pull of the string (intentionally) and the arrow is spinning like crazy as soon as my eye can pick up the flight, estimated at about ten feet. That tells me that the fletching is doing a pretty good job on it's own. Is there some benefit to a twist of the arrow as it leaves the string? I really don't know for sure but I have a hard time understanding how two revolutions in that first five feet has a profound impact on the arrow. In fact, I will say it again. If Mr. Barbee had not reported a fairly significant improvement, I would not believe that there is any. So maybe you should find out when his birthday is a be more generous that when he acquired those things to begin with. 
Jinkster mentioned the how and why they work, and that's something most of could sink our teeth into. Nothing about the wings on the nock because they won't clear the bow, nothing about compound performance claims and certainly nothing about boring big holes that might impede penetration. Simply some understandable data that shows how and why that a device that causes the arrow to start rotating (slowly, two revs in five ft.)when it leaves the string, can have a significant impact on overall arrow flight.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Nick...a 600 grain arrow doing 4K r.p.m. could be brought to an abrupt stop with a pair of tweezers! LOL!

But mission accomplished...TTT again! LOL


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Anyone want to donate a couple of 24" X 24" X 36" blocks of ballistic gel for me to do some broadhead tests in?
I've been looking, but can't find anything affordable, and making it is a major pain in the butt. 

Rick


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> JINKSTER said:
> 
> 
> > Well Nick?...thus far I've read anything and everything from you yourself inferring that you have no clue how or why they work (and btw...that part I believe) too the engineers at PSE are still baffled toooo....you flat out refuting the basic principles that do make sense as to why certain folks, with certain weight bows under certain conditions do experience "a difference" using your nocks...and the real forces at work here are exactly as I've described.
> ...


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick Barbee said:


> Anyone want to donate a couple of 24" X 24" X 36" blocks of ballistic gel for me to do some broadhead tests in?
> I've been looking, but can't find anything affordable, and making it is a major pain in the butt.
> 
> Rick


A cheap alternative.
Get a 1/2 gallon of the cheapest icecream you can find. The cheaper the icecream the more gelaten in the mix. you can let the cheap stuff sit for a half hour at room temperature and it will still be in a block form. We have a Carnival Brand here in New England . it will be solid even after our snow all melts in may.
So I figure for about $3.00 you can shoot the ice cream. If you slice it into about 4 inch slabs to shoot through you should see the wound pattern. It may take two or three 1/2 gallons to stop the arrow.
It is still cheaper than the gelaten. and when you are done, if you used clean arrows you can have a family milkshake party!!!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Str8 Shooter said:


> I asked this question a few pages back and never got any response. Can someone just do a simple test and compare point of impact by shooting with the point on the bullseye at several distances. Compare the actual impact and post it. It's relatively simple.
> 
> Here's a basic fact. Point of impact, higher or lower, in and of itself means very little. You can't make a blanket statement that arrow A hits higher than Arrow B so it must be faster. Especially when you are dealing with variables like different nock thickness, directionality imparted mechanically, etc. It's not really any kind of stretch to posit that a nock that twists off the string doesn't impart some type of rotational lift immediately off the string. This alone would change the angle at launch a few degrees and would cause vertical differences compared to a conventional nock.
> 
> ...


Please watch the video I posted.
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rick Barbee said:


> Anyone want to donate a couple of 24" X 24" X 36" blocks of ballistic gel for me to do some broadhead tests in?
> I've been looking, but can't find anything affordable, and making it is a major pain in the butt.
> 
> Rick



Superb, a volunteer and a cheap way for the turbonock guy to get proof of big holes. UPS should show up soon but don't take my word for that and hold your breath. Oh heck, you're gonna need a crono and a slow motion camera too. Oh well, nice idea.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> turbonockguy said:
> 
> 
> > Have you already shown proof of the 'faster rotation' and I missed it or refused to believe it? Please humor me and call my attention to the post or just tell me again how much faster that rotation was in the testing. I guess I'm slow like that.
> ...


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Please watch the video I posted.
> Dan











I showed this before.
done from a hooter shooter, with a set draw length.
each set of two arrows was identical weight, length, fletch , the t-4 prototype was about 2 grains lighter than the conventional nock.
The only variable in these groups was the instant rotation of the t-4 vs the non rotation of the regular nock.
That is pretty solid data!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Superb, a volunteer and a cheap way for the turbonock guy to get proof of big holes. UPS should show up soon but don't take my word for that and hold your breath. Oh heck, you're gonna need a crono and a slow motion camera too. Oh well, nice idea.


I have never seen such creative negative humor. you are Pretty good. Forrest Grump!!
At least you are thinking. I really appreciate your responses !


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

What video? What page? 

That pic from a hooter shooter only shows point of impact, not speed difference. The nocks, unless exactly the same diameter will impact vertically at different points. That is simple and leaves out any vertical displacement from the twist. A better test would be to leave the sight set for 30 than move the target back ten yards. Compare the drop. If they both drop the same amount the speed is the same, the amount of decay is the same. Very simple.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> View attachment 1930045
> 
> 
> I showed this before.
> ...


I asked earlier but didn't get a response. I'll copy and paste my question. 

What was the thickness difference between the turbonock and the conventional nock? Also what was the nock point configuration on the bow? I ask because when broadhead tuning a compound bow, the thickness of one wrap of serving can mean the difference of several inches of difference in POI at 30-40 yards. I've seen it a lot when tuning my bows and helping my buddies tune theirs. Not saying it happened but if the point was a little lower because the straight nock was a little skinnier and angled the shaft more downward, that could easily account for the lower POI.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> I have never seen such creative negative humor. you are Pretty good. Forrest Grump!!
> At least you are thinking. I really appreciate your responses !



Haha, of course ya do. It keeps the thread rolling and sales are booming as a result, remember? But dude, here's a new twist. I just watched a video by a reputable fletching manufacturer, among other products, and they actually did shoot the arrow thru the ballistic gel and filmed it in slow motion and guess what, it was still spinning when the fletch cleared the block, and that was with a standard nock. So, maybe that's the big ol' hole proof. 
But, and here's the clincher, he also claimed that by spinning the arrow TOO fast would cause it to lose forward velocity. I don't know, it's just what he said. He seemed to think he was some sort of expert on the subject. Now, I'm really confused.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Do I really need to know ?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

2413gary said:


> Do I really need to know ?


Apparently not, if you did you would just axk you wife. :wink:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

I have to wonder...have folks forgot how broad heads work?

They work by cutting not tearing..

You know what happens when you twist a double bevel head through something? It tears..why..resistance..a single bevel doesn't..why..it's blade angle makes it follow the cut not against it..that is the whole reason for the larger entrance wound..

Oh...btw...simple physics the rate if deceleration of a faster moving object is faster than a slower one if all things are equal..

But hey...you guys carry on debating these nocks...


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I did a bit more testing last night under more controlled conditions, this time indoors, no wind and only used my 50# recurve............and I did notice a difference, well a couple really, the speed seemed the same, but there was a difference in POI, AND string vibration...... which leaves me wondering if the twist in the nock is adding resistance when leaving the string ,causing the added vibration and pitching the arrow up and left....and as I'm an instinctive shooter, the upper left POI is a deal breaker for me.....I'll just give them to my compound shooting brother.....he can't seem to hit crap......maybe these will help...or at least give me a laugh as he tries to figure out what the heck is going on now,lol......


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MAC 11700 said:


> I have to wonder...have folks forgot how broad heads work?
> 
> They work by cutting not tearing..
> 
> ...



Almost 7,000 views Mac, must be some interest in the subject.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Is there any data on the increase in dynamic spine over a traditional nock? A number or percentage? Today I fraken-nocked the vortex. The t-4's aren't here yet and I ran out of patience. I cut off the plastic vanes making it a long nock and put one on a 600 spine arrow with a 2 inch feather fletch.. I used 4 other 600 spine arrows with either feathers or blazers to do a test with. The turbonock did impact higher and before one of the feathers got stripped off it did appear to fly straighter. That being subjective on my part since the arrow was more clearly visible in flight. I'm guessing it was due to less paradox. Paradox would contribute to the arrow's fuzzy appearance in flight. I ask about the spine since none of the other arrows lost their fletching which to me indicates the arrow picked up some dynamic spine resulting in reduced paradox which led to the fletching striking the plunger or wire rest. I'm thinking of upping the tip weight from 100 to 125 or 150 to get around the paradox issue. Accuracy wise the claims seem substantiated. It does shoot straight. Unless a crow or something lands in my yard would channel tests are off the table.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Almost 7,000 views Mac, must be some interest in the subject.





True..but..how many are just repeat views by the same folks.I don't put much stock in the view counts..

Mac


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Haha, of course ya do. It keeps the thread rolling and sales are booming as a result, remember? But dude, here's a new twist. I just watched a video by a reputable fletching manufacturer, among other products, and they actually did shoot the arrow thru the ballistic gel and filmed it in slow motion and guess what, it was still spinning when the fletch cleared the block, and that was with a standard nock. So, maybe that's the big ol' hole proof.
> But, and here's the clincher, he also claimed that by spinning the arrow TOO fast would cause it to lose forward velocity. I don't know, it's just what he said. He seemed to think he was some sort of expert on the subject. Now, I'm really confused.


A good rule of thumb. Always believe the big players in this business.
I once struck a three year deal with a competitor . My wife and I were doing $60,000 to $ 80'000 a year doing
Sales and internet with the nocks. The company that took over marketing for us said they could
Do better with their 29 reps . After one year total sales were $800.00
We ended the agreement early. If you want to understand this industry research the history of Beman arrows. It is not hard to do.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> True..but..how many are just repeat views by the same folks.I don't put much stock in the view counts..
> 
> Mac


Yeah! I have Viewed it 3000 times myself??????


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> A good rule of thumb. Always believe the big players in this business.
> I once struck a three year deal with a competitor . My wife and I were doing $60,000 to $ 80'000 a year doing
> Sales and internet with the nocks. The company that took over marketing for us said they could
> Do better with their 29 reps . After one year total sales were $800.00
> We ended the agreement early. If you want to understand this industry research the history of Beman arrows. It is not hard to do.


Oh yeah?...try running that rule of thumb by some of Bernard Madoff former clientele....and they were all highly educated millionaires!....who are now broke.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

turbonockguy said:


> Yeah! I have Viewed it 3000 times myself??????





You know...that really wouldn't surprise me ...

Mac


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I posted a video by Jimmy Blackmon, called gap compromise. He talked about flatter trajectory. A faster spinning arrow will have a flatter trajectory. It's not a faster fly arrow, as some have asked. Once again the arrow with turbonocks will fly better in the wind. Bigger fletchings will spin slower than small fletchings. If you want to control the front of the arrow, slow the back end down. My bow, with turbonocks gets a arrow spin boost at launch of 1.34 turns during brace height. If my arrow are spine correctly it will help, if not it will spiral the back end, as to oppose pushing it right or left with standard nocks. Paper tuning will show this. It's not caused by inertia. It caused by a wobbled arrow trying to be spun. The only rest I would use with the hard vane version or for that matter plastic, is a dropway. I have one that work real well with fingers. I have not adapted it to a recurve yet. No need to. IBO won't allow it. IBO rules state fetching must be min 4". I will continue shooting the turbonocks because it make my arrow fly spot on. If I want to hunt I will do it with a gun or my compound. It took me many years to convince myself to use a compound bow. However, this debate has got me thinking that turbonocks may not be a bad idea. However, with a bad shoulder it probably a bad idea to go to a super heavy weight bow. Besides IBO winner's shoot Girly bow like me and Jimmy. 
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2219804&p=1069855267#post1069855267

As far as arrow penetration? It depends. Think of this. Why does some bullets penetrate further than others? The physics of course. Well just parts of it.
I put up the twist calculator or you can look it up? A guy by the of Miller did it. 

