# Spine indexing !!!!!!!!



## bowtecher82nd

Shane, What was the setup?? Bow and arrows..


----------



## Predator

Wow - nice group Shane!

I'm sold on indexing as well. I now get my arrows through South Shore who does a great job of indexing them. A spine tester is one of few pieces of equipment that I don't yet own.


----------



## RuntCX2

The Ram Spine tester is on my "got to get list".


----------



## D.Short

So where do you locate the spine/stiff side.
I find the weak side and locate it -up.
Don't know if that is best,but have good results.


----------



## SonnyThomas

D.Short said:


> So where do you locate the spine/stiff side.
> I find the weak side and locate it -up.
> Don't know if that is best,but have good results.


I asked this years ago and the answer given was it didn't make any difference, either up or down. I have not seen any article state otherwise or give proof of one better than the other.


----------



## Hoythunter01

SonnyThomas said:


> I asked this years ago and the answer given was it didn't make any difference, either up or down. I have not seen any article state otherwise or give proof of one better than the other.


I agree...

I just watched that YouTube video again with Dan McCarthy and that LCA guy. Mentioned that if the weak spine is vertical, the stiff side will be 90 degrees of the weak side. It was mentioned by Dan that it doesn't matter where it is located, the weak side, get them all the same and go shoot.


----------



## cordini

I mark mine with the strong side up so when I fletch, the cock vane is lined up with that mark.....Just my personal preference.


----------



## D.Short

One thing I have heard is that the weak side is the most predictable side.


----------



## cordini

I've never heard that myself, but the dynamic flex will be the same regardless if it is straight up or down. I went with the instructions I was given by Jerry from South Shore Archery.....He knows a few things about building arrows.


----------



## ontarget7

Best results I recommend stiff side up. 
Rest that have more arrow support and when you have stiff side down it can create some issues with vertical nock travel


----------



## ontarget7

bowtecher82nd said:


> Shane, What was the setup?? Bow and arrows..


Nitrum Turbo
28/72#
330 Injexions cut to 26.5" raw shaft, 100 gr tips, blazer vanes


----------



## D.Short

Stupid question,but when the arrow bends on the shot,and with release it always bends up.........so does an arrow naturally WANT to bend into the spine/stiff side or away from it.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Hoythunter01 said:


> I agree...
> 
> I just watched that YouTube video again with Dan McCarthy and that LCA guy. Mentioned that if the weak spine is vertical, the stiff side will be 90 degrees of the weak side. It was mentioned by Dan that it doesn't matter where it is located, the weak side, get them all the same and go shoot.


Has anyone ever wondered if the spine was set sideways for the entire dozen of arrows? Like spine all to the left or to the right? X bend is X bend.


----------



## D.Short

Hooter shooting them out to 40 yds is the definitive solution,but few have that option.
So,that is why this discussion is for the rests of us. Lol
Some arrows I have tested have a very marginal spine as manufacturing has gotten better,but on those that have prominent spine,my question is will that stiff side in the right position improve flight or will it fight the natural bending an arrow MUST do if in the wrong position???????


----------



## bigbadwoolfe

D.Short said:


> Stupid question,but when the arrow bends on the shot,and with release it always bends up.........so does an arrow naturally WANT to bend into the spine/stiff side or away from it.


Stiff side is inside the U... So into?


----------



## ontarget7

D.Short said:


> Hooter shooting them out to 40 yds is the definitive solution,but few have that option.
> So,that is why this discussion is for the rests of us. Lol
> Some arrows I have tested have a very marginal spine as manufacturing has gotten better,but on those that have prominent spine,my question is will that stiff side in the right position improve flight or will it fight the natural bending an arrow MUST do if in the wrong position???????


What the stiff side does in the right direction is optimize your tune. You end up with less pre lean and better cam synch for optimal performance in the transfer of nock travel to the arrow.


----------



## ontarget7

D.Short said:


> Hooter shooting them out to 40 yds is the definitive solution,but few have that option.
> So,that is why this discussion is for the rests of us. Lol
> Some arrows I have tested have a very marginal spine as manufacturing has gotten better,but on those that have prominent spine,my question is will that stiff side in the right position improve flight or will it fight the natural bending an arrow MUST do if in the wrong position???????


When you are spined right and tuned right your arrow will not bend like you have been led to believe. If it went through this whole bending process your bareshafts would never have perfect correction in flight, giving you poor bareshaft results


----------



## ontarget7

SonnyThomas said:


> Has anyone ever wondered if the spine was set sideways for the entire dozen of arrows? Like spine all to the left or to the right? X bend is X bend.


On a Hybrid cam and indexing to out or in for the stiff side you will have more induced pre lean. For a Binary you can have centershots way out of the normal range with spine to the in or out side.


----------



## ontarget7

D.Short said:


> Hooter shooting them out to 40 yds is the definitive solution,but few have that option.
> So,that is why this discussion is for the rests of us. Lol
> Some arrows I have tested have a very marginal spine as manufacturing has gotten better,but on those that have prominent spine,my question is will that stiff side in the right position improve flight or will it fight the natural bending an arrow MUST do if in the wrong position???????


For the record I didn't use a Hooter shooter


----------



## weekender21

Man, one of those details I've always overlooked. You guys are starting to make me rethink spine indexing. $300 for the RAM though, yikes!


----------



## shinobi3

Shane is there a way to spine index your arrows if you don't have a ram. Is there a cheaper alternative?


----------



## jim p

I saw a post where someone put the arrow between the press arms and put pressure on the arrow until it bowed and some way determined the strong and weak side of the arrow. I tried it on some victory hv 400's and it appeared to work. Then I tried it on some gt xxx's and it would not give consistent results. I am hoping that the xxx's are so stiff that it wont matter if they are indexed right.

With way over spined arrows is indexing required?


----------



## Joe2698

Buy good arrows & kill deer! If your going for the GOLD then you don't need to read this crap !


----------



## Styles

shinobi3 said:


> Shane is there a way to spine index your arrows if you don't have a ram. Is there a cheaper alternative?


Just by Victory arrows!! They spine index for you!


----------



## Fury90flier

shinobi3 said:


> Shane is there a way to spine index your arrows if you don't have a ram. Is there a cheaper alternative?


go to the DIY section and make one...


----------



## weekender21

Styles said:


> Just by Victory arrows!! They spine index for you!


Really? I've seen Jim Burnsworth demonstrating how to spine index in soapy water with VAPs.


----------



## OCHO505

That's what I heard u can float them in water... The stiff side goes to the top. Never tried it but sure would be the cheapest method! My next mission is to start building the most accurate arrows I can. 

Thanks for posting Shane!


----------



## lachypetersen22

When doing this what is it doing? Trying to find the stiffest part or make it so everyone is the same where the cock vane goes. Idk just trying to learn.


----------



## Ian

That groups look like the horizontal needs a lil tweaking.


----------



## cordini

Hopefully this article will help in the understanding of spine indexing......

http://www.arrowtrademagazine.com/articles/july_06/ControllingDynamicArrowSpine-July2006.pdf


----------



## runninghounds

I just sold my ram on here a few weeks ago it's a very nice machine and what makes it even better is when you upgrade to a quality bearing.I had Dorge install them as well and then he came out with his spine machine which is very nice and user friendly...


----------



## RuntCX2

weekender21 said:


> Man, one of those details I've always overlooked. You guys are starting to make me rethink spine indexing. $300 for the RAM though, yikes!


I had bought a dozen of spine indexed shaft's and they was the most accurate arrow's I've ever shot. Tuned very easy and I been hinting to my wife that is what I want for Christmas.


----------



## D.Short

Joe2698 said:


> Buy good arrows & kill deer! If your going for the GOLD then you don't need to read this crap !


Wow,that was a very useful and productive post.........NOT


----------



## D.Short

bigbadwoolfe said:


> Stiff side is inside the U... So into?


Are you sure about that,my testing shows the arrow bends the MOST when the weak side is inside the "U" ,or am I interpeting it wrong??????


----------



## bigbadwoolfe

D.Short said:


> Are you sure about that,my testing shows the arrow bends the MOST when the weak side is inside the "U" ,or am I interpeting it wrong??????


If you only suspend the arrow on the ends and it can spin freely, when applying pressure on the ends, the U that the arrow forms will have the stiff side inside.


----------



## upnorth

did a batch of arrows on the ram . been waiting for my bow to come which has been on order since dec . then il shoot the ram tested arrows through my hooter shooter . if they cut the same hole with no further adjustment I will be a believer up to then I still have my doubts . hope im wrong , lot less walking with the ram compared to the hooter .


----------



## onebigdude

shinobi3 said:


> Shane is there a way to spine index your arrows if you don't have a ram. Is there a cheaper alternative?


I plug both ends of my arrows with nocks and fill up the bath tub with a little baby oil. I spin each arrow a couple times in the water, and for the most part, one side will face up consistently. I mark the side that floated to the top on all the arrows and put the cock vane on this spot.


----------



## D.Short

bigbadwoolfe said:


> If you only suspend the arrow on the ends and it can spin freely, when applying pressure on the ends, the U that the arrow forms will have the stiff side inside.


Making sure we are on the same page......I lay arrow on the rollers of static spine tester,hang the weight ,set the dial.
So when arrow is rotated to show the MOST bend on the dial,I have assumed that was the weak side........and that the side that shows least bend when up is the stiff/spine side.
Is this correct,or have I been basakwards.......wouldn't be the 1st time. Lol


----------



## Predator

shinobi3 said:


> Shane is there a way to spine index your arrows if you don't have a ram. Is there a cheaper alternative?


Yes, a cheaper alternative is to buy your shafts from a place like South Shore. They spine test and mark every arrow and the price diff is nominal. You'd need to buy lots and lots of dozens of arrows before you'd come close to paying for a spine tester.

BTW, I always shoot them stiff side up.


----------



## ElkFetish

Are there other manf's that spine index arrows for you?


----------



## ontarget7

Spine indexing is very important for best results but buying the tightest tolerances possible will also shrink your groups. When an arrow has a wider range of spine deviation from one to another it can and will open up your long range groups.


----------



## jim p

So will indexing triple X's make much difference at 20 yards while being shot out of a 45 lb bow?


----------



## ontarget7

jim p said:


> So will indexing triple X's make much difference at 20 yards while being shot out of a 45 lb bow?


It will more than likely group them tighter but I will be honest, I have been disappointed at their spine variances between shafts. At 20 yards I would just go off of results and toss the fliers aside


----------



## naturalsteel

I am new to Spine Indexing. Would a rolled carbon shaft like PSE Radial X Weave actually have a " stiff " spine side?


----------



## ontarget7

naturalsteel said:


> I am new to Spine Indexing. Would a rolled carbon shaft like PSE Radial X Weave actually have a " stiff " spine side?


Yes


----------



## Bigdaddysimp

This is some good info. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## jesses80

just remember the main goal is to get the arrows coming out of the bow flexing all in the same direction you do that and you will be one step closer to better accuracy may it be floating the shaft nock tuning or using the ram tester.


----------



## ontarget7

jesses80 said:


> just remember the main goal is to get the arrows coming out of the bow flexing all in the same direction you do that and you will be one step closer to better accuracy may it be floating the shaft nock tuning or using the ram tester.


I do not recommend indexing in or out, just want to clarify


----------



## TexasCanesFan

Not gonna say I told ya so, BUT........

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2413489

Good shooting as always Shane.


----------



## jesses80

just thankful he still stops by once in a while to share his advice.


TexasCanesFan said:


> Not gonna say I told ya so, BUT........
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2413489
> 
> Good shooting as always Shane.


----------



## Hoythunter01

Shane...

Carbon arrows such as the Easton Fat Boy, Full Bore, Beman 9.3 that have the rough finish compared to the Beman ICS, Easton Redline, Beman Black Max, Easton Axis, are rolled carbon and have a seam. Correct ?

So, the smooth glossy finish Easton Shafts like the Redline and Axis are a "pulled" technology in the manufacturing process. What are the variations in spine consistency between the rolled and pulled shafts ? Seems pulled tech. would be more consistant and less likely need to be spine tested ?

Thoughts.....

Have you used the float method against the spine tester "Machine" ? Results the same ?


----------



## TexasCanesFan

jesses80 said:


> just thankful he still stops by once in a while to share his advice.


I am messing with Shane and he knows it. We have all tried to quit AT, but it is like leaving the Mafia.


----------



## jesses80

oh I no your messing with him bro but I am glad he still bops in from time to time.


TexasCanesFan said:


> I am messing with Shane and he knows it. We have all tried to quit AT, but it is like leaving the Mafia.


----------



## nick060200

here is my question:
i can get bareshaft groups just like that to about 25yds, and i dont spine index my arrows at first. when i go to broadhead tune, thats when i have a turn a few nocks. and when i say a few, i mean about 3-4 arrows out of a dozen. i broadhead tune at 50yds.

so once you locate the stiff side and orient your arrows do you ever have to turn the nocks during broadhead tuning? im curious what your answer will be.


----------



## RuntCX2

jesses80 said:


> just thankful he still stops by once in a while to share his advice.


I second that and have Shane's website bookmarked on my phone to read his tuning blog's.


----------



## ontarget7

nick060200 said:


> here is my question:
> i can get bareshaft groups just like that to about 25yds, and i dont spine index my arrows at first. when i go to broadhead tune, thats when i have a turn a few nocks. and when i say a few, i mean about 3-4 arrows out of a dozen. i broadhead tune at 50yds.
> 
> so once you locate the stiff side and orient your arrows do you ever have to turn the nocks during broadhead tuning? im curious what your answer will be.


No sir, I never have to touch them after they are all indexed. Don't believe in Broadhead tuning either. When everything is right with dynamic spine, arrows indexed accordingly, form including grip, you will find the Broadheads flying true.


----------



## SonnyThomas

OCHO505 said:


> That's what I heard u can float them in water... The stiff side goes to the top. Never tried it but sure would be the cheapest method! My next mission is to start building the most accurate arrows I can.
> 
> Thanks for posting Shane!


By all accounts said is the heaviest, being the stiffest, the stiff side is down...


----------



## ontarget7

Hoythunter01 said:


> Shane...
> 
> Carbon arrows such as the Easton Fat Boy, Full Bore, Beman 9.3 that have the rough finish compared to the Beman ICS, Easton Redline, Beman Black Max, Easton Axis, are rolled carbon and have a seam. Correct ?
> 
> So, the smooth glossy finish Easton Shafts like the Redline and Axis are a "pulled" technology in the manufacturing process. What are the variations in spine consistency between the rolled and pulled shafts ? Seems pulled tech. would be more consistant and less likely need to be spine tested ?
> 
> Thoughts.....
> 
> Have you used the float method against the spine tester "Machine" ? Results the same ?


I have not really gave it much thought to be honest. I do have some on hand to compare and maybe I will do that to see if there is a pattern.


----------



## Hoythunter01

ontarget7 said:


> I have not really gave it much thought to be honest. I do have some on hand to compare and maybe I will do that to see if there is a pattern.


From what I know about the Easton smooth shafts, spine indexing them would be erratic because the shaft's manufacturing process is different than the rolled carbon process. You would be trying to find the stiff side when there isn't one. 

From my standpoint, buying a spine tester to do a few dozen Fat Boy shafts in a season seems overkill. If the floating process actually works, then it's a no brainer.

I sure as heck won't be buying a spine tester just to do a float test against the thing. 

Let us know....


----------



## TexasCanesFan

Hoythunter01 said:


> From what I know about the Easton smooth shafts, spine indexing them would be erratic because the shaft's manufacturing process is different than the rolled carbon process. You would be trying to find the stiff side when there isn't one.
> 
> From my standpoint, buying a spine tester to do a few dozen Fat Boy shafts in a season seems overkill. If the floating process actually works, then it's a no brainer.
> 
> I sure as heck won't be buying a spine tester just to do a float test against the thing.
> 
> Let us know....


I have personally seen Dorge find the stiff side of arrows from every manufacturer at the ATA show. Felt it with my own hand. Easton is what I shoot and they are no different.


----------



## ontarget7

Hoythunter01 said:


> From what I know about the Easton smooth shafts, spine indexing them would be erratic because the shaft's manufacturing process is different than the rolled carbon process. You would be trying to find the stiff side when there isn't one.
> 
> From my standpoint, buying a spine tester to do a few dozen Fat Boy shafts in a season seems overkill. If the floating process actually works, then it's a no brainer.
> 
> I sure as heck won't be buying a spine tester just to do a float test against the thing.
> 
> Let us know....



Have not seen this at all when testing them


----------



## nick060200

ontarget7 said:


> No sir, I never have to touch them after they are all indexed. Don't believe in Broadhead tuning either. When everything is right with dynamic spine, arrows indexed accordingly, form including grip, you will find the Broadheads flying true.


so, with you spine indexing you eliminate the need to broadhead tune? 
what broadheads do you shoot? 

so you spine indexed and bareshaft tune and got the results you posted on the first page. is your tuning process done from there?


----------



## ontarget7

nick060200 said:


> so, with you spine indexing you eliminate the need to broadhead tune?
> what broadheads do you shoot?
> 
> so you spine indexed and bareshaft tune and got the results you posted on the first page. is your tuning process done from there?


Slick Tricks, Wacems, NAP's, G5 Strikers, QAD Exodus to name a few. 

My idea is perfect flight so if you have perfect flight with bareshafts you can't get better than that. Once you have bareshafts flying true the only one that can take it off that plane is you the shooter. Grip is key for this to happen and when you realize this there would never be a reason to move anything for a Broadhead. Another words I would be de tuning my bow to try and get a Broadhead to impact the same.


----------



## weekender21

I've always broadhead tuned first and on occasion will shoot a bare shaft to confirm my results. That might be the "hard" way but results are the same.


----------



## GRIMWALD

For those that are looking for an inexpensive alternative to a Ram Spine Finder. A gentleman by the name of John Kaufman , in the following link, describes an "Inverted flex board" which has worked for me. 
In the article, he describes using his lathe as a horizontal clamping device but a simple drill in a bench vice works just as well.

http://csfa.com/technote16.php

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> For those that are looking for an inexpensive alternative to a Ram Spine Finder. A gentleman by the name of John Kaufman , in the following link, describes an "Inverted flex board" which has worked for me.
> In the article, he describes using his lathe as a horizontal clamping device but a simple drill in a bench vice works just as well.
> 
> http://csfa.com/technote16.php
> 
> GRIM


Have tried this myself but I found it inconsistent from manufacture to manufacture.


----------



## jesses80

would be great if manufactures just would mark them from the get go.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Have tried this myself but I found it inconsistent from manufacture to manufacture.


Inconsistent how? It works on the same principle as a Ram, only it uses a digital scale as the load sensor versus a dial indicator.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Inconsistent how? It works on the same principle as a Ram, only it uses a digital scale as the load sensor versus a dial indicator.
> 
> GRIM


That is my bad, I assumed you were referring to the compression test, I was wrong.


----------



## bigbadwoolfe

I shot non indexed arrows for about a year, tried X7s, Maxima Blue Streaks, Easton carbon ones and Fat Boys. Then I bought a new dozen from South Shore, X-busters, spine indexed and assembled by them. Not sure if coincidence or the stars align correctly when I'm shooting them, or they're really that much better, but I have not had scores as good or arrows that fly as consistently and tune as easily as this set. 

So next set is definitely going to be indexed and if you can have them indexed, I recommend doing it... And, at the cost of indexing, I doubt it's worth buying a spine testing machine for someone that goes through two dozen arrows every year or two.


----------



## ontarget7

I get quite a few arrows in from customers that have been spine indexed by Jerry at South Shore and they have always been true when I check them


----------



## swbuckmaster

Does anyone know how to upgrade the ram spine tester with bearings on the weight? Or has a photo of a ram spine tester that has been upgraded? It may not be needed but if it makes it easier to find the spine the better.


----------



## whitewolf8041

I'm new to spine testing. So i am going to float them in the tub and mark the top side. Should i put that side up or down with a drop away rest?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Floating doesn't work!


----------



## whitewolf8041

Whats the website for south shore?


----------



## ontarget7

Posted a video clip with the RAM Spine tester on the Blog section of my website with some random arrows I had on hand.


----------



## swbuckmaster

What's your web page address


----------



## ontarget7

swbuckmaster said:


> What's your web page address


http://www.ontarget7.com/

Should be in my sig as well


----------



## swbuckmaster

How much effect on the spine does run out effect. Meaning if you have a less expensive shaft and it's not as straight as a pro hunter or easton aluminum arrow will that effect detecting the actual stiff side?


----------



## ontarget7

swbuckmaster said:


> How much effect on the spine does run out effect. Meaning if you have a less expensive shaft and it's not as straight as a pro hunter or easton aluminum arrow will that effect detecting the actual stiff side?


Quite easy to find the stiff side regardless.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

naturalsteel said:


> I am new to Spine Indexing. Would a rolled carbon shaft like PSE Radial X Weave actually have a " stiff " spine side?


It doesnt matter if its carbon fiber, aluminum, plastic, wood or any material if its a tube it has a stiff plane.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Hoythunter01 said:


> Shane...
> 
> Carbon arrows such as the Easton Fat Boy, Full Bore, Beman 9.3 that have the rough finish compared to the Beman ICS, Easton Redline, Beman Black Max, Easton Axis, are rolled carbon and have a seam. Correct ?
> 
> So, the smooth glossy finish Easton Shafts like the Redline and Axis are a "pulled" technology in the manufacturing process. What are the variations in spine consistency between the rolled and pulled shafts ? Seems pulled tech. would be more consistant and less likely need to be spine tested ?
> 
> Thoughts.....
> 
> Have you used the float method against the spine tester "Machine" ? Results the same ?


It doesnt matter if the tube is pulled, rolled, welded etc if its a tube it has a stiff plane


----------



## SouthShoreRat

whitewolf8041 said:


> Whats the website for south shore?


www.southshorearcherysupply.com


----------



## avidarcher88pa

SouthShoreRat said:


> www.southshorearcherysupply.com


Was just on site will be calling this week.


----------



## SonnyThomas

swbuckmaster said:


> Floating doesn't work!


I've been checking the internet. You're out voted by a ton. Sorry. I even found a post from ontarget7;

"ontarget7 / 02-25-2012, 11:43 PM
This (floating) will work to a point assuming all arrows are reading true to their spine since floating will only indicate the stiffer side of the arrow not the actual reading."
................

One point stands out. Soapy water helps. I tried plain water and lightly soapy water and the arrow does react differently.

Actual spine testing requires set standard of weight (880 grams - 1.94 pounds) and a indicator. This is finding actual stiffness and deviation. Okay, 400 spine arrow bends .400". If +/- .005", this would be excellent. Under .015" deviation is said not to effect flight. Finicky people would probably go nuts  

So you have a dozen boxed or bagged arrows (factory checked for consistency of weight and straightness, which aids spine consistency). So odds are in your favor. Floating then finds the stiffest side. Found, fletched to and you're better off than not floating. 

Bin arrows I'm allergic to. These are unboxed arrows all mixed together. How important is a boxed set of arrows? Enough to raise hell over. A department sports store messed my order, threw my CX 300 Selects in a bin with other CX 300 Selects. I threw a fit and had the store manager called. He was not a archery lover, but ticked off as I was he made a call to Carbon Express. I heard; "Really?" The manager had a new dozen arrows order for me and directed the sports clerk to never put ordered arrows in the bins and especially target type arrows. What I found back then was arrow weight was more a factor. I've had CX Selects (.0025" straightness) vary 3 grs from dozen to dozen. My best dozen Selects varied .1 gr., so 375.0 to 375.1 grs. for the dozen. My worst dozen Selects varied .3 grs., or 378 to 378.3 grs for the dozen. Of recent times, with CXL 150s and 250s, Harvest Time Archery HT3s and Muddy Outdoors Virtue HT3s weight variance per within each dozen has stayed .3 grs and under.


----------



## huntforfood703

Shane do you sort your arrows after you get the static spine and on your arrows how tight was the tolerances. I invested in a Ram last year and was one of the best investments but I am still learning a whole lot lol! I know the Gold Tip Pro Hunters have very tight tolerances. I haven't really fooled with a bunch of different manufactures of arrows which hold the best tolerances Thanks


----------



## huntforfood703

Jerry was AWESOME help when I first got the RAM the man knows his stuff!!!!


----------



## minatauro

ontarget7 said:


> Posted a video clip with the RAM Spine tester on the Blog section of my website with some random arrows I had on hand.


Watched the vid and I have a couple of questions.

1. The first arrow you indexed was the Injexion, and it had zero or .001 deviation. So where would you say the stiff side was?

2. You indexed full length shafts, can an arrow be indexed after it has been cut to length or does the indexing process have to be done on a full length shaft?


----------



## ontarget7

minatauro said:


> Watched the vid and I have a couple of questions.
> 
> 1. The first arrow you indexed was the Injexion, and it had zero or .001 deviation. So where would you say the stiff side was?
> 
> 2. You indexed full length shafts, can an arrow be indexed after it has been cut to length or does the indexing process have to be done on a full length shaft?


1) even thou the deviation was very little it still can be detected. 

2) You bet, they will still read the same but in some cases have less deviation after cutting them. 

Some of the most tightest tolerances I have tested have been Easton, GT, CX and Black Eagles.


----------



## ontarget7

huntforfood703 said:


> Shane do you sort your arrows after you get the static spine and on your arrows how tight was the tolerances. I invested in a Ram last year and was one of the best investments but I am still learning a whole lot lol! I know the Gold Tip Pro Hunters have very tight tolerances. I haven't really fooled with a bunch of different manufactures of arrows which hold the best tolerances Thanks


I would definitely sort them on the less expensive shafts/tolerances. The tighter tolerance shafts are generally tight enough there is no need to sort them.


----------



## swbuckmaster

SonnyThomas said:


> I've been checking the internet. You're out voted by a ton. Sorry. I even found a post from ontarget7;
> 
> "ontarget7 / 02-25-2012, 11:43 PM
> This (floating) will work to a point assuming all arrows are reading true to their spine since floating will only indicate the stiffer side of the arrow not the actual reading."
> ................
> 
> One point stands out. Soapy water helps. I tried plain water and lightly soapy water and the arrow does react differently.
> 
> Actual spine testing requires set standard of weight (880 grams - 1.94 pounds) and a indicator. This is finding actual stiffness and deviation. Okay, 400 spine arrow bends .400". If +/- .005", this would be excellent. Under .015" deviation is said not to effect flight. Finicky people would probably go nuts
> 
> So you have a dozen boxed or bagged arrows (factory checked for consistency of weight and straightness, which aids spine consistency). So odds are in your favor. Floating then finds the stiffest side. Found, fletched to and you're better off than not floating.
> 
> Bin arrows I'm allergic to. These are unboxed arrows all mixed together. How important is a boxed set of arrows? Enough to raise hell over. A department sports store messed my order, threw my CX 300 Selects in a bin with other CX 300 Selects. I threw a fit and had the store manager called. He was not a archery lover, but ticked off as I was he made a call to Carbon Express. I heard; "Really?" The manager had a new dozen arrows order for me and directed the sports clerk to never put ordered arrows in the bins and especially target type arrows. What I found back then was arrow weight was more a factor. I've had CX Selects (.0025" straightness) vary 3 grs from dozen to dozen. My best dozen Selects varied .1 gr., so 375.0 to 375.1 grs. for the dozen. My worst dozen Selects varied .3 grs., or 378 to 378.3 grs for the dozen. Of recent times, with CXL 150s and 250s, Harvest Time Archery HT3s and Muddy Outdoors Virtue HT3s weight variance per within each dozen has stayed .3 grs and under.


Say what you want about floating arrows it doesn't work. Even if an arrow had a heavy side that doesn't mean it will effect the dynamic spine of the arrow. More then likley all your doing floating arrows is having the arrow settle down because of arrow straightness. When you break the surface tension of the water the bent side of the arrow will more likley settle down. What ever you stick in the end of your arrow to keep the water out could effect how the arrow floats ect. The dynamic stiff side of the arrow could be opposite of that. 

I also own a ram spine tester and am aware how you test for spine deflection.

As for arrows I never buy bin arrows. I buy them straight from goldtip and ask for a certain weight this way I always have consistant arrows from year to year.

I've found shooting arrows on a hooter shooter and twisting nocks till all arrows hit the same dot works. Ive found shooting bare shaft through paper and twisting nocks so they all bullet hole to be another proven way to get my arrows to all hit the same dot at distance. 

I bought the ram spine tester to check spine devation or degradation from hitting hard targets or shooting 3d. I also bought it to speed up the arrow tunning process for my kids arrows. It's hard to get access to a hooter shooter and most kids aren't consistant enough to shoot bare shafts through paper. Shooting ultra stiff spot arrows are also hard to see the flex through paper like properly spined arrows thus the reason the ram spine tester.


----------



## ontarget7

For the record IMO floating arrows is not a consistent method


----------



## IRISH_11

This is comical. Spine means nothing. And I have seen enough super slow motion videos to know that arrows do flex when receiving the column loading from the initial transfer of energy from the string to the arrow. 

The ram testers are crude pieces of equipment and are easily influenced by the pressure placed on the bearings when spinning the shafts. Couple this with the residual bend the shafts take when a weight is hung from them and now your chasing unicorns.

Someone please tell me what all this equates to at 50 yards? I mean if I take a dozen arrows and fletch them willy nilly and then use a ram and index the fletching to what the ram told me what can be seen in the 50 yard groups when shot?


----------



## SonnyThomas

swbuckmaster said:


> Say what you want about floating arrows it doesn't work. Even if an arrow had a heavy side that doesn't mean it will effect the dynamic spine of the arrow. More then likley all your doing floating arrows is having the arrow settle down because of arrow straightness. When you break the surface tension of the water the bent side of the arrow will more likley settle down. What ever you stick in the end of your arrow to keep the water out could effect how the arrow floats ect. The dynamic stiff side of the arrow could be opposite of that.
> 
> I also own a ram spine tester and am aware how you test for spine deflection.
> 
> As for arrows I never buy bin arrows. I buy them straight from goldtip and ask for a certain weight this way I always have consistant arrows from year to year.
> 
> I've found shooting arrows on a hooter shooter and twisting nocks till all arrows hit the same dot works. Ive found shooting bare shaft through paper and twisting nocks so they all bullet hole to be another proven way to get my arrows to all hit the same dot at distance.
> 
> I bought the ram spine tester to check spine devation or degradation from hitting hard targets or shooting 3d. I also bought it to speed up the arrow tunning process for my kids arrows. It's hard to get access to a hooter shooter and most kids aren't consistant enough to shoot bare shafts through paper. Shooting ultra stiff spot arrows are also hard to see the flex through paper like properly spined arrows thus the reason the ram spine tester.


Say what you want, the majority of those who've floated arrows say they saw results. Pretty cheap alternative to a $300 Ram Tester or $1000 Hooter Shooter.

Also a alternative is looking for the seam. Search the internet and you find people seeing results. 

Dynamic spine. If by some notables, dynamic spine is effected by both ends of the arrow, what's on both of ends of the arrow. Beings the arrow is in flight there is no way to test except through shooting and possibly those who have done extensive testing (a range of variables). 

I guess we agree on consistency of arrows.

Is a Ram Tester more accurate? Yes. But for those who don't have a Ram Tester, can't afford one or a Hooter Shooter, don't have access to either, alternatives exist. If the one using alternatives believes they work.....

And for hunting? All the "fantastic" improvements and higher speeds of bows and the average kill distance of whitetail deer remains at a average 19 yards. Least wise I haven't seen a update that says otherwise.


----------



## swbuckmaster

SonnyThomas said:


> Say what you want, the majority of those who've floated arrows say they saw results. Pretty cheap alternative to a $300 Ram Tester or $1000 Hooter Shooter.
> 
> Also a alternative is looking for the seam. Search the internet and you find people seeing results.
> 
> Dynamic spine. If by some notables, dynamic spine is effected by both ends of the arrow, what's on both of ends of the arrow. Beings the arrow is in flight there is no way to test except through shooting and possibly those who have done extensive testing (a range of variables).
> 
> I guess we agree on consistency of arrows.
> 
> Is a Ram Tester more accurate? Yes. But for those who don't have a Ram Tester, can't afford one or a Hooter Shooter, don't have access to either, alternatives exist. If the one using alternatives believes they work.....
> 
> And for hunting? All the "fantastic" improvements and higher speeds of bows and the average kill distance of whitetail deer remains at a average 19 yards. Least wise I haven't seen a update that says otherwise.


