# Spin wing Vs 2" standard fletch



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

It has been my experience that standard vanes do not stabilize as quickly, out of the bow, as SpinWings. However, if you are going to be shooting as close as 3 feet, standard vanes will be much more durable in the event of arrow collisions. I suggest the Plastifletch Max 2"-they wear like iron.


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

I have not had great results with spin wings at close yardages. Last summer, with setting up a family of four to shoot a variety of outdoor rounds, we opted to go with AAE Plastifletch Max and were so glad we did. Personally, I was concerned that I would not achieve the distances we needed, but, with a 30# bow, they hit only 2" lower at 70 meters than spin wings. And, I found the P. Max to group tighter - I attribute that to not being able to maintain the spin wings as I should.


----------



## Wes Williams (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanks, glad to herar this stuff. I really dont like the Spin's any ways. They work great just cant get used to the looks. Most of the arrows I handle daily are big 75# ceder's with 5" shield cut feathers so ACC's with Spins look kinda "sissy"
Wes


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Nobody has ever been able to actually prove that spinwings are any better, in any way than normal fletches. (Other than being able to be applied by hand much faster). There are many many people that say that "they do this, or they do that", but the variations and opinions are obtained from experience and no actual testing. For every person that says that they're superior, you can find someone that says that they found no difference. Thus, it's pretty easy to disregard their obvious superiority or everyone would be using them. The other argument that comes up is that they're "forgiving of a bad release". Mind you, it's just opinion again, because nobody has actually been able (or spent the time) grading or testing the effects of a "bad release". If a 53 percent bad release was consistently available, then you could test vanes versus spinwings and find out which provided a better group. Nobody has done that. So we're back to opinions again. 
Nobody I know has the superhuman powers of observation to measure "stability" of a flying arrow. 
People who test actually have instruments and calculations and testing regimes to measure what they want to understand. 
People with opinions don't have to test much at all. 
Until someone comes up with documented, tested proven facts which can be reproduced to show the same thing, nobody will ever be sure actually IF spinwings are superior. 
That they're used by all the top recurvers proves nothing. Vanes are used by the top compounders and they have better results. 
People will say that the releases between the two require different fletch characteristics, but they are just opinions with no factual evidence. 

So basically, shoot what you want. The biggest difference is always going to be what you THINK matters. (until someone actually proves otherwise)


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

"If a 53 percent bad release was consistently available, then you could test vanes versus spinwings and find out which provided a better group. Nobody has done that."

Couldn't a shooting machine be rigged to execute various types of 'bad releases'? If so, couldn't one then test/compare various types of gear under 'less than perfect' execution?


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Yes. I shooting machine COULD be rigged to provide a constant variation of release. 
But.... nobody has done that.... yet.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

The only difference is spin wings usually have a lower profile and all less drift due to cross winds...they are not fast than regular feather fletching.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Apart from the fact that Spin Wing have won 100% of international competitions for recurves, Olympic Games included, since they have been invented, and established almost 100% of world records as well, and this should prove something by itself, discussion should be not related to Spin Wing, that is a trade mark, but to curled vanes, that are presently available in different shapes from different manufacturers.
Curled vanes are ligher than normal vanes
Curled vanes have a lower lateral profile than same (area) size normal vanes
These two parameters are easy to compare, as related to phisical measures, and everyone can do the comparison.
Then, you have the "statistical" comparisons, with tests made by hundreds of top level arches over tens of years :
-grouping in reaction to cross wind better than standard vanes. 

Only possible discussion should not be about superiority of curled (light) vanes to standard plastic vanes, but about new lower profile curled vanes (Eli-Vanes, Gas-Pro) compared to standard profile curled vanes (Spin Wing, Kurly Vanes, K-Spin, Sitar)
New lower profile culred vanes are spreading in the market very fast in Europe, and users claim their superiority to those with standard profile, but here really statistical tests are not enought yet to draw a conclusion. 

Compound archers can use a much smaller size vanes outdoor, as of the superior speed of the arrow, so for them it becomes very difficult to appreciate differencies that also become very small on small vanes. So, usually they tend to use standard glued vanes as they need less maintenance. But, it seems presently that new low profile curled vanes are starting to give some measurable advantage to compund shooters, too. Time will tell.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> Apart from the fact that Spin Wing have won 100% of international competitions for recurves, Olympic Games included, since they have been invented, and established almost 100% of world records as well, and this should prove something by itself.


It only proves that most top recurve archers currently use them. 
Last time I looked, the fact that sheep follow one another isn't conclusive proof that they're heading the right direction or that they even know where they're going. 
The absolute fact that you can be assured of is that not one of the recurvers who uses curved flights has done exclusive testing that proves any fletch is systematically superior. 
Statistical information on archers can be influenced by the facts that they aren't doing double blind testing and that people get better when they're interested in improving. Anyone who is taking that amount of interest is getting feedback and is likely to improve thus skewing results. 
Any statistician or economist will take these generic observations and shred their level of relevance. 
Until someone puts up real proof, I'll continue to point out that there isn't any.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Whiz,

Would your posit (that the fact that most of the top scoring archers are using/or not using a particular type or brand of product doesn't indicate proof or validation) apply to other components as well ... such as arrow shafts, or limbs, for example?


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Whiz....you need one.

Elite athletes don't do things just because someone else is, they aren't followers, that's why they are elite athletes. They test extensively to find every possible advantage they can.

They also tune there equipment to a level you obviously don't understand nor probably appreciate. Most shooters wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a vane and a curly in their shooting, but at the Olympic and world class level shooting they can tell the difference in a hair out of place. 

Please, before you try to put down individuals like Vittorio (you might consider reading his credentials) stand back and take a deep breath and be respectful. Your not in his level of the game grasshopper.

Art


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

lksseven said:


> Whiz,
> 
> Would your posit (that the fact that most of the top scoring archers are using/or not using a particular type or brand of product doesn't indicate proof or validation) apply to other components as well ... such as arrow shafts, or limbs, for example?


Arrow shafts, yes. They've actually been tested. Anyone with a normal hooter shooter can test a range of shafts and get results which are repeatable and indicative of ranges of quality. Simple spine testers are easily fabricated that will accurately give spine variations. Grain scales with fine resolution are available. Certain individuals with engineering degrees and professions do actually go out and test arrows. Not just to see which are better, but arrows with wear on them. 
Limbs... Not so important. The properties of limbs don't change within measurable characteristics from shot to shot. Arrows do and testing bunches of them is the only way to ascertain an instance of quality control within values which variations of, will actually cause problems.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

ArtV said:


> Whiz....you need one.
> 
> Elite athletes don't do things just because someone else is, they aren't followers, that's why they are elite athletes. They test extensively to find every possible advantage they can.
> 
> ...