I'm get bored now so I'm checking off. Thanks for the good fight. Lol.
Dan


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Oh yeah?...try running that rule of thumb by some of Bernard Madoff former clientele....and they were all highly educated millionaires!....who are now broke.


Right on !! 
I have been In this business 14 years . In my opinion for what it is worth?
Archery was a sport I grew up in. It really was a sport!
Now not so much! I feel it has been hijacked by big business! 
Archers helping archers? That used to be the norm. 
Corporations helping archers???


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

turbonockguy said:


> A good rule of thumb. Always believe the big players in this business.
> I once struck a three year deal with a competitor . My wife and I were doing $60,000 to $ 80'000 a year doing
> Sales and internet with the nocks. The company that took over marketing for us said they could
> Do better with their 29 reps . After one year total sales were $800.00
> We ended the agreement early. If you want to understand this industry research the history of Beman arrows. It is not hard to do.



Hey, I didn't say that I believed him, I just posted what he said with hopes of getting some input on the statement from those more informed than I am. In fact, I was under the impression that their slow motion video showed exactly what they wanted it to show, possible with a little creative photography thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> View attachment 1930045
> 
> 
> I showed this before.
> ...


Third times a charm or is it third strike and I'm out?

What was the thickness difference between the turbonock and the conventional nock? Also what was the nock point configuration on the bow? I ask because when broadhead tuning a compound bow, the thickness of one wrap of serving can mean the difference of several inches of difference in POI at 30-40 yards. I've seen it a lot when tuning my bows and helping my buddies tune theirs. Not saying it happened but if the point was a little lower because the straight nock was a little skinnier and angled the shaft more downward, that could easily account for the lower POI.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

The id of the throat of the throat of the turbonock matches that of the Easton nock.
The turbonock does have a twist where the Easton has a little snap bump to keep
It on the string. I have found through all the testing that the turbonock also penetrates the target more. That little string bump does slow the arrow. I ground the bump off an Easton nock and picked up 6fps.
So in as much as nock thickness is an issue so is the method a nock uses to keep an arrow on the string.
The turbonock uses a twist- no speed robbing bump.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> The id of the throat of the throat of the turbonock matches that of the Easton nock.
> The turbonock does have a twist where the Easton has a little snap bump to keep
> It on the string. I have found through all the testing that the turbonock also penetrates the target more. That little string bump does slow the arrow. I ground the bump off an Easton nock and picked up 6fps.
> So in as much as nock thickness is an issue so is the method a nock uses to keep an arrow on the string.
> The turbonock uses a twist- no speed robbing bump.


That's not what I'm talking about. How wide is the nock. If you nock it under a brass nock, compared to the standard nock, will the angle change? I've literally seen where 1 thickness of serving can change a broadhead tune several inches at 30-50 yards out of a compound bow. If that turbonock was thicker so that the arrow started out at a more upward angle, that would change the POI compared to the standard nock that may have started out at a more downward angle.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

they are virtually the same thickness. and were shot with a string loop. with the knots above and below the nock.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I thought at first when I got the T-5's, that I would need to move my nocking point up some 
due to them being slightly (very slightly) larger than the standard nocks, so I tried it.
Both Tnock & standard arrows flew nock high, so I moved it back to where it was,
and all was good. 

Rick


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is a video by a customer. Has some nice slomotion video and test shooting.
Cody is a customer. No affiliation to me or Turbonock.
He is hand shooting and is getting similar results to my test shooting.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

The easiest way to test the arrows are on the same launch angle is to set the bow up in a hooter shooter and put a level on the arrow. Adjust each one so they are perfectly level than raise or lower the whole unit to hit for a given distance. Move target back ten yards and you can map out actual, tangible trajectory differences. 

I'm surprised this never occurred during testing. If I was going to market and sell something I'd test all the variables including down range chron data. For a bow hunter if I have tested results that show better down range velocity I'd be all over that. As a manufacturer I'd sell that point over as much as the imparted spin.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Robert Wood has been shooting these for several months. He won the Arkansas State Championship with them.
I think he is the first person I know who has competed traditional with my nocks. He also shoots the Black Swan and got me Hooked on that bow!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Lets make this a little more interesting.
This is another project I have been working on for several months. I figure a way to make and endless bowstring that is also braided. It acts more like a flemish but has end loops that are more durable.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

this is a slide show of my favorite photos over the years. This is all compound shooting. I hope to add a lot of Traditional images to this.
I decided last year when I turned 65 to go back to my roots. I have been practicing traditional solely since then.
I only shoot the compound if I need to test or demonstrate something. I hope to have my skills sharpened enough to hunt traditional again. Funny .I am not used to calling long bow and recurve traditional. It is how I learned to shoot. It makes me feel old.
I really do not mind all the discussions that have happened on this thread. It does show that most who participate on this forum can discuss , agree, and disagree, in a civil manner. That is how this sport used to be!!
So if any of you who have started using my stuff for traditional do some hunting I sure would like photos (especially of wounds) I like jerky too!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is now my official target and HUNTING bow!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

would anyone like some eggs with their spam?


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

I am so sick of this running ad that I wouldn't try or buy it, regardless.
At this point even seeing this thing posted is aggravating.

I was hoping that the mods would close it by now, but no such luck. It seems that between the OP and a few supporting posters, it lives on.
originally I thought the idea was a gimmick. No I think it a joke.


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

If you get tired of it here, Rick Barbee has it posted on Tradtalk.com as well. Nothing on Tradgang.com. I guess there really is an up-side to that sight. Thank you Terry Green.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Hey, I didn't say that I believed him, I just posted what he said with hopes of getting some input on the statement from those more informed than I am. In fact, I was under the impression that their slow motion video showed exactly what they wanted it to show, possible with a little creative photography thrown in for good measure.


I did a video years ago with my hooter shooter . doing a similar comparison of the same products. I will not post that here . but you can find it on you tube. I just included my products with those. I did not do it to bad mouth the other products but to show there was a difference.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

Here, back on Earth, once a ballistic projectile is launched the single largest determining factor in its trajectory is drag. 

Period.

Man! Some people's kids........


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Final thoughts.
After shooting them my opinion is these are best suited to 300 shooters. One thing Turbonocks do is reduce paradox. This does a few things but to limit the topic to accuracy, it removes some of the lateral variation in the impact point of the arrow at shorter ranges. Most arrows are straight enough that any difference in straightness is inconsequential at typical shooting distances for all but the very best of the best shooters.

Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PE_98UO3s

This one shows point of impact on the target http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFq8VJxs0rQ 
The range isn't given but you can see the arrows still in paradox right up to impact.

The amount of left to right movement in the arrow is significant long after it's left the bow. That can make a difference in scoring more so than the straightness of the arrow. The best target arrows have a .001 straightness tolerance. However, you can get .006 tolerance for about 1/5 the price saving hundreds of $$$. At 18 meters the difference might be 1/10 an inch or less between the high end arrows versus the cheap ones due to shaft straightness. Paradox throws in a much greater amount of potential error on the order of +- 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Up to 100 times the difference than straightness does. For about 83 cents a nock it's something that might produce meaningful results in that venue.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Bill 2311 said:


> I am so sick of this running ad that I wouldn't try or buy it, regardless.
> At this point even seeing this thing posted is aggravating.
> 
> I was hoping that the mods would close it by now, but no such luck. It seems that between the OP and a few supporting posters, it lives on.
> originally I thought the idea was a gimmick. No I think it a joke.


This may seem to be a silly question. But if this thread aggravates you so much , why do you keep coming back to look at it. You simply do not have to click on it. No on is making you. I am not trying to be smart or anyhing.
It is ok if you do not click on this. I certainly do not want to aggravate you. So why do it to youself?

People are mostly communicating , thinking, and agreeing or disagreeing. There is no abusive langPuage or tempers flaring . Pretty mucn people voicing opinions.
I think that is a good thing. 
Just as a learning experience. look at the information presented and how a real time event can be perceived 
so differently by so many.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

turbonockguy said:


> I did a video years ago with my hooter shooter . doing a similar comparison of the same products. I will not post that here . but you can find it on you tube. I just included my products with those. I did not do it to bad mouth the other products but to show there was a difference.


I understand you. When I get the slo mo done you will see it with no gimmicks. attached. I am sure that it will not answer all the questions asked. 
This entire thread started with Rick Barbee posting the results of a real time event in real time bad weather conditions with real time success. 
look at all the assumptions , beliefs , Pseudo science on my behalf etc that have gone on here. to try to either convince others that this works or does not work.
Whew!! 
All anyone needs to do is one . quit looking at this thread and let it go. and make up your mind on what you think and be happy with that.
Or sit around and wait for more real and unreal information to pop up. 

Or try the nocks . like them keep them, hate them send them back! I know that would be too easy for some.
I am now working on getting the slomo video scheduled. asap.

The weather is getting nice! I just bought a new Sony hi def camera and am going to do some chronograph shooting this week. an will post it. 
I will try to do some shooting that can be accepted by the scientific community that views this.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I am posting this again.
I consider myself a "long in the tooth archer" This video proves nothing . I enjoy getting back into Traditional shooting. I am not a great shot, but I am shooting pretty good groups with this new bow and my nock on it at only 7 yds. The weather is finally starting to warm up enough and hope to do some outdoor shooting. I want to get my hunting skills back.
20 to 30 yds. It took 10 years but I finally have my shoulder strong enough to shoot right hand again. 
I do this "inventing" because I love the sport and perhaps this will be of benefit to some.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Well?...with all the hoopla?....I just couldn't stand it anymore and since all my clamps, feathers and already made arrows are left wingers?...and I can't even buy'em that way?...I made myself up some some of my own LW Turbonocks to try out...quite simple really...just took some standard S-nocks...a couple pairs of pliers and set my wifes hair dryer on high/hot...










and a few moments later?....I had me a LW turbonock! 










and Boy Howdy!...these things really livened up my bow!.....judging by the increased elevation of POI?....I'd say it added at least a good 30fps to my rig...and talk about spin them feathers?....they sounded like they was flogging air like a rented mule!...and even though I was aiming for the cigarette pack?....while the standard nock arrows hit it?...my turbonock arrow was like...no smoking for me!....and went straight for a bullseye all on it's own!....and I wuz like......daaannnnnnng!...these things rock! :tongue:










and tomorrow?....I'm gonna take two steps back from the bales! :laugh:


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Really impressed with your inventiveness. All the time you put in! You should be condemmened! OOPs! I meant commended , oops! I meant committed!. Perhaps you should work for the government. They like workers who can find the harder way to do things ! 
Did you get the twist in your test nocks equal so that your two foot shots could be repeated accurately?
The angle of entry of your regular nocks in the cigarette pack seems to be different . perhaps you were slightly out of tune. and The Twisted nock was just showing you the correct target to hit?
Did you use Left or Right handed pliers to twist your experimental nocks?
Did you plug in your hair dryer backwards to get the current running the other way?

I do appreciate your help and keep up the good work!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> Final thoughts.
> After shooting them my opinion is these are best suited to 300 shooters. One thing Turbonocks do is reduce paradox. This does a few things but to limit the topic to accuracy, it removes some of the lateral variation in the impact point of the arrow at shorter ranges. Most arrows are straight enough that any difference in straightness is inconsequential at typical shooting distances for all but the very best of the best shooters.
> 
> Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PE_98UO3s
> ...