Ok fine floating works for you do it if you want. I wont! I'll shoot mine in

If you also think I don't know the dynamic spine can't be influenced by the cut on the end of the shaft, point weight, fetching and nock weight your mistaken. 

As for hunting I'm not chasing 12" vitals and guts I'm chasing more x's. Tunned arrows will shoot broadheads better then not tunned arrows especially if you hunt out west where 40 yards and beyond may be more realistic than 19 yard chip shots.


----------



## DJO

ontarget7 said:


> Spine indexing is very important for best results but buying the tightest tolerances possible will also shrink your groups. When an arrow has a wider range of spine deviation from one to another it can and will open up your long range groups.


I bought a dozen arrows recently. The arrow builder suggested .003 straightness vs the .001 because he said it was much easier to index the .003 arrows and thought I would get better results with the .003 because they would be clearly indexed correctly. Does this make sense to you?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Sonny
Matching/tunning/indexing nocks/weighing/ ect is no different the what a reloader does working up a load for his rifle. Sure a rifle that shoots a 2" group will kill a whitetail at 100-200 yards. Some people like myself are chasing one hole accuracy though. I also don't know one reloader who floats his brass, bullet, powder or shines a light in the brass looking for the spine ect ha ha


----------



## weekender21

ontarget7 said:


> 1) even thou the deviation was very little it still can be detected.
> 
> 2) You bet, they will still read the same but in some cases have less deviation after cutting them.
> 
> Some of the most tightest tolerances I have tested have been Easton, GT, CX and Black Eagles.



Does spine indexing matter less if you're shooting shafts with such tight tolerances? I'm only asking because I have a few dozen Easton Carbon Injexions on order and they looked almost perfect in your test. After I cut them down to 28" I imagine they will be very difficult to index. Thanks.


----------



## ontarget7

DJO said:


> I bought a dozen arrows recently. The arrow builder suggested .003 straightness vs the .001 because he said it was much easier to index the .003 arrows and thought I would get better results with the .003 because they would be clearly indexed correctly. Does this make sense to you?


Nope


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> This is comical. Spine means nothing. And I have seen enough super slow motion videos to know that arrows do flex when receiving the column loading from the initial transfer of energy from the string to the arrow.
> 
> The ram testers are crude pieces of equipment and are easily influenced by the pressure placed on the bearings when spinning the shafts. Couple this with the residual bend the shafts take when a weight is hung from them and now your chasing unicorns.
> 
> Someone please tell me what all this equates to at 50 yards? I mean if I take a dozen arrows and fletch them willy nilly and then use a ram and index the fletching to what the ram told me what can be seen in the 50 yard groups when shot?


Your comical as well. You keep watching your slow motion videos and when you do answer me this. If the arrow bends like a wet noodle how in the world would you get perfect results with bareshafts and fletched. The bareshaft would never recover to have the same point of impact as fletched. 

It equates to tighter down range groups period. 

Of coarse you have to use the RAM correctly to read the results and it can be influenced by others if they don't know how to use it.


----------



## ontarget7

weekender21 said:


> Does spine indexing matter less if you're shooting shafts with such tight tolerances? I'm only asking because I have a few dozen Easton Carbon Injexions on order and they looked almost perfect in your test. After I cut them down to 28" I imagine they will be very difficult to index. Thanks.


You will still be able to index them even with the tight tolerances. It does matter less the tighter the tolerances. If you want to be picky from that you would batch your arrows accordingly, having the exact same spine reading for a particular batch. Personally they are tight enough for me I don't see a difference down range batching or not batching them.


----------



## IRISH_11

The proof is in the pudding. Watch the video. Arrow looks like it is flexing to me. How about anybody else?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ufRhljKrc


----------



## D.Short

Looks like bending,but minimal.
Very well tuned I would say,after totally leaving the bow is where the most wobble appears.


----------



## IRISH_11

ontarget7 said:


> Your comical as well. You keep watching your slow motion videos and when you do answer me this. If the arrow bends like a wet noodle how in the world would you get perfect results with bareshafts and fletched. The bareshaft would never recover to have the same point of impact as fletched.
> 
> It equates to tighter down range groups period.
> 
> Of coarse you have to use the RAM correctly to read the results and it can be influenced by others if they don't know how to use it.




Tighter groups down range. Really? What is it at 50 yds???? 1/8", 1/4"????? Million dollar question that nobody will answer because there is very little difference. Keep chasing unicorns fellas and sending your bows out to be tuned. Pure nonsense. Shoot your arrows in plain and simple.


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> The proof is in the pudding. Watch the video. Arrow looks like it is flexing to me. How about anybody else?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ufRhljKrc


You need to keep searching then. You can find other slow motion video with perfect arrow flight

So you going to answer my question ???


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> Tighter groups down range. Really? What is it at 50 yds???? 1/8", 1/4"????? Million dollar question that nobody will answer because there is very little difference. Keep chasing unicorns fellas and sending your bows out to be tuned. Pure nonsense. Shoot your arrows in plain and simple.


Guys like you are what AT does not need.

I am not promoting my tuning at all by giving you this information.


----------



## IRISH_11

D.Short said:


> Looks like bending,but minimal.
> Very well tuned I would say,after totally leaving the bow is where the most wobble appears.



Lets just agree there is bending of the shaft. I could post recurve bows being shot where the arrow does look like a wet noodle. 


I have done enough arrow testing to know that arrows have a NBP (Natural Bend Plane). This is the plane of the shaft that the arrow will oscillate on when in flight. 

Multiple things occur during the launch cycle which can affect the initial bend of the arrow. Nock height, centershot, cam timing, string contact, type of release, limb deflection, type of rest, nock fit, etc. all influence the initial bend of the arrow at launch. 

Initial bend is not to be confused with NBP. NBP is the plane the arrow will seek to oscillate on regardless of initial bend. Initial bend is the result of all combined elements mentioned above and there effect on the transfer of energy from the string to the arrow. sure we can tune our bows to the best of our ability but at the end of the day how your particular arrow flexes when launched is what it is meaning you really can't control this. What you can control is where the NBP is indexed. NBP is not necessarily the weak spine, it is not the stiff spine. It is not something you can find from a ram tester or a compression test.


----------



## 3-d buster x4

Shane, have you tested any of the Victory Vap's ? Ive had VERY good luck with them out to 60 yds. 
Victory claims the labeling on the shaft is the backbone so I have always fletched them according to that statement .


----------



## IRISH_11

ontarget7 said:


> Your comical as well. You keep watching your slow motion videos and when you do answer me this. If the arrow bends like a wet noodle how in the world would you get perfect results with bareshafts and fletched. The bareshaft would never recover to have the same point of impact as fletched.
> 
> It equates to tighter down range groups period.
> 
> Of coarse you have to use the RAM correctly to read the results and it can be influenced by others if they don't know how to use it.




You can get bare shafts and fletched shafts to impact the same provided the shafts are stiff enough and don't have a large bend cycle. It is often misrepresented when somebody says my bare shafts hit the same as my fletched at 20 yds. With enough adjusting you can get fletched and bare to hit however this is not the end all be all for tuning. when you get the bare shafts and fletched to impact the same at 20 what do they look like at 21,22,23,24 etc. What do they look like at 5 & 10? 

When are you going to answer my question as to what the measurable benefit is? 1/8", 1/4" at 50yds.


----------



## PayneTrain

ontarget7 said:


> You will still be able to index them even with the tight tolerances. It does matter less the tighter the tolerances. If you want to be picky from that you would batch your arrows accordingly, having the exact same spine reading for a particular batch. Personally they are tight enough for me I don't see a difference down range batching or not batching them.


Ok, first off this is the first I'm reading on spine indexing so bare with me. I too have an order of injection shafts on the way. Let's say I have all the resources, what do I need to do to choose how to fletch my arrows? Let's say I have no resources, what then? What could I expect from doing nothing and throwing them in the jig? 
Very interested to learn


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> You can get bare shafts and fletched shafts to impact the same provided the shafts are stiff enough and don't have a large bend cycle. It is often misrepresented when somebody says my bare shafts hit the same as my fletched at 20 yds. With enough adjusting you can get fletched and bare to hit however this is not the end all be all for tuning. when you get the bare shafts and fletched to impact the same at 20 what do they look like at 21,22,23,24 etc. What do they look like at 5 & 10?
> 
> When are you going to answer my question as to what the measurable benefit is? 1/8", 1/4" at 50yds.


I have shot more arrows than I even care to admit and years ago would only shoot .006 or .003 shafts to save a buck. I have tested plenty of arrows of the same model in the different grades. The lower grade shafts have a wider spine deflection range and will open up groups down range compared to those with tighter tolerances. You combine that with shooter error, you have way larger group differences than 1/4". I consider myself a fairly decent shot and can easily see the difference in long range groups. 

This is the part you are missing

My impact points don't change at 5, 10, 15,21,22,23 yards. Again when everything is true you won't have all this bending that tends to get posted of slow motion videos 

Here is a perfect example of how this bending can be widely misinterpreted and widely influenced by the shooter, arrow spine and overall tune of a bow. From this video it is obvious which one is coming off the string truer than the others. 
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=835586739812998


----------



## ontarget7

PayneTrain said:


> Ok, first off this is the first I'm reading on spine indexing so bare with me. I too have an order of injection shafts on the way. Let's say I have all the resources, what do I need to do to choose how to fletch my arrows? Let's say I have no resources, what then? What could I expect from doing nothing and throwing them in the jig?
> Very interested to learn


Last year I had 2 dozen Injexions, one of which I indexed and the other I did not. The tolerance were tight enough i personally could not tell a difference between them. This is one of many benefits with the tighter tolerance shafts.


----------



## PayneTrain

ontarget7 said:


> Last year I had 2 dozen Injexions, one of which I indexed and the other I did not. The tolerance were tight enough i personally could not tell a difference between them. This is one of many benefits with the tighter tolerance shafts.


Thanks, makes it's a simple decision for me!


----------



## ontarget7

3-d buster x4 said:


> Shane, have you tested any of the Victory Vap's ? Ive had VERY good luck with them out to 60 yds.
> Victory claims the labeling on the shaft is the backbone so I have always fletched them according to that statement .


Have not tested them much lately. I used to shoot them when they first came out but had way to much inconsistencies for me personally. With that said the VAP V1's I tested last year came in very good. hope they have improved across the board from when I shot them.
Haven't paid much attention if the labeling is the stiff side or not. Will check next time I test some


----------



## ontarget7

PayneTrain said:


> Thanks, makes it's a simple decision for me!


No problem


----------



## 3-d buster x4

ontarget7 said:


> Have not tested them much lately. I used to shoot them when they first came out but had way to much inconsistencies for me personally. With that said the VAP V1's I tested last year came in very good. hope they have improved across the board from when I shot them.
> Haven't paid much attention if the labeling is the stiff side or not. Will check next time I test some


I have been shooting the Vap V1 with outstanding results ! I just received 2 more doz of the new Vap V1's target shafts. 
Fletching them up today ..
WAY to cold for me to shoot outdoors.. Its - 22 here now !
Thanks bud


----------



## SonnyThomas

swbuckmaster said:


> Sonny
> Matching/tunning/indexing nocks/weighing/ ect is no different the what a reloader does working up a load for his rifle. Sure a rifle that shoots a 2" group will kill a whitetail at 100-200 yards. Some people like myself are chasing one hole accuracy though. I also don't know one reloader who floats his brass, bullet, powder or shines a light in the brass looking for the spine ect ha ha


swbuckmaster! You never used a flashlight to check the inside flash hole for burrs? ha-ha-ha! Yep, I was that finicky...

Just brought up the dynamic spine for others to understand.... 

To all, I'm not knocking Ram testing, just saying other things do make arrows fly pretty good and not break the bank...I got tired of shooting in arrows a long time ago. I've spoke with some arrow makers and some do label their arrows to the spine and one noted to look for the blemish line. It's worked for me.


----------



## kc hay seed

new at this ,i have an arrow straightner if i set the gauge at the center of my shafts and rotated them, would the least reading be the stiff side of the shaft? thanks in advance


----------



## swbuckmaster

IRISH_11 said:


> Tighter groups down range. Really? What is it at 50 yds???? 1/8", 1/4"????? Million dollar question that nobody will answer because there is very little difference. Keep chasing unicorns fellas and sending your bows out to be tuned. Pure nonsense. Shoot your arrows in plain and simple.


Irish if you can't shoot good enough or consistant enough at 50 it won't matter to you keep doing what you do. For others who are all you have to do is number your arrows and label their impact points on the target. You will see patterns 3 and 5 may hit x. 2 and 6 may seem to always hit high left jar licking 10's. Rotate the nocks and line the dynamic spine up and it fixes those problems. Using a ram spine tester speeds up the process. It doesn't matter if the arrow wobbles all the way to the target! It's getting the arrow to all wobble all the the way to the target on the same frequency. I can spine index an arrow and take the very next arrow and spine it opposite and my rest will make a slightly different buzz. Any devation however small it is at the rest shows up at distances as close as 20 yards. It's worse at 50.

If you still think it's comical then maybe your one of the 3d guys that seems to always be in the guts and says "that would still kill it".


----------



## jesses80

sonny is the blemish line consider the stiff or week side.


----------



## IRISH_11

swbuckmaster said:


> Irish if you can't shoot good enough or consistant enough at 50 it won't matter to you keep doing what you do. For others who are all you have to do is number your arrows and label their impact points on the target. You will see patterns 3 and 5 may hit x. 2 and 6 may seem to always hit high left jar licking 10's. Rotate the nocks and line the dynamic spine up and it fixes those problems. Using a ram spine tester speeds up the process. It doesn't matter if the arrow wobbles all the way to the target! It's getting the arrow to all wobble all the the way to the target on the same frequency. I can spine index an arrow and take the very next arrow and spine it opposite and my rest will make a slightly different buzz. Any devation however small it is at the rest shows up at distances as close as 20 yards. It's worse at 50.
> 
> If you still think it's comical then maybe your one of the 3d guys that seems to always be in the guts and says "that would still kill it".


Is robin hoods at 50 good enough?


----------



## RogBow

IRISH_11 said:


> You can get bare shafts and fletched shafts to impact the same provided the shafts are stiff enough and don't have a large bend cycle. It is often misrepresented when somebody says my bare shafts hit the same as my fletched at 20 yds. With enough adjusting you can get fletched and bare to hit however this is not the end all be all for tuning. when you get the bare shafts and fletched to impact the same at 20 what do they look like at 21,22,23,24 etc. What do they look like at 5 & 10?
> 
> When are you going to answer my question as to what the measurable benefit is? 1/8", 1/4" at 50yds.


Spine is critical, especially when broadhead and bareshaft tuning. When using lower end arrows you may see only 4 arrows out of a dozen that tune properly. 

Higher end AC type arrows are the best, as far as dynamic spine consistency is concerned.


----------



## swbuckmaster

IRISH_11 said:


> Is robin hoods at 50 good enough?


I don't know a single person who shoots at at any distance and gets Robin hoods because they do things to prevent them "bushings, pin nocks, ect"

The guys I typically see shooting Robin hoods and bragging are guys that are lower on the learning curve.


----------



## IRISH_11

swbuckmaster said:


> I don't know a single person who shoots at at any distance and gets Robin hoods because they do things to prevent them "bushings, pin nocks, ect"
> 
> The guys I typically see shooting Robin hoods and bragging are guys that are lower on the learning curve.


I know several pros that get robin hoods with bushings. I robin hooded a shaft just yesterday at 40. GT 22 series with acculite bushing and acculite nock.


----------



## 3-d buster x4

IRISH_11 said:


> Is robin hoods at 50 good enough?


DAMN, that's some GOOD shooting !! Can you post a video ?


----------



## systembowtech

The glücklicher Methode for finding the weakest side works very well.....and fast

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1537989


----------



## weekender21

ontarget7 said:


> You will still be able to index them even with the tight tolerances. It does matter less the tighter the tolerances. If you want to be picky from that you would batch your arrows accordingly, having the exact same spine reading for a particular batch. Personally they are tight enough for me I don't see a difference down range batching or not batching them.


Thanks for taking the time to explain!


----------



## SonnyThomas

jesses80 said:


> sonny is the blemish line consider the stiff or week side.


Yes, stiff. The arrow has to start somewhere for build and coming around, the start is overlapped.


----------



## hoyt em all

what effect does the straightness of a arrow have with this method? is there a common relation between the stiff side and the warp? such as the warp is almost always 90 deg. from the stiff side ? i gave up on 100% carbon arrows and now shoot acc prohunters because of how much diff. there was when spine indexing BH's with carbons . i still need to index the accP.H. but the difference is a world better.


----------



## weekender21

When you say "spine indexing broadheads" are you skipping the initial index step and "nock tuning" each shaft with broadheads?


----------



## swbuckmaster

I don't know who your quoting but broadhead indexing with a ram tester checks to see if the broadhead is straight with the shaft. 

Some people also like to index their broadhead so the blades line up with the vanes.

Indexing nocks so all arrows dynamic spines line up is what your looking for when it comes to accuracy.


----------



## weekender21

Quoting the post above mine.


----------



## SlickNickel

A couple of thoughts after reading through this thread.

1. You can achieve great results by paper tuning and rotating nocks so that every shaft shoots bullet holes. The only issue with this method is the fact that you don't know where the stiff side of the shaft actually is, but you do know that you have all of your arrows leaving the bow consistently.

2. Broadhead tuning and bare shaft tuning will accomplish the same thing. OT7, you spine index shafts, and then bare shaft tune. You get consistent and clean arrow flight. I shoot through paper and rotate nocks and broadhead tune, and I get consistent and clean arrow flight. Most times I either paper tune or bare shaft tune, but I also broadhead tune a lot of bows for other people. Broadhead tuning will get you consistent, clean arrow flight. All methods I mention here should compliment each other.

3. When shooting the arrows and rotating nocks, the variable in play is of course the shooter. But, when you move on in your tuning process you have to deal with that very same variable. Bare shaft flight, paper tears, and broadhead flight are influenced by the shooter. So how do we ever get any bow tuned? Do you bare shaft tune from a Hooter Shooter? 

If the shooter has a consistent grip, them you can effectively rotate nocks to index your shafts, and you can tune the bow to get consistent and clean arrow flight. These methods show exactly what the arrow is doing off of the bow.

For people like Jerry and ot7, a Ram Tester is a must because of the amount of time that it saves. For the archer who tunes his/her own equipment, and makes their own arrows, this will save you some money and allow you to do it yourself.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> This is comical. Spine means nothing.


Not trying to start an argument, I would honestly love to hear the testing and research you have done that proved spine means nothing. 

I have tested around a half million arrows over the last 10 years and and have feed back from 1000s of customers to the contrary. I have also consulted with people who have doctorates in physics who believe its a viable process.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I think there is some confusion with what a hooter shooter actually does and why people use it or why you try and find the stiff side "dynamic spine" on a ram tester.

You can't tune a bow on the hooter and expect the same results as when you add the human factor. It can be close if you hold it the same but I doubt it will ever be the same. 
You can tune arrows and that's about the only thing a hooter shooter is good for. That and measuring peep to sight and sight to shaft and draw length for making sight tapes. 

Measuring peep to sight ect, checking cam timing can be done on a cheep drawing board but you can't tune arrows. 

Tunning arrows is different than bare shaft tunning, walk back tunning, paper tunning ect. You can take an out of tune bow on a hooter and still get one hole accuracy if you have "tuned" the dynamic spines on the arrows. You can then take that same bow and give it to someone and it will shoot like crap because the draw length may not fit. The person heals the bow or torque it differently BUT if you tune the bow to fit an individual and then tune the arrows to the bow you get tight groups.


----------



## ontarget7

What do those that test by floating or the line mark on the inside of the shaft show ? They don't have a RAM or any other tester to base their results off of so I am just curious. 

Here is a pic of a GT Pro Hunter 7595 with the line supposedly the stiff side of the shaft. In the same pic you will notice a white dot to the right, approximately 90* from the line mark inside the shaft. That white mark represents the stiff side tested on the RAM and does not match the line on the inside of the shaft.


----------



## SlickNickel

swbuckmaster said:


> I think there is some confusion with what a hooter shooter actually does and why people use it or why you try and find the stiff side "dynamic spine" on a ram tester.
> 
> You can't tune a bow on the hooter and expect the same results as when you add the human factor. It can be close if you hold it the same but I doubt it will ever be the same.
> You can tune arrows and that's about the only thing a hooter shooter is good for. That and measuring peep to sight and sight to shaft and draw length for making sight tapes.
> 
> Measuring peep to sight ect, checking cam timing can be done on a cheep drawing board but you can't tune arrows.
> 
> Tunning arrows is different than bare shaft tunning, walk back tunning, paper tunning ect. You can take an out of tune bow on a hooter and still get one hole accuracy if you have "tuned" the dynamic spines on the arrows. You can then take that same bow and give it to someone and it will shoot like crap because the draw length may not fit. The person heals the bow or torque it differently BUT if you tune the bow to fit an individual and then tune the arrows to the bow you get tight groups.


Exactly. So, the human element is as much a part of the tuning process as it is when shooting arrows and indexing nocks. It was said in the OP that doing this is fine "but how do you know that you are doing your part?" Well, how do you know that you are doing your part when tuning the bow. If you have a consistent grip, then shooting and rotating nocks is very effective. I do this with paper, not 20 yd bare shaft groups. If you do it with 20 yd bare shaft groups, then yes, you could say that we are unsure about us doing our part. But by shooting them through paper, the only variable at play is the same variable that we will face all throughout our tuning process. Us


----------



## weekender21

If you're nock tuning through paper what's your constant? How do you know you're rest etc. are in the correct position and that you're not "untuning" your arrows?

Sorry if that's a stupid question but I've never paper tuned with the assumption that the stiff side of my arrow spine was in the wrong position and causing the poor tear.


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> Not trying to start an argument, I would honestly love to hear the testing and research you have done that proved spine means nothing.
> 
> I have tested around a half million arrows over the last 10 years and and have feed back from 1000s of customers to the contrary. I have also consulted with people who have doctorates in physics who believe its a viable process.



So tell me Jerry when you find the lowest frequency of a shaft does this always correspond with the highest reading you would see on the RAM?


----------



## SlickNickel

weekender21 said:


> If you're nock tuning through paper what's your constant? How do you know you're rest etc. are in the correct position and that you're not "untuning" your arrows?
> 
> Sorry if that's a stupid question but I've never paper tuned with the assumption that the stiff side of my arrow spine was in the wrong position and causing the poor tear.


You pick an arrow and shoot it through paper tuning the bow to shoot a perfect bullet hole with that arrow. Once the correct tune is achieved, then you grab another arrow. Shoot that arrow, if you don't get a perfect hole, then rotate the nock and shoot again. When you see the bullet hole, go to the next one. Now, proper paper tuning method must be followed for this to be effective, and it can be a little time consuming. Which is why people like Shane and Jerry need the spine testers.

Each shaft needs to be shot through paper at multiple distances, and this is what can take a little time to accomplish.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> So tell me Jerry when you find the lowest frequency of a shaft does this always correspond with the highest reading you would see on the RAM?


We were not discussing the frequency analyzer I asked if you would share the data you have that proves arrow spine does not matter. 

As for the question you just asked there are two possibilities:

1 you have no idea how a frequency meter works and you have asked an inaccurate question

2 two you know exactly how a frequency meter works and you have purposely asked an inaccurate question to see how i respond

My answer to both is no thank you!


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> We were not discussing the frequency analyzer I asked if you would share the data you have that proves arrow spine does not matter.
> 
> As for the question you just asked there are two possibilities:
> 
> 1 you have no idea how a frequency meter works and you have asked an inaccurate question
> 
> 2 two you know exactly how a frequency meter works and you have purposely asked an inaccurate question to see how i respond
> 
> My answer to both is no thank you!


Did you know how a frequency analyzer worked before John explained it to you?

I believe a frequency analyzer measures the cycles per minute of a shaft that is clamped with a weight on the end of it. You rotate the shaft and check the frequency at various locations. The highest frequency would be the stiff one and the lowest frequency would be the weak one. 

I was merely asking you a simple question since you have done a half million shafts. When you find or locate the point on a shaft with the lowest frequency will this point show the greatest deflection when measured on a RAM spine tester?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> Did you know how a frequency analyzer worked before John explained it to you?
> 
> I believe a frequency analyzer measures the cycles per minute of a shaft that is clamped with a weight on the end of it. You rotate the shaft and check the frequency at various locations. The highest frequency would be the stiff one and the lowest frequency would be the weak one.
> 
> I was merely asking you a simple question since you have done a half million shafts. When you find or locate the point on a shaft with the lowest frequency will this point show the greatest deflection when measured on a RAM spine tester?


I'm not a golfer so no I didn't know that a frequency analyzer existed, I actually contacted john after doing a number of searches for frequency test equipment. Interesting that you know john and say spine does not matter. 

Since you for some reason continue to avoid my original question have a great day!


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> I'm not a golfer so no I didn't know that a frequency analyzer existed, I actually contacted john after doing a number of searches for frequency test equipment. Interesting that you know john and say spine does not matter.
> 
> Since you for some reason continue to avoid my original question have a great day!


Spine means everything Jerry. It is the most important thing on an arrow. 

Now answer my question please.


----------



## ctsmith

Jerry or Shane, can you speak of Maxima Hunters and their typical deflection and consistency?


----------



## OCHO505

SouthShoreRat said:


> Not trying to start an argument, I would honestly love to hear the testing and research you have done that proved spine means nothing.
> 
> I have tested around a half million arrows over the last 10 years and and have feed back from 1000s of customers to the contrary. I have also consulted with people who have doctorates in physics who believe its a viable process.


Real talk here!!!


----------



## SonnyThomas

ontarget7 said:


> What do those that test by floating or the line mark on the inside of the shaft show ? They don't have a RAM or any other tester to base their results off of so I am just curious.
> 
> Here is a pic of a GT Pro Hunter 7595 with the line supposedly the stiff side of the shaft. In the same pic you will notice a white dot to the right, approximately 90* from the line mark inside the shaft. That white mark represents the stiff side tested on the RAM and does not match the line on the inside of the shaft.


What the arrows looked like, flash of camera made the blemish lines show up. Muddy Outdoor arrows. FOC of 6.04%
Vegas face, over 40 shots, cold, coat on, alternating between 2 bows with same arrows. Same above Muddy Outdoors arrows.
35, 60 and 80 - Carbon Express 2-250s - just threw in jig and fletched - same arrows netted one Field Champion and 2nd place the following year. Two different bows.
Single spot, messed up, high hole had sight set for 30 yards. Reset for 20 yards and maybe 12 shots. Harvest Time Archery arrows. FOC of either 6.25 or 6.32% (spilled coffee on my notes).

Floated some Absolute 22s the other day. Set up 2 to test. 8 degrees outside. Didn't mess around. Fired 4 shots to sight in and then shot 2 for effect. Slapped hard, thought I broke one, but nope. Had to pull both at once and ran for the house.


----------



## bplayer405

Tag...


----------



## jesses80

shane if you would float that shaft would it match the ram also just wondering.


ontarget7 said:


> What do those that test by floating or the line mark on the inside of the shaft show ? They don't have a RAM or any other tester to base their results off of so I am just curious.
> 
> Here is a pic of a GT Pro Hunter 7595 with the line supposedly the stiff side of the shaft. In the same pic you will notice a white dot to the right, approximately 90* from the line mark inside the shaft. That white mark represents the stiff side tested on the RAM and does not match the line on the inside of the shaft.


----------



## jesses80

thanks for answering my ? sonny next dozen of arrows I get I will look for the line and mark it on the outside be for I start nock tuning and see what results I get I have been debating on getting a ram tester just to speed up the process and also no exactly where the stiff side is at .


----------



## ontarget7

jesses80 said:


> shane if you would float that shaft would it match the ram also just wondering.


Next chance I get I will compare that as well. 

Right now comparing the line inside the shaft to the actual stiff side does not match. 

I mentioned it before that it was very inconsistent and I am basing that assumption because I used to turn nocks myself and always seemed to have inconsistencies to the so called other methods when tuning. Maybe that was shooter error, I'm not sure. Since we are on topic to discuss it and I have the means to test it I will post the results. 

Since I have been using the RAM the last 7-8 years I have seen way more consistent results and it has completely eliminated shooter error. It throws out that equation so I can concentrate on myself the shooter, or tune in general. 

It was said that myself and Jerry use it because it is faster. Now I can't speak for Jerry but for myself, not so. I use it for it's accuracy and consistent results down range. After indexing it is nice to know that is one thing out of the equation when I go through the tuning process.


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> What do those that test by floating or the line mark on the inside of the shaft show ? They don't have a RAM or any other tester to base their results off of so I am just curious.
> 
> Here is a pic of a GT Pro Hunter 7595 with the line supposedly the stiff side of the shaft. In the same pic you will notice a white dot to the right, approximately 90* from the line mark inside the shaft. That white mark represents the stiff side tested on the RAM and does not match the line on the inside of the shaft.





SonnyThomas said:


> What the arrows looked like, flash of camera made the blemish lines show up. Muddy Outdoor arrows. FOC of 6.04%
> Vegas face, over 40 shots, cold, coat on, alternating between 2 bows with same arrows. Same above Muddy Outdoors arrows.
> 35, 60 and 80 - Carbon Express 2-250s - just threw in jig and fletched - same arrows netted one Field Champion and 2nd place the following year. Two different bows.
> Single spot, messed up, high hole had sight set for 30 yards. Reset for 20 yards and maybe 12 shots. Harvest Time Archery arrows. FOC of either 6.25 or 6.32% (spilled coffee on my notes).
> 
> Floated some Absolute 22s the other day. Set up 2 to test. 8 degrees outside. Didn't mess around. Fired 4 shots to sight in and then shot 2 for effect. Slapped hard, thought I broke one, but nope. Had to pull both at once and ran for the house.


Already posted a pic of the flash and the line not matching the actual stiff side

Brought it to the top in case you missed it


----------



## cordini

I guarantee it's not faster for Jerry either.....Nor me. I spine index for the same reason as Shane.....To cull the inconsistent arrows from what I plan to use, and in my case they are for hunting. If I'm really feeling picky, I'll even line up my blade of my broadhead with the cock vane.....But that's just because I like to keep the visual distraction of the GK XL as minimal as possible. That's a whole other topic though.....


----------



## SlickNickel

cordini said:


> I guarantee it's not faster for Jerry either.....Nor me. I spine index for the same reason as Shane.....To cull the inconsistent arrows from what I plan to use, and in my case they are for hunting. If I'm really feeling picky, I'll even line up my blade of my broadhead with the cock vane.....But that's just because I like to keep the visual distraction of the GK XL as minimal as possible. That's a whole other topic though.....


A Ram is not faster than shooting every shaft? It's not feasible for Jerry to shoot every shaft that he builds for obvious reasons. And I'm not saying that shooting them is so much better than using the Ram. The Ram is a very good tool. What I am saying is that people on here who don't have a Ram, but want to do their own work have an alternative. They can shoot the arrows, and see how they actually come off of the bow. 

We have some knowledgeable people on arrows who even disagree about spine and it's importance, and they are looking into other methods of testing shafts. When you shoot the arrow you are seeing how it reacts coming off of the bow. No theory about spine testing, or frequency analyzers, or interplanetary discombobulators, or any of the like. You're just seeing how the exact arrow that you will be shooting, is coming off of the exact bow that you will be shooting. Rotate nocks, until all shafts have proper flight and go shoot.

My posts were not intended to say that Jerry or Shane are wrong, but rather to give a lot of archers who don't have access to a Ram spine tester an alternative.


----------



## IRISH_11

OT7 where do you index your arrows based on the RAM results? Is your cock vane with the stiff side or the weak side?


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> OT7 where do you index your arrows based on the RAM results? Is your cock vane with the stiff side or the weak side?