Art. 
Please supply me with evidence that individual elite archers aren't followers. I do actually know quite a few of the elite recurvers. They're on facebook too, you know. The choices that they use are universally because they see no need to do anything different. I don't know ANY who do proper testing other than seeing what seems to work. Oddly enough, I know some Olympic shooters who have medalled too. They just don't have that level of granularity. So don't try and bluff me. I do actually have a background of aerodynamics, psychology with an interest in placebo effect and marketing calibration and testing. I'm currently independently studying the research of high performance skills aquisition and the psychology behind high performance 
Please tell me just HOW you think I don't know or understand their tuning levels?
Please also tell me how someone can claim so much with absolutely no evidence other than popularity, how spinwings are superior when nobody seems to have ever done any tests with a hooter shooter, that will explore their superiority?
Do you have any idea why human involvment is disregarded in real testing and why the placebo effect is well known, proven to exist. You can even read about many studies which you get get the titles of with google. 
Do you know why there are testing procedures that are carried out by people that actually WANT to understand what is going on?
Do you even understand what I'm on about?
Probably not, so I'll spell it out quite succintly. The original claims about spinwings were bull****. You can read about the physical impossibilities of "compressing" air and speed compensations for headwinds and tailwinds on the original packaging. 
Nobody has EVER proven that they "spin up faster" than normal fletches. Nobody has proven that they're "forgiving".
People go on about stiffness and colours when frontal area makes for far greater drag than spin rate does. 
People with absolutely NO idea about how the physics actually work in real life continue to go on and on with bull**** claims and idiot archers just keep repeating everything over. 

I don't see Vittorio showing evidence of anything other than observations. 
No tests. 
All I see is no comparisions of whether spinwings are better or worse than normal vanes. I see a LOT of unsubstantiated claims and purely bad science in discussions and I note the absolute LACK of response from the manufacturer when I have questioned them on various aspects. 

They MIGHT be better. They MIGHT be worse. They MIGHT be just the same as vanes for accuracy out of a recurve. 
But absolute NOBODY can and has proven beyond a doubt that they are. 
When there is no real evidence that they are superior, I refuse to drink the kool-aid mentality that assures me that they are. 

And you, ArtV and Vittorio can't come up with anything that would be scientifically evaluated as unmistakeable proof that can support anything. 
When people like to make up things on here that defy reality, I reserve the right to ask them to explain themselves. 

There are people on here who have posted some absolute lies about products. Win&Win like to make straight out impossible claims about their products. I'll let you go back and try to figure those out. I've seen claims about fletching surfaces that promote better airflow, arrow points that "steer" arrows, dimpled points that try to emulate golfballs, one sided sharpened broadheads, magnetic arrow rests, arrows of measured inferior tolerances performing as good as arrows of superior tolerances and other less memorable things which are completely and utterly wrong. 
And yet people buy them and will continue to. 
While there are ways to seperate you from your money by telling something that is hard or impossible to totally disprove, people will take advantage of it. 
When you even THINK that you're not using the best gear, it affects your performance. 
People can be tricked and are in great numbers, constantly. If you think you can always believe what you see and hear, you're wrong. 
When you watch TV, you happy accept that the sound of the people on there comes from their mouths. 
Even with a one speaker TV. ..

I don't have to be respectful of anyone who makes claims without proof. 
If I can say "show me" and nobody can, then nobody has proven anything. Thus there has to be doubt.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Damn. Make that "and instrument calibration and testing"


----------



## djorgensen3 (Jun 17, 2007)

I can say that spin wings and kurly vanes both gave me 15-20 yards more total distance versus feathers or flexfletch vanes. I cannot however say they were any more accurate than feathers or flexfletch vanes.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

That makes total sense. They're significantly thinner and would cause less drag. What would be interesting though would be what kind of distance you're talking about so that the proportion of change would be able to be related to. Say if you were talking flight shooting, the difference would be minimal. If you were talking maximum elevation on your sight for FITA shooting, that's a significant distance percentage wise.


----------



## djorgensen3 (Jun 17, 2007)

The feathers and vanes allowed 90-100yds while the spins and kurlys allowed 115-120yds. That was shooting dozen arrows into 10" paperplate. With my vision I felt that was acceptable.


----------



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

Now, I was able to get the opposite reaction with vanes v. SpinWings. I was told by Dick Tone to put Plastifletch Max 2" shield vanes on using a helical clamp and no offset. I tested against SpinWings and found that I was able to get better sight marks at 90m (as D.T. said I would) and to a lesser extent, at 70m. 50m was about the same and 30m was actually a little worse. At 90, 70, and 50m, the grouping was similar. I did see better results at 30m. I attribute this to to SpinWings stabilizing faster out of the bow, or possibly being more forgiving of questionable releases. I am not really partial to either (although I just put vanes back on), but one thing that no one has addressed, and cannot dispute-the SpinWings do give better FOC.


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

whiz-Oz said:


> Art.
> Please supply me with evidence that individual elite archers aren't followers. I do actually know quite a few of the elite recurvers. They're on facebook too, you know. The choices that they use are universally because they see no need to do anything different. I don't know ANY who do proper testing other than seeing what seems to work. Oddly enough, I know some Olympic shooters who have medalled too. They just don't have that level of granularity. So don't try and bluff me. I do actually have a background of aerodynamics, psychology with an interest in placebo effect and marketing calibration and testing. I'm currently independently studying the research of high performance skills aquisition and the psychology behind high performance
> Please tell me just HOW you think I don't know or understand their tuning levels?
> Please also tell me how someone can claim so much with absolutely no evidence other than popularity, how spinwings are superior when nobody seems to have ever done any tests with a hooter shooter, that will explore their superiority?
> ...


Do you believe in anything without unmistakeable proof???? With that said I have always liked what you bring to the debate!!!! Vittorio I like what you said and have faith that there is some evidence of proof in the overall body of work!!!!!! Respectful debate is always good!!!!! Doubt is the Yang to proofs Ying,,,,,,The Polarity of it all!!!! Hugs


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

whiz-Oz said:


> I don't see Vittorio showing evidence of anything other than observations.
> No tests.