After watching that video . I see that arrow losing speed =trajectory every time that shaft bends and presents the fletching to the wind at different angles. Much like a skier zigzagging down the slope. to keep the speed down.
I hope I will able to show the difference in flight the high rpms make. when I get the slow mo done.
I think my product does not care if you are a 100 or a 300 shooter. the benefit in arrow flight is there.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

The weather is finally warm enough to go outside and do some shooting.
I set up my chronograph and .shot some arrows with regular nocks. then with T-4 nocks Then I shot the Vortex.

I was hand shooting and my speeds did vary because of my anchor point not being consistent. but with that in mind the .regular nocked arrows averaged about 175 fps. the t-4 averaged 182 and the vortex 185 fps. This was with my Black Swan bow that is 45# at 28 inches. but I only draw 26.5 so That is about 43 #.
Now here is the cool thing.
Black Swan claims their limbs are 20% more efficient than regular carbon layup limbs.

So I took my Darton 52# at 28 inches and repeated the test. and got virtually the same speeds with a bow delivering 7pounds more force.
That is impressive.
I Will have to set up my shooting machine and take my shooting out of the picture but I was impressed with the Black Swan!

I was shooting through the chronograph at 10 feet.

As soon as I have the shooting machine set up I will video and post. I have never shot a recurve on the machine so I need to make some modifications.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

So I did a quick chronograph test with three nocks tonight with my compound bow, the standard CX nock on my CX Maxima Hunters, the t4 turbonock and the QAD Tune-A-Nock. I know I know, this is the trad forum but I wanted to get quick and consistent results to test the claims of speed and my compound is very consistent on speed, much more so than I am with my trad bows. I shot with both fletched and bareshafts to see if the initial spin of the turbonocks increased the speed over the regular nocks with fletched arrows. The fletched were fletched with right helical Blazers. I weighted all the arrows the same with tape. I took 5 shots with each nock and averaged the results. Here are the results.

Fletched:
CX nock = 296.8fps
Turbonock = 295.2fps
Tune-A-Nock = 296.6fps

Bareshaft:
CX nock = 303.5fps
Turbonock = 302.5fps
Tune-A-Nock = 304fps

So as much as I wanted to gain 6fps by getting rid of that little bump in my nock, I didn't gain anything. 

I also shot the bareshafts comparing them to one another. My standard CX nock flew better than either of the other nock. That makes sense because I tuned for the standard nock and not the others.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> So I did a quick chronograph test with three nocks tonight with my compound bow, the standard CX nock on my CX Maxima Hunters, the t4 turbonock and the QAD Tune-A-Nock. I know I know, this is the trad forum but I wanted to get quick and consistent results to test the claims of speed and my compound is very consistent on speed, much more so than I am with my trad bows. I shot with both fletched and bareshafts to see if the initial spin of the turbonocks increased the speed over the regular nocks with fletched arrows. The fletched were fletched with right helical Blazers. I weighted all the arrows the same with tape. I took 5 shots with each nock and averaged the results. Here are the results.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not trying to cause a problem , but with such close data and with you doing the shooting . Anyone could discount these results.
as not scientific or valid. as they have done with a lot of what I have posted.

A shooting machine would have been better. also shoot one product out of tune could also make a difference in the final results!
I am setting up my shooting machine to shoot trad and will do some comparisons. 

The real issue and where you will actually see speed differences is with fletching on the arrow!
This is why.

Any straight nock launches the arrow with no spin and there is energy required to make it spin. that is wind passing over the vanes creating lift- drag to rotate the arrow that will cause an immediate speed loss.
The T-4 nock takes a small amount of energy from the string but by mechanically spinning the fletched arrow it allows the arrow to 
not slow down at such a high rate because it bypassed that initial energy loss to make the arrow spin.

The real benefit of the turbonock that most overlook is this. You can stabilize you trad setups with 50% smaller vanes!!
Since the nock spins the arrow all you need is enough vane area to keep it spinning!

So if you use the T-4 the next time you fletch you can go to smaller vanes and get the trajectory and speed increases ,without giving up accuracy . No other nock can provide that benefit.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is a non scientific shot but something is happening here??


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is the shot with a turbonock attached


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> I am not trying to cause a problem , but with such close data and with you doing the shooting . Anyone could discount these results.
> as not scientific or valid. as they have done with a lot of what I have posted.
> 
> A shooting machine would have been better. also shoot one product out of tune could also make a difference in the final results!
> ...


I agree that anyone could assume my results as flawed. That's why a critically thinking person would try to replicate my results. I assure you that I used as much care as humanly possible to make my shots as consistent as possible. I matched each arrow weight, I marked the floor where I stood to ensure I was the same distance from the chrono, I shot each shot using back tension just as I always do to ensure the shot breaks at the same point of DL. 

I do agree to a point with your argument about the initial speed loss of the t4 nock with the fletchings. That makes sense and I can accept that you may see less down range speed decreases with the turbonock. I'm going to test that too but I didn't have time that night. However, I think, at least in my mind, your claim that the little bump inside a traditional nock robs you of 6fps is busted. The testing I did with the bareshafts showed no speed increase over a standard nock. To lose 6fps from a standard nock could only happen if the nock fit on the string is extremely too tight. 

I'll hopefully have time to do some down range velocity and accuracy testing in the next week or two and I'll post those results also.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

If you have a nock with the little bump in it and you can feel it snap on your string. try this. take a small file and eliminate the bump. and see what the speed difference is. I did not perform this test ,but I think I found this info on AT several years ago. I will research and see if I can dig it up.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Huntinsker said:


> So I did a quick chronograph test with three nocks tonight with my compound bow, the standard CX nock on my CX Maxima Hunters, the t4 turbonock and the QAD Tune-A-Nock. I know I know, this is the trad forum but I wanted to get quick and consistent results to test the claims of speed and my compound is very consistent on speed, much more so than I am with my trad bows. I shot with both fletched and bareshafts to see if the initial spin of the turbonocks increased the speed over the regular nocks with fletched arrows. The fletched were fletched with right helical Blazers. I weighted all the arrows the same with tape. I took 5 shots with each nock and averaged the results. Here are the results.
> 
> Fletched:
> CX nock = 296.8fps
> ...


Thanks Huntinsker...and I think it's cool you decided to conduct this test using a wheelie to eliminate the fudge-factor and?...your numbers are very much in keeping with many other posted results I've read...except one.

I had a thought today as I know that the next responses may infer that the use of such causes velocity to be extended down-range but...I don't buy it for a couple reasons...one being that this far the most popular response is a loss of a couple fps...secondly?...unless the helix of the fletching matches the twist rate of the turbonock spot-on?...one will be fighting the other at a cost of energy where the fletchings are being forced to paddling air at a rate faster than the helix of the fletchings themselves...but the thought I had was this...it seems the big excuse is everyone is afraid they're going to accidently shoot their chrono....even with a hooter shooter? LOL!....but here's my solution to that...

a piece of plywood or lumber placed in front of the chrono...to protect the chrono...then you could shoot over it and still pass the beams with zero risk to the chrono....even with a non sighted traditional style bow! LOL!

But I guess it's pretty much a moot issue at this point.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks Huntinsker...and I think it's cool you decided to conduct this test using a wheelie to eliminate the fudge-factor and?...your numbers are very much in keeping with many other posted results I've read...except one.
> 
> I had a thought today as I know that the next responses may infer that the use of such causes velocity to be extended down-range but...I don't buy it for a couple reasons...one being that this far the most popular response is a loss of a couple fps...secondly?...unless the helix of the fletching matches the twist rate of the turbonock spot-on?...one will be fighting the other at a cost of energy where the fletchings are being forced to paddling air at a rate faster than the helix of the fletchings themselves...but the thought I had was this...it seems the big excuse is everyone is afraid they're going to accidently shoot their chrono....even with a hooter shooter? LOL!....but here's my solution to that...
> 
> ...


I agree with you Jinks. I don't really buy the "increased downrange velocity" claims. If you play with different degrees of helical and different fletching sizes and styles so that you can better match the spin rate that you get from the turbonock then..........maybe. It's a bit of a stretch though. I recently made a chronograph that I'm not worried about hitting with an arrow. I just haven't had time to get it working as consistently as I like. I may never get it to how I want it and may just end up using a real chronograph but instead of a board in front of the unit, I think a target would prove as a softer accidental landing if that were to happen. Not saying I can't shoot tight enough groups with my compound but arrows are expensive!! :smile:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

My lord, this thread is still alive!

Good job guys! Never let it die!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Since this thread started I have been hoping at least a few would start thinking. Some have! What do you think I was trying to prove and do when I invented the Turbonock. One of the folks that has done some test shooting is on the right track, He made a comment that perhaps the t-4 benefits some fletching set ups better than others. 1000% correct.
But he did not take the next step!!! No one else has come close. what are you test shooting to find out.

Why or what made me invent these? I have stated it simply many many times over the years and no one still get it.!!

I grew up in a gun shop and archery shop!!! I never fletched BULLETS!! WhY?

The answer is bullets do not need fletching! They use rifling! 

I decided to try to see if I could put the principal of rifling on arrows. My goal was to eliminate fletching totally!!

I FAILED!!!!1
But I was able to reduce the amount of fletching required by 50% to 80% 

and improve trajectory by reducing wind resistance by reducing the size of the fletching required. 

By twisting the nock and instantly spinning the arrow I was able to reduce the size of the fletching. and maintain accuracy. less drift in cross wind and more kinetic energy delivered to the target.

Some are doing bare shaft tests. but not tuning the turbonock before bareshaftring. 
If you papertune a t-4 on an arrow bareshaft. I will shoot fine at 20,30,40,50 yds no fletching try that with any other nock!
I found that barshafting was not practical, but a major reduction in vane size was practical.
If you want to do a real comparison test with feathers and the t-4 on a trad bow.may I suggest this test.

Use two identically fletched arrows with a 4 or 5 or 6 inch feather. one with the t-4 one with the regular nock.

Shoot them and look at the groups, trajectory and accuracy. Then take a sharp exacto knife and carefully cut the fletching in half.and scrape off the front half of the feathers. now you have 2 ,2.5 and 3 inch fletch . Shoot those.
Then cut them in hald again now you have 1, 1.25, and 1.5 inch fletch . see how they compare.

What do you think the results will be?








These were my first set of experimental arrows. look at the size of the test fletchings.
They all out performed the large standard fletch control arrows. but only with the t-4 prototype attached!!









These were the very first turbos I hand carved from a nylon rod. the crude one was just some scissor cut feathers hand fletched no jig.
If flew better than a conventional fletched arrow at 50 yds
I then started experimenting with various size fletching to determine what would be best.

Bottom line most have found improvement in arrow flight just like Rick Barbee. and have not even considered fletching smaller vanes!
with a regular nock on a trad bow you will run into trouble quickly. with the T-4 it allows you to fly with smaller vanes. That is a benefit 
no other product can do.









Here is the 80 yd group shot in the cross wind again. someone called this just random holes. actually I made circles around the groups the arrows shot. If you look at the photos of the test arrows you will see the corresponding numbers on the test arrows and can see which made each group.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I apologize for some of the misspellings in the last post. I was tired.


----------



## morgano (Nov 18, 2008)

Hi, i shoot both compound and traditional.

I would like to know, -what is smallest feather size for target arrow ,when using t-4 nock 

-Is it best to find best arrow shaft (bareshafting) with normal nock first, and then switch t-4 ??