Stiff side up from my testing gives the best results. Cock vane up


----------



## IRISH_11

ontarget7 said:


> Stiff side up from my testing gives the best results. Cock vane up



Interesting. I have been doing just the opposite with good results. Not that either one of us is wrong or right its just interesting. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Here is why I do weak side up. I believe most will agree that for a compound shooter with a release aid the arrow oscillation if there is any will be vertical. I have used a RAM and have since switched to a frequency analyzer. The plane of the shaft having the lowest frequency will be where the shafts natural oscillation or FLO will be. So since I am shooting a compound using a release this is where I index my cock vane. My thought is that starting the arrow out of the bow on its natural FLO plane results in more efficient flight. Having the stiff plane of the shaft horizontal or to the side helps hold the shaft on line to the target.


----------



## SlickNickel

ontarget7 said:


> Stiff side up from my testing gives the best results. Cock vane up


Best groups? Best results for optimal tuning ie nock level? Have you tried orienting different ways and shooting groups from a Hooter Shooter to see groups with the human element out of the way? Just curious because I would think that as long as they are all the same, no matter the orientation, that they would fly better than we can shoot.


----------



## enewman

Ok, I thought I would try this my self. Took two bare shafts. Hung a string on the target backed up to 20 yards and shot. Average was the two bare shafts where 5 inches apart. And one is leaning worse then the other. Checked the spine. One arrow the stiff side was at 3 o clock. The one that flew the best was at 6 o'clock. Moved both to 12 o'clock. This is what I got. I'm thinking I need to start indexing


----------



## watasha

hmmmmm


----------



## IRISH_11

SlickNickel said:


> Best groups? Best results for optimal tuning ie nock level? Have you tried orienting different ways and shooting groups from a Hooter Shooter to see groups with the human element out of the way? Just curious because I would think that as long as they are all the same, no matter the orientation, that they would fly better than we can shoot.



This is precisely why my original comment was that spine doesn't matter. My results have proved that Flat Line Oscillation or FLO are whats critical for shafts in flight. This is the shafts natural bend plane and regardless of how they are shot from the bow or indexed they will seek out his plane to oscillate on. Launching the arrow out of the bow on this plane results in an arrow with less correction i.e. cleaner more efficient flight.


----------



## SonnyThomas

ontarget7 said:


> Already posted a pic of the flash and the line not matching the actual stiff side
> 
> Brought it to the top in case you missed it


I never missed your picture. How could I, it was huge.

You asked how blemish lined arrows shot and I submitted pictures, blemish shown by flash of camera and how my arrows perform....
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2420209&p=1072379057#post1072379057

HTA HT3s out of a 3rd bow, TX4, 33 1/2" ata., 298 fps if I remember correctly. Picture; Tags still on bow. *2nd day* set up, 40 yards and if not hitting the X ring, then scaring it pretty good. 34 yard picture somewhere with all arrows in the X ring.
*3rd day* was Club play day. ferretboy was there and commented on my 60 yard shot; "I was at the playday with Sonny Thomas the other day and shot his Tx-4. It just made me miss being on the factory team. Sonny and I were shooting a deer cutout target and he was lacing the heart on it."
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2098676&p=1068261235#post1068261235


----------



## SlickNickel

I know from personal experience in tuning bows that indexing can be critical in getting good, consistent broadhead flight between arrows. Do you guys believe that it is just as critical for building 3D/target arrows that will never have a bh screwed on them? Do you think that you will see a difference in scores?


----------



## enewman

watasha said:


> hmmmmm


Then shoot a mr5. Haha just kidding.


----------



## jesses80

when I started nock tuning my arrows my score jumped up an average 10 points.


SlickNickel said:


> I know from personal experience in tuning bows that indexing can be critical in getting good, consistent broadhead flight between arrows. Do you guys believe that it is just as critical for building 3D/target arrows that will never have a bh screwed on them? Do you think that you will see a difference in scores?


----------



## ontarget7

You are completely off your rocker if you feel spine doesn't matter LOL !

Here is my reason for cock vane/stiff side up. When you place stiff side out or in you will create more flex on a lateral plane. This can create excessive pre lean in a Hybrid to get them to tune. With a 2 track it can cause centershots to be way outside the normal, hence one of the reasons we have people shimming cams etc to bring centershot back in the ballpark. 

Now for vertical nock travel. You can get away with more in this area than you can laterally. You can choose stiff side up or down and get great results. The problem arises with certain cam systems and rests where stiff side down does not yield best results. Tuning is all a balance and I like to keep things in that balance. In some cases I have found stiff side down or weak side up to not be beneficial with certain rests and can throw off that balance of cam synch when done this way. I have never seen a down side to stiff side up at all and the reason I personally would recommend it.


----------



## cordini

SlickNickel said:


> A Ram is not faster than shooting every shaft? It's not feasible for Jerry to shoot every shaft that he builds for obvious reasons. And I'm not saying that shooting them is so much better than using the Ram. The Ram is a very good tool. What I am saying is that people on here who don't have a Ram, but want to do their own work have an alternative. They can shoot the arrows, and see how they actually come off of the bow.
> 
> We have some knowledgeable people on arrows who even disagree about spine and it's importance, and they are looking into other methods of testing shafts. When you shoot the arrow you are seeing how it reacts coming off of the bow. No theory about spine testing, or frequency analyzers, or interplanetary discombobulators, or any of the like. You're just seeing how the exact arrow that you will be shooting, is coming off of the exact bow that you will be shooting. Rotate nocks, until all shafts have proper flight and go shoot.
> 
> My posts were not intended to say that Jerry or Shane are wrong, but rather to give a lot of archers who don't have access to a Ram spine tester an alternative.


Sorry.....I misunderstood. My bad.....I intended to say that the Ram is slow for all of us, but I'm sure Jerry and Shane may be a lot faster at it than me. I use the Ram because I enjoy building arrows to the best of my ability.....It's a nice tool to have and I got a bargain on it when I found it!


----------



## ontarget7

Here is a couple more shafts that are inconsistent when it comes to the stiff plane and the line indicated on the inside of the shafts. Pretty much verifies my finding when I use to nock tune. The white mark actually indicates the stiff plane of the shaft.


----------



## ontarget7

A gave floating more credit in the past and have to apologize for that. When comparing the shafts to something hard and concrete like the RAM spine tester neither the line on the inside of the shaft or floating is worth a darn. Again, it verifies my initial testing when I use to nock tune each arrow. I found inconsistencies back then where my nocks ended up compared to the line in the shaft or floating. The floating I could get the shaft to stay wherever I wanted it to, stiff plane away, on top of water or under water.


----------



## ontarget7

These pics I purposely oriented them the same and they never attempted to change


----------



## ontarget7

3-d buster x4 said:


> Shane, have you tested any of the Victory Vap's ? Ive had VERY good luck with them out to 60 yds.
> Victory claims the labeling on the shaft is the backbone so I have always fletched them according to that statement .


I just tested a dozen of my older Victory VAP's with zero consistency in the labels in relation to the stiff plane.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

Shane, have you ever run across a shaft that had a .000" run out on the spine tester when you checked for the stiff side?


----------



## SNAPTHIS

I have owned a hooter shooter and ram spine tester for many years and I believe OT7 and I probably set up arrows the same based on his comments from this thread. A couple of things I have found is that in a dozen first quality .001 arrows that are spine indexed usually 9 of the 12 will go in the same hole at 20 yards on my hooter shooter, the other 3 arrows will some time nock tune to the single hole or will not get in the hole no matter what you do. I believe the odd ones you can nock tune to the hole are typically ones that i missed the stiffest point on that arrow due to the fact that you normally will see two stiff places in each shaft corresponding to the beginning and the ending of the wrap in that arrow and sometimes I don't pick the correct one as the spine tester will show these to be almost alike. the other arrows that won't go in the same hole are sometimes your arrows with the largest variation from high to low spine and sometimes in spine testing you just find an arrow that is way,way, way different from all the rest that doesn't even belong in the dozen. I was beginning to think that arrow companies would sell you 9 good ones and throw in 3 junk ones in every dozen as a way to cull their junk. At least i believed this until i started shooting Black Eagles and I get 12 shootable arrows in every dozen, are they perfect? No but they are better than anything I had checked up to 2012 and I've shot them exclusively since and they gotten better every year since. I shot 84 twelves in 2012 at the 7 ASA national events Black Eagle Magnums are my arrow of choice. One more thing, in a post earlier in this thread someone expounded on what a hooter shooter is good for and they were correct in everything they said except for at least one thing. It can aid you in tuning your bow or tuning yourself if you will. Where it has helped me is by shooting at a half inch dot at 20 yards with my sight setting. When I can hit the dot consistently I'll load the bow in the hooter shooter and put my scope dot on the half inch dot and shoot the arrow to see where the machine shoots the arrow I will then work on my grip and or my draw length or shoulder position to be as machine like as i can possibly be. When I'm shooting my best I'm shooting the same spot as my machine with the same sight setting, so in my opinion there is something to learn about tuning from my hooter shooter. Every now and then I manage to shoot pretty good and I attribute an awful lot of it to my attention to detail that most people just wont take the time to do or learn. Mark


----------



## Styles

ontarget7 said:


> I just tested a dozen of my older Victory VAP's with zero consistency in the labels in relation to the stiff plane.


Interesting! More BS marketing?? Like weight forward technology??


----------



## swbuckmaster

So let's see what's been proven in this thread

Floating shafts to locate stiff side is BS.

Shinning a light inside the arrow to locate stiff side is BS.

Pinching or bending arrows in an easy press hasnt been proven to work on this thread but in my tests I found it to be BS.

Ram tester works locating stiff side on 75 to 90 % of your arrows when done correctly. It also shows you incorrect spine arrows and straightness. 

Shooting an arrow on a hooter shooter is the only sure way to cull the crappy arrows but very time consuming.

Tunning arrows through paper also works but is time consuming.

Shooting arrows at distance and plotting impacts also works but is very time consuming.

I believe frequency tunning would work the fastest at locating the stiff side and may be as good as the hooter shooter for locating stiff side but hasn't been proven in this thread.


----------



## ontarget7

I will also add, straightness can be misleading. I have seen straight shafts when tested on the RAM test horrible for spine variances. When I get a chance I will post these results in a video clip. 

Since using the RAM over the last 7 or so years I have not had to nock tune a single arrow. Good enough results for me and I am very picky on my down range groups.


----------



## aeasley10

SlickNickel said:


> You pick an arrow and shoot it through paper tuning the bow to shoot a perfect bullet hole with that arrow. Once the correct tune is achieved, then you grab another arrow. Shoot that arrow, if you don't get a perfect hole, then rotate the nock and shoot again. When you see the bullet hole, go to the next one. Now, proper paper tuning method must be followed for this to be effective, and it can be a little time consuming. Which is why people like Shane and Jerry need the spine testers.
> 
> Each shaft needs to be shot through paper at multiple distances, and this is what can take a little time to accomplish.


When referencing paper tuning/nock tuning/spine indexing, are you only referring to bare shafts or fletched?


----------



## swbuckmaster

aeasley10 said:


> When referencing paper tuning/nock tuning/spine indexing, are you only referring to bare shafts or fletched?


Bare shafts


----------



## weekender21

Some of you should be on the RAM "Pro Staff" 

I'm convinced.

Best place to order?


----------



## SonnyThomas

aeasley10 said:


> When referencing paper tuning/nock tuning/spine indexing, are you only referring to bare shafts or fletched?





swbuckmaster said:


> Bare shafts


So does fletching aid a otherwise....what, lack luster bare shaft results within spine testing? Does minimal deviation give better results?

BS? Is it? How am I getting the results I get? Luck? My fixed broadheads fly near pin point accurate out to my imposed limit of 40 yards. Here's 3 different broadheads and I don't know or care how the arrows are fletched to spine. REALTREE Chiz-L and REALTREE Low Profile Gunnison and NAP Braxe. That arrow to the right with label, that arrow is at least 14 years old, a Carbon Express CX300 Game Tracker.








Each person goes "his way" due to results. My results go farther than hunting. Granted, on the club and state sanctioned level, I've placed and won my fair share of times and not one arrow put through a Ram tester, Hooter Shooter nor nock tuned after switching to carbon arrows in year 2000. 3D, Field, Outdoor, Indoor and ASA DAIR Indoor.

Again, I'm not opposed to someone wanting the best of his or her arrows and if they think the best is through a Ram tester or Hooter Shooter so be it. BUT to insinuate that one can't have decent accuracy for play, competing or hunting with factory or home or shop fletched arrows is wrong.... Over the years there have been a dozen archery shops in my area and not one of them having a Ram tester or Hooter Shooter, not even today to my knowledge.


----------



## ontarget7

I have to ask, what is so wrong about wanting the most out of an arrow in flight ? 

For those that don't care so be it, keep doing things the way your doing them. 

Congrats on your results !


----------



## ontarget7

swbuckmaster said:


> So let's see what's been proven in this thread
> 
> Floating shafts to locate stiff side is BS.
> 
> Shinning a light inside the arrow to locate stiff side is BS.
> 
> Pinching or bending arrows in an easy press hasnt been proven to work on this thread but in my tests I found it to be BS.
> 
> Ram tester works locating stiff side on 75 to 90 % of your arrows when done correctly. It also shows you incorrect spine arrows and straightness.
> 
> Shooting an arrow on a hooter shooter is the only sure way to cull the crappy arrows but very time consuming.
> 
> Tunning arrows through paper also works but is time consuming.
> 
> Shooting arrows at distance and plotting impacts also works but is very time consuming.
> 
> I believe frequency tunning would work the fastest at locating the stiff side and may be as good as the hooter shooter for locating stiff side but hasn't been proven in this thread.


I have done the bending thing in another thread quite awhile back and very inconsistent results. 

I have yet to see an arrow you can't locate the stiffness with a Spine tester

Using a Spine tester will sort out the bad apples and no shooting required

Shooting arrows at distances gives to much room for error depending on ones ability


----------



## enewman

Posting on archery talk wow what a gamble. Shane has came on here and has Showen everyone what indexing can do. I've started doing this my self with it working out great for me. Then you have this sonny Thomas come on here and he says its a waiste of time. I'm glad you can shoot that good. 

The post was about spine indexing. If all you have to say is it's a waiste of time. Then stay off the post. Why is it half the post now days are just to tell people there stupid for doing this way. 
Again just answer the op with what he's asking and nothing else. Or learn from a post like this. Others then that stay off. I can see why Shane is trying to leave archery talk. Thanks for the info. Again spine indexing is working great for me


----------



## SouthShoreRat

swbuckmaster said:


> Floating shafts to locate stiff side is BS.


100% correct just because the arrow rolls does not mean the heaviest point is the dynamic stiff plane



swbuckmaster said:


> Shinning a light inside the arrow to locate stiff side is BS.


On shafts that have a seam it does not mean this is the still plane



swbuckmaster said:


> Pinching or bending arrows in an easy press hasnt been proven to work on this thread but in my tests I found it to be BS.


This process only shows one of two things, the natural bend in the shaft or the weak point of a shaft. Let me make a point here, the weak point as tested with a RAM type tester is not the neutral plane found with a frequency analyzer. This is not to say the weakest point is at times in line with the neutral plane it is but not on all shafts. So when referring to the results of testing shafts using a frequency analyzer the more accurate term to identify the two planes would be stiff plane and neutral plan (now weak side)



swbuckmaster said:


> Ram tester works locating stiff side on 75 to 90 % of your arrows when done correctly. It also shows you incorrect spine arrows and straightness.


These percentages are low I find I can find the stiff plane on almost every shafts we test. 




swbuckmaster said:


> Shooting an arrow on a hooter shooter is the only sure way to cull the crappy arrows but very time consuming.


A shooting machine is the most accurate way to test arrows




swbuckmaster said:


> Tuning arrows through paper also works but is time consuming.


I use paper tuning to let me know if I am on the right track with the bow tuning. 



swbuckmaster said:


> Shooting arrows at distance and plotting impacts also works but is very time consuming.


This should also be used things can be revealed shoot at distance that most likely wont be noticed at closer distances



swbuckmaster said:


> I believe frequency tuning would work the fastest at locating the stiff side and may be as good as the hooter shooter for locating stiff side but hasn't been proven in this thread.


If you first find your stiff plane using a RAM type tester frequency testing is fairly fast. One thing to take not on when testing an arrow using a frequency analyzer is the shafts will fatigue very quickly so twanging arrows needs to be done ones along the stiff plane, rotate the shafts 90 degress and twang it only ones. 

Here is a statement based on theory from testing, feedback and conferences with folks who have physics back grounds. 

Any tube, it doesnt matter what it is made of has a stiff plane and a neutral plane (not to be confused with the weak side that can be tested with a RAM type tester) you cant find the neutral plane with a RAM type tester because the neutral plane is a dynamic spine attribute. 

At the dynamic spine level an arrow is broken into 4 quadrants which are divided by the stiff plane 180 degrees though the shaft and the neutral plane 90 degress from the stiff plane 



Here is a second crude drawing to show the anatomy of an arrow shaft. I will talk about this drawing more later


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> 100% correct just because the arrow rolls does not mean the heaviest point is the dynamic stiff plane
> 
> 
> 
> On shafts that have a seam it does not mean this is the still plane
> 
> 
> 
> This process only shows one of two things, the natural bend in the shaft or the weak point of a shaft. Let me make a point here, the weak point as tested with a RAM type tester is not the neutral plane found with a frequency analyzer. This is not to say the weakest point is at times in line with the neutral plane it is but not on all shafts. So when referring to the results of testing shafts using a frequency analyzer the more accurate term to identify the two planes would be stiff plane and neutral plan (now weak side)
> 
> 
> 
> These percentages are low I find I can find the stiff plane on almost every shafts we test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A shooting machine is the most accurate way to test arrows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use paper tuning to let me know if I am on the right track with the bow tuning.
> 
> 
> 
> This should also be used things can be revealed shoot at distance that most likely wont be noticed at closer distances
> 
> 
> 
> If you first find your stiff plane using a RAM type tester frequency testing is fairly fast. One thing to take not on when testing an arrow using a frequency analyzer is the shafts will fatigue very quickly so twanging arrows needs to be done ones along the stiff plane, rotate the shafts 90 degress and twang it only ones.
> 
> Here is a statement based on theory from testing, feedback and conferences with folks who have physics back grounds.
> 
> Any tube, it doesnt matter what it is made of has a stiff plane and a neutral plane (not to be confused with the weak side that can be tested with a RAM type tester) you cant find the neutral plane with a RAM type tester because the neutral plane is a dynamic spine attribute.
> 
> At the dynamic spine level an arrow is broken into 4 quadrants which are divided by the stiff plane 180 degrees though the shaft and the neutral plane 90 degress from the stiff plane
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a second crude drawing to show the anatomy of an arrow shaft. I will talk about this drawing more later


I thought the neutral plane was perpendicular to the stiff plane? You have it labeled as the dynamic weak plane. The FLO plane which is the dynamic weak plane will not always be perpendicular to the stiff plane.


----------



## ontarget7

If the neutral plane is 90* from the stiff and you index to that it would put the stiff plane out or in with cock vane up. Now if this is true, I would have to pass on neutral plane up when indexing


----------



## SlickNickel

Hey Jerry, what advantage does Dorge's spine tester have over the Ram? If any? I'm thinking that I am going to buy one or the other. I know that when I talked to Dorge at the Marengo IBO Triple Crown event that his wS much more expensive. Any info would be appreciated.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> If the neutral plane is 90* from the stiff and you index to that it would put the stiff plane out or in with cock vane up. Now if this is true, I would have to pass on neutral plane up when indexing


Not sure i understand what you are saying. From what you have posted I think you should continue to do what you are doing.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

SlickNickel said:


> Hey Jerry, what advantage does Dorge's spine tester have over the Ram? If any? I'm thinking that I am going to buy one or the other. I know that when I talked to Dorge at the Marengo IBO Triple Crown event that his wS much more expensive. Any info would be appreciated.


The best would be for you to call me @ 813-545-0754 it would take way too much typing to discuss this.


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> If the neutral plane is 90* from the stiff and you index to that it would put the stiff plane out or in with cock vane up. Now if this is true, I would have to pass on neutral plane up when indexing


I believe it was said in a post somewhere that you want to find the neutral plane with a Frequency Analyzer. I have zero knowledge with this and I don't golf LOL . What is the benefit to finding the neutral plane ? It seems from my testing the stiff plane is what matters when indexing. 

Thanks 
Shane


----------



## whitewolf8041

Ok I'm convinced there is something to spine.I'm going to order arrows from south shore. Any recommendations between the victory or the black eagle?


----------



## weekender21

Best place to purchase a RAM?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> I thought the neutral plane was perpendicular to the stiff plane? You have it labeled as the dynamic weak plane. The FLO plane which is the dynamic weak plane will not always be perpendicular to the stiff plane.


Where do I say dynamic weak plane my drawing say neutral plane. In the process of entering my last post I put up the wrong drawing and saw my mistake and changed it for drawing number 2. The neutral plane is always 100% of the time 90 degrees from the stiff plane, call john if you like to verify 

As for FLO testing you can actually get an arrow to FLO along the stiff plane according to another forum member Grimm. I have never tried FLO, it is very time consuming and does not produce data. In order to learn more on arrows you need data and the frequency analyzer provides that data. FLO will also only show how to orient fletching it will do nothing to sort arrows and match spine, I can use a frequency analyzer and match spine to the 10th of a cycle which is far more accurate than a RAM or any other type defection tester.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> I believe it was said in a post somewhere that you want to find the neutral plane with a Frequency Analyzer. I have zero knowledge with this and I don't golf LOL . What is the benefit to finding the neutral plane ? It seems from my testing the stiff plane is what matters when indexing.
> 
> Thanks
> Shane


Shane if all you are doing is finding the stiff side dont change, the RAM will do that for you. You are increasing the consistency of the shafts in performing this process because aligning the stiff plane automatically aligns the neutral plane. 

On a tangent,

For ever we have been sorting arrows by spine to match them for competition but that process is flawed. Typically a person will take a few dozen shafts and a RAM type tester and match the deflection. My question is what deflection,,,random? yep that is exactly what we used to and in most cases still do. This is a flawed process because if you match the stiff plane you have done nothing, arrows do not flex along the stiff plane, if you happen to match the neutral plane then you have something and if you match the weak point as found with a RAM type tester again you have done nothing. 

The frequency analyzer is good for two things, one is to prove every arrow has a stiff plane and a neutral plane and the weakest point (as found with a RAM type tester) of a shaft has no bearing on these tests. If it happens to be in line with the neutral plane so what, if its outside of the neutral plane so what because at the dynamic spine level arrows are going to flex along the neutral plane because the stiff plane acts as a north and south pole focusing the energy applied to the shaft toward the neutral plane. The second and most important attribute of a frequency analyzer is that it will allow us to test arrows for spine deflection at an amazingly accurate 10th of cycle. To put this another way, if you want extremely consistent spine deflection sorted shafts it must be done at the neutral plane

We need to not look at arrows as a one dimensional object it is far from that, it is multi-dimensional at the dynamic spine level.


----------



## bbjavelina

weekender21 said:


> Best place to purchase a RAM?


To answer your question, I have no idea. But, I can tell you that for whole lot less money you can buy arrows or shafts from Southshore and achieve equal or better results, and cut your arrow building time. 

Of course, I understand that you may prefer to do it yourself, and more power to you.


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> Where do I say dynamic weak plane my drawing say neutral plane. In the process of entering my last post I put up the wrong drawing and saw my mistake and changed it for drawing number 2. The neutral plane is always 100% of the time 90 degrees from the stiff plane, call john if you like to verify
> 
> As for FLO testing you can actually get an arrow to FLO along the stiff plane according to another forum member Grimm. I have never tried FLO, it is very time consuming and does not produce data. In order to learn more on arrows you need data and the frequency analyzer provides that data. FLO will also only show how to orient fletching it will do nothing to sort arrows and match spine, I can use a frequency analyzer and match spine to the 10th of a cycle which is far more accurate than a RAM or any other type defection tester.


Easy now Jerry. In your original post your drawing said dynamic weak plane. This is what I was responding to. My response was to your original sketch. 

How many pros do you build arrows for Jerry?


----------



## IRISH_11

Don't get too carried away posting pictures or quoting other people with degrees. What they are telling you is true for GOLF SHAFTS. I have convinced most of them that their theory is flawed due to the way that carbon arrows are manufactured. They are made on a mandrel and ground to specification. This grinding causes abnormalities in wall thickness. This is where the whole stiff plane neutral plane theory gets cloudy.


----------



## weekender21

bbjavelina said:


> To answer your question, I have no idea. But, I can tell you that for whole lot less money you can buy arrows or shafts from Southshore and achieve equal or better results, and cut your arrow building time.
> 
> Of course, I understand that you may prefer to do it yourself, and more power to you.


I do prefer to built them myself and also build for friends. It will be worth the investment for me. Found one on Eders for $231 plus shipping.


----------



## ontarget7

My question would be to those that FLO test and or use a frequency analyzer tester what is the real world difference equate to compared to a regular RAM spine tester ? 

Still really unsure what this other testing does to better your tuning results so please enlighten me ? I'm sure others would want to know as well

Thanks
Shane


----------



## aeasley10

To make sure I understand this stuff correctly:

*I don't have a hooter or spine tester, so nock tuning & paper tuning is what I would do.

-so I am gonna shoot bare shafts through paper and turn my nock say 1/4 to 1/8 turn until I shoot bullet holes through paper at different distances say 3, 5, 10, 20 yds? Is this the simplified objective & approach?

-could that bullet hole ever result from say a shaft that has stiff side down or sideways? Given that I am an above avg shooter with consistent form.

Thanks for feedback


----------



## SlickNickel

aeasley10 said:


> To make sure I understand this stuff correctly:
> 
> *I don't have a hooter or spine tester, so nock tuning & paper tuning is what I would do.
> 
> -so I am gonna shoot bare shafts through paper and turn my nock say 1/4 to 1/8 turn until I shoot bullet holes through paper at different distances say 3, 5, 10, 20 yds? Is this the simplified objective & approach?
> 
> -could that bullet hole ever result from say a shaft that has stiff side down or sideways? Given that I am an above avg shooter with consistent form.
> 
> Thanks for feedback


You would pick an arrow out of the dozen, and shoot it through paper at 6'. Tune the bow so that you get perfect bullet holes with that arrow at, say, 6', 12', and 15'. Once the bow is tuned with that shaft, then grab another shaft from the dozen and shoot it through paper. If you have a slight tear, instead of moving something on the bow, rotate the nock and shoot again. Continue to rotate until that arrow also shoots bullets. Continue the process. 

The disadvantage to this method is that you don't know which side of the arrow is actually the stiff side, but what you do know is that all arrows are leaving the bow oriented the same way. This can really affect broadhead flight.

For example, just before deer season I was bh tuning a gentleman's bow and he had a couple of arrows that weren't hitting with the rest when shot with broadheads. It was hitting low at 45 yds. I rotated the nock, and it hit left instead of low, again I rotated the nock and it right instead of low or left. Once I found where the nock needed to be, it hit with the other arrows.

When you shoot the shafts, you can orient the shafts based on how they come off of the bow.


----------



## skynight

aeasley10 said:


> To make sure I understand this stuff correctly:
> 
> *I don't have a hooter or spine tester, so nock tuning & paper tuning is what I would do.
> 
> -so I am gonna shoot bare shafts through paper and turn my nock say 1/4 to 1/8 turn until I shoot bullet holes through paper at different distances say 3, 5, 10, 20 yds? Is this the simplified objective & approach?
> 
> -could that bullet hole ever result from say a shaft that has stiff side down or sideways? Given that I am an above avg shooter with consistent form.
> 
> Thanks for feedback


I don't think different distances or bullet holes are neccessary. Just identical tears.

My process is to use the ram tester then shoot bare shafts through paper with the Hooter shooter. Because the bow is not tuned to the hs, but to me, it does not shoot perfect tears.


----------



## SlickNickel

skynight said:


> I don't think different distances or bullet holes are neccessary. Just identical tears.
> 
> My process is to use the ram tester then shoot bare shafts through paper with the Hooter shooter. Because the bow is not tuned to the hs, but to me, it does not shoot perfect tears.


True, I'm used to killing two birds with one stone. 

But, it could be harder to match up tears to make sure they match, than to see bullet holes.


----------



## skynight

SlickNickel said:


> True, I'm used to killing two birds with one stone.
> 
> But, it could be harder to match up tears to make sure they match, than to see bullet holes.


Yes. What I've seen is tears in different directions rather than
differing length.


----------



## ontarget7

aeasley10 said:


> To make sure I understand this stuff correctly:
> 
> *I don't have a hooter or spine tester, so nock tuning & paper tuning is what I would do.
> 
> -so I am gonna shoot bare shafts through paper and turn my nock say 1/4 to 1/8 turn until I shoot bullet holes through paper at different distances say 3, 5, 10, 20 yds? Is this the simplified objective & approach?
> 
> -could that bullet hole ever result from say a shaft that has stiff side down or sideways? Given that I am an above avg shooter with consistent form.
> 
> Thanks for feedback


Exactly what I used to do. With that said, say you start your tuning process and your centershot seems out of the norm or your pre lean is excessive to get it to tune. I would opt to turning the nock first because more than likely if your grip is right you have stiff side out or in causing the centershot to be out of the normal parameters or pre lean being excessive. Tuning is a balance so when it gets outside that balance I look to the arrow or me the shooter.


----------



## SlickNickel

ontarget7 said:


> Exactly what I used to do. With that said, say you start your tuning process and your centershot seems out of the norm or your pre lean is excessive to get it to tune. I would opt to turning the nock first because more than likely if your grip is right you have stiff side out or in causing the centershot to be out of the normal parameters or pre lean being excessive. Tuning is a balance so when it gets outside that balance I look to the arrow or me the shooter.


Absolutely. Good advice.


----------



## aeasley10

Ok got it. And not sure if any of u are trad guys but could a guy do the same with a fingers style recurve shooting bare shafts? I have been shooting and turning the nocks def gets different results, but can't get to the perfect result I think I could with my compound.


----------



## hoyt em all

if you have the stiff side up and the second stiffest side is more or less down were do you put the first and second weakest side ? as in do you sort them all one way (left side, right side} or the another ?does it matter ?


----------



## swbuckmaster

ontarget7 said:


> My question would be to those that FLO test and or use a frequency analyzer tester what is the real world difference equate to compared to a regular RAM spine tester ?
> 
> Still really unsure what this other testing does to better your tuning results so please enlighten me ? I'm sure others would want to know as well
> 
> Thanks
> Shane


I'd like to know thus as well


----------



## ElkFetish

This has been an informative thread. I very much appreciate all the good info being shared here. I have learned a few things which is a change on most threads here.

After reading this thread a couple times I really can't understand why many of you don't broadhead tune as one of your very first steps in tuning after timing and cam sync, etc. Basically using it as a macro tuning step before fine tuning if you will. Much of the info presented here, especially in the last few pages, is accomplishing exactly what broadhead tuning does. When using it as an initial tuning step it is perfect for figuring out if your center shot is off or maybe it is just an arrow. It also basically finds the spine and indexes it to a place where the nock needs to be to get it shooting within the group and if you can't get it shooting there you know it is an arrow issue not a tuning issue. I'm not saying that broadhead tuning is the end all or should be all that is done but I bet in 80%+ of the cases I don't have to do anything else and if I do it is very minor. Plus it saves me the time and expense and spine testers, special order arrows, and having to try to understand FLO's and flux capacitors!  Am I still not understanding something here? Again I understand if you spine test there is no need to broadhead tune but that is only advantageous if you want to spend the time and money on all the equipment and custom arrows. 

Also, one question. I still don't understand why bending to find the spine doesn't work. I can only ever get one bend in an arrow and it is in the same spot every time. Doesn't this accomplish nearly the same thing? Even if the strong or weak side I find isn't the correct spot as far as dynamic spine,etc. It still indexes all of my arrows to the same spot so then it would only be a matter or rotating the nock the same amount on each arrow if for some reason my groups were tighter in a place different than what the bending showed. What am I missing?

Again, lots of good info! 