Thousands of hours of shooting are dedicated world wide by top level archers and national teams /organizations to the comparison between different materials. The fact that data ara NOT available to you, does not mean that the tests have not been performed. Simply, these kind of infos are NEVER released by the testers, as they are considered "secrets" by the organizations/archers owning them.. This leaves to archers like you the observation only, to judge what is working or not working at top level. 
I repeat, presently the tests on vanes are being run to compare new different curled profiles, as curled profiles have been tested superior to normal ones so many times already. 
Anyhow, shoot what you like, but don't think the world is ending at the gate of your garden.


----------



## loraxio (Nov 29, 2010)

I watched the coverage of the Welsh Masters this past weekend, and seems like the vast majority of the archers were shooting some sort of curled vane. Mostly all of the competitors were European, and I have noticed that curled vanes are a euro favorite. One of two Americans in the field, Dave Cousins, was also using curled vanes (probably Kurly Vanes since it seems he had picked up a new sponsor whilst out there for the event judging by the shirt and hat he was wearing). BTW, Cousins pretty much cruised through to victory with Liam Grimwood a distant second. I am keen to try them, just haven't had the guts to actually order them. They seem to be fairly inexpensive, but I guess they'd have to be since it also seems like they are quite brittle. I see several break at the archery club during shoots.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Vittorio said:


> Simply, these kind of infos are NEVER released by the testers, as they are considered "secrets" by the organizations/archers owning them.. This leaves to archers like you the observation only, to judge what is working or not working at top level.


Ah yes. The good old "secret testing" excuse. 
In that case, I have secret testing which proves undisputably that spin wings offer no benefits at all, because the same performance can be achieved with careful optimisation with normal vanes. 
Because it's secret, I don't have to tell anyone how it was achieved, or even that it exists. 
However, it involved a shooting machine with a calibrated variable release, firing the same 12 arrows with all aperiodic variations recorded for normalisation, all shot in a temperature controlled mine shaft aligned to the earths rotation. 
All arrows were degaussed to minimise interference from the earths magnetic fields and this was all repeated twice and overlooked by qualified laboratory technicians who had not been told of any expected results. 

There.
My secret rumoured research with impossibly better credentials stalemates yours. 
We're back to zero. 
I'll just go back to recommending that people spend the time that they'd worry about fletches into training to get better. 
That's the one thing that actually DOES separate elite performing archers from everyone else. 
The difference is attitude and motivation. Not equipment.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

HAhaha whiz oz is so crazy, and his credentials are far below Vittorio's credentials, but if all this results in Vittorio posting more often, I'm in favor of it!


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Good to see that someone with no ability to contribute an original thought is now judging credentials. Oh, how put in my place I feel...


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

In a techno-documentary (aero design for the British cycling squad) when pressed on detail by the investigator the response from a member of the design team was "We can tell you, but then we'd have to kill you".....Well I thought it was funny :sad:

Secrets are inevitable but very frustrating for Joe public.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

1.	The spin wing type vane has proven itself by winning medals. Whiz-Oz if you want to prove differently, please feel free to do so by proving it. You have yet to do that. The Gold Medals prove that the vanes have an advantage for recurve archers. Jay Barrs won his Gold Medal with the Spin Wings, did not win much of anything after he changed to the rubber vanes. My scores jumped considerably when I switched to Spin Wings from straight mylar vanes and hard plastic vanes and rubber vanes. 
2.	Top archers are not sheep as you suggest. As a matter of fact, most are leaders in trying new and innovative things to get an edge on the competition. Since you are not a top archer you cannot possibly know what or how they do things. 
3.	It is funny that you say a person has to prove all of these theories and by using science you should be able to conclude without a reasonable doubt what is best. I recall reading a thread about your slobbering love affair of the Formula bow that had not proven a thing and still has not. It is just another riser with something different. Makes me wonder what your motives are.
4.	As I have mentioned before in another thread, the Spin Wing is an extremely high maintenance fletch and expensive. If a top archer could perform better with a rubber fletch they would switch in a heart-beat. 

Has anyone tried the Eli Vanes yet?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick,

The Spin Wings are only high maintenance and expensive if one is shooting tight enough groups to risk collisions :wink: LOL

The only distributor I could find for Eli-Vanes so far was in Italy, and the shipping was going to be $95 ... ouch - I decided they can't be THAT much better. I had to laugh at the irony of my Eli search, though - Whiz-Oz is on a mission on this (and other) thread to suppress/discredit/doubt-shroud 'spin/kurly vanes', and the only action that the thread prompted me to execute was to look for a source for the Eli-Vanes that Vittorio mentioned! (OMG, maybe I'll gain a couple of points!) ... not exactly the result Whiz was after, I'm sure ... 

I think most people will instinctively/intuitively know that you're correct. when you say that athletes will look for an edge, and gravitate to the best performance-enabling tools they can find - the more accomplished/elite the athlete, the more true that is. 

Regards,

ps - Whiz, while I am mystified by your crusade-like fervor against spin wings (or at least against the notion of sping wing superiority, even if that notion is fortified by resultive evidence), I have to admit I loved your review of the Formula - not because of the bow itself, or that it 'proved' anything, but because I thought it was highly entertaining and creative (and your photography was quite exceptional). You've got a great gift for journalism and photography.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I have three sets of arrows i use for outdoors. My "get in shape" high mileage arrows have FF vanes on them. My tournament X10's have Kurly vanes on them. My retired tournament (ie Main practice arrows) are X10's of the same series and weight as the tournament arrows with the K-Spins on them. No doubt in my mind that at 70M the Kurlies shoot the best. The K vanes are great but when they get a slight ding in them they don't fly as well as slightly rumpled Kurlies. I use the kurlies rather than the spin wings mainly because we had a ton of kurlies in stock when we had a shop and I still have a bunch. I shot SWings for several years and didn't see any difference (for me)


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Has anyone tried the Eli Vanes yet?


These seems to be the new hottest things, and many high level archers are currently testing them and similar vanes. Apparently in Antalya this weekend a bunch of archers were using them/similars. (And even I know of tests being conducted in at least two national teams, reading between lines in Vittorio's posts you can maybe deduce a thing or two.)