-What degree of helical to use with t-4 , to maximal speed ??

- And for hunting arrows: these single bevel broadheads , what feather degree and size of feather work's best . For the speed ,accuracy , penetration ??

Hopefully someone have time to test different broadheads and combinations ???


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

morgano said:


> Hi, i shoot both compound and traditional.
> 
> I would like to know, -what is smallest feather size for target arrow ,when using t-4 nock
> 
> ...


A lot to answer here.

Jeff Brock was competing on a national level in the junior division with fat shafts and bohning mini x vanes and did quite well.
If you are shooting target . My Vortex flies target and mechanicals with just .7 square inch of vane. 4 fletch. 
so if you were fletching a three fletch arrow you could easily use feathers that each measured an area of .40 square inch and be safe.
The bohning mini blazer for example.
they work fine with 2 to 4 degrees of offset.

If you are looking for a hunting set up as long as the fletching is larger (more surface area) than the blades on the broadhead they will work. again 2 to 4 degrees offset or helical.
The Turbonock Stealth has a total vane area of 1.7 inches and flies just about any fixed blade or mechanical.

If you are going to bareshaft tune to use turbonocks it is useless to bareshaft tune with straight nocks. You tune for what you use.
for example if you hunt with the rage, do not use muzzys to set up your arrows.
It is also best to paper tune with your broadheads when you set up for hunting. then you have tuned for what you are shooting.

The turbos over the years have been shot with most all of the broadheads.
The Crimson Talon had blades that enhanced rotation and worked very well except the blades were damaged easily.
This Badger broadhead I just discovered at the Bowhunting Super Show and that little offset in the blades seemed compatible with what
the Turbonock does. It enhances rotation with minimal drag. I think the videos by ripfletching show the potential.

There has been virtually no one shooting my products Trad so I have very little hard data on how all the broadheads will work.
again looking at the ripfletching video should give you some insight. 
As long as your fletching is larger than your broadheads and your broadheads do not have an offset that spins left you are OK

Badger Broadheads makes both left and right wing broadheads, If you try them with my nocks be sure to get the right wing.
Just google Badger Broadheads.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

morgano said:


> Hi, i shoot both compound and traditional.
> 
> I would like to know, -what is smallest feather size for target arrow ,when using t-4 nock
> 
> ...


I'm not an expert on these nocks but from this thread and my own minimal experience with them, I think I can offer possible answers to your questions.

1. The smallest feather is really as small as you like. I'd think a Rayzr feather would be adequate for target points. I wouldn't bother trying small feathers like that with fixed broadheads though. 

2. From my compound testing, I can tell you that my bareshafts with conventional nocks flew better than with the t4 nock. That's because I was already tuned for them. Off a compound at least, IMO it would be better to use the t4 nock to bareshaft tune if that's the nock you're going to use. Can't say for sure from a trad bow.

3. The degree of helical to max speed? No one knows. I don't think it's been tested since there are thousands of fletching combinations. 

4. What feather degree and size of feather works best for single bevel heads? It depends. If your shooting is phenomenal and you never have a bad release, you can get a way with less helical and smaller feathers. That'll give you the most speed and penetration. However, if you're like the majority of us and are not perfect all the time, you'll want as much help steering your big broadhead to your mark as the feathers will give you. For that, a big, hard helical feather will do the trick. It doesn't matter how fast your arrow flies if it doesn't hit what you're aiming at.


----------



## morgano (Nov 18, 2008)

turbonockguy , Huntinsker Thank you for your answers!!!

Do anybody have own and use Redfeather Phoenix heads?

Those Badger broadheads looks really intresting allso !


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

If you are shooting target traditional I would think these would work quite well
Gateway RAYZR - 2inch
Truflight - 2 inch shield.
AMG - 2.25 inch shield.

I would think with an aerodynamic broadhead like the badger you could hunt with the 2 inch.

I am getting in some badgers and will see how crazy small I can go and stay accurate.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

mr. turbo, i admire the passion you have for your product. i may remain skeptical of some of the specific technical explanations and claims, particularly in terms of wind drift, because it contradicts what i know of physics, but i also think that your product is a cool idea, and certainly a valid way to skin a cat, so to speak, and it seems to work well for more than a few. 

Edit...I can see, theoretically, if you have less fletching, and you have less drag, at very far targets, the arrow could conceivably get there a little sooner, and thus drift less, a little.... 

i do get it. i wish you the best with it. if you make them the other direction, i will promise to try them out.

btw, i would be interested how, in terms of weak or stiff, the twisting affects the tune.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

BarneySlayer said:


> mr. turbo, i admire the passion you have for your product. i may remain skeptical of some of the specific technical explanations and claims, particularly in terms of wind drift, because it contradicts what i know of physics, but i also think that your product is a cool idea, and certainly a valid way to skin a cat, so to speak, and it seems to work well for more than a few.
> 
> Edit...I can see, theoretically, if you have less fletching, and you have less drag, at very far targets, the arrow could conceivably get there a little sooner, and thus drift less, a little....
> 
> ...


A thought - higher rpm arrows will resist change in direction. for the same reason gyroscope toys will stand up as long as they are spinning.

There has also been a lot of talk over the years as to which is best left or right wing fletch. The old myth was right wing for left handers and left wing for right handers. That may have been valid for shooting off your hand. but if you shoot off the shelf or a rest it does not matter.

Google Gateway feathers. and check their frequently asked questions!!

one of the most frequent questions is this. Which wing feathers do i use?

The Gateway Feather Company's answer is . It does not matter. what matters is what fletching jig clamps you have. left or right.


The spin the turbo imparts makes the arrow act as if it has a stiffer spine.

Somewhere back in this thread I showed my 1716 test with a 70 lb bow. Way Way underspined.
The 1716 arrows with regular nock shot a 40 inch group at 20 yards with two arrows breaking in mid air!
the 1716 arrows with the t-4 prototype shot a 9/16 inch group.

You can theorize that the nock may help performance a little. but this test seemed profound.
If you can not find it I will post the photos again. I did use a home made shooting machine. It worked.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here I found it.

I think this pretty much shows an imrovement in the effective spine strength of an arrow.
The shaft is no stronger. but the high rpms . reduced the paradox to where the arrow with the turbonock held a 9/16 inch group at 20 yds. the conventional nocked arrow. went all over the place. This was with a 70 lb bow in a shooting machine.

DO NOT TRY THIS !! HAND SHOOTING!
I used a very long string to the trigger of the shooting machine.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

turbonockguy said:


> A thought - higher rpm arrows will resist change in direction. for the same reason gyroscope toys will stand up as long as they are spinning.


I can believe that less feathers could mean less drag, less drag, less wind drift sure... I wouldn't dispute the possibility of this at all.

But because of spinning? Don't buy it. _If_ there is greater spinning, this can surely have a gyroscopic effect, which will stabilize the directional _orientation_ of the arrow, but it does nothing to stabilize the lateral _movement of the arrow._ Spinning an object may keep it more stable in relation that the axis it is spinning around is harder to rotate, but it does nothing to the objects total inertia/momentum/mass.

In fact, if I want less wind drift, I _want_ the arrow to turn into the wind, because it will have lower drag on the vector relative to the wind. The arrow that corrects orientation relative to path through the air may look more affected than an arrow that would stay straight, because to the shooter's perspective (and the target's) it is pointed somewhat sideways, but because it's pointing _directly_ into the path through the _medium_ (air), it will be less affected, in terms of the cross wind deflecting the path of the arrow.

Also, while the turbo nock will certainly impart the spin rate more quickly than a fletch, and may have an initial spin rate that is faster than that achieved by fletching, _and I am totally open to this being of benefit in terms of stabilizing an arrow more quickly_, I an skeptical that this initial spin rate is going to overcome the spin rate determined by the fletch when you get significantly downrange. 



> There has also been a lot of talk over the years as to which is best left or right wing fletch. The old myth was right wing for left handers and left wing for right handers. That may have been valid for shooting off your hand. but if you shoot off the shelf or a rest it does not matter.


Did not mean to imply otherwise. I use left wing entirely for cosmetic reasons, so that when I have my feathers oriented such that I get the best clearance for my shelf, and they shoot the best, I don't have a cock feather in scenario, and people continually telling me that I've got it backwards, despite the fact that I know it shoots fine either way. As such, almost all the feathers I've got are left-winged



> The spin the turbo imparts makes the arrow act as if it has a stiffer spine.


Thanks for the information. Is there a rough guideline as to how much?



> Somewhere back in this thread I showed my 1716 test with a 70 lb bow. Way Way underspined.
> The 1716 arrows with regular nock shot a 40 inch group at 20 yards with two arrows breaking in mid air!
> the 1716 arrows with the t-4 prototype shot a 9/16 inch group.
> 
> ...


That is truly interesting, but I don't think I'd want to try to replicate that test


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

BarneySlayer said:


> I can believe that less feathers could mean less drag, less drag, less wind drift sure... I wouldn't dispute the possibility of this at all.
> 
> But because of spinning? Don't buy it. _If_ there is greater spinning, this can surely have a gyroscopic effect, which will stabilize the directional _orientation_ of the arrow, but it does nothing to stabilize the lateral _movement of the arrow._ Spinning an object may keep it more stable in relation that the axis it is spinning around is harder to rotate, but it does nothing to the objects total inertia/momentum/mass.
> 
> ...


I do not want to argue the wind drift issue in scientific terms. I think the reason Rick Barbee initially posted this review was that he 
won a tournament in severe cross winds. and He and one of his shooting partners noticed that everyones arrows were blowing off course and Ricks just did a little wobble and basically stayed on track. to the point that he outscored a lot of the compound shooters. I have seen the same results in distance shooting. I can not give you a scientific explanation why but the results happen.
I am thinking that because you can fly turbonock arrows with much smaller fletching the cross wind has less surface area to push!
The larger the fletching the more it can drift.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is a new video by Robert Wood (ripfletching on you tube)

Any of you new Turbonock T-4 shooters ! this may be of interest. I met the Badger Broadhead Folks at the Bowhunting Super Show.
I really liked their broadhead. They make a right wing and a left wing version. This broadhead in the Right wing version actually enhances what the T-4 nock starts. I am going to be hunting with these.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here it is a little slower


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here are some comparison shots. with and without the Turbonock t-4.
You can see a lot more stuff on 
Robert Wood's you tube go to you tube and type in( rip fletching)


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

*more shooting with rip fletching.*


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

*more shooting with rip fletching. 3*






Robert Wood is the Arkansas State Champ (Recurve) and shooter of the year. He as recently moved to Rapid City SD.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here it is ! the first of a series of slomo shots. This was the fun one. This is an arrow with a Badger Broadhead and my Turbonock Stealth going through a balloon. 
This was done at Emmy Award Winning Videographer's Studio, Allen Teitel . on Long Island.
We worked all day yesterday doing a technical shots with my products. and finished up with this fun (technical ) shot.
over the next few days as Allen gets these processed I will post them.
The technical ones answer some of the questions raised on this thread. the main one Do arrows really stop spinning as soon as they hit an animal? Wait until you see that one!!!!!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

For Sure to bring out the naysayers! Looking forward to seeing more. T4 version out of a recurve, most of all.
Thanks for sharing.
Dan


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm thinking it might be possible for the fletchings to inhibit the T-4 5 and 6 models unless they are set at a minimum angle to match the rotation speed the turbonocks would induce. Have you figured what a minimum or optimal fletching angle might be?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

usually fletch around 2 degrees offset. that is what you will see in the video with the Black Swan Recurve bow,


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Ok thanks. I was wanting to give these a try. I've been researching the turbonocks for most of my free time today and they seem like a great way to get away with using very short feathers. Also the bullet spin theory behind them makes a lot of real life sense.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

Time to see how these little guys work for me with my blazers just at 1 degree offset. $10 is a low cost to test out something that may be awesome.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

When shooting with an arrows with vanes and a T4, which direction would you want to orient your cock vane if you normally orient it out? How much spin should the nock be giving the arrow in a normal draw to the rest?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> When shooting with an arrows with vanes and a T4, which direction would you want to orient your cock vane if you normally orient it out? How much spin should the nock be giving the arrow in a normal draw to the rest?