Thanks,


----------



## ontarget7

I simply don't Broadhead tune because I don't need to. After bareshaft tuning I can stick just about any Broadhead on with great results. Don't even shoot Broadheads till its time to hunt. 
Saves me a lot of money not tearing up targets with Broadheads. I like shooting bareshafts, it's a great form checker, especially grip 

You have the same goal in mind and just go about it different.


----------



## bbjavelina

On this one, I'm pretty much in agreement with Shane. When my bare shafts are on, there's not much reason to broadhead tune. I'll surely shoot them all, but not much to do after they're proven. 

Once I screw a ferrule on a shaft I won't take it off. Replace the blades if they're damaged, sharpen as needed, and check for true, but it it's not bent it stays on that shaft for the duration of it's life. Same hunting arrows year after year.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> I'd like to know thus as well


For those who wish to understand what flat line oscillation (F.L.O.) entails, I will supply a link, the article wanders a little in the middle where he talks about "Shaft Art" but it is still a good read.
The short version in my opinion, is that FLO is a simple and inexpensive way to add an additional layer of accuracy. Any bearing based spine finder is only about 80% accurate. This is why after using a Ram spine finder, there will still be one or two arrow which will still need to be tuned. Bearing based finder simply can't compensate for residual bend or pre-bend in the shaft. No shaft can or will be perfectly straight, the straighter they are, the more the chances are that you will achieve 100% accuracy with a bearing based finder like the Ram.
The Ram is a perfectly serviceable tool, it has been used very reliably for years but with newer shaft design being introduced regularly, I think you will soon see that testing method will need to updated.

The following link describe FLO very concisely and for those who want even more details about shaft spines I can supply additional links.
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/FLOphysics.php#outofplane

GRIM


----------



## skynight

ElkFetish said:


> This has been an informative thread. I very much appreciate all the good info being shared here. I have learned a few things which is a change on most threads here.
> 
> After reading this thread a couple times I really can't understand why many of you don't broadhead tune as one of your very first steps in tuning after timing and cam sync, etc. Basically using it as a macro tuning step before fine tuning if you will. Much of the info presented here, especially in the last few pages, is accomplishing exactly what broadhead tuning does. When using it as an initial tuning step it is perfect for figuring out if your center shot is off or maybe it is just an arrow. It also basically finds the spine and indexes it to a place where the nock needs to be to get it shooting within the group and if you can't get it shooting there you know it is an arrow issue not a tuning issue. I'm not saying that broadhead tuning is the end all or should be all that is done but I bet in 80%+ of the cases I don't have to do anything else and if I do it is very minor. Plus it saves me the time and expense and spine testers, special order arrows, and having to try to understand FLO's and flux capacitors!  Am I still not understanding something here? Again I understand if you spine test there is no need to broadhead tune but that is only advantageous if you want to spend the time and money on all the equipment and custom arrows.
> 
> Also, one question. I still don't understand why bending to find the spine doesn't work. I can only ever get one bend in an arrow and it is in the same spot every time. Doesn't this accomplish nearly the same thing? Even if the strong or weak side I find isn't the correct spot as far as dynamic spine,etc. It still indexes all of my arrows to the same spot so then it would only be a matter or rotating the nock the same amount on each arrow if for some reason my groups were tighter in a place different than what the bending showed. What am I missing?
> 
> Again, lots of good info!
> 
> Thanks,


Because the discussion is about tuning arrows, not the bow itself. Unless I'm misunderstanding your definition of broadhead tuning.


----------



## swbuckmaster

ontarget7 said:


> I simply don't Broadhead tune because I don't need to. After bareshaft tuning I can stick just about any Broadhead on with great results. Don't even shoot Broadheads till its time to hunt.
> Saves me a lot of money not tearing up targets with Broadheads. I like shooting bareshafts, it's a great form checker, especially grip
> 
> You have the same goal in mind and just go about it different.


This
If I broad head tune I destroy all my vanes or arrows. I also destroy my target and dull my blades. I only need to shoot one fixed blade head at 60-80 yards to check if it hits with my field tips. If I nock tuned correctly it will.


----------



## ontarget7

Thanks,I will check out the link .

I do differ on the results thou when using the RAM spine tester. I find all arrows grouping right together even bareshafts. After I am done indexing I can have all bareshafts grouping the same at 20 yards with perfect entry. I guess that is the reason I am wondering in regards to the benefits of FLO. The pic I initially posted of bareshafts at 20 yards was not all 12 arrows for good reason. Even the 5 or 6 that I shot was to much reined 2 shafts in that pic. 









I am by no means knocking this new testing and always looking to improve. Something's in the past have made improvements and others tend to be just marketing. Since I don't have this testing equipment the only real way would be to send it off for testing. Have the arrows marked where they should be indexed for cock vane up and see what kind of difference I come up with from my own testing. Who is willing to take a dozen Easton Carbon Injexion to index with this new method and I will compare, then post my results ?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Grim 
That link was a fantastic read thanks!

I would also think the shafts visual reading could be influenced by what ever was used to clamp the arrow. Meaning if you clamped it in a vice that would make the shaft oval and influence the reading. If you used a three sided drill chuck that may influence the readings. Some how you would need to support the shaft 360 degrees or you would influence the readings. Am I incorrect in my thinking?


----------



## ontarget7

Interesting article but honestly not sure how this applies to arrows when th force from swinging a golf club is different than the force applied to an arrow. Maybe I am completely wrong in saying this. 

Not sure either on false readings in relation to bearing spine finders with arrows. I can completely manipulate results and no exactly what to expect when I index the stiff side a certain way.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> Grim
> That link was a fantastic read thanks!
> 
> I would also think the shafts visual reading could be influenced by what ever was used to clamp the arrow. Meaning if you clamped it in a vice that would make the shaft oval and influence the reading. If you used a three sided drill chuck that may influence the readings. Some how you would need to support the shaft 360 degrees or you would influence the readings. Am I incorrect in my thinking?



LOL!!!
The short answer is yes, a stable yet firm clamp is a prime ingredient for accurate results.
I have posted these links in other threads but since you have shown an interest, the pervious article was part of the following article

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/allAboutSpines1.php

it deals mostly with golf shafts but there is some very good information and even a video or two.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Interesting article but honestly not sure how this applies to arrows when th force from swinging a golf club is different than the force applied to an arrow. Maybe I am completely wrong in saying this.
> 
> Not sure either on false readings in relation to bearing spine finders with arrows. I can completely manipulate results and no exactly what to expect when I index the stiff side a certain way.


My intentions are not to persuade you to modify your current methods, just simply trying to open a few eyes to how thing actually work as opposed to some of the current misconception being fostered.
There are a multitude of people testing that simply don't know why or even if they are testing correctly, some don't even comprehend how spine relates to the shaft itself, so hopefully some will expand their horizons.

GRIM


----------



## saskhic

I'm curious as to the injections bought from cabelas factory fletched are the spine indexed?


----------



## dhom

> . Who is willing to take a dozen Easton Carbon Injexion to index with this new method and I will compare, then post my results ?


Does that mean nobody is going to take him up on this?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> Easy now Jerry. In your original post your drawing said dynamic weak plane. This is what I was responding to. My response was to your original sketch.
> 
> How many pros do you build arrows for Jerry?


I didnt mean to sound sassy! If I posted a picture up with the phrase dynamic weak plane that was an error on my part, though it would work as a way to express the plane saying weak rather than neutral could be more confusing than this really is so IMO its best to refer to it as dynamic neutral plane.


----------



## canyon creeper

what were the specs on the arrows?


----------



## GRIMWALD

dhom said:


> Does that mean nobody is going to take him up on this?


Sorry, I had to go back a few comments to find out what you where referring to.
Unfortunately it would serve no real purpose unless the distances where increased to the 80-100 yard range. At 20-40 yards the benefits are minimal at best (Jerry would have to confirm this with his frequency meter findings). Most if not all of the current testing has been done with crossbow arrows at 100 + yards and in some case they are achieving same hole consistency at these ranges.
If we manage to dig ourselves out from all the snow we currently have here Maine by spring, it may be fun to revisit the offer but for convenience sake, developing some simple tools to complete the testing himself might be more beneficial.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Sorry, I had to go back a few comments to find out what you where referring to.
> Unfortunately it would serve no real purpose unless the distances where increased to the 80-100 yard range. At 20-40 yards the benefits are minimal at best (Jerry would have to confirm this with his frequency meter findings). Most if not all of the current testing has been done with crossbow arrows at 100 + yards and in some case they are achieving same hole consistency at these ranges.
> If we manage to dig ourselves out from all the snow we currently have here Maine by spring, it may be fun to revisit the offer but for convenience sake, developing some simple tools to complete the testing himself might be more beneficial.
> 
> GRIM


I'm still game, I shoot 80-100 yards quite often. Always willing to shrink those groups :smile:


----------



## IRISH_11

Here is what I use to hold the arrows when looking for FLO.


----------



## saskhic

saskhic said:


> I'm curious as to the injections bought from cabelas factory fletched are the spine indexed?


???


----------



## IRISH_11




----------



## IRISH_11




----------



## IRISH_11

Here you see the laser boresighter in the end of the shaft. The shaft has a weight on the end. Super simple to find FLO


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Interesting article but honestly not sure how this applies to arrows when th force from swinging a golf club is different than the force applied to an arrow. Maybe I am completely wrong in saying this.
> 
> Not sure either on false readings in relation to bearing spine finders with arrows. I can completely manipulate results and no exactly what to expect when I index the stiff side a certain way.



What I personally found when FLO testing is sometimes I could get the exact same results and the shaft would be rotated 180 degrees from it's true "stiff" side. If I marked what I thought the "stiff" side was, many times I can rotate the shaft 180 degrees and get the same "good" results. Put that shaft on the RAM machine and I can tell immediately which side is the "stiff" side. When I use the RAM machine, I get the same results each time, with the exception that each shaft may not index exactly the same way if removed from the tester and reinserted. That is my biggest beef with the RAM tool. 

But I've been doing this for years and since using the RAM tool, I have decreased the number of "fliers" and my groups have improved. If I buy 3-4 dozen shafts of the same arrow, I can make 1-2 dozen (depending on how well made the shafts are) that fly exactly alike. I sort first by spine, making sure they all read within certain parameters on the dial, then move to "stiff" or "weak" side testing, then move to weight, which I can normally adjust with glue in the insert and fletching. Once done, I have a set of arrows that all behave the same way, and I have the confidence in them that they will all perform the exact same at the moment of truth.


----------



## IRISH_11

Super 91 said:


> What I personally found when FLO testing is sometimes I could get the exact same results and the shaft would be rotated 180 degrees from it's true "stiff" side. If I marked what I thought the "stiff" side was, many times I can rotate the shaft 180 degrees and get the same "good" results. Put that shaft on the RAM machine and I can tell immediately which side is the "stiff" side. When I use the RAM machine, I get the same results each time, with the exception that each shaft may not index exactly the same way if removed from the tester and reinserted. That is my biggest beef with the RAM tool.
> 
> But I've been doing this for years and since using the RAM tool, I have decreased the number of "fliers" and my groups have improved. If I buy 3-4 dozen shafts of the same arrow, I can make 1-2 dozen (depending on how well made the shafts are) that fly exactly alike. I sort first by spine, making sure they all read within certain parameters on the dial, then move to "stiff" or "weak" side testing, then move to weight, which I can normally adjust with glue in the insert and fletching. Once done, I have a set of arrows that all behave the same way, and I have the confidence in them that they will all perform the exact same at the moment of truth.


If you rotate the shaft 180 degrees you are still on the same plane so your FLO would be the same. You went from 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock if the rotated 180. Same plane.


----------



## zwalls

weekender21 said:


> Best place to purchase a RAM?


eders or outdoor experiance


----------



## GRIMWALD

IRISH_11 said:


> Here you see the laser boresighter in the end of the shaft. The shaft has a weight on the end. Super simple to find FLO



Nice setup!!!

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

Super 91 said:


> What I personally found when FLO testing is sometimes I could get the exact same results and the shaft would be rotated 180 degrees from it's true "stiff" side. If I marked what I thought the "stiff" side was, many times I can rotate the shaft 180 degrees and get the same "good" results. Put that shaft on the RAM machine and I can tell immediately which side is the "stiff" side. When I use the RAM machine, I get the same results each time, with the exception that each shaft may not index exactly the same way if removed from the tester and reinserted. That is my biggest beef with the RAM tool.
> 
> But I've been doing this for years and since using the RAM tool, I have decreased the number of "fliers" and my groups have improved. If I buy 3-4 dozen shafts of the same arrow, I can make 1-2 dozen (depending on how well made the shafts are) that fly exactly alike. I sort first by spine, making sure they all read within certain parameters on the dial, then move to "stiff" or "weak" side testing, then move to weight, which I can normally adjust with glue in the insert and fletching. Once done, I have a set of arrows that all behave the same way, and I have the confidence in them that they will all perform the exact same at the moment of truth.



I don't even bother with spine when FLO testing, the arrow naturally resists oscillating on the spine. The arrow wants to release it energy in the easiest and fastest way possible. This is why on only seek the "natural bending plane" and then from there I use the weighted laser to fine tune to locate the "neutral bending plane". More often than not, they are very similar in position but some have been as much a 20 degrees off.
I do have to pay attention to deflection (for sorting concerns) but the actual trying to make the arrow oscillate along the spine can cause you to pull your hair out. Plus, once I know where the neutral plane is, the stiff plane will always be at 90 degrees to it, so if for some reason I wish to make use of the information it is there.

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

not sure if I'm following correctly. is FLO and frequency testing the same thing? if not can someone explain? where does one get the equipment to do frequency testing?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Again nice read grim however I'm still trying to understand a few things here. When you find the Flo with an instrument like Irish built it should be easy to find the two planes. If you can find the two planes do you use the ram to identify the stiffer side of the Flo to attach the cock vane or do you put the cock vane on the NBP side. 

Also Irish do you sell the stuff you built?


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> I'm still game, I shoot 80-100 yards quite often. Always willing to shrink those groups :smile:


If in a few weeks you haven't already built your own equipment. I will see about making up a care package for you but if things continue as they have been, we will either be frozen into ice cubes or when things start to melt, we may be needing rafts to stay dry.

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

Ha ha grim I posted before your last post. You must have been typing. I get it now


Still want to know if Irish sells his Flo instrument


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> What I personally found when FLO testing is sometimes I could get the exact same results and the shaft would be rotated 180 degrees from it's true "stiff" side. If I marked what I thought the "stiff" side was, many times I can rotate the shaft 180 degrees and get the same "good" results. Put that shaft on the RAM machine and I can tell immediately which side is the "stiff" side. When I use the RAM machine, I get the same results each time, with the exception that each shaft may not index exactly the same way if removed from the tester and reinserted. That is my biggest beef with the RAM tool.
> 
> But I've been doing this for years and since using the RAM tool, I have decreased the number of "fliers" and my groups have improved. If I buy 3-4 dozen shafts of the same arrow, I can make 1-2 dozen (depending on how well made the shafts are) that fly exactly alike. I sort first by spine, making sure they all read within certain parameters on the dial, then move to "stiff" or "weak" side testing, then move to weight, which I can normally adjust with glue in the insert and fletching. Once done, I have a set of arrows that all behave the same way, and I have the confidence in them that they will all perform the exact same at the moment of truth.


Hmmmm ! I can go back to any given arrow I have indexed from the past and still locate the stiff side. Seems to not vary much at all for me. One thing I do, is not let the plunger gauge stay up against the weight and I lube that plunger gauge as well. You can get varying results if the plunger gets dusty and dirty over time.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> Again nice read grim however I'm still trying to understand a few things here. When you find the Flo with an instrument like Irish built it should be easy to find the two planes. If you can find the two planes do you use the ram to identify the stiffer side of the Flo to attach the cock vane or do you put the cock vane on the NBP side.
> 
> Also Irish do you sell the stuff you built?


Yes, you will need a Ram or in my case, I use an inverted flex board to identify which plane you have located but I use the flex board to find the natural bending plane and then FLO test.
In my case I position the neutral bending plane in the vertical position but one, I am shooting an older Solo Cam Mathews and second I use a whisker biscuit for a rest which "May" add additional support, much like the barrel of a gun.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> If in a few weeks you haven't already built your own equipment. I will see about making up a care package for you but if things continue as they have been, we will either be frozen into ice cubes or when things start to melt, we may be needing rafts to stay dry.
> 
> GRIM


I'm game ! 
Honestly, not sure I will even have time. 

Thanks !


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Yes, you will need a Ram or in my case, I use an inverted flex board to identify which plane you have located but I use the flex board to find the natural bending plane and then FLO test.
> In my case I position the neutral bending plane in the vertical position but one, I am shooting an older Solo Cam Mathews and second I use a whisker biscuit for a rest which "May" add additional support, much like the barrel of a gun.
> 
> GRIM


I can see the extra support being needed since the stiff side would be out or in from my testing. That if I am understanding all the FLO stuff correctly


----------



## swbuckmaster

Grim or Irish do you sell a care package [emoji12] . 

I want to start Flo tunning my own arrows. I don't care to make arrows for others.

You can pm me if you like


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> not sure if I'm following correctly. is FLO and frequency testing the same thing? if not can someone explain? where does one get the equipment to do frequency testing?


No, they are similar but entirely different operations. A frequency meter will actually give you a physical number in rate of oscillations, FLO is only for locating the "Neutral planes" 

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> Grim or Irish do you sell a care package [emoji12] .
> 
> I want to start Flo tunning my own arrows. I don't care to make arrows for others.
> 
> You can pm me if you like


LOL!!!!
No I don't but if you want to start playing with the information, a bench vice with a hand drill mounted horizontally, makes a good starting clamp and a $ 5.00 dollar cat toy laser with a field point attached to the back side makes a serviceable weighted laser.


----------



## IRISH_11

GRIMWALD said:


> No, they are similar but entirely different operations. A frequency meter will actually give you a physical number in rate of oscillations, FLO is only for locating the "Neutral planes"
> 
> GRIM


GRIMM, although they are different if you take what we know about a frequency analyzer you can apply it to the FLO test. Here is what we know. The highest frequency is the stiff part of the shaft. It oscillates short and fast because of the stiffness thus increasing the cycles per minute. The lowest frequency or weak frequency oscillates long and slow. So to apply this to the FLO test all you need is a template to pull to and you can see how far the shaft rebounds when let go or twanged. The side that rebounds the longest is the NBP.


----------



## swbuckmaster

What about a drill press and hanging the arrow with a weight? I have a big drill press


----------



## GRIMWALD

I should also have noted, if you do pursue FLO in the method described above, make sure not to over tighten the drill chuck onto your arrow because it could crush the carbon and damage the shaft. A snug fit is fine for the arrow but you will want a very firm and stable hold onto the vise mounted drill

GRIM


----------



## weekender21

zwalls said:


> eders or outdoor experiance


Ordered today!


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> What about a drill press and hanging the arrow with a weight? I have a big drill press


Drill press will be fine but be careful of the clamping preasure, I would also recommend starting with junk shafts and perhaps even tapping the clamp end to avoid making mark on the shaft

GRIM


----------



## weekender21

ElkFetish said:


> This has been an informative thread. I very much appreciate all the good info being shared here. I have learned a few things which is a change on most threads here.
> 
> After reading this thread a couple times I really can't understand why many of you don't broadhead tune as one of your very first steps in tuning after timing and cam sync, etc. Basically using it as a macro tuning step before fine tuning if you will. Much of the info presented here, especially in the last few pages, is accomplishing exactly what broadhead tuning does. When using it as an initial tuning step it is perfect for figuring out if your center shot is off or maybe it is just an arrow. It also basically finds the spine and indexes it to a place where the nock needs to be to get it shooting within the group and if you can't get it shooting there you know it is an arrow issue not a tuning issue. I'm not saying that broadhead tuning is the end all or should be all that is done but I bet in 80%+ of the cases I don't have to do anything else and if I do it is very minor. Plus it saves me the time and expense and spine testers, special order arrows, and having to try to understand FLO's and flux capacitors!  Am I still not understanding something here? Again I understand if you spine test there is no need to broadhead tune but that is only advantageous if you want to spend the time and money on all the equipment and custom arrows.
> 
> Also, one question. I still don't understand why bending to find the spine doesn't work. I can only ever get one bend in an arrow and it is in the same spot every time. Doesn't this accomplish nearly the same thing? Even if the strong or weak side I find isn't the correct spot as far as dynamic spine,etc. It still indexes all of my arrows to the same spot so then it would only be a matter or rotating the nock the same amount on each arrow if for some reason my groups were tighter in a place different than what the bending showed. What am I missing?
> 
> Again, lots of good info!
> 
> Thanks,


Are you Broadhead tuning every arrow individually? Most consider "braodhead tuning" a final step for exact arrow rest location. Not the same as spine indexing where you're tuning your arrow vs. tuning your bow.


----------



## swbuckmaster

GRIMWALD said:


> I should also have noted, if you do pursue FLO in the method described above, make sure not to over tighten the drill chuck onto your arrow because it could crush the carbon and damage the shaft. A snug fit is fine for the arrow but you will want a very firm and stable hold onto the vise mounted drill
> 
> GRIM


That is one reason I like Irish's set up.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> That is one reason I like Irish's set up.


Agreed but if you start out as simple as possible, you can fine tune later your tools to meet your requirements.

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

GRIMWALD said:


> Drill press will be fine but be careful of the clamping preasure, I would also recommend starting with junk shafts and perhaps even tapping the clamp end to avoid making mark on the shaft
> 
> GRIM


What do you mean by tapping the clamp


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> What do you mean by tapping the clamp


Tape the end, did I not spell it correctly? I think I spelled it correct. 

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lol

I want to say thanks to all who posted to this thread. It has been one of the most informitive posts I've seen in awhile.


----------



## weekender21

saskhic said:


> I'm curious as to the injections bought from cabelas factory fletched are the spine indexed?


Almost no chance "factory fletched" arrows were spine indexed.


----------



## ElkFetish

weekender21 said:


> Are you Broadhead tuning every arrow individually? Most consider "braodhead tuning" a final step for exact arrow rest location. Not the same as spine indexing where you're tuning your arrow vs. tuning your bow.


I use broadhead tuning to tune my bow like you mentioned but that is easy and pretty quick. But also in the process I go through every arrow and shoot it with a broadhead that I know is true and turn the Nock until they perfectly hit with the rest of the group. So I guess I do both.
So I do a rough set of my rest then nock tune so I know my arrows are shooting and set up correctly. I Usually go back and at most do a very minor rest adjustments and I'm set. Rest is perfectly set, arrows are indexed to hit together and I'm ready to go.


----------



## weekender21

ElkFetish said:


> I use broadhead tuning to tune my bow like you mentioned but that is easy and pretty quick. But also in the process I go through every arrow and shoot it with a broadhead that I know is true and turn the Nock until they perfectly hit with the rest of the group. So I guess I do both.
> So I do a rough set of my rest then nock tune so I know my arrows are shooting and set up correctly. I Usually go back and at most do a very minor rest adjustments and I'm set. Rest is perfectly set, arrows are indexed to hit together and I'm ready to go.


Sounds like an effective approach to me! In theory, spine indexing would accomplish the same thing assuming all broadheads spun true. I might shoot a broadhead on each arrow after spine indexing my next batch just out of curiosity.


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Hmmmm ! I can go back to any given arrow I have indexed from the past and still locate the stiff side. Seems to not vary much at all for me. One thing I do, is not let the plunger gauge stay up against the weight and I lube that plunger gauge as well. You can get varying results if the plunger gets dusty and dirty over time.


I actually took the teflon arms off the RAM weight and added aluminum arms and precision bearing rollers, so that the weight wouldn't grab or cause accuracy issues. Maybe my dial indicator is not running true. But if I take a shaft off the tester that I have marked, and I put it back on and do not watch the marked end, and I just concentrate on the dial indicator, I rarely end up with the shaft in the exact position that I marked it the very first time. It normally is very close, but never exact it seems. That frustrates me.

I'm actually building a spine aligner of my own design right now. It does not work on any of these principles, and I am not going to share my design yet, but I think it will make these other methods pretty much obsolete, and make testing a set of shafts extremely easy and quick. Been thinking and playing with the design for 6 months.


----------



## ontarget7

Ya, it's got to be your dial indicator. I just pulled some arrows out last night that were indexed and all read the same when testing again.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

It is absolutely true that golf clubs and arrows and even fishing rods are different tools but they do have two things in common, a Stiff Plane and a Neutral Plane because they are a tube. They respond to these attributes pretty much in the same fashion, golf clubs are frequency tested, FLO tested, Bearing tested or PURE tested to identify these attributes so the neutral plane can be aligned for top performance. Fishing rods are tested to identify the backbone (stiff plane) to improve casting accuracy and fish fighting ability. Likewise we have seen here the RAM type tester, the frequency analyzer and the FLO process all find the stiff plane and neutral plane of an arrow shaft. I have stated this a number of times, if its a tube, doesn't matter if its used as a golf club, fishing rod or arrow, each perform better when they are tested and the stiff plane and neutral plane are consistently aligned. 

Can this alignment be fine tuned? Absolutely FLO testing can be used to fine tune and improve consistency, as stated here the natural bending plane and the neutral plane are not always in the same precise location because of the inconsistencies in the shaft the natural bend may vary a bit and fine tuning can improve the shafts consistency.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> I should also have noted, if you do pursue FLO in the method described above, make sure not to over tighten the drill chuck onto your arrow because it could crush the carbon and damage the shaft. A snug fit is fine for the arrow but you will want a very firm and stable hold onto the vise mounted drill
> 
> GRIM


The best way to clamp is with a pneumatic clamping system


----------



## ontarget7

Spine indexing, very important in gaining consistency down range and overall tune of a bow !

Good thread guys 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts !

Shane


----------



## NDS

I use a ram spine tester to find the stiff side and orient it up. I just re-checked a few I had and came up with the same results. I can say though after reading this thread I certainly learned some new stuff and feel inadequate in my arrow building. Great discussion for sure.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> How many pros do you build arrows for Jerry?


I have never had a desire to seek out any pros, I have nothing to prove that cant be seen from the feedback of my customers. 

If at any time a pro contacts me I will evaluate him or her to understand their attitude before I commit. If they are down to earth, humble and know they are good and don't go around patting themselves on the back I would build their arrows. If they have the star attitude then they can just move on I have no interest in dealing with folks like that. 

The fact is I have 1000s of down to earth great people I build for who love my work and that sir is all I need! Arrows are expensive, respect and a heart felt thank you is priceless. 

How may pros do you build arrows for?


----------



## TundraArcher

weekender21 said:


> Almost no chance "factory fletched" arrows were spine indexed.


This is correct. 

However, I just saw some new VAPs that are now 'spine aligned' and marked on the shafts from the factory - I have not yet had a chance to check their results vs my ram tester... Should be interesting to see.


----------



## Super 91

I would like to see that as well, and also know what method they use to do so.


----------



## tmoran

GRIMWALD said:


> I should also have noted, if you do pursue FLO in the method described above, make sure not to over tighten the drill chuck onto your arrow because it could crush the carbon and damage the shaft. A snug fit is fine for the arrow but you will want a very firm and stable hold onto the vise mounted drill
> 
> GRIM


Does anyone have a vid or demonstration of this online?


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> I have never had a desire to seek out any pros, I have nothing to prove that cant be seen from the feedback of my customers.
> 
> If at any time a pro contacts me I will evaluate him or her to understand their attitude before I commit. If they are down to earth, humble and know they are good and don't go around patting themselves on the back I would build their arrows. If they have the star attitude then they can just move on I have no interest in dealing with folks like that.
> 
> The fact is I have 1000s of down to earth great people I build for who love my work and that sir is all I need! Arrows are expensive, respect and a heart felt thank you is priceless.
> 
> How may pros do you build arrows for?


I don't build arrows for anybody. I'm lucky if I have enough time to build my own arrows much less anyone else's. 

My point is the guys that make their living on shooting a bow don't spine index their arrows.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

TundraArcher said:


> This is correct.
> 
> However, I just saw some new VAPs that are now 'spine aligned' and marked on the shafts from the factory - I have not yet had a chance to check their results vs my ram tester... Should be interesting to see.


Unless victory has changed their testing process that advertisement is not 100 percent correct


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> I don't build arrows for anybody. I'm lucky if I have enough time to build my own arrows much less anyone else's.
> 
> My point is the guys that make their living on shooting a bow don't spine index their arrows.


Not true !

I know several personally


----------



## IRISH_11

ontarget7 said:


> Not true !
> 
> I know several personally


Not the ones winning


----------



## ElkFetish

weekender21 said:


> Sounds like an effective approach to me! In theory, spine indexing would accomplish the same thing assuming all broadheads spun true. I might shoot a broadhead on each arrow after spine indexing my next batch just out of curiosity.


I guess it's possible to broadhead tune your bow and rest without twisting Nocks to index your arrows to all hit in the same place but it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. How do you know if your broadheads are hitting the field points if you're not doing the knock indexing work? In my opinion this has to be done for broadhead tuning of your bow or rest to be effective at all.


----------



## zwalls

zwalls said:


> not sure if I'm following correctly. is FLO and frequency testing the same thing? if not can someone explain? where does one get the equipment to do frequency testing?


 try this again! my question seems to be getting lost amongst the debates. 
which is better...FLO or frequency and which is easier and most cost effective to get set up? thanks in advance!!


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> Not the ones winning


Well let's see, I know someone that has been on the U.S. National Team from 1972 - 2007 and a few that have won Vegas. Actually took my instructional classes from the guy I know that was on the U.S. National Team.

Does that count


----------



## swbuckmaster

IRISH_11 said:


> Not the ones winning


Not true
I shoot with one on the usa men's team that nock tunes his arrows. 
I've personally seen one of the greatest of all time 3d archer nock tune his arrows and re test them on a hooter before a shoot. Another friend of mine who placed second in the first freestyle flight at vegas this year checked all his arrows to make sure they would hit the x before he went. 
In our spot league there are probably 10 guys that shoot 35-45 x 450 vegas rounds every night. You won't even place top five if you don't shoot 42 x. Most if not all do some sort of nock tunning because I've seen them. They all have had their fare share of winning. One I believe has even shot a world reccord.


----------



## IRISH_11

swbuckmaster said:


> Not true
> I shoot with one on the usa men's team that nock tunes his arrows.
> I've personally seen one of the greatest of all time 3d archer nock tune his arrows and re test them on a hooter before a shoot. Another friend of mine who placed second in the first freestyle flight at vegas this year checked all his arrows to make sure they would hit the x before he went.
> In our spot league there are probably 10 guys that shoot 35-45 x 450 vegas rounds every night. You won't even place top five if you don't shoot 42 x. Most if not all do some sort of nock tunning because I've seen them. They all have had their fare share of winning. One I believe has even shot a world reccord.


Agreed. They all shoot their arrows in. The top shooters like performance based results. They fletch their arrows up willy nilly and shoot them in. No spine indexing occurs before hand.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Their not fletch them up willy nilly!

If they had a faster tool that would speed up their tunning process they would also use it. But your right performance based is where they end up. 

if an arrow gets hit in a 3d shoot it may become junk. If an 2315 arrow hits enough x's eventually it won't hit x's. It wears out and ends up in the bin. 

If I had a way to quickly speed up the process of my kids arrows or my own arrows I would also use it.


----------



## IRISH_11

Quickest tool is my setup.😉


----------



## swbuckmaster

IRISH_11 said:


> Quickest tool is my setup.😉


And how much is it?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> Not the ones winning


Reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllly! all of the top pros pull shafts out of a box, fletch them and go out there and win!


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> Reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllly! all of the top pros pull shafts out of a box, fletch them and go out there and win!


Either they are fibbers or the like to keep secrets. Most of the ones I shoot with and talk to shoot their arrows in. They just fletch them up however. Nothing indexed before hand. Most of them say why waste the time because they will be shooting them in anyway.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> Either they are fibbers or the like to keep secrets. Most of the ones I shoot with and talk to shoot their arrows in. They just fletch them up however. Nothing indexed before hand. Most of them say why waste the time because they will be shooting them in anyway.


Well then learn something new everyday. By the way I have this island for sale are you interested?


----------



## IRISH_11

SouthShoreRat said:


> Well then learn something new everyday. By the way I have this island for sale are you interested?