Personally, I am using gas pro vanes atm. Natalie Valeeva seems to sport these too, so I guess they won't hurt my meagre scores.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

lksseven said:


> Whiz, while I am mystified by your crusade-like fervor against spin wings (or at least against the notion of sping wing superiority, even if that notion is fortified by resultive evidence),


Oh, I don't have a crusade against spin wings are all. I just have a bent against what appears to be generic acceptance of undisputed truth in their superiority. When there are no subjective tests that indicate this and even our esteemed Mr McKinney admitted that they needed tuning before they worked any better than normal vanes, it's all highly doubtful. Their initial packaging claims were outright lies. 
When the day comes that someone can present testing and/or can actually explain how something which can flex randomly can compensate automatically within certain parametres, I'll accept that. While they can't, I'll point out that nobody has proven that they are. 
No evidence has always been no evidence. However, there are other psychological factors which play a part in their acceptance. Particularly the belief in the claims about them. These factors affecting human performance are evident in lots of other sports and activities as well. Witness how popular those "power balance" bands are with athletes, despite them being comprehensively proven to do absolutely nothing. Even the titanium coated necklaces amongst baseballers who will absolutely swear that they help them recover faster. 
I guarantee that if they had something which they thought was the same thing, they'd believe the same effects. 
It's all about opinion and unmeasured factors. While archers think that something helps them, it will. Psychological effects are demonstrated in various ways. 
Witness archers who are absolutely unable to hold their sight on the gold because their arms will lock up and PREVENT them from getting there, yet they have no problems with a blank butt.
That's an incredibly powerful psychological demonstration. How hard is it to imagine that power working FOR you rather than against you?
If you'd like some demonstrations about testing which has shown the cultural effects which have sporting performance implications in the USA, just google Stereotype Threat and keep reading. 

And Rick, if you question my motives, I'd like to draw your attention to the thread where you claimed a certain limb manufacturers limbs cause the string to stay in the same plane during the power stroke. 
I pulled you up on it because it's purely impossible. That's why you're *****y with me. I know what your motives are.
I have also never claimed anything about the Formula that wasn't demonstrated to be true. I'll even state now that the same aspects of psychological effect are applicable to it as well. The difference is that I have never and would never claim that it will do anything for your performance. If you bothered to actually read my review of it, you'd possibly know that. 

When I change jobs and have the time and motivation to build my own shooting machine, I'll be doing some testing on a few things. Spinwings will be top of the list to test. There will even be a testing procedure and steps to eradicate errors. I won't be able to eradicate some variables, but humans won't be holding the bow, so the main one will be gone. 

I've already seen a few results of different brand arrow testing. I already have a firm idea of which brands and models are superior. 
If I was a serious competition archer, there are brands I'd love to see my competition shooting.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Lets see

a three time world target champion says spin wings work better for him
The father of one of the best all round recurve archers (world outdoor, world indoor world field) in history says the same thing
The greatest male target archer in Olympic history shoots them too


Yeah I think I am going to trust what Rick VS, and Darrell suggest.

and based on my own experience, the kurly/SW group better for me than the flex fletch, AAE/Easton or the old hard K vanes. all of which I have used for at least 75,000 shots per vane type


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Whiz-Oz,

I completely agree with you regarding the power of suggestion and 'permission' regarding the human mind and performance improvement (witness the Olympic clean and jerk - lifters had approached/flirted for a long long time with the '500lb' barrier, but never got there. Until the great Russian heavyweight Vasily Alexeev finally did so in the early 70's. Within a few months, a veritable flood of other lifters also clean and jerked more than 500lbs - a classic "if he can do it, so can I" syndrome).

Of course, Park Sung Hyun hasn't had any company yet in the 1400+ recurve FITA club, so I guess the power of the mind has its limits, too. Sometimes 'one of a kind' is 'one of a kind'.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Archers...please excuse my rant....

Whiz – you crack me up. Go ahead, throw the barbs at me. You have already accused me of being a druggie and a cheat, so why not accuse me of other things unsavory. As for you thinking I am upset with you calling me on an issue with the limbs, you are sadly mistaken. You need to read my comments a bit closer. I am just a bit tired of your arrogance, hypocrisy and condescending attitude towards archers in general. I thank you have GT syndrome. 

I state the evidence is by the archers using the product that works. You don’t psych an elite, but again you can’t possibly know that since you are not one of them. You can only “surmise” as to what an elite thinks and you are far off the mark on this one. The problem you have is that you act like an elite athlete but have not proven you are one. 

As for your testing with a shooting machine, please feel free to do so. The problem with a machine is that you cannot replicate the human variable. You continue to bash a product that has proven itself for over 25 years and yet you have NO evidence to prove otherwise, none….zero…..nadda….zip…. So, if I may be so bold, inhale deeply, then exhale as much as you can and pull that head out. The fresh air will do you good.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

There are quite a few people around the local circuit here that shoot the Eli vanes as they are imported by a retailer here. No bad reports, but they don't seem to make anyone who is shooting them have massive score jumps that I have heard of.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Rick McKinney said:


> Archers...please excuse my rant....
> 
> Whiz – you crack me up. Go ahead, throw the barbs at me. You have already accused me of being a druggie and a cheat, so why not accuse me of other things unsavory. As for you thinking I am upset with you calling me on an issue with the limbs, you are sadly mistaken. You need to read my comments a bit closer. I am just a bit tired of your arrogance, hypocrisy and condescending attitude towards archers in general. I thank you have GT syndrome.
> 
> ...



Yeah. Right on Rick. Why don't you re-enrol and try some english comprehension. I never called you a druggie and a cheat. I referred to Olympic champions being no qualification as a pinnacle of honesty. Witness Marion Jones. But if you can't understand that I didn't refer to you, then I wonder why that is? Maybe you'd like to go back and quote my words which will unerringly prove you correct?
And I'm not accusing you of anything unsavoury. 
Just no knowledge of physics. 
As for bashing spinnies. I've actually never done that. I've never once said that I thought there was anything wrong with Spinwings other than their fragility. Just that there is no proof of their superiority (Once again, you could go back and prove to the good archers reading this that there's actually some truth in what you're saying, rather than hoping that they'll just agree with you.)

I've never even said that I was an elite athlete, or words to that effect. But for some reason, you're trying to infer that I am. Any quotes you can use there to justify that accusation or are you just going to trade on being able to justify it without anything to back it up?

In case you also haven't got any clue about testing, the entire idea of a testing machine is to _eliminate_ the human variable. 
If a repeatable variable can be introduced and spinwings happened to react less to that than other vanes, it would prove that they are advantageous. It's that simple. 

You can't even appear to understand that I'm asking for proof. I don't have to prove anything other than ask for proper justification. The simple fact is that there is no proof of anything other than claims of secret tests and their popularity in the recurve world, while in the compound side of things, they don't feature in the higher scores. 