The arrow will rotate about 45 degrees to the riser. Usually just having the cockfeather out will clear. If you put some baby powder on the riser rest area and shoot you can see if you are clearing. We recommend using the hot melt glue we send with the order to keep the nock from slipping. If you see that you need to rotate the nock after installing. you can just heat it with a hair dryer, or dip in hot water to soften the glue and re adjust.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is the second video we shot. Pretty self explanatory.The T-4 nock has the same twist as the Vortex and the Stealth.
I decided to show the rotation with a traditional bow basically because I have had a lot of interest from trad shooters. and I have also been doing a lot of trad shooting myself. The other turbos give the same spin rate of a compound bow.

The T-4 rotated just a hair shy of 2 revolutions in the five ft of flight shown. The rotation was reduced at the end as a result of hitting the target. If you look carefully you can see it rotated 45 Degrees from the bowstring to the riser.
The same arrow with a straight nock took all five feet of flight to rotate 45 degrees.


----------



## kmeininger (Nov 11, 2013)

I would be interested in seeing an over the shoulder view of a “trad” bow with a center not cut past center, shooting a standard nock compared to the t-4. I think this would help prove if there is an early stabilizing of arrow flight with the t-4 nock over a standard nock. I don’t know if it’s too late for that but I think that would answer some questions.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

kmeininger said:


> I would be interested in seeing an over the shoulder view of a “trad” bow with a center not cut past center, shooting a standard nock compared to the t-4. I think this would help prove if there is an early stabilizing of arrow flight with the t-4 nock over a standard nock. I don’t know if it’s too late for that but I think that would answer some questions.


What I have postred is it. The comparisons between the turbonock and the straight nock seem to answer what you want.


----------



## kmeininger (Nov 11, 2013)

Do you have more vid's posted somehwere else? I only see the water baloon shot and the side view shot.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

kmeininger said:


> Do you have more vid's posted somehwere else? I only see the water baloon shot and the side view shot.


There will be one more video coming in a few days showing a shot through ballistic gel. I will post when it is up and running.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is not a trad shot, but I felt it may be of intetrest to viewers here. When I was a kid I got to See Howard Hill do his famous two arrow shot and put two arrows at once into a soda cup.
Randy Oitker Has taken Howard shot to a new level and does it bareshaft with 6 arrows. (using my t-4 nocks)
Once the arrow leaves the bow it does not care what kind of bow launched it. 
Something to think about. All but one of those arrows can be in tune, the rest are either hi or low, left or right. and yet this shot is repeatable. because the arrows pretty much hold their course with just the rotation of the Turbonock. Randy has tried this with straight nocks with no success.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is one that I really like. I can not afford to sponsor this show, but I do sponsor Randy and they will not mention my products (obviously) but to make the really hard shots , the Turbonock comes out. He is also sponsored by Bohning and uses fletching on his arrows also. just not where fletching gets in the way.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

One more!





I grew up in this sport. Been shooting since age 3. Got to shoot with Howard Hill! and now Randy Oitker. who I consider to be the modern Howar Hill . uses my products. That feels good!


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

turbonockguy said:


> Here is one that I really like. I can not afford to sponsor this show, but I do sponsor Randy and they will not mention my products (obviously) but to make the really hard shots , the Turbonock comes out. He is also sponsored by Bohning and uses fletching on his arrows also. just not where fletching gets in the way.


 That was an impressive shot and i love how excited he gets. You can tell he truly loves archery and doesn't take it too seriously. This is the kind of attitude in archery I think everyone should have. =D


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I believe he is one of our sports best ambassadors to the non archery world. Randy is not a manufactured celebrity. he has earned his credentials. I believe he has 11 national titles and two world titles and has broken the Guinness World Record I think four times.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is where it all began for me.Howard Hill was my childhood hero! I wanted to shoot just like him!!
Never quite got that good!!
If you do not know who he is ! you can research him on you tube!
Howard was I believe the second archer inducted to the archery hall of fame.
Yep! I got to shoot with him!!! I was 11 he was a bit older.






I believe one of the reasons I like Randy Oitker is that he is carrying on Howards Tradition.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I tried the ones I bought for a few days and they definitely correct a bareshaft very effectively. Unfortunately the nock shape will not work with my anchor due to the two "wings" on the side. Also there was no position where I could get perfect clearance between my rest and fletchings which is a major problem when you shoot mylar.

I would have liked to see an overhead shot as well at a higher frame-rate, something in the 10,000fps range. The video posted doesn't really show how the nocks effect clearance.

-Grant


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

Mine should be delivered today so I'll be able to try them out. Going to have to find a place to run out and shoot right away so that I can test them at more than 5 yards...


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

grantmac said:


> I tried the ones I bought for a few days and they definitely correct a bareshaft very effectively. Unfortunately the nock shape will not work with my anchor due to the two "wings" on the side. Also there was no position where I could get perfect clearance between my rest and fletchings which is a major problem when you shoot mylar.
> 
> I would have liked to see an overhead shot as well at a higher frame-rate, something in the 10,000fps range. The video posted doesn't really show how the nocks effect clearance.
> 
> ...


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

All nocks touch my face a little at different crawls. Because these extend so far to the rear and are wide they interfere much more than any other nock.

-Grant


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is the Final video.
We shot through 16 inches of gel. Just a little bit of Murphy's law . The second shot through the gel was actually the first. I had shot the bow in at home for a 10 ft shot. and did not do a test shot at the studio. Well somehow even in the bowcase the sight adjustment slipped. and we go a really revealing shot of the broadhead hitting the wall of the tube and continuing on.

I have been explaining for years that the rotation the Turbonock generates continues for some distance when you hit an animal. We even checked animals that were shot and saw the damage. but you all know how These forums are. A good many people over the years just chose not to believe the claims . 

Just look at the damage!!! 
I want to thank Alan Teitel for his expertise in making what happens visible.

This shot was made with my compound bow. but once the arrow leaves the bow it does not know that.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

I just got an installed my T4s last night. They actually fit pretty tightly in my Beman ICS Bowhunter 500 shafts but because they weren't so tight that I needed pliers, I decided it'd be better to follow the instructions and use the glue with them. I live in an apartment so I don't have much shooting distance, hopefully I'll make it out to the range tomorrow if the rain goes away. A day at an uncovered range in the pouring Washington rain is less than fun. It makes my waterproof jacket waterlogged...

I did notice something about the T4s that I hadn't even thought about. The nock is much shorter than the nocks that came with my Bowhunters. The nock from shaft to end was as long as my old nock was from shaft to valley. The valley of the T4 starts about 1mm to 2mm from the shaft. This will actually make your shaft shorter since you measure from end to valley. Also, the nock fit tightly on my string but did not have the little 'click' feeling that I am used to. 

I'm really excited to go to the range and start tuning my bow with these and my new string that's on the way. =D


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

You did not feel the click because the Turbo stays on the string with out a bump or restriction in the nock. The Twist simply keeps it there.
Those little bumps on nocks can take around 5fps off your speed.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

I finally got to go out and do some shooting with these little guys. I'm not sure if it's these or the fact that I'm just getting better but I destroyed one of the turbonocks and the arrow it's attached to by shooting it with another. It luckily did not fully robin hood and my other arrow survived. It justbroke the nock and shoved it into the arrow splitting the carbon.

I am liking them, though. Lol.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> You did not feel the click because the Turbo stays on the string with out a bump or restriction in the nock. The Twist simply keeps it there.
> *Those little bumps on nocks can take around 5fps off your speed*.


You have no data to support that so you should stop telling people that. I did chronograph testing with your t4 nocks against a standard Carbon Express nock and a QAD Tune-A-Nock and yours was the slowest...........even though it didn't have the little "speed stealing" bumps. It makes sense too because your nock is making contact and producing friction the entire length of the nock throat and is actually compounding that friction by adding that rotational force where the other nocks only apply that little bit of friction while the bump is in contact with the serving. Here are my results that I copied and pasted from page 18 of this thread if you'd like to review the data and rethink your bolded statement.

Fletched:
CX nock = 296.8fps
Turbonock = 295.2fps
Tune-A-Nock = 296.6fps

Bareshaft:
CX nock = 303.5fps
Turbonock = 302.5fps
Tune-A-Nock = 304fps


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> I finally got to go out and do some shooting with these little guys. I'm not sure if it's these or the fact that I'm just getting better but I destroyed one of the turbonocks and the arrow it's attached to by shooting it with another. It luckily did not fully robin hood and my other arrow survived. It justbroke the nock and shoved it into the arrow splitting the carbon.
> 
> I am liking them, though. Lol.


I am not the greatest shooter, but I noticed I have an increase in robin hood or near robin hood shots with my nocks.
Perhaps just a flook but last year I started back shooting recurve barebow. and I recently obtained a Black Swan Hybrid.
In two days I shot two robinhoods. One thing I do to reduce arrow damage is put collars on my shafts.
I slice 2213 aluminum shafts. and hot melt glue them on my carbons. When I hit a nock it damages the nock but usually saves the shaftl


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> You have no data to support that so you should stop telling people that. I did chronograph testing with your t4 nocks against a standard Carbon Express nock and a QAD Tune-A-Nock and yours was the slowest...........even though it didn't have the little "speed stealing" bumps. It makes sense too because your nock is making contact and producing friction the entire length of the nock throat and is actually compounding that friction by adding that rotational force where the other nocks only apply that little bit of friction while the bump is in contact with the serving. Here are my results that I copied and pasted from page 18 of this thread if you'd like to review the data and rethink your bolded statement.
> 
> Fletched:
> CX nock = 296.8fps
> ...


Nice thing your data shows is that the Turbonock is in a virtal speed tie with the other nocks. that do not impart any spin on the arrow.
Would you not think it is worth 1fps speed loss to generate a 6000 rpm arrow? 
The part of the equation your numbers do not shot is the speed your fletched arrows lose downrange as a result of using only wind resistance to create spin.

I did not use the brand nocks that you used when I did the speed tests. and I made no claims about those brands.
I think I used an Easton Super nock and a Bohning Signature nock and found that when I took the bump off I got a 6 fps speed increase.
why dont you take the bumps off the nocks you tested and see what happens?


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

I think this nock looks great for use with big 2 blade broadheads since they would be spinning right when they leave, and might reduce the planing effects... I'll have to give these a go!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

patrick2cents said:


> I think this nock looks great for use with big 2 blade broadheads since they would be spinning right when they leave, and might reduce the planing effects... I'll have to give these a go!