Not interested. Why in the world would you ever sell?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> Not interested. Why in the world would you ever sell?


Kind of tired of being out of the loop, dont have time to fish, dont have time to use the boat, never get to lay in the sun or swim. I spend all of my time in the shop testing arrows for no good reason prior to fletching. anyway lunch is over back to work!


----------



## swbuckmaster

I have a ton of different size drill bits at work. I bet I have one that would fit snuggly inside the shaft. I could then put it between two wood blocks and clamp it. Crude like a hammer but may work without worrying about shaft dammage. 

I may also try installing a point and then clamping the point side in the chuck with tape. This may keep the shaft from cracking.

The weight can probably be made out of anything. I may even tear apart one of my old hand drills and salvage parts.


----------



## thwackaddict

So do you index the arrow so it bends down into the blade rest? Or up and away from the blade rest?


----------



## GRIMWALD

Someone was asking for videos,
the following depicts FLO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncXSFLR5RE

the next is comparable to what Southshore uses for his frequency testing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQUsHv-O8QE

and the ultimate in shaft testing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=DecL0hWralc&feature=fvwp

GRIMWALD


----------



## zwalls

zwalls said:


> try this again! my question seems to be getting lost amongst the debates.
> which is better...FLO or frequency and which is easier and most cost effective to get set up? thanks in advance!!


HELLOcan someone please answer this question about the topic? thank you!!:wink:


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> HELLOcan someone please answer this question about the topic? thank you!!:wink:


LOL!!!!

Better is subjective but FLO testing can be done for fairly cheap money but you will still need a method to determine which plane you have located. I use as stated above, a inverted flex board for cheap money. There are other bearing based spine finder but if you need to know what the deflection values are. You will need a Ram or comparable device
A frequency meter like Jerry's will cost you a minimum of $500.00 but Jerry would be able to give a more accurate cost value and I don't think it is ready for home use.

GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> Better is subjective but FLO testing can be done for fairly cheap money but you will still need a method to determine which plane you have located. I use as stated above, a inverted flex board for cheap money. There are other bearing based spine finder but if you need to know what the deflection values are. You will need a Ram or comparable device
> A frequency meter like Jerry's will cost you a minimum of $500.00 but Jerry would be able to give a more accurate cost value and I don't think it is ready for home use.
> 
> GRIM


To add to this I would say the frequency meter will show you instantly where the stiff and neutral planes are and give you a very accurate deflection reading based on cycles per minute. The one I have will test to the 10th of a cycle. IMO a frequency meter is best used at the proshop level to spine match arrows.

FLO will take the results from the frequency meter and fine tune them with the actual arrows. 

I think the best way for the home archer to go is maybe a home made tool like Grim has suggest to find the stiff plane then finish them with the FLO testing.

Earlier I stated that an arrow has 4 quadrants two for the stiff plane and two for the neutral plane, flo can take these results and tune them to the optimal position for the best posslble alignment


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> Better is subjective but FLO testing can be done for fairly cheap money but you will still need a method to determine which plane you have located. I use as stated above, a inverted flex board for cheap money. There are other bearing based spine finder but if you need to know what the deflection values are. You will need a Ram or comparable device
> A frequency meter like Jerry's will cost you a minimum of $500.00 but Jerry would be able to give a more accurate cost value and I don't think it is ready for home use.
> 
> GRIM


This is the part I am having a hard time understanding. So you FLO test, then still have to find the stiff plane because IMO testing with thousands of bareshafts, the stiff plane is critical. 
So regardless of testing you still have to determine the stiff plane so save yourself some money and get a RAM or similar brand. One unit, one test, you are done. A dozen arrows literally takes all of 10 min tops.


----------



## 152732

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH3CdQtiCv0


----------



## IRISH_11

That video should be labeled dumb and dumber. Lol


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> This is the part I am having a hard time understanding. So you FLO test, then still have to find the stiff plane because IMO testing with thousands of bareshafts, the stiff plane is critical.
> So regardless of testing you still have to determine the stiff plane so save yourself some money and get a RAM or similar brand. One unit, one test, you are done. A dozen arrows literally takes all of 10 min tops.



First and foremost, the Ram is a perfectly serviceable tool, FLO just adds a layer of fine tuning.
Secondarily you are focused on the "spine", any and all action involved with the dynamic flight of the arrow, is happening in and around the natural and neutral planes not the spine.
The arrow needs to release all of its built up energy, which has been transferred from the bow, it can't do that at the spine. This is why you see the arrow gyrating or fishtailing in an attempt to reach the path of least resistance. If you start the arrow oscillating as close as possible to the neutral plane, the quicker the arrow will stabilize. Hence, my interest in the placement of the neutral plane as opposed to the spine. 

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> First and foremost, the Ram is a perfectly serviceable tool, FLO just adds a layer of fine tuning.
> Secondarily you are focused on the "spine", any and all action involved with the dynamic flight of the arrow, is happening in and around the natural and neutral planes not the spine.
> The arrow needs to release all of its built up energy, which has been transferred from the bow, it can't do that at the spine. This is why you see the arrow gyrating or fishtailing in an attempt to reach the path of least resistance. If you start the arrow oscillating as close as possible to the neutral plane, the quicker the arrow will stabilize. Hence, my interest in the placement of the neutral plane as opposed to the spine.
> 
> GRIM


Ok to simplify this even more, buy the arrow software and select your dynamic spine accordingly. Then find the stiff side however you want to find it and your done. No fish tailing whatsoever in my arrow flight, trust me. 

I'm just showing a very easy and accurate way to index your arrows and get absolutely perfect results down range.


----------



## GRIMWALD

LOL!!!! 
I can guarantee that your arrows oscillate in flight, fishtailing was probably a poor choice of words but your arrow will and do oscillate in flight. I am just testing to see if it is more advantageous to match the entire range of the shaft instead of just the spine.
In the simplest of terms, use what works for you but be open to new ideas, especially since the resurgence of tapered shafts, barrel shafts and all of the new custom shafts being explored.

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> Better is subjective but FLO testing can be done for fairly cheap money but you will still need a method to determine which plane you have located. I use as stated above, a inverted flex board for cheap money. There are other bearing based spine finder but if you need to know what the deflection values are. You will need a Ram or comparable device
> A frequency meter like Jerry's will cost you a minimum of $500.00 but Jerry would be able to give a more accurate cost value and I don't think it is ready for home use.
> 
> GRIM





SouthShoreRat said:


> To add to this I would say the frequency meter will show you instantly where the stiff and neutral planes are and give you a very accurate deflection reading based on cycles per minute. The one I have will test to the 10th of a cycle. IMO a frequency meter is best used at the proshop level to spine match arrows.
> 
> FLO will take the results from the frequency meter and fine tune them with the actual arrows.
> 
> I think the best way for the home archer to go is maybe a home made tool like Grim has suggest to find the stiff plane then finish them with the FLO testing.
> 
> Earlier I stated that an arrow has 4 quadrants two for the stiff plane and two for the neutral plane, flo can take these results and tune them to the optimal position for the best posslble alignment


LOL......thank you gentlemen for answering my question! I have a Ram now but, as a perfectionist to a fault I might be interested in investing in frequency testing. I just don't know where to start! not sure if it's worth the investment or not.
this is one of the best threads I've read in a while. VERY VERY interesting in the different ways to test arrows and the results that are obtained!
once again thank you!


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> Better is subjective but FLO testing can be done for fairly cheap money but you will still need a method to determine which plane you have located. I use as stated above, a inverted flex board for cheap money. There are other bearing based spine finder but if you need to know what the deflection values are. You will need a Ram or comparable device
> A frequency meter like Jerry's will cost you a minimum of $500.00 but Jerry would be able to give a more accurate cost value and I don't think it is ready for home use.
> 
> GRIM





SouthShoreRat said:


> To add to this I would say the frequency meter will show you instantly where the stiff and neutral planes are and give you a very accurate deflection reading based on cycles per minute. The one I have will test to the 10th of a cycle. IMO a frequency meter is best used at the proshop level to spine match arrows.
> 
> FLO will take the results from the frequency meter and fine tune them with the actual arrows.
> 
> I think the best way for the home archer to go is maybe a home made tool like Grim has suggest to find the stiff plane then finish them with the FLO testing.
> 
> Earlier I stated that an arrow has 4 quadrants two for the stiff plane and two for the neutral plane, flo can take these results and tune them to the optimal position for the best posslble alignment





GRIMWALD said:


> Someone was asking for videos,
> the following depicts FLO
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncXSFLR5RE
> 
> the next is comparable to what Southshore uses for his frequency testing
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQUsHv-O8QE
> 
> and the ultimate in shaft testing
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=DecL0hWralc&feature=fvwp
> 
> GRIMWALD


I went ahead and order one of those pureing machines to test my arrows with!! lol













NOT....................do they make one for arrows? I want one!! lol


----------



## ontarget7

Here is a prime example of why stiff side up is critical for best results in the overall tune of the bow and arrows. The first pic shows perfect entry with bareshaft and fletched in regards to vertical nock travel, they are both parallel with one another. The same bow and arrows with the stiff side down gives you a completely different reading, with vertical nock travel needing quite a bit of work still. Now the bow in question is a Nitrum Turbo set nock level with a touch of top cam advancement which is a very good balance for this particular bow. To correct the 2nd pic I would have to advance the top cam quite a bit, changing the draw force curve enough to feel the difference and not for the better. Another option would be lowering the rest and running a nock high or maybe a little of both. This is why I stress keeping a tune in that balance, so when it gets outside that balance don't overlook the shooter or spine indexing for the corrections needed.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> Here is a prime example of why stiff side up is critical for best results in the overall tune of the bow and arrows. The first pic shows perfect entry with bareshaft and fletched in regards to vertical nock travel, they are both parallel with one another. The same bow and arrows with the stiff side down gives you a completely different reading, with vertical nock travel needing quite a bit of work still. Now the bow in question is a Nitrum Turbo set nock level with a touch of top cam advancement which is a very good balance for this particular bow. To correct the 2nd pic I would have to advance the top cam quite a bit, changing the draw force curve enough to feel the difference and not for the better. Another option would be lowering the rest and running a nock high or maybe a little of both. This is why I stress keeping a tune in that balance, so when it gets outside that balance don't overlook the shooter or spine indexing for the corrections needed.


This may have already been answered, but if so I'd still like to clear it up again. Does fletching orientation matter at all with spine indexing? For example, could you shoot a 3 fletch with cock vane out/down so long as the stiff side is up? I assume aligning broadheads with your vanes is also unnecessary? Thanks


----------



## ontarget7

Fletching won't matter but I do prefer stiff side up for good reason


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> LOL......thank you gentlemen for answering my question! I have a Ram now but, as a perfectionist to a fault I might be interested in investing in frequency testing. I just don't know where to start! not sure if it's worth the investment or not.
> this is one of the best threads I've read in a while. VERY VERY interesting in the different ways to test arrows and the results that are obtained!
> once again thank you!


The following link is where Jerry obtained his meter and I believe this is also the model he acquired

http://csfa.com/clubscout4.php

You would have to confirm with Jerry to be certain but I think it is his model

As a side note Mr. Kaufman has supplied a series of "Tech note" that I would recommend reading and then start asking question of either Mr. Kaufman or maybe Jerry would be willing to let you pick his brain.
Myself, I don't think it is something a home user should be concerned with but who am I to judge, the tech notes link is as follows

http://csfa.com/technotes.php

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Here is a prime example of why stiff side up is critical for best results in the overall tune of the bow and arrows. The first pic shows perfect entry with bareshaft and fletched in regards to vertical nock travel, they are both parallel with one another. The same bow and arrows with the stiff side down gives you a completely different reading, with vertical nock travel needing quite a bit of work still. Now the bow in question is a Nitrum Turbo set nock level with a touch of top cam advancement which is a very good balance for this particular bow. To correct the 2nd pic I would have to advance the top cam quite a bit, changing the draw force curve enough to feel the difference and not for the better. Another option would be lowering the rest and running a nock high or maybe a little of both. This is why I stress keeping a tune in that balance, so when it gets outside that balance don't overlook the shooter or spine indexing for the corrections needed.




Ontarget7, I would love to see the results of if you were to shoot the position of your spine locator at more locations. If you are willing and have the time to essentially shoot a clock face series. As an example, spine at 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock and so forth but in order to save time since you have already done 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. If you were to complete the shooting of 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, I would love to see your results.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Ontarget7, I would love to see the results of if you were to shoot the position of your spine locator at more locations. If you are willing and have the time to essentially shoot a clock face series. As an example, spine at 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock and so forth but in order to save time since you have already done 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. If you were to complete the shooting of 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, I would love to see your results.
> 
> GRIM


Have already tested that multiple times. As you move more towards the 3 and 9 o'clock position it will give off poor lateral nock travel. This leads to outside the norm centershots and excessive pre lean.


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> The following link is where Jerry obtained his meter and I believe this is also the model he acquired
> 
> http://csfa.com/clubscout4.php
> 
> You would have to confirm with Jerry to be certain but I think it is his model
> 
> As a side note Mr. Kaufman has supplied a series of "Tech note" that I would recommend reading and then start asking question of either Mr. Kaufman or maybe Jerry would be willing to let you pick his brain.
> Myself, I don't think it is something a home user should be concerned with but who am I to judge, the tech notes link is as follows
> 
> http://csfa.com/technotes.php
> 
> GRIM


thank you Grim! info appreciated!


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> Have already tested that multiple times. As you move more towards the 3 and 9 o'clock position it will give off poor lateral nock travel. This leads to outside the norm centershots and excessive pre lean.


Could this be why my E35 centershots right now at 7/8"?


----------



## ontarget7

Arrow Afflicted said:


> Could this be why my E35 centershots right now at 7/8"?


There could be a few reasons and yes this could be one of them.

Grip, spine indexing, cable guard adjustment, arrow spine in general to name a few.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> There could be a few reasons and yes this could be one of them.
> 
> Grip, spine indexing, cable guard adjustment, arrow spine in general to name a few.


Ok so all of this makes me think one should start the tuning process by spine indexing their arrows before ever moving onto tuning their bow. Why would you do it any other way since you could get false readings with improperly indexed arrows?


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Have already tested that multiple times. As you move more towards the 3 and 9 o'clock position it will give off poor lateral nock travel. This leads to outside the norm centershots and excessive pre lean.


Them my question would be is the lateral movement consistent as with your vertical movement? Meaning if the spine is at 12 o'clock and the nock is straight or a little high and if when you position your locator at 6 o'clock, your nock is low. Is then your nock leaning right at 3 o'clock and leaning left at 9 o'clock?
If this is the case, then it may be considered a better tune for you average the lateral and vertical movements more to a center. If the that makes sense but it would be better if more than one arrow was being shot to confirm that the arrows spine is not the offender.
I am just postulating and am in no way trying to convince you of anything, your methods and practices work for you and I see no reason for you to even consider changing your procedures but I just like puzzles. This has been a fun thread.

GRIM 

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Arrow Afflicted said:


> Ok so all of this makes me think one should start the tuning process by spine indexing their arrows before ever moving onto tuning their bow. Why would you do it any other way since you could get false readings with improperly indexed arrows?


That is how I do all my personal stuff. The bows I get in for tuning I always tune with stiff side up.

With that said, I bareshaft tune and everything is magnified. Most my customers could careless about a bareshaft as long as their bow shoots great. Keep in mind the readings I am giving you are with bareshafts. I could put vanes on those same arrows and shoot bullet holes. I am just picky and giving you the steps I take for great results


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Them my question would be is the lateral movement consistent as with your vertical movement? Meaning if the spine is at 12 o'clock and the nock is straight or a little high and if when you position your locator at 6 o'clock, your nock is low. Is then your nock leaning right at 3 o'clock and leaning left at 9 o'clock?
> If this is the case, then it may be considered a better tune for you average the lateral and vertical movements more to a center. If the that makes sense but it would be better if more than one arrow was being shot to confirm that the arrows spine is not the offender.
> I am just postulating and am in no way trying to convince you of anything, your methods and practices work for you and I see no reason for you to even consider changing your procedures but I just like puzzles. This has been a fun thread.
> 
> GRIM
> 
> GRIM


I will follow up with some pics for you when I get a chance. There is a method to my madness with lots of time behind bareshafts and clean nock travel transferred to them.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> That is how I do all my personal stuff. The bows I get in for tuning I always tune with stiff side up.
> 
> With that said, I bareshaft tune and everything is magnified. Most my customers could careless about a bareshaft as long as their bow shoots great. Keep in mind the readings I am giving you are with bareshafts. I could put vanes on those same arrows and shoot bullet holes. I am just picky and giving you the steps I take for great results


Perfect bareshaft flight is the ultimate goal and accomplishment for sure. It seems everyone nowadays wants more and more speed right? So why not get your bow shooting an arrow as true as physically possible in order to minimize the correction (aka drag) needed from fletching? Not to mention the added amount of consistency in flight you'll gain from arrow to arrow. Seems like a no brainer 😉


----------



## jesses80

first thing you should do is start with a pretune of the bow meaning no cam lean ,center shot at factory recommendations arrow running through the berger hole and nock height level or slightly high then go to bare shafting your index arrows.


Arrow Afflicted said:


> Ok so all of this makes me think one should start the tuning process by spine indexing their arrows before ever moving onto tuning their bow. Why would you do it any other way since you could get false readings with improperly indexed arrows?


----------



## ontarget7

jesses80 said:


> first thing you should do is start with a pretune of the bow meaning no cam lean ,center shot at factory recommendations arrow running through the berger hole and nock height level or slightly high then go to bare shafting your index arrows.


No cam lean ? Now that is funny

Why set your self up for disappointment

That's a different topic all together


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> Have already tested that multiple times. As you move more towards the 3 and 9 o'clock position it will give off poor lateral nock travel. This leads to outside the norm centershots and excessive pre lean.


I should have said the severity of the change will get worse as the tolerance level drops when choosing arrows.


----------



## Stab 'em

Best arrow tuning thread of 2015! Thanks for all the contributions guys.


----------



## fireman85

Okay after a long time reading this thread and researching everything i read i see a lot of time spent playing with arrows in my future! I have always shot quality arrows and been in denial that spine/nock tuning was a waste of time but this thread and some other research has changed my way of thinking. I have a RAM spine tester on the way and now with all this talk of the flo testing im beginning to wonder if i didnt just waste a bunch of money on what might not be the best tool for what im looking to accomplish. Here is a good video on FLO testing relative to archery. Hope to see shanes ideas on this video and jerry is this a lower tec version on what you are doing with your arrows?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFm5hpcm-5g


----------



## Super 91

That's funny. That's my fat butt in that video. Been a while since I did that, and I've done a lot of testing since then. So far the RAM machine is probably more consistent overall. I'm sure if my dial indicator was not having issues, the RAM tool would be even better. But in my tests, and the shafts I was working on in the video are huge carbon shafts for the PSE TAC-15 crossbow, I have found that the FLO method takes 10x longer if not more to get a dozen arrows tested, and once marked, not all shafts perform like you might expect. I get the same thing with the RAM tool, but not as often. 

I am hoping to get my other machine completed and start testing with that machine in the next month or so. You would need to use a RAM tool to check the spine of the arrow and see if it is within tolerances, but the machine I am making (and it very well be a flop, but I hope not) should allow you to know exactly which way the shaft will flex on the shot.


----------



## jesses80

yes shane we all no most bows will have cam lean it's just where I start and try to keep minimal as possible through out the tuning process.


ontarget7 said:


> No cam lean ? Now that is funny
> 
> Why set your self up for disappointment
> 
> That's a different topic all together


----------



## PayneTrain

Really glad I've been reading along this whole time or it would've been a long read glued to my phone or computer. Truly one of the most informative threads in a while now. A lot of knowledge gained on the spine and testing and will be having all mine indexed with a RAM to get the most out of those long range groups. Thanks everyone for sharing!


----------



## swbuckmaster

Super 91 
do you have a photo of the ram tester with bearings instead of the Teflon hanging clips it comes with


----------



## fireman85

Super 91 said:


> That's funny. That's my fat butt in that video. Been a while since I did that, and I've done a lot of testing since then. So far the RAM machine is probably more consistent overall. I'm sure if my dial indicator was not having issues, the RAM tool would be even better. But in my tests, and the shafts I was working on in the video are huge carbon shafts for the PSE TAC-15 crossbow, I have found that the FLO method takes 10x longer if not more to get a dozen arrows tested, and once marked, not all shafts perform like you might expect. I get the same thing with the RAM tool, but not as often.
> 
> I am hoping to get my other machine completed and start testing with that machine in the next month or so. You would need to use a RAM tool to check the spine of the arrow and see if it is within tolerances, but the machine I am making (and it very well be a flop, but I hope not) should allow you to know exactly which way the shaft will flex on the shot.


Ok well that makes me feel a lot better about my purchase. Thank you for the feed back, the concept you showed is really interesting in relating the flo testing concept to archery. Good luck on your new machine ill be waiting on introduction to the AT world!


----------



## ontarget7

jesses80 said:


> yes shane we all no most bows will have cam lean it's just where I start and try to keep minimal as possible through out the tuning process.


He has a E35 and no adjusting lean so need to even try and attempt that


----------



## jesses80

shane how easy is it to get false readings on the ram whats some do's and don't when using it.


----------



## ontarget7

I have been asked a few times now why Stiff side up. The only thing that I can see is having the stiff side down has to much of an initial push off the rest causing a slight bounce back. Where the weak side down, opposite the stiff side had more forgiveness on the rest, taking and absorbing the contact when the arrow is launched. 
I do find it varies some depending on the bow and cam systems.


----------



## ontarget7

jesses80 said:


> shane how easy is it to get false readings on the ram whats some do's and don't when using it.


The amount of pressure you apply as the arrow is turning can give false readings. It is easy to get the hang of it and have very even pressure when spinning the arrow for more accurate readings. The dial gauge just like anything can get a little stiff over time so I keep that lubed so it stays accurate. Other than that, it is quite easy.


----------



## GRIMWALD

This is probably a good place to correct some misconceptions, there is no weak "side" or strong "side". There is no weak side opposite of the stiff side.
The "spine" of a shaft runs completely through a shaft, either from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock or from 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock. It is physically impossible to have the stiff spine at 12 o'clock and the weak or natural bending point at 6 o'clock. This is why I was puzzled by some of Ontarget7s images. If you shoot a shaft with the spine in the 12 o'clock position it is the same as saying that spine is in the 6 o'clock position
This is not my opinion, this is simply physics and can be mathematically proven.

The easiest way to perceive the concept of spine is to envision a flat wood or plastic ruler. That wide flat sides (or plane) bend easier than the thin narrower sides (or plane). The flat plane would be the natural bending plane because it naturally wants to bend easier there, the thin plane would be considered the spine because the shat resists bending more so than along the flat plane. The same mechanics apply to arrow shaft regardless of weather the shaft is flat or round.
This concept is also why people who try FLO for the first time become so frustrated, the shafts resist oscillating along the spine, the shafts "want" to oscillate along the path of least resistance and that would be where the shaft "naturally "wants to bend. So when you say you get inconsistent result or it takes 10x as long to FLO test. Try finding the natural bend plane and then use FLO to fine tune to find the '"neutral" bending plane or the point of " flat line oscillation". It is possible to flat line on the spine but the shafts naturally resists oscillating here.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

You can continue to be puzzled then. It is what it is and the evidence is there. 

When I refer to weak and stiff it is spine reading. You have strong readings and you have weak ones. This will generally be 180* from one another.


----------



## Lazarus

GRIMWALD said:


> This is probably a good place to correct some misconceptions, there is no weak "side" or strong "side". There is no weak side opposite of the stiff side.
> The "spine" of a shaft runs completely through a shaft, either from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock or from 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock. It is physically impossible to have the stiff spine at 12 o'clock and the weak or natural bending point at 6 o'clock. This is why I was puzzled by some of Ontarget7s images. If you shoot a shaft with the spine in the 12 o'clock position it is the same as saying that spine is in the 6 o'clock position
> This is not my opinion, this is simply physics and can be mathematically proven.
> 
> The easiest way to perceive the concept of spine is to envision a flat wood or plastic ruler. That wide flat sides (or plane) bend easier than the thin narrower sides (or plane). The flat plane would be the natural bending plane because it naturally wants to bend easier there, the thin plane would be considered the spine because the shat resists bending more so than along the flat plane. The same mechanics apply to arrow shaft regardless of weather the shaft is flat or round.
> This concept is also why people who try FLO for the first time become so frustrated, the shafts resist oscillating along the spine, the shafts "want" to oscillate along the path of least resistance and that would be where the shaft "naturally "wants to bend. So when you say you get inconsistent result or it takes 10x as long to FLO test. Try finding the natural bend plane and then use FLO to fine tune to find the '"neutral" bending plane or the point of " flat line oscillation". It is possible to flat line on the spine but the shafts naturally resists oscillating here.
> 
> GRIM


^ I really like this explanation.

Or you could just shoot the nocks in and be done with it. Right about now someone is thinking, well, not everybody has the ability to shoot their nocks in. And if that is the case, all of this doesn't really matter now does it? 

Interesting read though.


----------



## Super 91

swbuckmaster said:


> Super 91
> do you have a photo of the ram tester with bearings instead of the Teflon hanging clips it comes with


I don't but when I get in this evening I will take a pic and post it on this thread if that is okay with the OP.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> I don't but when I get in this evening I will take a pic and post it on this thread if that is okay with the OP.


You bet


----------



## swbuckmaster

I purchased a couple of keyless chucks for 15 bucks at Home Depot. When I get some spare time I'm going to try and build one of these FLO testers. 

One question though. I see most built horizontal. I like that idea but I'm wondering if it would work better verticle. My thinking is the weight might snap the lighter thinner spine arrows in the horizontal position.


----------



## enewman

So if you index the spine on a bare shaft Set it at 12:00 o'clock. Then the arrow will bend up/dn of the nodes of the bare shaft Ok I'm good. No I fletch the arrows. Now it's spinning. That means it's no longer flexing up and down. 

I'm all for spine indexing. I'm starting to test this my self. But this is not the absolute. This is just another method to get the arrow to the best T.A.P. I can do the same thing but shooting through paper. Rotate the knoc till all the arrows have the same tear. Then start tuning. If spine indexing gets me to that point faster then I'm all for it. What I see a lot of is people come on here and say 5+5 =10. And that is the only way to get to 10. And we all no it's not.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I'm also thinking a rubber ball drilled to a certain size if it's heavy enough may work as a weight. Different balls for different size shafts. 

Maybe I can pick the balls and laser up at pet smart cheap.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> He has a E35 and no adjusting lean so need to even try and attempt that


Wouldn't adjusting the cable rod in for minimal fletch clearance reduce a small amount of cam lean on the e35? There's not much to begin with on the newer elites but I imagine it couldn't hurt.


----------



## ontarget7

Arrow Afflicted said:


> Wouldn't adjusting the cable rod in for minimal fletch clearance reduce a small amount of cam lean on the e35? There's not much to begin with on the newer elites but I imagine it couldn't hurt.


Very little. They definitely have lean


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> Very little. They definitely have lean


Other than clearance for fletching then is there any performance benefit from turning the rod in? I was going to do this on my bow as well as shoot cock vane out and add a Saunders hyper glide..I apologize if this is getting off track of the original thread's purpose


----------



## ontarget7

Kind of off topic but less clearance is not always better. Start with the rod bend in the 6:30-7:00 position and go from there. 

Apologies guys 
Back on topic


----------



## Stab 'em

enewman said:


> So if you index the spine on a bare shaft Set it at 12:00 o'clock. Then the arrow will bend up/dn of the nodes of the bare shaft Ok I'm good. No I fletch the arrows. Now it's spinning. That means it's no longer flexing up and down.


Good point as to when the arrow is in flight. It is when the arrow begins to flex as the string is released that indexing the shafts matter for long range grouping. However they come to be oriented the same, whether by shooting them in and nock turning, by finding the stiff side with a Ram tester, or by the FLO method, so long as they are all leaving the bow consistently with each arrow's spine in the same position is what matters in the end.


----------



## ontarget7

Not that hard to test a bareshaft and see how spine will effect nock travel transferred to the arrow. 

For those that have the ability to test the stiff plane of the shaft with a spine tester, index your cock vane up to that. Then tune to perfect bareshaft results with fletched. Then take that same bareshaft and rotate the nock 180 and see for yourself the difference. Post pics of the results to compare how it changed vertical nock travel before and after in relation to the stiff side orientation


----------



## ontarget7

Stab 'em said:


> Good point as to when the arrow is in flight. It is when the arrow begins to flex as the string is released that indexing the shafts matter for long range grouping. However they come to be oriented the same, whether by shooting them in and nock turning, by finding the stiff side with a Ram tester, or by the FLO method, so long as they are all leaving the bow consistently with each arrow's spine in the same position is what matters in the end.


That's why I started the thread because indexing does matter even if they are all the same way. Mentioned the different results you could come across earlier in the thread in regards to the different position of the stiff side being indexed


----------



## dhom

This has been an excellent read! Thanks


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> That's why I started the thread because indexing does matter even if they are all the same way. Mentioned the different results you could come across earlier in the thread in regards to the different position of the stiff side being indexed


So at what distance would someone notice a difference (probably subjective I realize) in nock tuned arrows vs stiff side up indexed arrows? 50 yards? 60 yards? 70+ yards?


----------



## enewman

I agree with what you are doing. I'm seeing the same results. I've even turned a arrow to see what it does. Now would not the flo tester be even better then the spine tester.


----------



## edthearcher

this is one of the most interesting post i have read in years, can some one come up with a home made device that wont break the bank, and one the avrage person can build


----------



## enewman

edthearcher said:


> this is one of the most interesting post i have read in years, can some one come up with a home made device that wont break the bank, and one the avrage person can build


If your mechenical you can build a spine tester for 75 to 100. This build is kinda crude. Works fr checking spine. Building bearing holder this weekend so I can spine index


----------



## Super 91

These are the new improved roller bearings for the RAM machine. No, they are not available, this is just what I did to keep the teflon arms from grabbing the shaft and making the dial indicator jump around so much.


----------



## Super 91

Stab 'em said:


> Good point as to when the arrow is in flight. It is when the arrow begins to flex as the string is released that indexing the shafts matter for long range grouping. However they come to be oriented the same, whether by shooting them in and nock turning, by finding the stiff side with a Ram tester, or by the FLO method, so long as they are all leaving the bow consistently with each arrow's spine in the same position is what matters in the end.


Very well said. That is what I've been trying to do for years now. Lots of different ways to arrive at this point. I hope my newer machine with make short work of this. I probably spend more time on my arrows than I do tuning my bow. The bow seems easy sometimes compared to getting all the shafts to behave the same way. It's harder to predetermine how an arrow is going to behave when shot than it is to get the specs right on a bow. At least to me it is.


----------



## ontarget7

All this Flo testing, analyzer testing got me curious so I have been really paying close attention to my readings even more so and have conflicting readings compared to the article on FLO testing golf clubs. 
The diagram showed on oval and instead of a round piece. The oval diagram of carbon did show a stiff plane and the weak plane 90* from it. Now I can see that on an oval object for sure, but I am getting different results on the arrrows.

They seem to have the weaker plane in the 6 o'clock position and carry that weak plane from say 4:30-7:30 give or take a very small amount of difference, and that seems to be a pattern. Could this be do to a round vs an oval tube ?


----------



## skynight

Super 91 said:


> These are the new improved roller bearings for the RAM machine. No, they are not available, this is just what I did to keep the teflon arms from grabbing the shaft and making the dial indicator jump around so much.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165664
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165665
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165666


How much does your weight weigh now?


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> All this Flo testing, analyzer testing got me curious so I have been really paying close attention to my readings even more so and have conflicting readings compared to the article on FLO testing golf clubs.
> The diagram showed on oval and instead of a round piece. The oval diagram of carbon did show a stiff plane and the weak plane 90* from it. Now I can see that on an oval object for sure, but I am getting different results on the arrrows.
> 
> They seem to have the weaker plane in the 6 o'clock position and carry that weak plane from say 4:30-7:30 give or take a very small amount of difference, and that seems to be a pattern. Could this be do to a round vs an oval tube ?