But while I'm at it Rick, it doesn't take much to get you upset to the point you feel like you need to have a rant. 
Am I psyching an elite..... or just someone precious?

If you're really unlucky, someone who thinks you're not capable of holding up your own side of an argument will leap to your defence.


----------



## djorgensen3 (Jun 17, 2007)

While I appreciate you two gentlemen and your enthusiasm for your arguements, you have totally ruined the purpose of this thread and turned it into personal attacks on each other instead of actually helping anyone out with this subject. Move on.

Anyone here have a distrubutor here in the USA for the Gas-pro or Eli vanes?


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

As I have apologized already to the archers it is not necessary to say it again. However, you are correct djorgensen3, I tend to get sidetracked when someone who doesn’t know much leads a lot of you off a path that is more harmful than good for you. I may not know everything but I have learned a thing or two and am willing to share my knowledge. You can take it or leave it but I take exception to those who attack those who have spent years learning this trade and give freely. 

Now, to explain the spin wing vane versus a rubber fletch, you need to realize that the vanes will not give you “loads” of points. They will give you a few if you set them up properly which many elites have found out how to do and have shown improvement or they would not use them, contrary to a “rookie” statement that it is psychological. 

To prove that it is not psychological, many elite archers will take a product, such as the spin wing, and run several tests over a course of two to three weeks to make sure it is not psychological. After all, “the newness” factor has to be eliminated. Thus they shoot 1000’s of arrows and compare them with their “current” setup to see which shoots best under several different scenarios. They test them in the rain (if possible) in several different wind patterns (if possible) and they test them on days they feel great and days they don’t feel great. Some record their results. Others keep it in their heads and come to a conclusion after several days of testing. Once they decide on it, they will use it for a month or so and then run the test again to see if anything has changed. After all, they want to win, not look good.

One of the most important test elements is not to see how good the product is when you are shooting great since when you are shooting great you virtually can shoot anything, but it is more important when you are shooting just a bit off. You are seeking a more forgiving setup so when you are under pressure you can be getting more points than feel you deserve. 

The reason I asked about the Eli vanes is that I have just received some samples and plan to test them. I wanted to get an opinion so I can compare them to what I find out. I have talked with one gentleman at the AZ Cup and he said that he found no performance difference between the Spin Wing and the Eli. However, the durability is 10’s greater (or there abouts) over the Spin Wing. If this is the case, it needs to be studied a bit more so that if it proves out, many archers will save a bundle on fletchings. I have not heard much about the gas-pro but will be interested in testing those as well when I get a chance. 

Just a side note, when I first got back to shooting after a very long layoff, I figured I would use rubber fletches since my shooting was not in the upper levels any more. After a couple of months of shooting I decided to compare the Spin Wings again to see if there is a difference. Yes, there was a definite improvement in grouping even with my much lower level of shooting, so I still believe that the Spin Wing type vane can help improve an archer’s score but don’t expect miracles. You still have to shoot a good consistent shot. 

As for distributor locations of the Eli and Gas-pro, I have not checked into it but if the Eli’s work out we (Carbon Tech) may consider handling them. Lancaster Archery is still your best bet for recurve target equipment. If you put a bug in their ear they will look into it and if the price is right and the demand is there, they will start ordering it.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Whiz, World level archers, coaches and manufactures are not interested in proving anything to you nor do they have the time. Unlike you, their proof is in accomplishment. Frankly, I'm quite suprised that Vittorio and Rick Mckinney even took the time to respond; they normally wouldn't be interested in the stubborn ignorance from some no name with a computer (and, no, I can't prove that statistically.) Your arrogance in suggesting you know something about what it takes to be a World lever competitor is humorous.

Art


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

ArtV said:


> Whiz, World level archers, coaches and manufactures are not interested in proving anything to you nor do they have the time. Unlike you, their proof is in accomplishment. Frankly, I'm quite suprised that Vittorio and Rick Mckinney even took the time to respond; they normally wouldn't be interested in the stubborn ignorance from some no name with a computer (and, no, I can't prove that statistically.) Your arrogance in suggesting you know something about what it takes to be a World lever competitor is humorous.


Oddly enough, world level archers, coaches and manufacturers ARE interested in proving things to me, Art. They're interested in proving it to you too. Trouble is that you don't have the ability to discern suspect information. 

The knowledge of what it takes to be a world level competitor is available to anyone prepared to do the reading. 
It's been fully explored and documented in a large number of sports and other fields. A lot of individuals' committment and training regimes are well known and analysed by a worldwide range of sports scientists, neuroscientists, psychologists and skill acquisition specialists. Anyone who is interested can read their publications and articles. Your assertion that it takes arrogance to be able to aquire knowledge shows an amazing level of ignorance. 
Your willingness to show that, just so that you've got something to level at me kinda backfired on you. 
Bad luck.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Frankly, I'm not interested to prove anything to anyone. Usually, I just try to share some of my knowledge to the community of the readers, if questions are reasonable, and I fight against the most wrong information about archery, as too many are easy victims of internet disinformation. But I'm open to learn from anyone proposing new informations and sometime I also simply ask about things I don't know.
The fact that curled vanes are superior to straight/heavy one has been proved in the years, and to say opposite is disinformation.
The fact that people in recurve world and compound world as well is testing in these day low profile curled vanes is an information I wanted to share
Results in this comaprison are the information I was looking for.
Then, as said already, shoot what you want, if you like it. I don't care.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I am 100% in agreement with you Vittorio.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Rick McKinney said:


> I am 100% in agreement with you Vittorio.


Didn't you write an article-Perhaps Archery Focus-on this subject say 12 or so years ago Rick?


----------



## olympics84 (Nov 5, 2004)

Rick McKinney said:


> I am 100% in agreement with you Vittorio.