Yep ! That is why I used the Badger broadhead in the first shot through the gel earlier in this thread.
If I can get acceptable results I am going to try to get some medium slow motion video done with my sons's Iphone 5s. and then see if I can slow it down with my editing program to show the rotation.
I have made up some arrows which I decorated with long strips of vinyl tape. and hopefully you will be able to see the color change.
I am going to repeat the shots that we did to see if we can get data. even though the video quality will not be as good.
I will post if we have success or not.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> If you have a nock with the little bump in it and you can feel it snap on your string. try this. take a small file and eliminate the bump. and see what the speed difference is. *I did not perform this test ,but I think I found this info on AT several years ago. I will research and see if I can dig it up*.





turbonockguy said:


> Nice thing your data shows is that the Turbonock is in a virtal speed tie with the other nocks. that do not impart any spin on the arrow.
> Would you not think it is worth 1fps speed loss to generate a 6000 rpm arrow?
> The part of the equation your numbers do not shot is the speed your fletched arrows lose downrange as a result of using only wind resistance to create spin.
> 
> ...


Hmmmmm........So which is it? Did you do the test or did someone else? On April 16th, 2014 you said you saw someone else had done this. I can believe that you've had time to do it between April 16th and now but I don't believe that you'd forget which nock you used if you did in fact do the test. So either you're flat out lying or you don't have a very good memory. I think the former is more likely. I don't know where you went to business school but you should have learned that lying to your consumer doesn't go over very well. Especially when they find out.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

You guys are awful hard on a man who's just selling a rather cheap, new idea for a nock. If you aren't interested, why not just leave the thread? I would think you all could evaluate the idea on its own merit, rather than try to pick this guy apart. 

I'm sure some claims about the nock could be marketing, but it looks like a product to help stabilize an arrow a little quicker. Nothing more than that, and it's mighty cheap. I could think of quite a few archery products that are loaded with marketing hyperbole that might be worth your time nit-picking. This doesn't seem to be one to be worried about.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Hmmmmm........So which is it? Did you do the test or did someone else? On April 16th, 2014 you said you saw someone else had done this. I can believe that you've had time to do it between April 16th and now but I don't believe that you'd forget which nock you used if you did in fact do the test. So either you're flat out lying or you don't have a very good memory. I think the former is more likely. I don't know where you went to business school but you should have learned that lying to your consumer doesn't go over very well. Especially when they find out.


I apologize . I am 66 and my memory is not as sharp as it used to be. I did remember the data. If you wish to call that lying that is up to you.
The thing is the test was done.
I guess I will have to do that test also with my chronograph. Why don't you help me out and try it with the nocks you have and your chronograph? "archers helping archers " ?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

patrick2cents said:


> You guys are awful hard on a man who's just selling a rather cheap, new idea for a nock. If you aren't interested, why not just leave the thread? I would think you all could evaluate the idea on its own merit, rather than try to pick this guy apart.
> 
> I'm sure some claims about the nock could be marketing, but it looks like a product to help stabilize an arrow a little quicker. Nothing more than that, and it's mighty cheap. I could think of quite a few archery products that are loaded with marketing hyperbole that might be worth your time nit-picking. This doesn't seem to be one to be worried about.


Thank you for some common sense!!!


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is a question for Huntinsker.
When you did your chrono testing of the various nocks did you use a Hooter shooter . or hand shoot them?


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

I was thinking it would be interesting to try and match some of these spin nocks to a soft "Kurly" spin fletch to try to increase fletch area on initial flight and then decrease fletch area at longer distances as the rotation slows. Might have to get the fletch to riser/plunger attitude just right.
If the soft vanes get "larger" due to increased rotation it would help with faster stabilization? Then when the rotation slows and the vanes "Kurl" more the lower drag tip vortex mode increases?
Might work well for 30-40# recurves?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

wseward said:


> I was thinking it would be interesting to try and match some of these spin nocks to a soft "Kurly" spin fletch to try to increase fletch area on initial flight and then decrease fletch area at longer distances as the rotation slows. Might have to get the fletch to riser/plunger attitude just right.
> If the soft vanes get "larger" due to increased rotation it would help with faster stabilization? Then when the rotation slows and the vanes "Kurl" more the lower drag tip vortex mode increases?
> Might work well for 30-40# recurves?


The question would be Why do you want to increase the vane area which increases wind resistance when the nock itself initiates the spin. You would be better off experimenting with smaller vanes than what you are now using.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

If you get the spins "correct" you may be able to open and close the "Kurly" vane to stabilize early and go into tip vortex reduction mode later. Just a idea...that may or may not have merit.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Ok, I've been using these nocks and while I cannot give any scientific feedback I can give my observations and opinions.

First off, I like them. As soon as you shoot an arrow with them you can see it spinning in flight, and very fast too. From my observations they seem to stabilize the arrow exceptionally well. I am using them with 4x 2" razor feather fletchings, previously from 4x 4" feathers and the visual stability is improved from what I can tell.

I have intentionally moved the string in closer alignment to the riser just to see how well they stabilize after a mild riser slapping. The arrow will still go left and off target but you can see the spin of the arrow "throw" it back into a straight line of travel as opposed to the fishtailing the arrow would experience from the same kind of mistake.

I have intentionally shot them into the wind with the same observation. The arrow may wobble or fishtail initially for just a moment, but the spin seems to realign it very quickly.

It seemed like a legitimate product with a good intention in the first place before I bought them. That is why I tried them out. I am glad I did. In my shooting they worked exactly like I had hoped them to. To reduce my arrow weight slightly by being able to reduce the fletching surface and help with longer distance accuracy and speed from wind resistance.

Seems like an honest product to me. You can equip them and directly see the effect they have. It's up to the individual to decide if it is for them.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> This is a question for Huntinsker.
> When you did your chrono testing of the various nocks did you use a Hooter shooter . or hand shoot them?


I did them with my compound bow by hand. I shot a large enough number of shots to get an average of the speeds. Each shot was shot with my release set up to use a consistent amount of back tension to get as consistent of a release as humanly possible. That's why I didn't use my trad bows for the test. I know what you're going to say and you can criticize my methods all you want. My test is sound because I used an average of a large enough group of shots to free the data from human error. A hooter shooter may have been more precise but it's not necessary in this case. 

Now I pointed out your little "forgetfulness" episode because you're pushing a product using made up "data" and evidence. That's fraud. If you want to gain or maintain any credibility that you may have, you need to stop doing stuff like that. It's unbecoming of a good businessman.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> I did them with my compound bow by hand. I shot a large enough number of shots to get an average of the speeds. Each shot was shot with my release set up to use a consistent amount of back tension to get as consistent of a release as humanly possible. That's why I didn't use my trad bows for the test. I know what you're going to say and you can criticize my methods all you want. My test is sound because I used an average of a large enough group of shots to free the data from human error. A hooter shooter may have been more precise but it's not necessary in this case.
> 
> Now I pointed out your little "forgetfulness" episode because you're pushing a product using made up "data" and evidence. That's fraud. If you want to gain or maintain any credibility that you may have, you need to stop doing stuff like that. It's unbecoming of a good businessman.


YOU ARE WAY OUT OF LINE WITH THAT FRAUD CLAIM!!!!

As to your explanation of your chrono testing. If I would test that way . I am pretty sure what your response would be.

I take great exception to your fraud claim. 
If I said that I would probably be banned. .


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Arrowzen said:


> Ok, I've been using these nocks and while I cannot give any scientific feedback I can give my observations and opinions.
> 
> First off, I like them. As soon as you shoot an arrow with them you can see it spinning in flight, and very fast too. From my observations they seem to stabilize the arrow exceptionally well. I am using them with 4x 2" razor feather fletchings, previously from 4x 4" feathers and the visual stability is improved from what I can tell.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU
for your response. Sometimes I get a little disenchanted with all the negativity on this site. 
I know most are not that way, it just seems that the few who consistently post negativity have agendas they hope to express here.
This is a supposed to be a site where archers help archers and I greatly appreciate those who do.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

I tried doing some slow motion editing today ,but could not get anything of any quality near what Alan Teitel did. 
There have been several requests for me to do some more high speed video. At this time I can not, but I am working on a project that should be finished in August, and will require high speed video to prove the benefits. At that time when we do that video I will do some shots. with the turbo. One person could not accept that the turboncks actually spin through gel and believes it was the broadhead tha made the nock spin. I can respond to that video .with this clip I found when I was making the gel. The quality is not great and you can not actually see the rotation, but You can see the horizontal cresting change color after the arrow leaves the gel. It has to be rotating to change colors!!! So without a broadhead. the turbonock rotated through the gel. This is kind of a common sense thing. the vanes have about 4 degrees of pitch, that would make them rotate





Here is the video of the turbo with the broad head . that Alan Teitel shot.
Look very carefully at the cut the broadhead makes through the gel, then look what the Turbonock does as it enters the gel!!
Looks to me like the rotation increases???


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> YOU ARE WAY OUT OF LINE WITH THAT FRAUD CLAIM!!!!
> 
> As to your explanation of your chrono testing. If I would test that way . I am pretty sure what your response would be.
> 
> ...


The definition of fraud is " intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right". So you claiming that traditional "bump style" nocks rob you of 6fps and your nocks don't is a direct attempt to get more people to purchase your nocks. You don't know for sure that the bump costs you 6fps yet you claim to know it as fact. That's fraud. You're perverting the truth in order to induce others to part with money, something valuable, to ensure your financial gain. Don't blame me. Blame the dictionary. If you want to prove that you're not lying about it, prove it. Show the source of these "facts". Prove it yourself and show your results. I did the test and guess what, I didn't lose any speed but rather shot faster with traditional "bump style" nocks. 

Now you can assume all you want about my response to a chrono test that you never performed but if you would do it using my methods, I would most certainly accept it. See I have a degree in science from a 4 year university. I know what the scientific method is and what acceptable scientific data gathering looks like. If we weren't able to take a large data set and then average the results, there wouldn't be enough data gathered to fill even one journal. Almost all data is gathered and processed that way. It's the most common way to do a test.

I've had enough fun dealing with you and your products so this will be my last post on any of your subjects. I hope all the advice and criticism that I've given you will be considered and not wasted on you. Good luck with your future business.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

All I can do is repeat this, I do remember data on the speed difference on nocks with and without the bump.
My memory of the data is clear. I have been trying to remember where the info came from. You equating this to fraud is ridiculous.
I suppose you equate the videos as fraud also. I guess I went in and adobed them somehow.
Yes! I am promoting my product. I try to give the most accurate data I can on this site. 

When it comes to your test shooting. in all fairness I should hold you to the same standards you would hold me to.
I wish you the best. some of the questions you posed on the videos were quite interesting but I think the videos explained what you were asking. you just chose not to look. 

Funny thing ! I have an 8 year degree in art! My patent Attorney has a degree in aerospace engineering and a law degree.
When I showed him the original Turbonock and patent work. He just looked at me and asked." Why didn't I think of this?"


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

The definition of fraud is " intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"

You are still way out of line!!

I forgot the source of the data, but I did remember the data. you choose to call that fraud. 

For about the past 10 years I have been claiming on this site that my nocks perform. and the main claim is that they rotate two times in the first 5 feet of flight. I made this claim as a result of Pete Shepley helping me out and doing high speed video. His engineers communicated to me the rotation information. but they would not release the video.. I used that data to promote my products. Many on this site chose not to believe me. So now that I finally repeated the PSE test myself with video and got the same results. I fully expected there to be naysayers on this site. I was right about this also.

I guess I will have to get some nocks and do the bump test myself.

Funny thing. My patent attorney has a degree in Aerospace Engineering,and a Law Degree. He does intellectual properties work for Penn State University. I only have a six year degree in Art, but a lifetime of making arrows. and working on firearms.
When I presented my patent application and prototype to My Attorney, He looked at it and kind of glared at me and said "why didn't I think of that?" 
I responded simply. " You are an engineer. I am an artist." I meant no disrespect and I think he understood. We have been friends since that first meeting. He has just filed two more patents in the field of archery for me. I assure these are also not Fraud.
We are hoping to get the one to the ATA show this winter.