This was from the article on FLO 

If you deflect the shaft and measure the spring constant (the stiffness), then deflect it in exactly the opposite direction (that is, exactly 180º away), you will get the same spring constant. It is equally stiff in both directions.

I don't find the shaft equally as stiff 180*. Any thoughts ?


----------



## enewman

M


ontarget7 said:


> All this Flo testing, analyzer testing got me curious so I have been really paying close attention to my readings even more so and have conflicting readings compared to the article on FLO testing golf clubs.
> The diagram showed on oval and instead of a round piece. The oval diagram of carbon did show a stiff plane and the weak plane 90* from it. Now I can see that on an oval object for sure, but I am getting different results on the arrrows.
> 
> They seem to have the weaker plane in the 6 o'clock position and carry that weak plane from say 4:30-7:30 give or take a very small amount of difference, and that seems to be a pattern. Could this be do to a round vs an oval tube ?



In a perfect world. A arrow should not have a weak or stiff side. If some one would make a .002 in the spine then we would never have this post. Not sure that it would make a difference at .005. I won't know where my arrows are at till I can get my bearing but I'm betting it's around .010. And that does make a difference. 

Oval will not read the same as round. Just by design


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> This was from the article on FLO
> 
> If you deflect the shaft and measure the spring constant (the stiffness), then deflect it in exactly the opposite direction (that is, exactly 180º away), you will get the same spring constant. It is equally stiff in both directions.
> 
> I don't find the shaft equally as stiff 180*. Any thoughts ?


That means it's a dang good arrow.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> M
> 
> 
> In a perfect world. A arrow should not have a weak or stiff side. If some one would make a .002 in the spine then we would never have this post. Not sure that it would make a difference at .005. I won't know where my arrows are at till I can get my bearing but I'm betting it's around .010. And that does make a difference.
> 
> Oval will not read the same as round. Just by design


So why are we relating the golf cubs to arrows ? Just trying to understand the differences that I am coming up with vs the info in this Flo article


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> So why are we relating the golf cubs to arrows ? Just trying to understand the differences that I am coming up with vs the info in this Flo article


I don't know why anyone is compareing to golf clubs. This is just my thought. When spine indexing we should use more weight. This will give you a greater flex. Then you look for the most movement in the indicator. This would be the weakest point. That would mean at 180 degrees would be the stiffest point. That is 100%. It cannot be any other way.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> So why are we relating the golf cubs to arrows ? Just trying to understand the differences that I am coming up with vs the info in this Flo article


Advance a page or two in the FLO article where he is comparing shafts and different testing methods.
In one of the observation you will find the following quote
" •Feel-finding gave results that were only slightly related to FLO, and not at all related to engineering mechanics. It provided only one spine, not two opposed spines. The two NBPs were not opposed, and were 15º and 35º from the true NBP. Interestingly, the strange feel-finding results could be explained by a residual bend of about .05" in a direction of 110-120º."

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Ok my post above is incorrect. If you find the weakest point. Then that is the weakest point or flex of the arrow. Then it would be 90. Degress to stiff.


----------



## enewman

So does then mean that when spine indexing and run stiff up. Then the weakest points are at 3 and 9. So if your center shot is not correct then the arrow is flying left or right. We call this stiff or weak. In all reality its just the arrow is not leaving straight.

This also why if you spine index stiff up. And you cannot get rid of a knoc high tear. The arrow my be weak for that point weight


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> You can continue to be puzzled then. It is what it is and the evidence is there.
> 
> When I refer to weak and stiff it is spine reading. You have strong readings and you have weak ones. This will generally be 180* from one another.


Ahhh but the true dynamic spine the stiff plane is 180 degrees apart 10000000% of the time and the neutral plane is 1000000000% of the time 90 degrees apart. The weak point on a shaft that is found with the RAM has no significance to the flight of an arrow, it basically disappears when the arrow is shot.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Super 91 said:


> These are the new improved roller bearings for the RAM machine. No, they are not available, this is just what I did to keep the teflon arms from grabbing the shaft and making the dial indicator jump around so much.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165664
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165665
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165666


They may not be available but you should consider making them available as an aftermarket upgrade. I added bearing to my weight and would love to buy 2 sets of those. Do you need any arrows


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> So does then mean that when spine indexing and run stiff up. Then the weakest points are at 3 and 9. So if your center shot is not correct then the arrow is flying left or right. We call this stiff or weak. In all reality its just the arrow is not leaving straight.
> 
> This also why if you spine index stiff up. And you cannot get rid of a knoc high tear. The arrow my be weak for that point weight


The neutral plane is at 3 and 9 if the stiff plane is indexed to 12 and 6. The weakest point that is tested on a RAM type spine tester does not come into play at the dynamic plane.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I don't know why anyone is compareing to golf clubs. This is just my thought. When spine indexing we should use more weight. This will give you a greater flex. Then you look for the most movement in the indicator. This would be the weakest point. That would mean at 180 degrees would be the stiffest point. That is 100%. It cannot be any other way.


It isnt that they are being compared to golf clubs other than both are carbon tubes, both have a stiff plane and neutral plane as do fishing rods.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> It isnt that they are being compared to golf clubs other than both are carbon tubes, both have a stiff plane and neutral plane as do fishing rods.


I agree. And the post you are responding to from me was in correct in my looking at it. The stiff point will be 90 from the weak. Not 180 degree. If you set stiff at 12.00 then it is also at 6:00 meaning weak is at 3:00 and 9:00


----------



## swbuckmaster

SouthShoreRat said:


> They may not be available but you should consider making them available as an aftermarket upgrade. I added bearing to my weight and would love to buy 2 sets of those. Do you need any arrows


Same here


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> The neutral plane is at 3 and 9 if the stiff plane is indexed to 12 and 6. The weakest point that is tested on a RAM type spine tester does not come into play at the dynamic plane.


So how do you test dynamic plane. So from what your saying is that we can set 12 arrows with stiff side up. They my still not fly the same and knoc tuning may still be required.


----------



## Super 91

skynight said:


> How much does your weight weigh now?


I did not weigh it after the upgrade. I know I added a little bit of weight which would throw off the spine testing feature of the RAM tool, but I don't test to make sure a manufacturer sent me true 300 or whatever spine arrows, I just test for each arrow to be within the same parameters, and to find the stiff side of the shaft.


----------



## Super 91

SouthShoreRat said:


> They may not be available but you should consider making them available as an aftermarket upgrade. I added bearing to my weight and would love to buy 2 sets of those. Do you need any arrows


No, I wish I did. I bet you can't guess who I had make them for me though....


----------



## enewman

Super 91 said:


> I did not weigh it after the upgrade. I know I added a little bit of weight which would throw off the spine testing feature of the RAM tool, but I don't test to make sure a manufacturer sent me true 300 or whatever spine arrows, I just test for each arrow to be within the same parameters, and to find the stiff side of the shaft.


Why would you not want to know the spine. The velocity 300 I bought tested at best 315. Up to above 320. So when building to the ontarget program. They where always weak. And my blackeagles 300 came in at around 282. So they are stiff.


----------



## Super 91

One thing I think that FLO testing does not take into consideration is that FLO testing orients the shaft so that the stiff side is either right or left, or 3 or 9 o'clock. The shaft will oscillate nearly perfect while clamped in that position with either that particular plane is either up or down. For a golf shaft that is designed to swing sideways, that plane is the one you want to keep the shaft moving along that plane so that the strike of the club head on the ball does not kick right or left, but stays in that plane, making the club more efficient and making the swing and follow through most true. 

But for an arrow, this may or may not be the plane you want to orient your fletching to. Sometimes it lines up with RAM testing, sometimes not. One thing you never know with FLO testing is whether the side you pick will flex up or down when shot. That is the biggest problem that I have had in my personal trials.


----------



## Super 91

enewman said:


> Why would you not want to know the spine. The velocity 300 I bought tested at best 315. Up to above 320. So when building to the ontarget program. They where always weak. And my blackeagles 300 came in at around 282. So they are stiff.


I'm not as concerned with the spine so long as it is within the parameters for the bow I'm shooting, with the weight head I plan to shoot. If I have tuning issues, I will check spine to make sure that the shaft is within parameters. Otherwise, I don't spend a lot of time testing this.

It's sort of like 100 grain heads. Do you weigh each head you purchase? I have RARELY found any head that is EXACTLY 100 grains. Many times they are 10 grains spread in one lot of practice tips, unless they are Firenock field points, and they are very consistent. That goes for broadheads as well.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> One thing I think that FLO testing does not take into consideration is that FLO testing orients the shaft so that the stiff side is either right or left, or 3 or 9 o'clock. The shaft will oscillate nearly perfect while clamped in that position with either that particular plane is either up or down. For a golf shaft that is designed to swing sideways, that plane is the one you want to keep the shaft moving along that plane so that the strike of the club head on the ball does not kick right or left, but stays in that plane, making the club more efficient and making the swing and follow through most true.
> 
> But for an arrow, this may or may not be the plane you want to orient your fletching to. Sometimes it lines up with RAM testing, sometimes not. One thing you never know with FLO testing is whether the side you pick will flex up or down when shot. That is the biggest problem that I have had in my personal trials.


This sums up my views as well. The only thing I have not experienced is the RAM not being accurate for me personally. I literally have not nocked tuned since I have owned a RAM spine tester. Never have had to deviate from my initial set up. With that said, I do stay with tight tolerance arrows so it may be different on the lower grades of shafts.


----------



## Super 91

Yep, I always pick the premium shafts as well. Black Eagle has probably tested as good an any I've ever tested. But there are good shafts with most manufacturers and it's worth the extra to me to go with the best shaft a company makes.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> Yep, I always pick the premium shafts as well. Black Eagle has probably tested as good an any I've ever tested. But there are good shafts with most manufacturers and it's worth the extra to me to go with the best shaft a company makes.


All the Black Eagles I have tested have been very good. 

:thumbs_up


----------



## jesses80

shane whats the dim. of the angled aluminum on the spine tester and company name on the dial indicator if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## weekender21

I hate to open an entirely new can of worms but this topic is very closely related. I was searching through YouTube videos trying (unsuccessfully) to find a video showing the basics of indexing with a RAM tester. I have one on the way and wanted to educate myself on the process. I didn't find the video I was looking for but I did find plenty of videos explaining how to align (index) your BH blades with your vanes and how important that step was for accurately shooting broadheads. 

Years ago someone mentioned you should align BH's with vanes and I did it for a while. I decided to test a few aligned vs. random alignment one day and found absolutely no difference in BH flight. 

And...it would be impossible to align your 3 vanes with a 2 blade or 4 blade broadhead. 

Just wanted to get some opinions on this.


----------



## skynight

weekender21 said:


> I hate to open an entirely new can of worms but this topic is very closely related. I was searching through YouTube videos trying (unsuccessfully) to find a video showing the basics of indexing with a RAM tester. I have one on the way and wanted to educate myself on the process. I didn't find the video I was looking for but I did find plenty of videos explaining how to align (index) your BH blades with your vanes and how important that step was for accurately shooting broadheads.
> 
> Years ago someone mentioned you should align BH's with vanes and I did it for a while. I decided to test a few aligned vs. random alignment one day and found absolutely no difference in BH flight.
> 
> And...it would be impossible to align your 3 vanes with a 2 blade or 4 blade broadhead.
> 
> Just wanted to get some opinions on this.


The AT consensus is that it does not matter.
Randy Ulmer writes that orienting to the vanes does not matter but that orienting all bh the same does matter. For example if you are shooting a two blade, orient them vertical or horizontal, not some of one and some of the other.


----------



## Super 91

I personally have not found that indexing vanes makes any difference in flight at all. The main thing I look for is that the head spins true while screwed onto the arrow I plan on shooting. When building arrows, I spend a good deal of time squaring the end of the shaft, and making sure that the insert or outsert is glued in square and true to the shaft, so that when I put a quality broadhead on, I don't have to spend time shimming or correcting wobble that would be detrimental to its flight. If it spins true, it will fly great, provided everything else has been done correctly.


----------



## cordini

Just for visuals, I try to line up the top blade of my GK XLs with the cock vane.....It's just a cleaner look for me when I draw and am aiming at my target. Since I use FMJs, getting the insert lined up correctly before I install them inside the shaft to be the detail I spend the extra time on.....Tighten up the broadhead in the insert and mark the insert for alignment so that I install them on my strong side mark from the RAM testing. Again, you don't have to do it that way, but its something that I like to do. If I were shooting a 3 blade, I would still try to line up the top blade the same way.....Like I said, its a visual thing for me.


----------



## ontarget7

Here is a pic of two shafts rated at 
. 006 the Deer Crossing arrow specs out worse than the GT but what I did notice on the lesser grade arrows the weak plane does run 90* from the stiff on the lower grade arrows. Not finding this to be the case with some of the higher grade arrows. They seem to carry the weak plane from 4:30-6:30 you might say, give or take a very small difference in readings through that stretch.


----------



## GRIMWALD

The reason you are get more definitive results with the lower grade shafts is that the spine is greater than the amount residual bend. When you get into the better quality shafts the spine becomes less and less to the point where the residual bend is greater than the spine. This is why bearing based spine finder are not a truly accurate way of measuring spine. This statement may rub a few people wrong but is true none the less, that also doesn't mean you can't use the Ram spine finder because even though it doesn't measure spine accurately, it does measure it CONSISTANTLY wrong and that is what is aiding in uniform arrow flight.
I personally don't care how you achieve consistency, if floating does it for you then float them, Jerry achievea some spectacular with the Ram but he knows that his frequency meter is more accurate (not necessarily more user friendly). For all I care, you can dance around the shafts chanting "I like big butts", if it helps you get where you need to be, have at it.
I just want people to under stand what is actually happening when you do something as simple as nock tuning. As a fore instance, when you tune with fletching on and rotate to a hen vane in an attempt to bring an errant arrow into the group. If you start with the spine vertical, by rotating to the hen vane (which is 120 degrees to the right or left), you are actually placing the weak plane vertical. Not directly vertical but 30 degrees either to the right or left of vertical but vertical none the less.
The weak plane is always at 90 degrees to the spine, so if you rotate past 90 degrees, you are now entering the realm of the weak plane.
I just want people to understand what they are doing and why.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

I understand all that but as for my testing the only thing that has been consistent is finding the stiff plane. Then it is a matter of how you position that as to what gives consistent results. 

Do you bareshaft tune ?


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> I understand all that but as for my testing the only thing that has been consistent is finding the stiff plane. Then it is a matter of how you position that as to what gives consistent results.
> 
> Do you bareshaft tune ?


I am not advocating that you change anything that you do but you have to consider that when you make a recommendation based off incorrect information there is a good chance that your recommendation are also wrong.
At present orienting you preserved spine location vertical, well what if your true spine is at 50 degree to the right or left of that position. Would this change how you tune your bow? 

Bare shaft tuning for me is a yes and no, I don't build a lot of shafts now and the bow that I own have been tuned and retuned in attempts to answer various questions that pop up. So, yes and no
My testing is as simple as possible, to the point of it only taking about 15-20 mins. to complete a dozen shafts.
I find the natural bend, screw on my laser, twang the shaft once or twice and I am done. This is more easily facilitated because the inverted flex board I use to find the natural bend uses the same clamping procedure as for testing for FLO. This means one tool, one set up and quick readings. I very rarely have to turn nocks and if I do it's less than 1/8 turn. Which doesn't really mean a lot because a 1/8 turn on such a small circumference is about 30 degrees.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Then why spine index. Shoot the bare shafts through the paper rotate all arrow so the have same tear. Then tune. 

I will be testing this weekend. Im using blackeagle carnivors 300 spine. 

I can see maybe spine indexing will cut your time down, but there is no reason to run out and buy one when the same can be done with paper shooting.


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> I am not advocating that you change anything that you do but you have to consider that when you make a recommendation based off incorrect information there is a good chance that your recommendation are also wrong.
> At present orienting you preserved spine location vertical, well what if your true spine is at 50 degree to the right or left of that position. Would this change how you tune your bow?
> 
> Bare shaft tuning for me is a yes and no, I don't build a lot of shafts now and the bow that I own have been tuned and retuned in attempts to answer various questions that pop up. So, yes and no
> My testing is as simple as possible, to the point of it only taking about 15-20 mins. to complete a dozen shafts.
> I find the natural bend, screw on my laser, twang the shaft once or twice and I am done. This is more easily facilitated because the inverted flex board I use to find the natural bend uses the same clamping procedure as for testing for FLO. This means one tool, one set up and quick readings. I very rarely have to turn nocks and if I do it's less than 1/8 turn. Which doesn't really mean a lot because a 1/8 turn on such a small circumference is about 30 degrees.
> 
> GRIM


This is the part you have missed all together and the reason why I recommend stiff side up. From my testing with 30 plus bows a month, running bareshafts through everyone, I have found a happy medium to an overall tune running stiff side up. I will say this one last time. When running stiff side out or in, I sometimes find your centershot to drift out of the normal parameters, or your pre lean being excessive to try and get it to tune. I am after the best tune possible and I find that while keeping all these things in check.
From a vertical nock travel standpoint I find cam synch can play a roll on how your stiff side is oriented depending on the type of cam system, again all in a balance and the whole reason for me to post this thread.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Then why spine index. Shoot the bare shafts through the paper rotate all arrow so the have same tear. Then tune.
> 
> I will be testing this weekend. Im using blackeagle carnivors 300 spine.
> 
> I can see maybe spine indexing will cut your time down, but there is no reason to run out and buy one when the same can be done with paper shooting.


The problem with that is grip plays a huge role and can give false readings. The RAM spine tester will not give you false readings for the stiff side.


----------



## swbuckmaster

This is my take

The links grim posted shows there are problems with ram or feel finders. They can get things close on some arrows but can give completely false readings on others.

They way I read those links tells me I need to find the NBP with the ram. Then verify with FLO then fletch. Final test is always shoot.

From what I read FLO can take more time then it's worth if you just use FLO but the ram or feel finders complement each other for better more consistant results. 

If I had 1500 bucks I'd skip it all and use a hooter shooter. Nothing beats physical proof shooting the bow and seeing one hole impacts.


----------



## flinginairos

Would a laser bore sight tool work on an arrow for FLO testing if the arrow is mounted to something rigid on the back end of the shaft? I find this all really interesting and want to do some testing myself.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I think it would work fine if it's not moving arround. I think you may still need a weight though and weight may need to be different for different arrows. Example I wouldn't use a chuck for 1200 spine kids arrows but think it would be fine for triple x arrows.


----------



## GRIMWALD

flinginairos said:


> Would a laser bore sight tool work on an arrow for FLO testing if the arrow is mounted to something rigid on the back end of the shaft? I find this all really interesting and want to do some testing myself.


In some of the first posts member Irish posted his setup and it included a bore sighting tool.

My laser weight tool weighs in at around 280 grains and it works fine for all of the shafts I have built but my experiences only encompasses a small fraction the available shafts.

GRIM


----------



## Don Schultz

weekender21 said:


> Really? I've seen Jim Burnsworth demonstrating how to spine index in soapy water with VAPs.


Floating will find the heavy side. It does NOT measure arrow spine. Floating was helpful when we were all shooting Easton's welded seam aluminum shafts. It's about worthless today with so many different shafts with many different construction methods.


----------



## Super 91

Floating will only show the natural bend in the shaft, and the shaft may or may not bend on that plane when shot from the bow. I don't feel it is a reliable method to find the natural bending plane personally.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> I did notice on the lesser grade arrows the weak plane does run 90* from the stiff on the lower grade arrows.


Shawn, the weak point you have identified with the RAM is not the neutral plane of the shaft, you cant identify the neutral plane with a RAM all you can identify is the stiff plane. And most of the time when you test the stiffest point on an arrow it will not have the same reading 180 degrees around the shaft. The only way to truly find the true stiff plane and neutral plane is with a frequency analyzer.


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Shawn, the weak point you have identified with the RAM is not the neutral plane of the shaft, you cant identify the neutral plane with a RAM all you can identify is the stiff plane. And most of the time when you test the stiffest point on an arrow it will not have the same reading 180 degrees around the shaft. The only way to truly find the true stiff plane and neutral plane is with a frequency analyzer.


Hmmmmm !!! So now the RAM does not read the stiff plane ? Isn't the least amount of deflection the stiff plane ?


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> Shawn, the weak point you have identified with the RAM is not the neutral plane of the shaft, you cant identify the neutral plane with a RAM all you can identify is the stiff plane. And most of the time when you test the stiffest point on an arrow it will not have the same reading 180 degrees around the shaft. The only way to truly find the true stiff plane and neutral plane is with a frequency analyzer.


I cannot test this yet, but if your arrow say deflects 310. then at 180 degrees it should have the same 310. what ever the reading is it should be the same at 180 degrees. if it doesn't then the arrow will not be consistent. hopefully I will have the bearings for the spine tester put together tomorrow and I can test this


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> I cannot test this yet, but if your arrow say deflects 310. then at 180 degrees it should have the same 310. what ever the reading is it should be the same at 180 degrees. if it doesn't then the arrow will not be consistent. hopefully I will have the bearings for the spine tester put together tomorrow and I can test this


Nope, you will see when you start testing. Now if it was an oval it should be the same 180* from each other.


----------



## Super 91

If your dial indicator reads 310 on one side, it will not read 310 on the opposite side due to the fact the shaft will deflect differently do the where the stiff plane is located. This would be with the RAM tester. Now FLO testing will show identical results if you find the weak plane and and rotate the shaft 180 degrees, you will get the same results.


----------



## ontarget7

Here is some pics from a DIY tuning customer today. Since the topic is on spine indexing, I figure his pictures would be a great visual of some of the frustrations people have. 
Long story short, it was a combo of tune, grip and spine indexing to get him to perfect results. Here is a few pics

Low heal pressure









Correct grip fixing vertical as well as cam synch









Spine index correction took care of lateral since pre lean was already on the limits of to much. Keep in mind he is under spined some as well. Weak spine is causing more pre lean than normal. 









Another pic of perfect entry when everything comes together in that balance


----------



## watasha

Hmmmmm


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I cannot test this yet, but if your arrow say deflects 310. then at 180 degrees it should have the same 310. what ever the reading is it should be the same at 180 degrees. if it doesn't then the arrow will not be consistent. hopefully I will have the bearings for the spine tester put together tomorrow and I can test this


Nope not with a RAM spine tester! you may get the same reading once in a while but the majority of the time the 180 degree reading will be less than the stiffest point reading.


----------



## enewman

Yep looks like ad got his bow shooting great. Good job. He said you got him shooting today


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Hmmmmm !!! So now the RAM does not read the stiff plane ? Isn't the least amount of deflection the stiff plane ?


That is not what I am saying, the RAM will read the stiffest point on the shaft but the weakest point you read with the RAM is not always the neutral plane. You and I need about an hour on the phone its very difficult to get an accurate explanation put forth written. You are looking at shafts with the RAM at the static spine level, I can look at the shaft with the frequency analyzer at the dynamic spine level which are two completely different things.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> That is not what I am saying, the RAM will read the stiffest point on the shaft but the weakest point you read with the RAM is not always the neutral plane. You and I need about an hour on the phone its very difficult to get an accurate explanation put forth written. You are looking at shafts with the RAM at the static spine level, I can look at the shaft with the frequency analyzer at the dynamic spine level which are two completely different things.


So if I find the stiff side. Put this point at 12:00. And match all the arrows. Your saying they will not all react the same. If you flo test and find the point where it is flexing a straight line. Is that placed at 12 to 6 then all will react the same.


If your southshore archery. If you doint think spine testing is a good thing. Then why do you spine index your arrows you sale.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> So if I find the stiff side. Put this point at 12:00. And match all the arrows. Your saying they will not all react the same. If you flo test and find the point where it is flexing a straight line. Is that placed at 12 to 6 then all will react the same.


That is not what I am saying, if you have a ram and you want to index the arrows you find the stiff side ad index it. The arrows will react pretty much the same unless there is a wide variance in spine deflection along the neutral plane.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> That is not what I am saying, if you have a ram and you want to index the arrows you find the stiff side ad index it. The arrows will react pretty much the same unless there is a wide variance in spine deflection along the neutral plane.


Ok thanks. I just found some articles you have on this flo testers on a crossbow forum. Couple years old.


----------



## flinginairos

I tried the compression test with my bow press and 8 out of 10 shafts I got very repeatable results. The remaining two I couldn't get a good reading. I want to build a jig to FLO test and see if the results are the same


----------



## ontarget7

The compression test will very quite a bit. Here are few pics for you to view with three different brands. In the pics the white dot represents the stiff plane tested on the RAM spine tester. The bend will very from 3:30-6:00. The stiff plane is the upside when tested with a RAM spine tester.


----------



## GRIMWALD

flinginairos said:


> I tried the compression test with my bow press and 8 out of 10 shafts I got very repeatable results. The remaining two I couldn't get a good reading. I want to build a jig to FLO test and see if the results are the same



If you are open to suggestions, it is no great feat to find the natural bending point. 
A better test for FLO would be to see if the compression testing could be enhanced.
I am going to assume you marked the natural bending point from compression. Once you complete your FLO setup, recheck with the laser to see if the natural bend coincides with were the laser indicates that the "Neutral" plane is and then shoot the shafts with the compression marks prominent.
If the compression test was inaccurate, some nock tuning might need to be done, it would be interesting to see if the adjustments to increase the arrows accuracy coincided with the marks from FLO testing.
Just a suggestion but it could save you a little time.

GRIM


----------



## flinginairos

GRIMWALD said:


> If you are open to suggestions, it is no great feat to find the natural bending point.
> A better test for FLO would be to see if the compression testing could be enhanced.
> I am going to assume you marked the natural bending point from compression. Once you complete your FLO setup, recheck with the laser to see if the natural bend coincides with were the laser indicates that the "Neutral" plane is and then shoot the shafts with the compression marks prominent.
> If the compression test was inaccurate, some nock tuning might need to be done, it would be interesting to see if the adjustments to increase the arrows accuracy coincided with the marks from FLO testing.
> Just a suggestion but it could save you a little time.
> 
> GRIM


I will definitely try it. I'm not taking any method right now as "gospel" lol. I've never really been anal about my arrows. I just fletch them all the same in regards to the label and make sure they weigh the same. Usually I don't have any problems but do have flyers sometimes. For those I just turn the nock until it flies. I'm trying to take my longer range shooting to the next level so I will be looking into all of this a little farther. I appreciate all the info posted on here!


----------



## bbjavelina

It's been my impression that compression testing is at least somewhat dependent upon the natural bend of the lower grade shafts. FYI --- some of the 0.001" shafts have as much natural bend as the 3's and the 6's. Take nothing for granted. 

I believe that there's a small difference testing them horizontal vs. vertical, with the edge going to vertical. 

Compression testing becomes less and less reliable as the shaft quality increases.


----------



## Dewboy

What about floating the shafts. Some say the heavier side will always face upward when the float in water and that the heavy side usually is the stiffest. Water and a silver Sharpie is pretty cheap. You can also just adjust your knocks while shooting to get the arrows to group. It's practical with a drop-away rest. Maybe not so with a WB rest. And if you shoot FOBs, you don't even have to worry about vane position for maximum clearance etc. Just rotate the nock some and shoot. repeat till the arrow is hitting with the others.


----------



## ontarget7

Dewboy said:


> What about floating the shafts. Some say the heavier side will always face upward when the float in water and that the heavy side usually is the stiffest. Water and a silver Sharpie is pretty cheap. You can also just adjust your knocks while shooting to get the arrows to group. It's practical with a drop-away rest. Maybe not so with a WB rest. And if you shoot FOBs, you don't even have to worry about vane position for maximum clearance etc. Just rotate the nock some and shoot. repeat till the arrow is hitting with the others.


Starting around post 170 I gave example of floating, to be honest, I could pretty much arrange them to any direction and they would never attempt to go to the stiff plane


----------



## bseltzer

cordini said:


> Hopefully this article will help in the understanding of spine indexing......
> 
> http://www.arrowtrademagazine.com/articles/july_06/ControllingDynamicArrowSpine-July2006.pdf


I didn't see much of anything concerning spine indexing in this article. Yes, there was a lot of detailed discussion about factors affecting arrow tune, but unless I missed something, not much about spine indexing as it might apply here.


----------



## flinginairos

bbjavelina said:


> It's been my impression that compression testing is at least somewhat dependent upon the natural bend of the lower grade shafts. FYI --- some of the 0.001" shafts have as much natural bend as the 3's and the 6's. Take nothing for granted.
> 
> I believe that there's a small difference testing them horizontal vs. vertical, with the edge going to vertical.
> 
> Compression testing becomes less and less reliable as the shaft quality increases.


I tried the press vertical and horizontal with the same results.


----------



## montigre

SouthShoreRat said:


> They may not be available but you should consider making them available as an aftermarket upgrade.


I would totally be interested in purchasing if you had a mind to throw a couple more together.....hint, hint....


----------



## Super 91

Someone asked me if I had weighed the brass weight after the modification of the aluminum arms and roller bearings installed on it for the RAM machine. I had not but weighed it yesterday. It went from 1.94 pounds to 1.94375 pounds.

If I do have enough interest, I will make a limited run of these. I will not know the price till I estimate the time and materials in the job to get them put together. If you have interest in a set, send me a pm.


----------



## bbjavelina

Dewboy said:


> What about floating the shafts. Some say the heavier side will always face upward when the float in water and that the heavy side usually is the stiffest. Water and a silver Sharpie is pretty cheap. You can also just adjust your knocks while shooting to get the arrows to group. It's practical with a drop-away rest. Maybe not so with a WB rest. And if you shoot FOBs, you don't even have to worry about vane position for maximum clearance etc. Just rotate the nock some and shoot. repeat till the arrow is hitting with the others.


Seems to me that the heavy side is always down on floating objects. If the heavy side were to be up it would make bobber fishing pretty hard.:wink:


----------



## tmoran

From now on i'll gladly buy my shafts from Southshore. Until this thread, I didn't put much though into spine indexing. Does anybody sell just the indexing service? I've got a ton of new in the box shafts that i'd like to have indexed.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

tmoran said:


> From now on i'll gladly buy my shafts from Southshore. Until this thread, I didn't put much though into spine indexing. Does anybody sell just the indexing service? I've got a ton of new in the box shafts that i'd like to have indexed.


Call me I can do this for you


----------



## tmoran

SouthShoreRat said:


> Call me I can do this for you


I will, thanks


----------



## IRISH_11

I would like to say that I own a RAM tester, a frequency analyzer, and my home made FLO testing device (which works awesome). 

From all my experience there is only one way to find dynamic spine which is the plane of the shaft the arrow will oscillate on in flight. Contrary to some peoples beliefs in previous post all arrows will oscillate in flight some more than others and just because slow motion video may not show the oscillation to a degree where it is visible the oscillation is there even if it is microscopic since it is a function of the sine waves produced by the bows eccentrics.

FLO testing and a frequency analyzer will both find dynamic spine which is all any archer should be worried about.Personally I can find dynamic spine much quicker with my FLO tester that the frequency analyzer. Again dynamic spine is the only thing that matters since this is the only thing we can control meaning we can index all of our arrows so that the dynamic spine is in the same location on every arrow. 

We are not in control of how arrows or bows are manufactured. We are not in control of the nock travel on our bows or the residual bend in a shaft which is why the RAM isn't reliable because there is no way to truly have a constant zero that accounts for residual bend. This coupled with the fact that the mere hanging of the weight on the shaft can cause the shaft to take set or show memory. I have proven this with load cells and scales. Some will still argue that they can control the nock travel in their bows. To some degree yes but at the end of the day how the riser flexes when the bow is drawn is a result of its design. Couple this with the fact that no two people will hold or grip the bow the same which is why tuning a bow in a hooter shooter or similar device or sending it off to be tuned is pure snake oil. I mean I can have a bow perfectly tuned for me and my grip so that it shoots arrows cleanly through paper at various distances. I can hand the bow to 3 different people and you will see three different tears. Some may be the same but the point is there is no consistency.