:thumbs_up


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

*assigning importance to variables*

what if the spin wings and every other vane prove equal from a shooting machine?


if you shoot a poorly spined arrow from a terribly finnicky rig (reflexed, low brace height, poor foc, etc) BUT you shoot it from a shooting machine you might incorrectly assume that the bow/arrow combination is "just as accurate" as a well tuned or moderately tuned rig.



whiz, build that shooting machine asap and you will see what im talking about. ive seen a poorly tuned longbow shoot overspined arrows into a unbelievably small circle at over 50yds. 

establishing that something is more accurrate out of a machine does just that. as others have commented there is another entirely more dynamic component in the archer. tuning the bow/arrow to the archer is probably more important than having a setup that is most accurrate when shot from a machine. isolating variables is important but so is ignoring variables (human shooter). REMOVING the arguably most important variable in the shooting equation doesnt always lend the insight one is hunting for. im not bashing anyones testing procedures,motives or well thought out intentions, im just adding my 2cents.


the level of shooting these top guys are doing is "good enough" to see the difference in the equipment they are testing. you dont need to be a shooting machine to see the difference, just really, really good. that being said i too would like to see the statistical difference in vanes when shot from a machine and then observe those findings in conjunction with the statisitical difference in vanes shot by people. i dont think this has to be a one or the other thing. everyone is presenting valid arguments. 

im a beginning target archer.
and please take my grammatical butchery and typing skills with a grain of salt. im trying to make a point, damnit! :shade:


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

ryan b. said:


> what if the spin wings and every other vane prove equal from a shooting machine?


You, ryan b are a legend. You've actually got a grasp on this as your post aptly demonstrates.




ryan b. said:


> if you shoot a poorly spined arrow from a terribly finnicky rig (reflexed, low brace height, poor foc, etc) BUT you shoot it from a shooting machine
> 
> you might incorrectly assume that the bow/arrow combination is "just as accurate" as a well tuned or moderately tuned rig.


Actually, what you'll find is a couple of things. If you had a range of spines available and were only shooting one arrow continuously through the shooting machine to avoid as many variables as possible, you'd see the arrows start behaving in a few ways as their spine changed.
The super over spined arrow would possibly hit the riser and this would make things rather ugly in terms of grouping. 
The less overspined arrow that didn't hit the riser would group nicely, but to the left. 
The closer the arrow got to spined, the more the group would be to the center of your expected impact based on string plane average direction.
The size of the groups would be fine because there are few variables.
Once we start to get underspined, the groups will move to the right (we're assuming a right handed bow in the machine)
When we start to get incredibly underspined, there will be some amplifications of the variables as the shafts start to get near their limits of integrity so the groups will start to open out. If you can imagine the extra thrashing that the shaft will get, it will take longer to settle down and it gives aerodynamic variables more play time to 
affect things. Thus, things will start to spray more towards the underspined side of things as it gets excessive.

But when you mix other arrows into it, near the limits of integrity the small differences in shaft flex at correct draw weight become bigger differences in shaft flex at more than correct draw weight. 
Higher tolerance arrows will of course, show less of a problem than lower tolerance arrows. 

Because people tend to have a bit of a clue about spine reqirements as they get better at shooting, you just don't tend to see it much. 
People are also generally aware about the dangers of things letting go if they're too underspined.
Thus, it's not a well known thing as people tend not to approach the extremes.




ryan b. said:


> whiz, build that shooting machine asap and you will see what im talking about. ive seen a poorly tuned longbow shoot overspined arrows into a
> 
> unbelievably small circle at over 50yds.


Yes. That's what you'd expect unless there are clearance problems. If you were only shooting one distance, spine isn't so important if your clearance is good. That's why if you shot indoor only at 18m a spine range either way isn't that much of a problem, if any. 



ryan b. said:


> establishing that something is more accurrate out of a machine does just that. as others have commented there is another entirely more dynamic component in the archer. tuning the bow/arrow to the archer is probably more important than having a setup that is most accurrate when shot from a machine. isolating variables is important but so is ignoring variables (human shooter). REMOVING the arguably most important variable in the shooting equation doesnt always lend the insight one is hunting for. im not bashing anyones testing procedures,motives or well thought out intentions, im just adding my 2cents.


Your two cents is quite valid. 
What the real heart of the matter is that there are certain claims given to spinwings. These are as yet, unexplainable with the information we actually know about them.

I don't actually think that there would be any difference if they were shot out of a shooting machine. 
I believe that they'd actually group identically for most purposes once the rotation rate was right. This would have to be tweaked to find out what worked. Rick mentioned that his first experiences with spinwings required three setups to get grouping acceptably. This isn't surprising. If they didn't spin fast enough, they might allow variations in 

shafts to make too big an oscillation. If they spun too quickly, they'd possibly vibrate from centripetal force. 

I believe that there's an optimum rotation range for arrows where they'll perform the best, with slowly increasing variation as you get away from it. I don't think that there 

is much experimentation in that area, but lower quality shafts would very likely show it the most. People using better quality shafts of course, would be better shots as well. 
There might have been other issues like lack of consistancy between fletching jobs. Who knows? It does suggest though that blind faith in them automatically being superior out of the box might require revisiting.

What I want to see investigated is if curved vanes are superior or not and in which ways if any. 

If it could be established that there were ten variations of release which could be repeated to simulate a variety of releases then we could test a range of fletched arrows and see if the deviation between the different fletches matched. If they do, then it would indicate no advantage. If they don't, then it would indicate that something is happening that would correlate what observations support. 




ryan b. said:


> the level of shooting these top guys are doing is "good enough" to see the difference in the equipment they are testing. you dont need to be a shooting machine to see the difference, just really, really good. that being said i too would like to see the statistical difference in vanes when shot from a machine and then observe those findings in conjunction with the statisitical difference in vanes shot by people. i dont think this has to be a one or the other thing. everyone is presenting valid arguments.


Well, everyone is presenting valid arguments from their point of view. 
On the surface, it is all convincing. Spinwings are used by the majority. 
When you choose to ignore other possibilities, that's where the uncertainty turns up. 
I don't care what people think as long as they think it for the right reasons. Thinking that something is true simply because it can't be disproved is not good science. 

This happens relatively often in normal society by the forces of advertising...

I'll let you in on a little secret though. One of the long held traditional tuning methods which has worked for some people and not for others is going to be proven as invalid once the information gets out. A lot of people are going to be upset about it. It will be interesting to watch.




ryan b. said:


> im a beginning target archer.
> and please take my grammatical butchery and typing skills with a grain of salt. im trying to make a point, damnit! :shade:


Your point is well made. Well done on stepping in with a valid observation. Too many people think that tuning = grouping ability.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

can any of the high level shooters tweak a non spin-wing to group as well as a spin wing and is it worth their while? if you tear a fletch off its nice to be able to replace a good performing vane even if they are expensive and not as durable as an alternative. different vanes for different venues, like some one mentioined above. 

maybe a difference in size, weight, offset/helical etc will create the same great flight characteristics the spin wings seem to be getting. it looks like some people have suggested this proves true for them AND this is observed while keeping the archer in the experiment. maybe those non spin-wings that grouped equal to the spinwings at longer distances but didnt seem to group as well at the shorter ranges could be tweaked to behave as well at all ranges. again, i think intended use has to and does apply in most of these observations.

also, maybe the "out of the box tunability and superiority" (i made that up) of the spin wings just happens to fit into the area of best/optimal flight that whiz is talking about. im guessing a lot of people have observed this fletch to shaft relationship. simply fletching up in whatever the most common way that top shooters do just happens to coincide for the best way to fletch WITH SPINWINGS on arrows that most top shooters are using. (the same could prove true for another vane but it might have to be applied in a different manner.) .. so while the marketing/advertising behind what spinwing advertises may not be scientifically sound it still could be proven that what people have only observed is true. maybe empirical evidence applies. i dont know. im just throwing stuff out there.