Some of this is repeated from the last post , but I got called to dinner and did not get time to finish it. I hope I did not commit any fraud in not typing it exactly the same??

Now if you check you will see that Turbonockguy is a relatively new name on this site. But I have been posting here since "almost" the beginning of this site as Nick snook. So if you want to go back and check??? I started using the new name when I became a sponsor. I personally think it is silly to use made up names on these sites. I can see why some do. I would be ashamed to use my name with the behaviour of some who post here. So I used my real name. I just figured when I started sponsoring the site I would get more bang for my bucks with turbonockguy. I just want to be sure there is no misunderstanding on that issue.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

turbonockguy said:


> THANK YOU
> for your response. Sometimes I get a little disenchanted with all the negativity on this site.
> I know most are not that way, it just seems that the few who consistently post negativity have agendas they hope to express here.
> This is a supposed to be a site where archers help archers and I greatly appreciate those who do.


Eh, screw 'em. You had an idea and went with it. That's pretty awesome in my book, keep up the good work. I ordered some from you today, I'm excited to see how it works out (trying to stabilize some BH's with smaller fletching).


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Here is the video with the Iphone5s in slow motion. I then reduced the speed with my photo editing software.
You really can not see the rotation happening, but I did cover the entire length of the arrow with a strip of red vinyl tape and a strip of yellow vinyl tape. and left one secction just the black carbon.
If you look you can see the shaft change color. That can only mean one thing. it is rotating. It rotated over 2 times in 7 ft.
Not nearly the quality of the Alan Teitel work. So I will wait until later this summer when we do video on the new patent and get a few more turbonock shots in.
Again I wish to thank those who made helpful and constructive and yes even positive comments. They are appreciated.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> All I can do is repeat this, I do remember data on the speed difference on nocks with and without the bump.
> My memory of the data is clear. I have been trying to remember where the info came from. You equating this to fraud is ridiculous.
> I suppose you equate the videos as fraud also. I guess I went in and adobed them somehow.
> Yes! I am promoting my product. I try to give the most accurate data I can on this site.
> ...


Okay one more post. I can't help but think it's a little funny that you can remember the exact numbers in this supposed data but you can't remember where you saw it, who did it or even if YOU did it. Your adamant declaration of your clear memory of the data doesn't hold a lot of water if you can't even remember if you yourself had ever done the test. You say you try to give the most accurate data you can on this site but you don't know who did it, you don't where you saw it and you don't know if you did it yourself but your positive that the bump in a nock costs 6fps off your arrow. 

Again you're assuming things of me that you know nothing about. I would hold you to the same standards of science that any scientist would be held. I agree that your idea is novel but your science is flawed and well, unscientific. 

On a side note, I believe that designers and product manufacturers should be held to a higher standard than some average Joe on the street. If I saw the inventor of the Turbo Nock on the street and asked him about his design compared to the competition and he made stuff up to make his product look better, that's worse than if I had heard the same from joker that's shot the nocks once. I guess I prefer honesty and integrity over amazing claims about a product.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

He is from Kansas, they still believe the world is only 5000 years old and the earth is flat, cut him some slack


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

In post #45 turbonocks spin an arrow at 4000 rpm. Here at post #501 they now spin at 6000 rpm. 

This thread just keeps on getting funnier and funnier!

I love it!


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Charon said:


> In post #45 turbonocks spin an arrow at 4000 rpm. Here at post #501 they now spin at 6000 rpm.
> 
> This thread just keeps on getting funnier and funnier!
> 
> I love it!


You realize that the effective "twist" rate of this thing would remain constant (and a function of velocity that the arrow left the bow), so the RPM of the arrow could change by a factor of two if shot from a slow longbow or a fast compound, right?

...and to the guy talking about "science", the basis for this is assisting your dynamic stability early in arrow flight by increasing your arrows polar moment of inertia. There are two factors affecting dynamic arrow stability: 1) how far forward the CG (FOC in archery terms) is of the aerodynamic center (affected by fletching type/area) and 2) the polar moment of inertia of the arrow (which is affected by the rate the arrow spins

normally, during the initial part of the flight 1) dominates. His idea is to increase 2) in the initial part of the flight to dampen arrow oscillations quicker. This could be important because it would reduce the time the arrow spends at higher angles of yaw and pitch ("angles of attack" so to speak). Your drag increases quite a bit as your AoA goes up. 

As to if it is always worth it, well, I would bet if you use large feather fletching, only field points, and have a well tuned bow, it probably wouldn't make much difference. However, it would allow a less that perfect tune or release to flight a bit better (or broadhead to fly better, as they push the aerodynamic center forward).

The principals he is talking about are sound, I look forward to testing mine.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Charon said:


> In post #45 turbonocks spin an arrow at 4000 rpm. Here at post #501 they now spin at 6000 rpm.
> 
> This thread just keeps on getting funnier and funnier!
> 
> I love it!


The speed of rotation that the turbonock delivers depends on the speed of your bow. It will deliver 2 revolutions in 5 feet.
At 200 fps it delivers around 4800 rpm , at 300 fps it will be rotating at7200 rpms. at 150 fps you get 3600 rpms.
if you are shooting something really fast 370 fps gives you 8880 rpms. 
I hope this is still funny?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

patrick2cents said:


> You realize that the effective "twist" rate of this thing would remain constant (and a function of velocity that the arrow left the bow), so the RPM of the arrow could change by a factor of two if shot from a slow longbow or a fast compound, right?
> 
> ...and to the guy talking about "science", the basis for this is assisting your dynamic stability early in arrow flight by increasing your arrows polar moment of inertia. There are two factors affecting dynamic arrow stability: 1) how far forward the CG (FOC in archery terms) is of the aerodynamic center (affected by fletching type/area) and 2) the polar moment of inertia of the arrow (which is affected by the rate the arrow spins
> 
> ...


The one issue I have found and you should also. 
Is the large vanes or feathers with field points or any type of points. has to deal with drag, or wind resistance to create the rotation.
once the rotation is established, those large vanes rob energy from the arrow the entire length of the flight.
The faster your arrow is launched the greater the energy loss is at the beginning of the flight.
The turbonock mechanically spins the arrow as it leaves the bowstring . as a result you can fly that arrow with up to 80% less vane area. You only need enough vane area to maintain the rotation, not initiate the rotation. As an example. I can fly Muzzy broadheads, with a 4 fletch of mini blazers. I can bareshaft 40yds. and fly big fat shafts with mini X vanes.
the Turbonock stealth is a 4 vane with 1.5 sq inch of vane area. It flies fixed blade broadheads. the Vortex with .7 square inch of vane area will fly mechanicals. When an arrow is rotating several thousand rpms , foc is not much of an issue. Years ago I did a test where I glued 100 grains of lead into the back of an aluminum shaft and had 100 grain target tips. no problem.
Another thing the high rpms does is it increases the effective spine of a shaft.
an example. I took some 1716 aluminum arrows. spined for around a 35 lb bow max. 
I shot the out of a shooting machine I built. with a 70 lb proline bow.. at 20 yds. two of the arrows broke in mid air. and counting flyers that hit the target generated a 48 inch group. I took some 1716 shafts and put a t-4 prototype on them and repeated the experiment. and shot a 9/16 inch group at 20 yds. ( do not try this hand shooting!! I used a shooting machine and a long string to the trigger of the
release,








(Twist nock was the name I gave this prototype before patenting it. There is a twister nock on the market that is not related to my product in any way.

To show how dramatic an improvement this high rate of spin is to arrow performance, I can give an example.
Here is the question. would it be possible to shoot 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 arrows bareshaft from a bow. Only one could be leaving the bow in tune. the rest would either be nock high . or low or left or right. Would it be possible to expect consistent arrow flight?
Howard Hill used to shoot longbow and put two arrows into a paper cup. 
This is Randy Oitker.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Huntinsker said:


> Okay one more post. I can't help but think it's a little funny that you can remember the exact numbers in this supposed data but you can't remember where you saw it, who did it or even if YOU did it. Your adamant declaration of your clear memory of the data doesn't hold a lot of water if you can't even remember if you yourself had ever done the test. You say you try to give the most accurate data you can on this site but you don't know who did it, you don't where you saw it and you don't know if you did it yourself but your positive that the bump in a nock costs 6fps off your arrow.
> 
> Again you're assuming things of me that you know nothing about. I would hold you to the same standards of science that any scientist would be held. I agree that your idea is novel but your science is flawed and well, unscientific.
> 
> On a side note, I believe that designers and product manufacturers should be held to a higher standard than some average Joe on the street. If I saw the inventor of the Turbo Nock on the street and asked him about his design compared to the competition and he made stuff up to make his product look better, that's worse than if I had heard the same from joker that's shot the nocks once. I guess I prefer honesty and integrity over amazing claims about a product.


I have been in 1500 martial arts fights. If I think about those fights, I can remember them. I can remember the faces of the opponents, what they did, how they fought, what I did to win or lose, but except for a very few, I can not remember which tournament the fight happened, or what their names were. I did get a few concussions over the years??? 

I am human. If you chose not to accept what I have posted fine! calling it fraud is still way out of line!! 
I do the very best I can to post accurate information. That is why I had a two time Emmy Award winner do the High Speed Video ! and where most looking at the video seemed to understand what they saw. 
That is why when I was doing all my early testing I used a shooting machine. Working in my dads shop on bows and guns. I learned a very important rule. My Dad was an aeronautical engineer. and would give me advice when I was experimenting in the shop.
If you want to improve accuracy you reduce variables. When we shot in our rifles we would bench shoot them on sandbags. 
When I tested my invention I used a shooting machine.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

turbonockguy said:


> The one issue I have found and you should also.
> Is the large vanes or feathers with field points or any type of points. has to deal with drag, or wind resistance to create the rotation.
> once the rotation is established, those large vanes rob energy from the arrow the entire length of the flight.
> The faster your arrow is launched the greater the energy loss is at the beginning of the flight.


yep, that's what would be where I'd head with this-you don't need to have as big of fletching. I've gone down the smaller fletching route after I did some experimenting with 5" parabolic. I now use a high(ish) profile 3" shield cut (it has a more favorable aspect ratio as well, so I figured it should be more efficient). I hope this might help initial stability enough to go small fletched with broadheads and a finger release.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

turbonockguy said:


> I have been in 1500 martial arts fights. If I think about those fights, I can remember them. I can remember the faces of the opponents, what they did, how they fought, what I did to win or lose, but except for a very few, I can not remember which tournament the fight happened, or what their names were. I did get a few concussions over the years???
> 
> I am human. If you chose not to accept what I have posted fine! calling it fraud is still way out of line!!
> I do the very best I can to post accurate information. That is why I had a two time Emmy Award winner do the High Speed Video ! and where most looking at the video seemed to understand what they saw.
> ...


 This is for Huntinsker !
One more thing I would like to share with you.
You have been calling me a liar and a Fraud. Because I made a memory mistake the does not change the data. just where it came from.
I take considerable exception to your claim. 
Here is a hypothetical for you.
You claimed in an earlier post that you would not post anymore, yet you continue? Are you not a liar?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

patrick2cents said:


> yep, that's what would be where I'd head with this-you don't need to have as big of fletching. I've gone down the smaller fletching route after I did some experimenting with 5" parabolic. I now use a high(ish) profile 3" shield cut (it has a more favorable aspect ratio as well, so I figured it should be more efficient). I hope this might help initial stability enough to go small fletched with broadheads and a finger release.