Now that the facts are evident what can we control? We can control where the dynamic spine is indexed when it leaves he bow. Where should it be indexed? Up, down, to the side? Who knows? The fact is it doesn't matter where it is when launched out of the bow as long as it is the same for all arrows you will have consistency. Is there a sweet spot that may produce better results as far as where the dynamic spine is indexed at launch? The answer is absolutely, BUT this will vary from bow to bow archer to archer as it is a function of many many things. The best way to determine this is long range group tune having numbered arrows and recording the results of your groupings as the dynamic spine is oriented different amongst various strings of groups. This type of tuning can be done from a hooter shooter or similar device. 

We know through physics that the arrow oscillates on its two nodes during flight. We have located the dynamic spine of the shaft so we know the plane it will be oscillating on during stable flight. This is where it gets tricky so pay attention. How the arrow initially flexes during the launch cycle is the result of many many factors. Initial arrow flex or buckling will not necessarily be in alignment with the dynamic spine. The arrow at some point will begin to oscillate on the dynamic plane however the initial flex or buckling may be in a plane other than the dynamic plane. This is due to string (nock) travel in the horizontal and vertical plane which is a result of riser flex when under a load, cam timing and sync, draw length, cam lean, cable guard load, nock fit to center serving, point weight, run out of components, release type, loop type, center shot, nock height and so on. Regardless of how the arrow buckles initially when the energy is transferred from the string to the arrow if the dynamic spine is indexed the same then all the arrows will make the same correction in regards to initial flex to dynamic flex oscillation. This is the key to accuracy. 

Only focus on what you can control:

1. Find the dynamic spine using FLO

2. Fletch arrows so the dynamic spine is indexed the same on all shafts.

3. Group tune by changing the location of dynamic spine as far as where it is orientated at launch i.e. 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 5 o'clock etc. This will determine the best location for YOU and nobody else.

Shooting a drop away helps when group tuning because where the fletching is will not matter as far as clearance goes. I prefer a Hamskea using a .012" wide two hole luncher blade with a backer plate and the end of the blades a little bent to cradle the arrow. This gives the arrow added side to side guidance and improves left or right issues. Tim Gillingham uses this style launcher as well or at least he did last time I seen him.


I realize some if not most archers are hard headed and will disagree with what I posted. At the end of the day its physics and you can't dispute it.


----------



## spike camp

Got to love physics!
Great post,Irish.


----------



## IRISH_11

spike camp said:


> Got to love physics!
> Great post,Irish.



Thank you spike camp. I tried to put it in a way that everyone can relate to.


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> I would like to say that I own a RAM tester, a frequency analyzer, and my home made FLO testing device (which works awesome).
> 
> From all my experience there is only one way to find dynamic spine which is the plane of the shaft the arrow will oscillate on in flight. Contrary to some peoples beliefs in previous post all arrows will oscillate in flight some more than others and just because slow motion video may not show the oscillation to a degree where it is visible the oscillation is there even if it is microscopic since it is a function of the sine waves produced by the bows eccentrics.
> 
> FLO testing and a frequency analyzer will both find dynamic spine which is all any archer should be worried about.Personally I can find dynamic spine much quicker with my FLO tester that the frequency analyzer. Again dynamic spine is the only thing that matters since this is the only thing we can control meaning we can index all of our arrows so that the dynamic spine is in the same location on every arrow.
> 
> We are not in control of how arrows or bows are manufactured. We are not in control of the nock travel on our bows or the residual bend in a shaft which is why the RAM isn't reliable because there is no way to truly have a constant zero that accounts for residual bend. This coupled with the fact that the mere hanging of the weight on the shaft can cause the shaft to take set or show memory. I have proven this with load cells and scales. Some will still argue that they can control the nock travel in their bows. To some degree yes but at the end of the day how the riser flexes when the bow is drawn is a result of its design. Couple this with the fact that no two people will hold or grip the bow the same which is why tuning a bow in a hooter shooter or similar device or sending it off to be tuned is pure snake oil. I mean I can have a bow perfectly tuned for me and my grip so that it shoots arrows cleanly through paper at various distances. I can hand the bow to 3 different people and you will see three different tears. Some may be the same but the point is there is no consistency.
> 
> Now that the facts are evident what can we control? We can control where the dynamic spine is indexed when it leaves he bow. Where should it be indexed? Up, down, to the side? Who knows? The fact is it doesn't matter where it is when launched out of the bow as long as it is the same for all arrows you will have consistency. Is there a sweet spot that may produce better results as far as where the dynamic spine is indexed at launch? The answer is absolutely, BUT this will vary from bow to bow archer to archer as it is a function of many many things. The best way to determine this is long range group tune having numbered arrows and recording the results of your groupings as the dynamic spine is oriented different amongst various strings of groups. This type of tuning can be done from a hooter shooter or similar device.
> 
> We know through physics that the arrow oscillates on its two nodes during flight. We have located the dynamic spine of the shaft so we know the plane it will be oscillating on during stable flight. This is where it gets tricky so pay attention. How the arrow initially flexes during the launch cycle is the result of many many factors. Initial arrow flex or buckling will not necessarily be in alignment with the dynamic spine. The arrow at some point will begin to oscillate on the dynamic plane however the initial flex or buckling may be in a plane other than the dynamic plane. This is due to string (nock) travel in the horizontal and vertical plane which is a result of riser flex when under a load, cam timing and sync, draw length, cam lean, cable guard load, nock fit to center serving, point weight, run out of components, release type, loop type, center shot, nock height and so on. Regardless of how the arrow buckles initially when the energy is transferred from the string to the arrow if the dynamic spine is indexed the same then all the arrows will make the same correction in regards to initial flex to dynamic flex oscillation. This is the key to accuracy.
> 
> Only focus on what you can control:
> 
> 1. Find the dynamic spine using FLO
> 
> 2. Fletch arrows so the dynamic spine is indexed the same on all shafts.
> 
> 3. Group tune by changing the location of dynamic spine as far as where it is orientated at launch i.e. 12 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 5 o'clock etc. This will determine the best location for YOU and nobody else.
> 
> Shooting a drop away helps when group tuning because where the fletching is will not matter as far as clearance goes. I prefer a Hamskea using a .012" wide two hole luncher blade with a backer plate and the end of the blades a little bent to cradle the arrow. This gives the arrow added side to side guidance and improves left or right issues. Tim Gillingham uses this style launcher as well or at least he did last time I seen him.
> 
> 
> I realize some if not most archers are hard headed and will disagree with what I posted. At the end of the day its physics and you can't dispute it.


I agree for the most part. The only thing I would dispute is the location you orient to. In my testing I find there is an optimal position to index to.


----------



## IRISH_11

ontarget7 said:


> I agree for the most part. The only thing I would dispute is the location you orient to. In my testing I find there is an optimal position to index to.


I say in my post there will be a optimum orientation but it will be unique to an individual and their set up.


----------



## ctownshooter

tagged


----------



## ontarget7

IRISH_11 said:


> I say in my post there will be a optimum orientation but it will be unique to an individual and their set up.


Exactly the reason I use the RAM. I can find that exact location and seldom ever have the need to turn a nock. 

We are all after the same goals and my example is one of the ways to make it easier to achieve those goals. 

Why would I even post this if I did not have excellent results doing it this way ?


----------



## IRISH_11

ontarget7 said:


> Exactly the reason I use the RAM. I can find that exact location and seldom ever have the need to turn a nock.
> 
> We are all after the same goals and my example is one of the ways to make it easier to achieve those goals.
> 
> Why would I even post this if I did not have excellent results doing it this way ?


You can't locate dynamic spine with a RAM tester.

Once you locate dynamic spine with the FLO test or a frequency analyzer you index the dynamic spine so it is the same in regards to fletch location throughout all the shafts.

The optimum location of the dynamic spine when attached to the string can only be located via long range group tuning using a shooting machine. There is no carte blanche location due to the uniqueness of every individuals shooting style and the dynamics of their setup.

One cannot dispute physics.


----------



## ontarget7

OK, I am completely wrong in my findings and they don't work for myself or the thousands that I have set up. 

Sorry guys ! I have to apologies for completely misleading you in the wrong direction. 


Shane


----------



## IRISH_11

Not trying to start an argument Shane. What you do does give a level of consistency. All I'm advocating is that there is another level to be achieved.

There is good, better, best with every scenario. One should always strive to make their good better, and their better best.


----------



## ontarget7

I agree again. Out of the ways I have tried to achieve forgiving results, this is the best. I shoot a whole lot of long range groups so I know when there is good better and best. Not to mention bareshafts don't settle for just good.


----------



## IRISH_11

Shane, what is it that you do? I mean what service do you provide when people send you there bows? 

Are you bare shaft tuning out of a machine?


----------



## Super 91

IRISH_11 said:


> Some will still argue that they can control the nock travel in their bows. To some degree yes but at the end of the day how the riser flexes when the bow is drawn is a result of its design. Couple this with the fact that no two people will hold or grip the bow the same which is why tuning a bow in a hooter shooter or similar device or sending it off to be tuned is pure snake oil. I mean I can have a bow perfectly tuned for me and my grip so that it shoots arrows cleanly through paper at various distances. I can hand the bow to 3 different people and you will see three different tears. Some may be the same but the point is there is no consistency.


I agree with some of the things you have said, but disagree with a larger portion of it. 

Sending your bow to have it "tuned" has great merit. And what I mean by tuned is to take a bow that is out of factory specifications and put the bow back into those specs. It also means to correct issues that may cause a problem such as excessive cam lean or other issues that may not be related to the specs of the bow. There is no way every limb behaves the exact same way as the one before or behind it. They may be very close, but each one will be a tiny bit different. That being said, a good bow mechanic will be able to spot those issues and correct by shimming, limb swap, etc. When the bow leaves his or her hands, it will shoot much more true than the way it arrived. 

So once that is done, then the person shooting it will induce their bad habits/form to the mix, which can also be corrected with coaching, good advice, etc. Each aspect of archery has an ability to bad or good. Bow way out of spec, poor form, rusty release, factory non-indexed arrows, all lead to poor performance. If you spend time tuning each of these till you get them as good as you know how, then you will be able to make consistent groups the norm, not just something that happens on occasion. 

What is the best way to tune these shafts? Each person will have abilities another may not. For those that are engineer minded, going about it scientifically may be the best way, for others, they may be more farmer/country boy minded, and may need to shoot each shaft to see what nock position works the best, and go from there. Me, when I build a set of shafts, I want to be able to test them without taking the time to shoot them prior. I've been working on making arrows better for years and years now. Each time I try something new, I find the good and bad in it, and take note of the good and keep moving forward. I think FLO testing has merit, but in its application to archery, I think we are going a step back because of how a arrow shaft performs vs and golf club shaft. 

But if you put all things together, you will be a much more accurate and consistent archer than if you just grab stuff off the shelf, stick it on your bow and just start plinking away. These are just my opinions, and may or may not be the general consensus here. But that's the way I roll....:shade:


----------



## enewman

i posted this on another post also
ok while doing some testing with a flo tester the arrow does most of the flexing close to the holder so how does this tell you correct spin seems to me you would want the complete arrow to flex would it be better to make center fixed and flex both ends i see what you are doing but the method for a golf club is not the same one end of the club is fixed in your hand. so a golf club is not going to flex/oscillate the same as an arrow. it looks to me its just another tool. it gets you close but in the end your still doing minor knoc tuning. just mt opinion still testing


----------



## dw'struth

Just trying to simplify all of the jargon...
What is being debated is the usefulness of finding the stiff side with a spine tester. Right?


----------



## IRISH_11

enewman said:


> i posted this on another post also
> ok while doing some testing with a flo tester the arrow does most of the flexing close to the holder so how does this tell you correct spin seems to me you would want the complete arrow to flex would it be better to make center fixed and flex both ends i see what you are doing but the method for a golf club is not the same one end of the club is fixed in your hand. so a golf club is not going to flex/oscillate the same as an arrow. it looks to me its just another tool. it gets you close but in the end your still doing minor knoc tuning. just mt opinion still testing


Forget the term golf club. Finding the flat line oscillation can be applied to any carbon tube. All the FLO test does is show you where the dynamic spine is located on a 360 degree scale. Doesn't matter whether its a fishing rod, golf club arrow, shovel handle, broom handle etc.


----------



## enewman

IRISH_11 said:


> Forget the term golf club. Finding the flat line oscillation can be applied to any carbon tube. All the FLO test does is show you where the dynamic spine is located on a 360 degree scale. Doesn't matter whether its a fishing rod, golf club arrow, shovel handle, broom handle etc.


i see what your saying,but a arrow is flexing to the target. so when testing in a flo tester it only flexes about 2 to 3 inches in front of clamp.


----------



## ontarget7

dw'struth said:


> Just trying to simplify all of the jargon...
> What is being debated is the usefulness of finding the stiff side with a spine tester. Right?


Yes, to some it has no merit.


----------



## IRISH_11

Super 91 said:


> I agree with some of the things you have said, but disagree with a larger portion of it.
> 
> Sending your bow to have it "tuned" has great merit. And what I mean by tuned is to take a bow that is out of factory specifications and put the bow back into those specs. It also means to correct issues that may cause a problem such as excessive cam lean or other issues that may not be related to the specs of the bow. There is no way every limb behaves the exact same way as the one before or behind it. They may be very close, but each one will be a tiny bit different. That being said, a good bow mechanic will be able to spot those issues and correct by shimming, limb swap, etc. When the bow leaves his or her hands, it will shoot much more true than the way it arrived.
> 
> So once that is done, then the person shooting it will induce their bad habits/form to the mix, which can also be corrected with coaching, good advice, etc. Each aspect of archery has an ability to bad or good. Bow way out of spec, poor form, rusty release, factory non-indexed arrows, all lead to poor performance. If you spend time tuning each of these till you get them as good as you know how, then you will be able to make consistent groups the norm, not just something that happens on occasion.
> 
> What is the best way to tune these shafts? Each person will have abilities another may not. For those that are engineer minded, going about it scientifically may be the best way, for others, they may be more farmer/country boy minded, and may need to shoot each shaft to see what nock position works the best, and go from there. Me, when I build a set of shafts, I want to be able to test them without taking the time to shoot them prior. I've been working on making arrows better for years and years now. Each time I try something new, I find the good and bad in it, and take note of the good and keep moving forward. I think FLO testing has merit, but in its application to archery, I think we are going a step back because of how a arrow shaft performs vs and golf club shaft.
> 
> But if you put all things together, you will be a much more accurate and consistent archer than if you just grab stuff off the shelf, stick it on your bow and just start plinking away. These are just my opinions, and may or may not be the general consensus here. But that's the way I roll....:shade:


If you purchase your bow from a box store then yes sending your bow away may have merit. If you purchase from a reputable pro shop most make sure the bow is fitted properly and is in spec when it goes out the door. 

Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. With the advancement in string materials today and the quality control in the manufacturing and assembly processes bows leave the factory in far better shape than the bows of yesteryear. As far as tune goes a so called "out if tune bow" will still possess same hole accuracy when shot from a machine provided nothing moves from one shot to the next. 

If the masses would focus more on what's important which is their form or consistency from shot to shot it time better spent than chasing unicorns looking for some super tune that will change how proficient you are with a bow. Remember always the Indian never the bow.


----------



## IRISH_11

enewman said:


> i see what your saying,but a arrow is flexing to the target. so when testing in a flo tester it only flexes about 2 to 3 inches in front of clamp.


Doesn't matter where it flexes. All we are doing is measuring the cycles per minute or frequency of the carbon as it will vary when the shaft is rotated.


----------



## ex-wolverine

For Jerry, Irish and Grim

Let's say a person like myself don't have any of the gagets described through out this thread ...would bare shaft nock tuning and or nock indexing for groups get you close or at least get you a better set of arrows ...???

I know or have found that my personal arrows do group better nock indexing , but wondering if it's my imagination and or a total waste of time ...

Have you done flo or frequency testing and compared it to a nock indexed arrow , how close was it?

Never to old to learn 

Thanks


----------



## ontarget7

This is going completely off topic now by someone trying to discredit what bow tuners in general do LOL ! 

Can't speak for any others but you are so full of crap ! I have customers that drive over 8 hours just to have bows tuned. Do you think if they didn't see results they would just take it to the 10+ shops they reach before it gets to me. 
If there wasn't a need they wouldn't ship or drive that far period. 

Now, can we just stay on topic of spine indexing. It either matters to some or it doesn't so be it. I can show you in every aspect why it matters, from a tuning standpoint as well as down range accuracy. At some point I have mentioned all those aspects in this thread, just makes it tough to sift through it all now.


----------



## IRISH_11

I can't help what the sheep do. All I'm telling you for a fact is that when someone brings you a bow if you put in a machine it will possess same hole accuracy and if you don't believe that then your the one who is full of crap. Keep inflating the tuning hocus pocus for your personal gain. As long as feeble minded individuals are willing to dish it out you might as well take it.


----------



## enewman

we are on topic spine indexing its to find the stiff point and set at 12 does it really work. flo testing which im testing and comparing to spine indexing and to set it at 12 does it really work. it all looks like a tool then you still have to tweek after all of this is done truthfully i hope spine indexing is just as close way faster.


----------



## enewman

IRISH_11 said:


> Doesn't matter where it flexes. All we are doing is measuring the cycles per minute or frequency of the carbon as it will vary when the shaft is rotated.


we must be talking about two different things the only thing i see we are measuring is spine with a spine tester a flo tester that i have seen is watching a light move that is not measuring anything. if we want to even start to measure cycles per minute there would have to be a set weight just like on a spine tester it would have to have a spacific measurement of how far to load the arrow then we would have to have a scope hooked up to it. i have yet seen any specs for this othere then a drill chuck i agree you can see the arrow make straight line and i can see it making a circle if this is what we are looking for then great but for a actual measurement the spine indexing is the way to go.


----------



## Super 91

IRISH_11 said:


> If you purchase your bow from a box store then yes sending your bow away may have merit. If you purchase from a reputable pro shop most make sure the bow is fitted properly and is in spec when it goes out the door.
> 
> Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. With the advancement in string materials today and the quality control in the manufacturing and assembly processes bows leave the factory in far better shape than the bows of yesteryear. As far as tune goes a so called "out if tune bow" will still possess same hole accuracy when shot from a machine provided nothing moves from one shot to the next.
> 
> If the masses would focus more on what's important which is their form or consistency from shot to shot it time better spent than chasing unicorns looking for some super tune that will change how proficient you are with a bow. Remember always the Indian never the bow.


I have bought bows from every major bow shop within a 50 miles radius of me, and have have yet to have one take the time to put my bow into spec or make sure the bow fit me 100% before I left the shop. Those shops are few and far between from my experiences. Why do you think AT even exists? Do you realize how many archers get on here trying to get help because they have none at the local level. That is why there are threads like this one, to help the guy who would actually take the time to get on here and read on how to become the better archer. And if you think it is all about the archer, and has nothing to do with the equipment and components, then you live in a very narrow world.

Yes, bows are put together much better than ever, I am not in disagreement there. So are cars, but there will always things you can do to improve its performance. Otherwise there would not be any performance aftermarket parts ever sold.

As far as a bow shooting same hole when completely out of tune, that very well may be true, but there is absolutely no way an average archer can shoot that bow accurately as they can one that is shooting true and is tuned properly. Having a bow in tune allows for the slight torque or form issues to be a marginal error vs a complete miss. 

So are you saying a bow is a bow is a bow is a bow? Then I suggest you go grab a bow off Craigslist and shoot some 100 yards groups since tune will not matter, remember, it's a one hole bow. 

Now if they had a unicorn season, I would be chasing them too, by the way.

Now back to your regular channel of spine indexing and how to do it properly.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Wow you guys have covered a lot of ground today!!!




ex-wolverine said:


> For Jerry, Irish and Grim
> 
> Let's say a person like myself don't have any of the gagets described through out this thread ...would bare shaft nock tuning and or nock indexing for groups get you close or at least get you a better set of arrows ...???
> 
> I know or have found that my personal arrows do group better nock indexing , but wondering if it's my imagination and or a total waste of time ...
> 
> Have you done flo or frequency testing and compared it to a nock indexed arrow , how close was it?
> 
> Never to old to learn
> 
> Thanks


Nock tuning is individually the most accurate way to tune your arrows. I say this because it is results based on an individual level. The arrows are tuned specifically to you and your bow. They may also be good for others to shoot but not as likely. 
If for some reason you or your bow or both aren't up to spec, nock tuning will still give you a way to achieve very good result for most situations. The situation may only be good out to a certain distance before the arrows start to wander but you and your bow specs can be adapted. 
Mechanically tuning with what ever methods you choose simply make the process shorter and more user friendly. There is no way that Jerry could nock tune every arrow that leaves his shop. The Ram spine finder gives consistent results in a timely manner are there more accurate methods of testing, yes. The issue is that most everything involves some sort of compromise, it would be nice if that new bow came with such and such but if you do that it will weigh 10 pounds and so forth. When it comes down to the finish line, the arrows need to shot to know if what you have done to them has worked. Even a wrong measurement can be helpful as long as it is consistent but you can't make declarative stamen based on wrong information. It doesn't matter how accurately you measure something wrong, it is still wrong.

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

And Irish, no matter whether you agree with what the OP does for a living or not, trashing his livelihood is not generally found appealing. My father always told me to never mess with a man's livelihood. Just sayin'


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> we must be talking about two different things the only thing i see we are measuring is spine with a spine tester a flo tester that i have seen is watching a light move that is not measuring anything. if we want to even start to measure cycles per minute there would have to be a set weight just like on a spine tester it would have to have a spacific measurement of how far to load the arrow then we would have to have a scope hooked up to it. i have yet seen any specs for this othere then a drill chuck i agree you can see the arrow make straight line and i can see it making a circle if this is what we are looking for then great but for a actual measurement the spine indexing is the way to go.


Absolutely correct, this is why FLO is used only for fine tuning, it is simply another layer of accuracy and it will only be useful for those who are looking to extend the distances that they are shooting. Any distances of less than 40 yards, it would be unlikely that you would be able to perceive any benefit. This doesn't invalidate the method but using the proper tool for the job will always be of benefit.

GRIM

There is one benefit that FLO has over other bearing based spine finders, with the Ram, I was only able to achieve about an 80% accuracy, there were always a few shafts which would still need to be nock tuned. I have much better results with FLO.


----------



## IRISH_11

enewman said:


> we must be talking about two different things the only thing i see we are measuring is spine with a spine tester a flo tester that i have seen is watching a light move that is not measuring anything. if we want to even start to measure cycles per minute there would have to be a set weight just like on a spine tester it would have to have a spacific measurement of how far to load the arrow then we would have to have a scope hooked up to it. i have yet seen any specs for this othere then a drill chuck i agree you can see the arrow make straight line and i can see it making a circle if this is what we are looking for then great but for a actual measurement the spine indexing is the way to go.


Look back at my earlier posts where my pics are. There is a weight on the end of the arrow. The arrow is pulled to a template and released. There will be a flat line produced with the laser perhaps 2 or 3. One of the will be more pronounced and have a wider throw meaning the distance the shaft flexes from left to right will be greater. This is the same principal as a frequency analyzer. With a frequency analyzer the part of the shaft with the most cycles per minute or highest frequency is the STIFFEST. The cycles per minute are higher because it travels less side to side and as a result passes the photoelectric sensor more times. The part of the arrow with the lowest frequency is the WEAKEST part of the shaft. It flexes more so its throw from side to side is greater. Since it travels a greater distance to one side before rebounding and changing direction the arrow passes the sensor a lesser amount of times. 

So understanding this concept you place a piece cardboard where the laser beam is projected that is centered inside the arrow shaft. Now this is a special piece of cardboard designed by yours truly. I used a black sharpie and a ruler and drew vertical lines on the cardboard every inch with the first line in the center. From the center line I measured each way one inch and drew another vertical line until I ran out cardboard. Now when the shaft is clamped you turn the laser bore sighter to the ON position. At about 7 feet away place the cardboard with the lines vertical. Be sure when the arrow is still that you place the cardboard so the laser is centered on the centerline. I forgot to mention each line is numbered 1,2,3 etc. each direction from the centerline. So the centerline has a vertical line to the left and the right numbered one. The lines numbers increase in number as they go farther from the centerline. So once the laser is set to the centerline twang the shaft. Take note to what line the laser beam travels to before it changes direction. Then look where it goes to in the opposing direction before changing direction again. Using the concept of the frequency analyzer the widest distance will be the dynamic spine. This line is usually the most crisp of the lines as well.


----------



## ex-wolverine

Thanks for your reply ...lots of smart arrow people here I appreciate it 



GRIMWALD said:


> Wow you guys have covered a lot of ground today!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nock tuning is individually the most accurate way to tune your arrows. I say this because it is results based on an individual level. The arrows are tuned specifically to you and your bow. They may also be good for others to shoot but not as likely.
> If for some reason you or your bow or both aren't up to spec, nock tuning will still give you a way to achieve very good result for most situations. The situation may only be good out to a certain distance before the arrows start to wander but you and your bow specs can be adapted.
> Mechanically tuning with what ever methods you choose simply make the process shorter and more user friendly. There is no way that Jerry could nock tune every arrow that leaves his shop. The Ram spine finder gives consistent results in a timely manner are there more accurate methods of testing, yes. The issue is that most everything involves some sort of compromise, it would be nice if that new bow came with such and such but if you do that it will weigh 10 pounds and so forth. When it comes down to the finish line, the arrows need to shot to know if what you have done to them has worked. Even a wrong measurement can be helpful as long as it is consistent but you can't make declarative stamen based on wrong information. It doesn't matter how accurately you measure something wrong, it is still wrong.
> 
> GRIM


----------



## Super 91

So once you find this stiff and weak plane, where do you suggest placing the fletching? And don't say it doesn't matter. What do you think is the BEST place to orient your fletching? Assuming you shoot cock vane up. Can you determine from your tests where the shaft will bend when shot?


----------



## Fury90flier

I would say that it would depend on the shooter/setup. What index works for me may not necessarily work for you...test it up/down and go with the best groupings.


----------



## Super 91

What I'm asking is that with his particular type of testing, which TENDS to be the best as far as "generally the best" placement? And again, shooting cock vane up with a typical drop away rest such as a QAD HDX or Ripcord ACE.


----------



## my3sons

Super 91 said:


> What I'm asking is that with his particular type of testing, which TENDS to be the best as far as "generally the best" placement? And again, shooting cock vane up with a typical drop away rest such as a QAD HDX or Ripcord ACE.


From all the info I've read most put the stiff spine up and fletch with cock vane up. Blake


----------



## SouthShoreRat

IRISH_11 said:


> From all my experience there is only one way to find dynamic spine which is the plane of the shaft the arrow will oscillate on in flight.



Just for clarification, please verify the dynamic spine you are refering to is the neutral plane correct?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Super 91 said:


> One thing I think that FLO testing does not take into consideration is that FLO testing orients the shaft so that the stiff side is either right or left, or 3 or 9 o'clock. The shaft will oscillate nearly perfect while clamped in that position with either that particular plane is either up or down. For a golf shaft that is designed to swing sideways, that plane is the one you want to keep the shaft moving along that plane so that the strike of the club head on the ball does not kick right or left, but stays in that plane, making the club more efficient and making the swing and follow through most true.
> 
> But for an arrow, this may or may not be the plane you want to orient your fletching to. Sometimes it lines up with RAM testing, sometimes not. One thing you never know with FLO testing is whether the side you pick will flex up or down when shot. That is the biggest problem that I have had in my personal trials.


Whoa this statment " One thing you never know with FLO testing is whether the side you pick will flex up or down when shot. That is the biggest problem that I have had in my personal trials."

Can you explain how you remedy that problem? The last thing I want to do is fletch my arrows and find out half are fletched 180 degrees off after going through ram tester and flo.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> Whoa this statment " One thing you never know with FLO testing is whether the side you pick will flex up or down when shot. That is the biggest problem that I have had in my personal trials."
> 
> Can you explain how you remedy that problem? The last thing I want to do is fletch my arrows and find out half are fletched 180 degrees off after going through ram tester and flo.


This is why you find the natural bending plane first, so that you do know how it will flex and you can set the flex in any position you wish. The FLO testing "ONLY" finds the Neutral bending plane. If you set the spine vertical. The shaft will bend from 3-9 o'clock and if you set the natural bend so that the bend goes to the right, that is where the initial bend occurs and the return bend then flexes to the left.

GRIM


----------



## hoyt em all

how do aluminum arrows compare to higher end hunting carbon arrows and acc's . according to my spine tester the aluminums should be least effected by nock indexing . i don't have enough aluminum arrows to cheek myself


----------



## ontarget7

Let me throw this in the mix. 

A lot of people come across the issue of a tail high low impact with bareshafts depending on the cam # and draw length on the Z5 cams even set nock level. So you might find having the bottom cam hit first at full draw to give you the cleanest vertical nock travel. We'll knowing what experience I have had with shooting the stiff side down causing a tail low high impact with bareshafts depending on the cam system. I decided to see if that effect would equal out the tail high bareshaft low impact and give me more wiggle room on cam synch. Had two separate bows today that liked the bottom cam hitting a touch before the top at full draw. Both bows I indexed to stiff side down and what do you know, I get a slight tail low high impacting with stiff side down. This let me adjust with top cam hitting a touch first at full draw. Found it interesting so figured I would share. Hmmmm ! Indexing doesn't matter, I beg to differ.


----------



## Super 91

swbuckmaster said:


> Whoa this statment " One thing you never know with FLO testing is whether the side you pick will flex up or down when shot. That is the biggest problem that I have had in my personal trials."
> 
> Can you explain how you remedy that problem? The last thing I want to do is fletch my arrows and find out half are fletched 180 degrees off after going through ram tester and flo.


No, the FLO method is the problem with the 180 situation. If that mark that you find with the FLO method lines up with the RAM mark, you will be able to use the RAM to find the stiff side easily. With the FLO method, you may or may not be on the right (stiff) side of the shaft. But sometimes FLO and RAM do not line up, and then there you are...


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Let me throw this in the mix.
> 
> A lot of people come across the issue of a tail high low impact with bareshafts depending on the cam # and draw length on the Z5 cams even set nock level. So you might find having the bottom cam hit first at full draw to give you the cleanest vertical nock travel. We'll knowing what experience I have had with shooting the stiff side down causing a tail low high impact with bareshafts depending on the cam system. I decided to see if that effect would equal out the tail high bareshaft low impact and give me more wiggle room on cam synch. Had two separate bows today that liked the bottom cam hitting a touch before the top at full draw. Both bows I indexed to stiff side down and what do you know, I get a slight tail low high impacting with stiff side down. This let me adjust with top cam hitting a touch first at full draw. Found it interesting so figured I would share. Hmmmm ! Indexing doesn't matter, I beg to differ.


That is pretty interesting data there Shane. Once I get my Carbon Spyder 30 back from Hoyt, I am going to play with this some. Interesting.


----------



## hoyt em all

when using a spine tester ,what side is the stiff side the back or belly?


----------



## flinginairos

So I did a little experiment. I took six shafts and did the compression test on them with my DIY EZ Press. All six arrows had very repeatable results and would bend the same exact way each time. I took three and fletched them on the mark so they were all the same. the remaining three I turned the mark a different way on each shaft. I shot five groups at 45 yards with each set of arrows and the results surprised me. The unmatched set didn't group well. The best I could get from them was roughly 4". I then took the "matched" arrows and did the same. Two of the arrows were nearly touching almost every group and I nearly shafted it on the last group. The 3rd arrow was hitting close as well but slightly high. I plan to do the same test tomorrow and see if I get the same results. I think this time I will turn the nocks of the arrows so they are unmatched and shoot several groups then I will turn them back to the mark and do it again. I will post whatever happens.


----------



## Super 91

Very nice! I like your end results.


----------



## ontarget7

flinginairos said:


> So I did a little experiment. I took six shafts and did the compression test on them with my DIY EZ Press. All six arrows had very repeatable results and would bend the same exact way each time. I took three and fletched them on the mark so they were all the same. the remaining three I turned the mark a different way on each shaft. I shot five groups at 45 yards with each set of arrows and the results surprised me. The unmatched set didn't group well. The best I could get from them was roughly 4". I then took the "matched" arrows and did the same. Two of the arrows were nearly touching almost every group and I nearly shafted it on the last group. The 3rd arrow was hitting close as well but slightly high. I plan to do the same test tomorrow and see if I get the same results. I think this time I will turn the nocks of the arrows so they are unmatched and shoot several groups then I will turn them back to the mark and do it again. I will post whatever happens.