.. the most commonly used shaft, in the weight ranges where the spin wings create an optimal arrow behavior (grouping)..all of it applied in the most commonly applied way..etc AND THE WINNER IS SPIN WINGS! this is an example of course as others testings have given different results. 


whiz, i just think youre coming across as hot because it seems to me that you are trying to prove spinwings wrong because of their poor advertising and the light people hold them in..basically SOME of the reason SOME people use to draw their conclusions. i can see that this could really get on someones nerves, especially when a lot of this COULD be proven. i can also see how its frustrating(insert word) how some people have come to these conclusions.. but what if after all of your testings you discover that all these droolers were right and spin wings are the best for most setups? if they are, like you, i would want to know exactly why but i also would probably just take mr.mckinney on his word and sleep just as good.


i just dont see a need for division at all on this. you can observe an animal hunting in all kinds of hunting experiments and draw all kinds of valid conclusions but the best information will probably be obtained watching an animal hunt in the wild. this is what rick and the others seem to be saying. if a certain kind of prey attracts the animal with a huge hunting drive then its pretty dang important to take it into consideration when observing what they are doing. ..so the elite archers are the hunting animal and the prey are spinwings.. kinda reaching i know. if what whiz is suggesting is true and their is an optimal vane for every draw length,poundage, arrow material, foc,SHOOTING ABILITY etc, then it would be interesting to know. we kind of already know that beginners will do better with certain equipment and experts will do better with different equipment, and certain vanes work better on certain setups..

so for any given combo a certain range of arrows/vanes will be best. most of this has been previously observed as you can clearly see high level archers and coaches can give great advice on setups without knowing all of the science behind it. some people are saying this can be done with a range of arrows and they dont have to be spin wings. given the skill and setups of those using spinwings, the spin wings may in fact be the best choice. i know lots of athletes who dont really care at all why something works, just that it does and that it is the best. the methods used to obtain the answer/technique/setup may be flawed in some views but if the variables are currently too difficult or impossibe to define in a dynamic way then this type of observation may be the best thing going.

what we need here is a big group of experts to get together and with all of their backgrounds, experience and intelligence, create some kind of true understanding of what makes this stuff work. 

oh wait! we have all of those guys right here.. now if i could just vulcan mindmeld mr.mckinney and whiz oz together.. (are you both cringing?)

anyhow, thanks everyone for teaching me something. 


ps whats the tuning method that will be proven invalid or is that trade secret and on a need to know basis? (sorry i couldnt help it). i can shoot a decent bareshaft group at 50..will it prove invalid for me or only for some people? im not trying to be a boor about this deciding-which-variables-are-most-important thing, i just dont like the idea of testing everything in a vacum when the entirety is not constantly accounted for.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Hmm, two olympians and one father/coach of olympian, plus probably 30+ combined world championship medals that those guys probably have laying around tell me spin wing is better....

...You know, I kind of trust them at that.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

ryan b. said:


> ps whats the tuning method that will be proven invalid or is that trade secret and on a need to know basis? (sorry i couldnt help it). i can shoot a decent bareshaft group at 50..will it prove invalid for me or only for some people? im not trying to be a boor about this deciding-which-variables-are-most-important thing, i just dont like the idea of testing everything in a vacum when the entirety is not constantly accounted for.


?
There is only one tuning method and as it is a definition (minimising groups) the idea of disproving it is not applicable. 
The alternative "tuning" methods, of which there are three categories (call them paper tune, walk back and bare shaft via the most common method in each category) are not really tuning methods but aimed at improving the set up.

So - a 20 metre bare shaft is the standard bow "set up" method. A 30 metre bare shaft is called a "basic tuning" method because the end performance, though not tuned (nothing to do with group sizes) could/should result in a better performance. Names here are all a bit vague as dealing with a continuum.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

PS see tuning is about reducing your sigma


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

zal said:


> Hmm, two olympians and one father/coach of olympian, plus probably 30+ combined world championship medals that those guys probably have laying around tell me spin wing is better....
> 
> ...You know, I kind of trust them at that.


Having medals isn't a huge indicator of how gear performs.... I'm sure if you gave Brady Ellison a badly tuned bow and set of arrows fletched exactly the same (regardless the type of fletches) he's still shoot awesome scores, simply because his form/technique is so consistent that the arrows will go into the same group position, ie. he is a human shooting machine. He would then just simply adjust the sights to drop those groups into the middle.

It can be quite 'sheep' like to simply assume that because top level people do/use something, it makes it good. Its kind of like those 'power bands' that have 'holographic' abilities, which have been proven to be .... utter useless and rubbish.... but yet touted by top athletes.....


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Flehrad said:


> Having medals isn't a huge indicator of how gear performs.... I'm sure if you gave Brady Ellison a badly tuned bow and set of arrows fletched exactly the same (regardless the type of fletches) he's still shoot awesome scores, simply because his form/technique is so consistent that the arrows will go into the same group position, ie. he is a human shooting machine. He would then just simply adjust the sights to drop those groups into the middle.


Well, no. He would shoot well compared to average archers, but thinking like that is just idiocy. Why on earth top competitors would use so much of their training regime to tuning and testing and tweaking their setup. I've been coaching archers to international competitions and we spend almost half of our time trying to make the setup perfect. Trust me, you can see the difference in scores, even if it's just two or three points indoors, or ten points outdoors, the difference could be 15 places.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Ha...Ha...! Some of you guys will make fine scientists....lousy archers, but fine scientists.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

I certainly am a fine scientist. I'm well published in my field of expertise internationally.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Flehrad said:


> I certainly am a fine scientist. I'm well published in my field of expertise internationally.


Yeah and RIck is a three time world champion-I would argue that establishes expertise in THIS field that is not subject to a claim of someone having superior knowledge.