This may be of interest to you. Arvid Danielson , owner of Black Swan Archery has been doing some experiments with my nock.
He made a six fletch with 1 inch balloon cut feathers on gold tips and is really tightening his groups.
Arvid was a Special Forces Sniper in Vietnam. ,Olympic Weight Lifter, Olympic Archer, Head of Hewitt Packer Labs. did work for Jennings, Hoyt, Bear, and I believe has the world record for most Robin Hoods in a day, ( I think it was a 9 hr period.)
I Know he has done some video and I will see if he will share it here. He has also designed the fastest recurve on the market.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

wseward said:


> I was thinking it would be interesting to try and match some of these spin nocks to a soft "Kurly" spin fletch to try to increase fletch area on initial flight and then decrease fletch area at longer distances as the rotation slows. Might have to get the fletch to riser/plunger attitude just right.
> If the soft vanes get "larger" due to increased rotation it would help with faster stabilization? Then when the rotation slows and the vanes "Kurl" more the lower drag tip vortex mode increases?
> Might work well for 30-40# recurves?


I tried them with Kurly vanes. Getting clearance was just not possible in my set-up. They were very critical of BH, preload and technique in terms of how much rotation the arrow had completed as it passed the rest. It wouldn't be a concern with feathers.

I was VERY impressed with their ability to correct a bareshaft. Enough that I am working on a method to use with with wood arrows to help reduce the inconsistency which is always a problem with that material.

-Grant

P.S. Nick, I wouldn't willingly associate yourself with a PROVEN fraud like Arvid, it hurts your case.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

"...critical of BH, preload and technique..." thanx for the warning. May try this at some time. If the product as pressed rotates to much for "Kurly"/"flex tip" vanes may try a file to induce a little rotation with standard nocks.

Hope to try the turbo nocks some time as they may work great in some systems/rigs. I imagine Bare Shafts may fly like footballs.


----------



## Shotkizer (Nov 3, 2012)

Turbonockguy,

What's the difference between your turbo nocks and Bohnnings Turbo Nocks?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Shotkizer said:


> Turbonockguy,
> 
> What's the difference between your turbo nocks and Bohnnings Turbo Nocks?[/QUOT
> 
> ...


----------



## Shotkizer (Nov 3, 2012)

turbonockguy said:


> Shotkizer said:
> 
> 
> > Turbonockguy,
> ...


----------



## Geeman (Nov 28, 2011)

What about shooting out of a compound with a code red rest where u have to be careful with the no location to clear cables and rest? If this twists won't it likely create fletchin contact?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Geeman said:


> What about shooting out of a compound with a code red rest where u have to be careful with the no location to clear cables and rest? If this twists won't it likely create fletchin contact?


I have been using a ripcord on my hunting setup for about seven years. One issue I did find with the Ripcord was that on some setups the turbonock Stealth would contact the top containment bar. I just took the bar off. I found it of little use since I rarely shoot upside down anyhow. Even walking and stalking I never had the arrow fall out of that deep U shape rest.
As to hitting your buss cables. I have had only one bow over the years that there was a problem and that was the Matthews Q.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This thread was started by Rick Barbee, and he just posted another thread with a new video I will share. here.
Rick is not affiliated with my company but does shoot my nocks. I had asked him to join Team Turbonock and he prefers to remain independent. I understand and respect him for that.

Here is a video from his new thread.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I tried them with Kurly vanes. Getting clearance was just not possible in my set-up. They were very critical of BH, preload and technique in terms of how much rotation the arrow had completed as it passed the rest. It wouldn't be a concern with feathers.
> 
> I was VERY impressed with their ability to correct a bareshaft. Enough that I am working on a method to use with with wood arrows to help reduce the inconsistency which is always a problem with that material.
> 
> ...


Grant on my setup I calculated that turbonocked arrow rotation was 1.34 from BH thru the rest. I have not used vanes but l think Rick and one other has. Anyway, all I did was heated a hot cup of water. inserted the turbonock end of the arrow to soften the glue and rotate it until I got the clearance I needed. Even when I didn't it seems that it correct itself pretty quickly. I am still working on my consistency form and all. So I like to here your take on your finding. 
Thanks 
Dan
PS I shoot off the shelf, one that I made myself.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This video may be of use.
Rick actually made overnocks out of an aluminum shaft to shoot Turbonocks on his wood shafts. I actually offer carbon overnocks for the slim carbon shafts, but anyone who can cut shafts can do this themselves . I charge $5.00 to add them to a dozen nocks.

Since Rick posted the penetration video . there has been a spike in t-4 sales. I do recommend gluing the nocks into shafts.
this video shows how to do your own overnocks and also the easiest way to glue. I supply free hot melt glue with each order.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is a post from the new thread Rick Startred, I decided to share it here.
Quote Originally Posted by Shotkizer View Post
Rick,

Thanks for taking the time to do this test video. It's definitely got my attention because it's coming from you and not a sales promo. Turbonockguy owes you in spades because I bet his sales are jumping since you posted your first thread on his nocks. I know you are not being compensated but he should compensate you. He's making money off your testimonial.
You win the bet!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Above the line was the post.
below is my response.
I am really appreciative of what Rick has done.

What makes me sad is how this sport and I guess the world has changed since I was introduced to this sport in 1951. My Dad started a Gun - Archery shop in our basement. and taught me to shoot at age 3. I was making arrows at age 5 . We belonged to Hummelstown Broken Arrow Archery Club. near Middletown Pa. My dad was one of the founders. It was mostly Airforce and Airforce employees from the nearby Airbase. Guys would stop in the shop and many friendships were built around what happened in our shop. We sold and set up bows. made arrows, loaded ammo. and basically talked hunting and shooting in the shop.
The sport of archery my dad would comment was a gentleman's sport. I think he meant that qualification as compared to the sport of boxing. ( HE used to box) Where the sport is not very friendly.

It seems in this sport and probably most . as soon as someone attempts to make an improvement. and offer a product for sale. They become the enemy! Perhaps this is because of all the hype and misinformation pushed down our throats by large corporate sport manufacturing companies. 

Several years ago I put some test shooting videos on this site. using my real name (nick snook) and showed penetration comparisons with turbonocks and some other companies products to show the difference. I used a hooter shooter. But because I was the inventor of the product, many on this site accused me of cheating. purposely shooting my product at soft spots and other products into hard spots.
The discussions got quite heated. What I was claiming had to be fraud and people put a lot of time and energy into discussions explaining why.

Not too long ago . Perhaps two years. I am not giving the exact date, (I do not want to be accused of lying or fraud) A person who was not affiliated with me posted some photos of groups he shot with target arrows. comparing turbonocks and some other products.
He was not even thinking about penetration but in the picture he posted you could see the turbonocks had out penetrated the other archery products. Well up came the claim that he somehow shot my nocks into a soft area and the other products into virgin material.
Seems things come full circle.

The first thread Rick Started is over 11,000 views. and there have been all kinds of comments. Finally there seems to be more positive than negative. And yes my sales increased!!

And yes I still offer your money back if you are not satisfied. Since Ricks first thread , I have sent out three refunds. One was the wrong size, one was not happy. and one was one who did not like how the overnocks looked on his skinny shafts.

At this point in my life what I do for this sport is not primarily about money. (yes I like to make money) but I look at it as payback for all the good things In my life that happened as a result of this sport.
Just a few. Hunting with my dad and brothers. learning lifetime skills in that shop in the basement. learning sportsmanship in the tournaments, I learned to love competition. and branched out into other sports. I got involved in the martial arts (archery is one) and eventually ran a school. 
One difference I noticed over the years between archery as a sport -business and the martial arts as a sport-business. is this .
I have fought in many many tournaments. regional and nationally ranked competitors, and in virtually all cases . my worst enemies in the ring, became my best friends out of the ring.
In Archery. it seems if you are labled as a manufacturer. you instantly become the enemy.
I hope in some way I can help get this sport back to "archers helping archers' as Rick is doing!!
again thanks Rick.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

here is my original Hooter Shooter test with the T-4 with broadheads from several years ago.
same thing happened that happened forRick except I did not cut the front off the broadheads so they penetrated more.
But there was a difference. just more dramatic.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

When I did this test I had recently mounted a pistol scope on the bow on a Scope Mate mount. I was having vision problems that I later found to be cataracs. I could not focus with a peep sight at all. The test I was doing was for penetration, but also I was checking out this scope setup. the first shot elevation was consistent between the two shots, and I figured the left shot of the regular nocked arrow was due to the difference in the arrows flight.
On the second shot I aimed left and right of the orange dot. and got a bigger left right spread than what I had aimed. again the elevation and the penetration differences remained the same. on the third shot I aimed at the first arrow and hit it. Still the penetration differences remained the same. I later figured out what was causing the left right issue. It was not my aiming, or the arrows or the shooting machine. There were two set screws on the scope mount and one had worked loose , allowing the scope to shift left a right very slightly. The shock from shooting would sometimes move the scope sometimes not. A little locktite,solved the problem.

Even with the left right issues. you can see the penetration differences remained constant just like Rick's recent test.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

This is the photo that was posted on another thread comparing groupings of my product an another. Done by a shooter with no affiliation to me. I noticed the penetration differences and marked them in the photo.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

Robert Wood just got some newfangled gel and did a test that I think is a good example of what the Turbonock does.


----------



## mrjeffro (Jul 25, 2007)

Interesting video with the gel. I know a couple guys who love the turbo nocks but what about the other guys (like me) who have dozens and dozens of left wing fletched arrows already. Any talk about making a left wing nock?


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

mrjeffro said:


> Interesting video with the gel. I know a couple guys who love the turbo nocks but what about the other guys (like me) who have dozens and dozens of left wing fletched arrows already. Any talk about making a left wing nock?


Right now it would cost me a whole lot of money to make a mold . It would cost you a lot less to fletch up one set of arrows to see how well they work.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

mrjeffro said:


> Interesting video with the gel. I know a couple guys who love the turbo nocks but what about the other guys (like me) who have dozens and dozens of left wing fletched arrows already. Any talk about making a left wing nock?


C'mon Jeff, get some right wing feathers and give them a try. You need every advantage you can get to shoot that Moose you'll be hunting,. 

Been shooting them a good while now, I don't see any reason to go back to a conventional nock. I've done a lot to improve my shooting over the past 6 months, using these nocks has been part of it.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I found that I couldn't get clearance with the Turbonocks and mylar fletching in my Barebow rig. Tried them with feathers out of my longbow recently and same thing. I think they require a substantially lighter spined arrow to clear correctly. I have some bamboo shafts which I will be putting together next week and I intend on trying the Turbonock on them, I'm hopeful they will be weak enough in spine to clear correctly.

-Grant


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

I have found them to stiffen things up a bit. I ended up shooting cock out to get proper clearance (opposite my normal nocks) and added 100 grains of point weight.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I am not having any clearance issues shooting 4 and 5" feathers off the shelf or with a plunger and rest. Shooting full length GT UL 500's (30") with 100g tip 4" feathers from a 3 piece longbow off the shelf 42#@29". Full length GT UL 400s (32") off a rest/plunger with 145g tip 5" feathers Barebow setup 38#@29". Hope is helps.


----------



## turbonockguy (Mar 4, 2013)

The turbonock will rotate your arrow 45 degrees from release to the riser. If you put some baby powder on the riser and shoot. And slightly rotate the shaft until you have clearance. Then glue the nock in place.


----------