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

I never claimed superior knowledge. I only made the hypothesis that top archers can still put down amazing groups with equipment that isn't the top of the range as their abilities allowed them to do that.

I was told a story (yes, a story, since I have no facts or references available to support this tale) that a certain gentleman won the world championships in the late 70's, with a matchstick plunger button, a Hoyt superrest and aluminium arrows. When he was queried about his block of matchsticks instead of a spring button, he told the person that it didn't matter since the matchsticks only changed the place where the arrows were landing, so he aimed elsewhere to get them grouping in the middle.

Now, I don't know the truth to that story, but it runs in the same idea that I was representing. Equipment doesn't shoot itself, if it did, we wouldn't have archers. Put the most well tuned setup together with the best equipment in the world in the hands of a beginner, their groups.... well, you go do the experiment.


----------



## DBrewer (Jul 17, 2010)

Isn’t the “human factor” a significant one? We don't participate in a sport to determine which shooting machine is the best. If a shooting machine determines that vane A performs statistically better than vane B, but in a given archer’s hands, vane B performs (scores) better than A, which one is truly better?

I’m reminded of one of the early biosphere projects where scientists were baffled by the fact that some of the trees/vegetation were not thriving in the “controlled” environment. They called in a leading arborist and within minutes he solved the problem. There was no wind. The “wind factor” was not taken into consideration, but it was the factor that enabled the plant life to embed its root system and get the nourishment it needed to thrive.

My point is we don’t compete in a vacuum, just because a shooting machine tells me a product is superior than another doesn’t necessarily translate to higher scores for an individual archer.

I’m not a high level archer and certainly not a scientist (that biosphere story may be an old wives’ tale, who knows), but my point is you’ve got to use what’s best for your individual setup. Spinwings work for me, so I’m going to use them, even if there’s no “scientific proof” that they should.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Isn't the advantage of spin wings to increase arrow spin to improve arrow flight based on the variable conditions of human error? 

Would a shooting machine be able to recreate a consistent (or inconsistent for that matter) release that would produce arrow paradox consistent with the human hand? Seems like the data is already in front of us with compound shooters with mechanical releases if we are strictly talking about arrow flight. 

For me spin wing advantages happen after fatigue and stress (both physical and mental) come into play.


----------



## DBrewer (Jul 17, 2010)

Matt Z said:


> Isn't the advantage of spin wings to increase arrow spin to improve arrow flight based on the variable conditions of human error?
> 
> Would a shooting machine be able to recreate a consistent (or inconsistent for that matter) release that would produce arrow paradox consistent with the human hand? Seems like the data is already in front of us with compound shooters with mechanical releases if we are strictly talking about arrow flight.
> 
> For me spin wing advantages happen after fatigue and stress (both physical and mental) come into play.


Amen.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Matt Z said:


> Isn't the advantage of spin wings to increase arrow spin to improve arrow flight based on the variable conditions of human error?


Spin doesn't necessarily improve arrow flight. The spinwing claim is that they spin arrows faster and quicker, but there are no reasons to believe that this is correct. Spin rate is fundamentally a function of angular offset to the angle of travel. Spinwings have no camber and neither do vanes, thus their spin rate is proportional to their mounting offset angle. Their curve gives them a slightly higher aspect ratio, but this won't make any difference because it's far less than 1:1 anyway. Spinwings will give a slightly faster arrow with better velocity retention because of their lower profile drag. Optimum spin rate may still have to be tuned. 
Rotation speeds and arrow velocity are things that are easily checked and compared anyway, with no special or expensive equipent.


----------



## travski (Feb 26, 2007)

Ok dumb question but does a right handed shooter use right or left spin wings?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

RH though I have seen some good scores shot by lefties using RH SW


----------



## travski (Feb 26, 2007)

thanks


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

First use in major competition?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Some italians, plus few others have been using them from start of this outdoor season.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Presently several of Italian national team shooters are using Elivanes or Gas Pro curled vanes, and use is spreading very rapidly at top level. 
In my knowledge:
- Recurves:
Elivanes: Frangilli, Nespoli, Mandia
Gas Pro - Valeeva
- Compound: 
Elivanes : Tonioli, Longo

may be others have started using them more recently.

As told, discussion is not about advantage of curled vanes to flat ones, but about what curled profile and stiffness to use. For instance yesterday and today Luigi Dragoni, that is one of our top compound shooters, has shot 1380+1384 in a double Fita Round with ACE 430 and Elivanes P1 soft, sticked with no angle. Discussing with him he told me that he has still to try to compare slight angle to straight mount for grouping, but he will do it soon. Anyhow, he also confirmed me that Elivanes P1 (the smallest profile) soft (other compound archers are preferring stiff version) are very good for him.


----------



## Chupacabras (Feb 10, 2006)

There is a device on the market shown here http://aeparchery.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=21&products_id=160
That will change the aerodynamics of a typical vane profile . Seems like this would be more of fair comparison of design using the same material. Since the discussion is also open to compound I might as well ask "how about those F.O.B. s":shade:
Here is a vid link for the above product.
http://s194.photobucket.com/albums/z289/okiebwhtr/?action=view&current=Picture119.mp4


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Last weekend in windy Antalya world cup:


----------



## Aceman (Oct 28, 2003)

Chupacabras said:


> There is a device on the market shown here http://aeparchery.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=21&products_id=160
> That will change the aerodynamics of a typical vane profile . Seems like this would be more of fair comparison of design using the same material. Since the discussion is also open to compound I might as well ask "how about those F.O.B. s":shade:
> Here is a vid link for the above product.
> http://s194.photobucket.com/albums/z289/okiebwhtr/?action=view&current=Picture119.mp4


I don't think modify the plastic of the vane material is that great of an idea simply because I am not sure how repeatable this would be. I will just continue to put a helical on my fletchings. As far as FOBs go, I don't want to say the principle is not sound. I am sure they work but really will not work for FITA or Feild shooting. I would damage way to many FOBs shooting them in tight groups. That is the big problem with them you can not shoot them in groups.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

+ 1.

Whiz, please attempt to realize that you alone don't have the market cornered on the ability to apply objective logic. Any archer who has reached the elite levels had by necessity, been required to do exactly that. Your assessments of some people's logical ability or bias is simply off base. I can say this because I know many of these people personally and can tell you how much objective testing they've done over the years. The fact that many of them are just so many steps ahead of you at this point doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means you still have that much to learn compared to them. I commend you for continuing on your learning journey. Just don't think you're the only one that ever has.

John


----------