[emoji106]


----------



## GRIMWALD

hoyt em all said:


> when using a spine tester ,what side is the stiff side the back or belly?


Neither, it is the natural bending plane


----------



## Fury90flier

Super 91 said:


> What I'm asking is that with his particular type of testing, which TENDS to be the best as far as "generally the best" placement? And again, shooting cock vane up with a typical drop away rest such as a QAD HDX or Ripcord ACE.


Type of testing? Results based testing.

There is NO one stop shopping where someone can say do this X way once and there is your result....archery simply doesn't work that way. Well, maybe they could if there was enough base information to work with...you send in YOUR paper test, pics of YOUR bare shaft results, provide exact measurements of YOUR presure points on the grip, exact pressure, angle of pressure velocity of pull through for YOU, send your bow off to have everything measured and maybe someone can send the bow back and say do THIS.

there are simply too many variables to say what is best.

For example, I do zero paper testing- only bare shaft at 20...less I'm on my game then it's up to 50. Guess what my paper says when bare shaft slaps fletched at 50. It says to most people "you're bow isn't tuned".


----------



## enewman

Got my bearings in so did some spine testing. My blackeagles where about 1000 movement all the way round. At the stiffest point I had like a mark at 4 and one at 8. So I'm guessing stiff is center at 6 on this marks. Hard to tell when only moving a 1000 Will Flo test then shoot this shaft tomorrow


----------



## ontarget7

Testing arrows can work that way quite easily.


----------



## Super 91

Fury90flier said:


> Type of testing? Results based testing.
> 
> There is NO one stop shopping where someone can say do this X way once and there is your result....archery simply doesn't work that way. Well, maybe they could if there was enough base information to work with...you send in YOUR paper test, pics of YOUR bare shaft results, provide exact measurements of YOUR presure points on the grip, exact pressure, angle of pressure velocity of pull through for YOU, send your bow off to have everything measured and maybe someone can send the bow back and say do THIS.
> 
> there are simply too many variables to say what is best.
> 
> For example, I do zero paper testing- only bare shaft at 20...less I'm on my game then it's up to 50. Guess what my paper says when bare shaft slaps fletched at 50. It says to most people "you're bow isn't tuned".


I think you missed my question. I know what kind of testing he is doing, that is why I asked the question the way I did.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Testing arrows can work that way quite easily.


With good arrow. My velocity 300 at .006 straightness. Was at stiffest was 305 and at weakest was 315. I guess that's still good. But again the blackeagles tested great. They where .003 straightness


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> With good arrow. My velocity 300 at .006 straightness. Was at stiffest was 305 and at weakest was 315. I guess that's still good. But again the blackeagles tested great. They where .003 straightness


True a tight tolerance arrow makes it easier. With that said you can still can index the .006's just as easy and be on your way. Just did a dozen .006's today with zero issues.


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> True a tight tolerance arrow makes it easier. With that said you can still can index the .006's just as easy and be on your way. Just did a dozen .006's today with zero issues.


Down range will be tighter with better tolerance arrows regardless

Easy to read the RAM and tell right away what arrows may give you problems


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Down range will be tighter with better tolerance arrows regardless
> 
> Easy to read the RAM and tell right away what arrows may give you problems


Yes it does


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> we must be talking about two different things the only thing i see we are measuring is spine with a spine tester a flo tester that i have seen is watching a light move that is not measuring anything.


FLO is the fine tuner to align the arrow to exactly where it wants to bend dynamically, you are correct it is not measuring it is aligning the arrow to the exact point it wants to bend.



enewman said:


> if we want to even start to measure cycles per minute there would have to be a set weight just like on a spine tester it would have to have a specific measurement of how far to load the arrow then we would have to have a scope hooked up to it.


Partly correct, if at some point the industry moves toward using some time of frequency measurement to develop a spine measurement system there would absolutely need to be set weights. I have 4 different weights I use depending on the stiff or weakness of spine. Arrows can be very accurately spine match to each other using a frequency analyzer. You do not need to know the actual spine because the manufacture has already sorted to that level. As an example if you measure a set of arrows and the frequency is 101.05 to 101.10 along the neutral plane then you know you have a set of arrows matched to a very tight 0.05 C.P.M. variance. 



enewman said:


> i have yet seen any specs for this other then a drill chuck i agree you can see the arrow make straight line and i can see it making a circle if this is what we are looking for then great but for a actual measurement the spine indexing is the way to go.


I have not taken pictures of each weight and the frequency analyzer in the process of measuring because it is still in the testing and learning phase. I agree with you in part because all we have that is well accepted industry wide is the RAM type tester and as an industry we should continue to work with it until another method has been developed and accepted as the standard. 

Working with the folks I have relied on these last two or three years has shown me that a frequency analyzer is the closest thing to actually testing an arrow at the dynamic spine level. Frankly I am amazed that at least one arrow manufacture has not found this process and begun to incorporate it in their arrow building process. It is very accurate and has revealed the true anatomy of an arrow. Arrows absolutely have 4 quadrants, a stiff plane 180 degrees apart and a neutral plane 90 degrees from the stiff plane and that the natural bend or weak side as tested on a RAM tester is not part of the equation. It has been proven that an arrow flexing along the neutral plane can be fine tuned using a FLO setup to show exactly where in the neutral plane an arrow wants to flex. 

Floating is not accurate, bending in a press is not accurate and using any type of bearing setup to force an arrow to roll to a given point is not accurate based on the physics of dynamic spine. Will it give you a level of repeatable results? Based on perception yes, based on the physics of arrow flight no!

Now that we know an arrow has a stiff plane and a neutral there is still no better (industry accepted) tool then a RAM type tester. Finding and indexing the stiff side to the same orientation is a good thing and should continue to be used until better methods are accepted industry wide!


----------



## enewman

South shore. Thanks for the answers. I am seeing some results from some testing last night. I only worked with one arrow. To night I'll shoot it so I can see what the results are. 

I will say if I did it correctly. The flo came out very close to the spine. need more testing first.


----------



## flinginairos

So with the FLO testing, which way do you want the laser running? Up/down or left right? And where do you fletch according to that?


----------



## Super 91

Up and down due to the way gravity works on the weight. But if you want to fletch with the stiff plane up or down, you need to fletch 90 degrees to the mark the FLO tester gives you.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> Up and down due to the way gravity works on the weight. But if you want to fletch with the stiff plane up or down, you need to fletch 90 degrees to the mark the FLO tester gives you.


I agree with this ! 

It was mentioned that the stiff plane is the natural bending of the arrow, that I am still puzzled by. 

If I am understanding all this FLO stuff correctly. Couldn't you determine the point on the shaft that gets you duplicate readings 180* from each other and have your FLO point when done on a RAM spine tester ?


----------



## flinginairos

ontarget7 said:


> I agree with this !
> 
> It was mentioned that the stiff plane is the natural bending of the arrow, that I am still puzzled by.
> 
> *If I am understanding all this FLO stuff correctly. Couldn't you determine the point on the shaft that gets you duplicate readings 180* from each other and have your FLO point when done on a RAM spine tester ?*


From what I have read it seems that way. I want to build a jig and test this out for sure!


----------



## ontarget7

flinginairos said:


> From what I have read it seems that way. I want to build a jig and test this out for sure!


The more I think about this the more I don't see why this can't be established on a RAM spine tester. The FLO stands for flat line oscillation and that can only take place when the readings are the same 180* from each other.


----------



## flinginairos

ontarget7 said:


> The more I think about this the more I don't see why this can't be established on a RAM spine tester. The FLO stands for flat line oscillation and that can only take place when the readings are the same 180* from each other.


Makes sense. RAM would be faster. a FLO jig would be cheaper to build but slower. I think there are a few ways to get the same results just comes down to what tools you have to use.


----------



## enewman

Ok Ive tested one arrow blackeagle carnivors. 300 spine. When I index. I get a point where it is the stiffest between two points. Say 10 12. 2. So it looks like \|/. With the top of the lines being the stiff point. It does not match 180 degrees out. So the arrow is stiffest on one side. The flo tester shows the best at the 10 clock point. And that is either when I move that point straight up and flex the shaft up and down. Or if I set that point at 9 and flex the shaft side ways. Ok now that I've done that. Now what.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Ok Ive tested one arrow blackeagle carnivors. 300 spine. When I index. I get a point where it is the stiffest between two points. Say 10 12. 2. So it looks like \|/. With the top of the lines being the stiff point. It does not match 180 degrees out. So the arrow is stiffest on one side. The flo tester shows the best at the 10 clock point. And that is either when I move that point straight up and flex the shaft up and down. Or if I set that point at 9 and flex the shaft side ways. Ok now that I've done that. Now what.


If I understand your description, you have found the "stiff" neutral plane I know this because the Ram identified the vertical point as the point of least deflection.

The following video is a little long and monotone but it may help understand what FLO is or does. The first 6 min. is about different spine finders but at about the 6 min. mark he begins to talk about using FLO and although I don't believe he actually says it, what his doing is called zone profiling. Zone profiling is a much more accurate method of FLO and if you were to plot the points he measures with FLO on a line as apposed the circumference of a circle it would look like a frequency sine wave. Giving highs and lows just like Jerry's frequency meter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-x6YjhrTo

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> I agree with this !
> 
> It was mentioned that the stiff plane is the natural bending of the arrow, that I am still puzzled by.
> 
> If I am understanding all this FLO stuff correctly. Couldn't you determine the point on the shaft that gets you duplicate readings 180* from each other and have your FLO point when done on a RAM spine tester ?


The stiff plane is not the natural bending plane, the natural bend is plane is what it says it is. The bend is where it more easily wants to bend, the stiff plane is where it least wants to bend. It was commented on in a previous post using a flat wooden ruler. The ruler "naturally" will bend along the flat sides or plane because it will bend as easily forward as it does backward.
The narrow thin side will be the "spine" this is the point at which it is the most difficult to bend but it will still have the same inability to bend up as it does down.

GRIM


----------



## IRISH_11

FLO cannot be identified with a RAM tester.


----------



## GRIMWALD

IRISH_11 said:


> FLO cannot be identified with a RAM tester.


Actually it could be used to Zone Profile the shafts like in the above video but it would be a real bear to do. this is why I use an inverted flex board to make my measurement. One I can use the same clamping methods for finding the natural bending point and two, I use the same clamp for FLO. If at some point I felt the need I can also use the same methods to Zone Profile.

GRIM


----------



## IRISH_11

What would zone profiling do for arrows?


----------



## IRISH_11

GRIMWALD said:


> Actually it could be used to Zone Profile the shafts like in the above video but it would be a real bear to do. this is why I use an inverted flex board to make my measurement. One I can use the same clamping methods for finding the natural bending point and two, I use the same clamp for FLO. If at some point I felt the need I can also use the same methods to Zone Profile.
> 
> GRIM


How could a RAM be used for zone profiling if it can't allow for residual bend?


----------



## ontarget7

The way I am seeing this, the only way you could have a natural bending point is to have the same readings opposite each other 180* from one another. This gives you the flatline oscillation. It's the laws of physics, right ?


----------



## Etheis

So basically what I'm getting from all this is FLO testing is overly complicated and you can find the stiff plane with a RAM quicker and easier when done properly? I've always just shot bareshafts through paper to index my arrows, so can't really comment which is better FLO or RAM both basically get the same end result so why should it matter which tool you use?


----------



## IRISH_11

Etheis said:


> So basically what I'm getting from all this is FLO testing is overly complicated and you can find the stiff plane with a RAM quicker and easier when done properly? I've always just shot bareshafts through paper to index my arrows, so can't really comment which is better FLO or RAM both basically get the same end result so why should it matter which tool you use?


Yes find the stiff spine put your cock vane on it and your done.

Forget about all the FLO stuff. It only applies to golf.

I recommend you just send your bow to Shane and let him tune it.


----------



## GRIMWALD

IRISH_11 said:


> How could a RAM be used for zone profiling if it can't allow for residual bend?


You would have to use two separate weights. First record the deflection values in increment around the shaft using a two pound weight. Then do the same with a four pound weight. Then at the shafts respective increment, subtract on from the other to achieve the deflection "differences". This would remove the residual bend and only record the shaft differences.

This in my opinion would not really be of benefit but the question was asked and if you wanted to plot the measurements on a line graph. the representation would duplicate the wave length readings from a frequency meter.

GRIM


----------



## Etheis

IRISH_11 said:


> Yes find the stiff spine put your cock vane on it and your done.
> 
> Forget about all the FLO stuff. It only applies to golf.
> 
> I recommend you just send your bow to Shane and let him tune it.


If all I need to do is find the stiff plane why would I need to find anything else?


----------



## IRISH_11

Etheis said:


> If all I need to do is find the stiff plane why would I need to find anything else?


Exactly. Find the stiff plane and your done. Jackpot


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> The way I am seeing this, the only way you could have a natural bending point is to have the same readings opposite each other 180* from one another. This gives you the flatline oscillation. It's the laws of physics, right ?


No, flat line oscillation only applies to the neutral plane, not the natural bending point. They are often in the same position but they don't have to be. I use the "natural" bending point, to help identify approximately where the "neutral" bending plane is. As I have said they can often be one and the same but if they are not it is usually located within 15-20 degree to either the right or left of the natural bending plane.

Grim

This is why when using the Ram spine finder it will only require a small turn to the right or left to "fine tune" a specific arrow. If you have to turn the shaft a full vane placement, you are moving from the stiff plane to the weak plane.


----------



## ontarget7

So the neutral bending point would be the same reading 180* from each other ?


----------



## shinobi3

So would the flo testing be more similar to the firenock pap system?


----------



## GRIMWALD

shinobi3 said:


> So would the flo testing be more similar to the firenock pap system?


No, Dorges PAPS system is based on the exact same principles as the Ram. It has two outside supports with a predefined weight depressing the center. It is built to a much higher standard but it operates in the same manor giving similar results. 

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> So the neutral bending point would be the same reading 180* from each other ?


Yes, this is pretty basic stuff, it is not rocket science. People don't even have to change how they currently operate but it would be nice if people actually understood what they are doing and why. The terms are pretty self-explanatory, "natural bend", "spine" "neutral bending plane".
The only difference between the two of us Shane, is in how we want the string energy to be displaced. 
I place the neutral bend vertical, 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock, this means that the first natural bend will happen vertically inline with the string.
You place the spine vertical, this causes the first bend to happen at 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock horizontally to the string force.
I could be correct, you could be correct, we both could be correct or we both could be wrong. It may turn out that placing the cock feather vertically and the spine at 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock is better. 
Just be open to new ideas guys.

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

I'm thinking that most of the time, if you orient your fletching (cock vane) so that the stiffest side of the shaft is up at 12 o'clock, the shaft, even if it flexes down into the rest more toward the 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock position, the rest will actually help guide the shaft and correct the archers paradox more so than if you have that that stiff side down at the 6 o'clock position.

Would you agree that this generally might be the case?


----------



## GRIMWALD

Super 91 said:


> I'm thinking that most of the time, if you orient your fletching (cock vane) so that the stiffest side of the shaft is up at 12 o'clock, the shaft, even if it flexes down into the rest more toward the 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock position, the rest will actually help guide the shaft and correct the archers paradox more so than if you have that that stiff side down at the 6 o'clock position.
> 
> Would you agree that this generally might be the case?


If you place the spine in the 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock position, the shaft can't flex down, it will flex from 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock. Weather the first bend is into the bow or to the outside of the bow will depend on how the natural bend is placed.

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

Do you think that the natural bending plane is always 90 degrees to the stiff side?


----------



## GRIMWALD

Super 91 said:


> Do you think that the natural bending plane is always 90 degrees to the stiff side?


It is always "approximately" at 90 degrees to the spine the neutral plane is "always" at 90 degree to the spine

I am going to attempt to explain it in the simplest terms. If you understand the description of the ruler in the previous posts maybe it will help if you were to substitute a flat shaft like the ruler in place of a round arrow shaft. When you place the spine vertical 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock, which direction will the flat shaft flex when you release the string?
The same rules apply to a round shaft as to a flat shaft. There are just more opportunities for the spine to be located other than along the narrow side of a flat shaft but the neutral bend will always be at 90 degrees to it. I hope this helps because I can't think of any other way to explain it to everyone.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Yes, this is pretty basic stuff, it is not rocket science. People don't even have to change how they currently operate but it would be nice if people actually understood what they are doing and why. The terms are pretty self-explanatory, "natural bend", "spine" "neutral bending plane".
> The only difference between the two of us Shane, is in how we want the string energy to be displaced.
> I place the neutral bend vertical, 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock, this means that the first natural bend will happen vertically inline with the string.
> You place the spine vertical, this causes the first bend to happen at 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock horizontally to the string force.
> I could be correct, you could be correct, we both could be correct or we both could be wrong. It may turn out that placing the cock feather vertically and the spine at 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock is better.
> Just be open to new ideas guys.
> 
> GRIM


When I am stating the reaction it is always from a bareshaft standpoint. Now from you using a Whisker Biscuit you can have a false impression of the reaction and probably the reason why we differ on the orientation. This is the very reason a Whisker Biscuit can be a pain to tune in this manner


----------



## Super 91

I do understand that, but with a round tube, the placement of these planes are much more infinite compared to a square shaft. That was the reason for my question. 

My next question is, how can one find the actual natural bending plane in relation the stiff side of a round shaft?


----------



## zwalls

IRISH_11 said:


> Exactly. Find the stiff plane and your done. Jackpot


:chortle: don't give up!


----------



## GRIMWALD

Super 91 said:


> I do understand that, but with a round tube, the placement of these planes are much more infinite compared to a square shaft. That was the reason for my question.
> 
> My next question is, how can one find the actual natural bending plane in relation the stiff side of a round shaft?


The same principles apply to a round shaft as to a flat shaft, this in not my opinion it's not what I think, it's simple physics. For every force there is an equal and opposite force. 
When you jump on a spring board, the board goes down and then springs directly up. If one side of the spring board is thicker that the other, the downward force will be slight tilted but the return force will be directly inline with the down force only upward. In a round shaft the return forces are more evenly dispersed along the circumference, resulting in a wobble unless it returns along the neutral plane. If this happens it oscillates in a flat line. if it doesn't return along the neutral plane, it wobbles in an attempt to correct it path to the neutral plane.

The Ram spine finder finds the natural bend rather easily. When you hang the weight and rotate the shaft to it's greatest deflection this is the natural bend. This is where the shaft bend easiest and the most. The spine will be located approximately at 90 degrees to it. If the neutral plane also aligns with the weakest bend then the spine is exactly at 90 degrees to it.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Well, I just got done doing some modified testing with the RAM. I have moveable tabs to mark certain locations for testing. First I marked the stiffest reading. Then I rotated the shaft to find the apposing sides that gave the same exact reading. To make this more accurate, I would bounce the weight slightly to where it settled. This was very repeatable and was 90* each way of my original stiff plane reading within reason. Maybe 5-10* off of true 90* at best. 

Seems to me, you can accomplish breaking up the quadrants in an arrow shaft with the RAM. Unless I am doing something completely wrong.


----------



## enewman

I went and got a better indicator today. Can see a little more movement. But after I found stiff point. I flo tested and was just off from stiff mark. Shot it through the paper. Still had to rotate it. Going to get bow all back into specs and retest. If all the same then what I can see is. Spine tester for matching arrows. Spine tester flo tester to get a starting point. Then you still knoc tune. Either one will work. Neither one is the fix all. Still looks like knoc tuning is the final portion of the finding the best arrow flight before the next step in tuning.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> I went and got a better indicator today. Can see a little more movement. But after I found stiff point. I flo tested and was just off from stiff mark. Shot it through the paper. Still had to rotate it. Going to get bow all back into specs and retest. If all the same then what I can see is. Spine tester for matching arrows. Spine tester flo tester to get a starting point. Then you still knoc tune. Either one will work. Neither one is the fix all. Still looks like knoc tuning is the final portion of the finding the best arrow flight before the next step in tuning.


This is one of the biggest reason I choose to use the RAM now. You take that same arrow that you shoot perfect through paper one day and the next day you are off with it. To much shooter influence can change from day to day. This is the reason I posted the pics in my initial post. Haven't nock tuned in quite some time.


----------



## Etheis

ontarget7 said:


> This is one of the biggest reason I choose to use the RAM now. You take that same arrow that you shoot perfect through paper one day and the next day you are off with it. To much shooter influence can change from day to day. This is the reason I posted the pics in my initial post. Haven't nock tuned in quite some time.


After reading all this stuff I agree with you Shane, not taking away anything from the FLO testers, when you find the stiff side on the RAM the neutral bend plane will always be directly opposite of that, FLO testing may be more "Fine" tuning these planes, but to a bareshaft stand point if you put all of your stiff planes up and they all group like you did, then the RAM would be certainly accurate enough to get great results, again not stating anything against FLO testers, but if you have a RAM I don't see the need to put any more thought into FLO testing and vise versa


----------



## Donald1800

swbuckmaster said:


> Sonny
> Matching/tunning/indexing nocks/weighing/ ect is no different the what a reloader does working up a load for his rifle. Sure a rifle that shoots a 2" group will kill a whitetail at 100-200 yards. Some people like myself are chasing one hole accuracy though. I also don't know one reloader who floats his brass, bullet, powder or shines a light in the brass looking for the spine ect ha ha


No, but he does fire-form his new brass in the chamber they will be used in, carefully measures and groups the brass cases by water capacity, carefully trims both the inside and overall neck dimensions, use a precision scale to measure the desired powder charge, and may even produce their own metal jacketed bullets carefully measured and grouped for weight.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

shinobi3 said:


> So would the flo testing be more similar to the firenock pap system?


No!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Donald1800 said:


> No, but he does fire-form his new brass in the chamber they will be used in, carefully measures and groups the brass cases by water capacity, carefully trims both the inside and overall neck dimensions, use a precision scale to measure the desired powder charge, and may even produce their own metal jacketed bullets carefully measured and grouped for weight.


Actually his PAP's is not based on the RAM, it may look similar to a RAM but that's were the comparison should end! The RAM uses weight to take readings, Dorges PAP's uses weight and or vibration to force the arrow to roll to the natural bend and or the weakest point of a shafts. You can use the ram if you like to find the natural bend by taking a bearing and sliding it onto the shaft then push or pull it down to force the shaft to roll to the natural bend or weak point. I have had discussions with Dorge hoping to convince him to add an analog gauge as an option, I would Lovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvve to have one of his PAP's if he had a dial gauge option.


----------



## Super 91

GRIMWALD said:


> The same principles apply to a round shaft as to a flat shaft, this in not my opinion it's not what I think, it's simple physics. For every force there is an equal and opposite force.
> When you jump on a spring board, the board goes down and then springs directly up. If one side of the spring board is thicker that the other, the downward force will be slight tilted but the return force will be directly inline with the down force only upward. In a round shaft the return forces are more evenly dispersed along the circumference, resulting in a wobble unless it returns along the neutral plane. If this happens it oscillates in a flat line. if it doesn't return along the neutral plane, it wobbles in an attempt to correct it path to the neutral plane.
> 
> The Ram spine finder finds the natural bend rather easily. When you hang the weight and rotate the shaft to it's greatest deflection this is the natural bend. This is where the shaft bend easiest and the most. The spine will be located approximately at 90 degrees to it. If the neutral plane also aligns with the weakest bend then the spine is exactly at 90 degrees to it.
> 
> GRIM


I wasn't trying to force and answer, I was just trying to get an explanation. But I don't agree that the spine is 90 degrees to the natural bending plane either.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I went and got a better indicator today. Can see a little more movement. But after I found stiff point. I flo tested and was just off from stiff mark. Shot it through the paper. Still had to rotate it. Going to get bow all back into specs and retest. If all the same then what I can see is. Spine tester for matching arrows. Spine tester flo tester to get a starting point. Then you still knoc tune. Either one will work. Neither one is the fix all. Still looks like knoc tuning is the final portion of the finding the best arrow flight before the next step in tuning.


If I understand you correct you used the FLO along the stiff plane, it is possible to FLO the stiff plane but IMO you would be far better off FLOing the neutral plane 90 degrees from the stiff plane.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Super 91 said:


> I wasn't trying to force and answer, I was just trying to get an explanation. But I don't agree that the spine is 90 degrees to the natural bending plane either.


First we have to understand what you are asking are you wanting the spine deflection reading along the stiff plane or are you wanting the spine deflection along the neutral plane. The natural bend of a shaft ie the none straight side, could be where you find the stiff plane and it can be where you find the neutral plane but it does not have to exist in anyone of those points at any time and it can actually exist where the transition from the stiff side begins to become the neutral plane. This definition (natural bend) means the non-straightness of the shaft. 

If you are referring to the natural bend in conjunction with (neutral plane) where a shaft will flex during flight at the dynamic spine level that is all together a different definition of the phrase natural bend. If you are referring to the natural bend of the shaft in this definition then the natural bend will always be somewhere in the neutral plane and this natural bend can be fine tuned with a FLO test.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Well, I just got done doing some modified testing with the RAM. I have moveable tabs to mark certain locations for testing. First I marked the stiffest reading. Then I rotated the shaft to find the apposing sides that gave the same exact reading. To make this more accurate, I would bounce the weight slightly to where it settled. This was very repeatable and was 90* each way of my original stiff plane reading within reason. Maybe 5-10* off of true 90* at best.
> 
> Seems to me, you can accomplish breaking up the quadrants in an arrow shaft with the RAM. Unless I am doing something completely wrong.


You really do not need to, just find the stiff plane then align the stiff plane the way you feel it should be within your group of shafts and you have the neutral plane where you want it. You can also find the stiff plane, rotate the arrow shaft 90 degrees and if you are spine matching the arrows take a reading and match that ready within the group of shafts.


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> You really do not need to, just find the stiff plane then align the stiff plane the way you feel it should be within your group of shafts and you have the neutral plane where you want it. You can also find the stiff plane, rotate the arrow shaft 90 degrees and if you are spine matching the arrows take a reading and match that ready within the group of shafts.


I know bro! Just testing to compare my own results. 

Still feel the orientation of the stiff side to be the most critical and easily determined. 

Stiff side up for me, with the exception when you need that certain cam rotation for tuning, stiff side down.


----------



## ex-wolverine

So do you think that if he had done it with the neutral plane he may have not had to index? OR have gotten closer to were the arrows shot best out of his bow? 

Thanks



SouthShoreRat said:


> If I understand you correct you used the FLO along the stiff plane, it is possible to FLO the stiff plane but IMO you would be far better off FLOing the neutral plane 90 degrees from the stiff plane.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ex-wolverine said:


> So do you think that if he had done it with the neutral plane he may have not had to index? OR have gotten closer to were the arrows shot best out of his bow?
> 
> Thanks


Arrows do not bent along the still plane, the bend along the neutral plane so floing the stiff plane that does not bend does nothing


----------



## ex-wolverine

Ok makes sense 

the second part of my question? no need for nock tuning? fletch where it lies?

Thanks



SouthShoreRat said:


> Arrows do not bent along the still plane, the bend along the neutral plane so floing the stiff plane that does not bend does nothing


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Etheis said:


> After reading all this stuff I agree with you Shane, not taking away anything from the FLO testers, when you find the stiff side on the RAM the neutral bend plane will always be directly opposite of that


not correct the siff plane is always 100% of the time 180 degrees directly through the shaft and 100% of the time the neutral plane (aka natural bending plane) is 90 degrees from the stiff plane


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ex-wolverine said:


> Ok makes sense
> 
> the second part of my question? no need for nock tuning? fletch where it lies?
> 
> Thanks


Nock tuning is the ultimate frequency/flo test it is testing the true dynamic spine in a real time test, there is IMO no better test. but you need to know or at least want to know how tight your arrows are before you begin


----------



## ex-wolverine

Awesome Thanks!! 

PM sent



SouthShoreRat said:


> Nock tuning is the ultimate frequency/flo test it is testing the true dynamic spine in a real time test, there is IMO no better test. but you need to know or at least want to know how tight your arrows are before you begin


----------



## ontarget7

Hmmmmm ! I feel I have got to appoint with the RAM I can tell what arrows will group and what arrows will have issues, even when indexed or nock tuned, you might as well throw them aside on some of the readings. 

I must be lucky


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Hmmmmm ! I feel I have got to appoint with the RAM I can tell what arrows will group and what arrows will have issues, even when indexed or nock tuned, you might as well throw them aside on some of the readings.
> 
> I must be lucky


Nope you have fine tuned yourself to know if an arrow will or wont group based on the readings you get, nock tuning will verify that you were correct or on shafts that could go either way it will tell the truth


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Nope you have fine tuned yourself to know if an arrow will or wont group based on the readings you get, nock tuning will verify that you were correct or on shafts that could go either way it will tell the truth


That is thing I am trying to convey. No different than arrow software programs, you use them enough you will know exactly what you can and can't get away with. Between the RAM and arrow software programs it really makes it easy. Using these two together, I can't even remember the last time I turned a nock.


----------



## Donald1800

IRISH_11 said:


> I don't build arrows for anybody. I'm lucky if I have enough time to build my own arrows much less anyone else's.
> 
> My point is the guys that make their living on shooting a bow don't spine index their arrows.


Unless they do their 'Spine' Indexing themselves to KNOW that is done right.


----------



## Etheis

SouthShoreRat said:


> not correct the siff plane is always 100% of the time 180 degrees directly through the shaft and 100% of the time the neutral plane (aka natural bending plane) is 90 degrees from the stiff plane


Okay got my planes crossed, thank you for clearing that up


----------



## Super 91

Classic mistake of a rookie air traffic controller......getting your planes crossed.....just a joke fellas.....:wink:


----------



## enewman

Super 91 said:


> Classic mistake of a rookie air traffic controller......getting your planes crossed.....just a joke fellas.....:wink:


I just hope I'm not on either one of them planes


----------



## enewman

Got a thought. Yes I have them. Not always good. 


Ok we spine index the arrows. We set stiff side up. This means weak side at 90 degress. so we go shoot through the paper. In all reality it should have a horzonal tear. If you rotate 90 degrees you will have a vertical tear do to weak side up. Going to test this theory at lunch. If this is right. Then which one is easier to tune. A vertical tear or horzonal tear. If one is easier then the other, then would not that dictate where you would set the stiff plane on arrow. 

If either is about the same to tune then would in not be better to set arrow up to shoot like this /. That way you have less adjustments in both directions.


----------



## ontarget7

I mentioned in the thread the reaction you get with indexing the stiff side in different locations. Have not tested paper but a more amplified version at 20 yards with bareshafts. The tighter the tolerances on the arrow the less change you will have. The .006 shafts van be quite drastic at 20 yards.


----------



## ontarget7

By the way, the weakest reading on the RAM is generally 180* from the stiffest.

I'm seeing the neutral planes 90* from the stiff


----------



## NCBuckNBass

If you locate the stiffest spot on the arrow at 12 is the weakest at 6 and the neutral spots at 3 and 9? Or is it more complicated than that? Do you put the stiffest spot at 12 with cock vane up for a QAD rest?

Is the way the arrow wants to bend not the same as weakest spot?


----------



## ontarget7

NCBuckNBass said:


> If you locate the stiffest spot on the arrow at 12 is the weakest at 6 and the neutral spots at 3 and 9? Or is it more complicated than that? Do you put the stiffest spot at 12 with cock vane up for a QAD rest?


For testing on the RAM yes to simplify things. I generally will run the stiff side up 95% of the time. The only thing I have found recently is if you can't get your cam rotation right for a particular cam system and say you have a tail high bareshaft low impact you can't cure by staying in a decent balance range for cam synch, having stiff side down may be beneficial.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> By the way, the weakest reading on the RAM is generally 180* from the stiffest.
> 
> I'm seeing the neutral planes 90* from the stiff


The neutral plane has got me confused. Going to do a little more checking. My standard dial indicater does not move enough on the blackeagles to see this. 

Also I still not sue I agree with the 180 degree. Any thing that you put pressure on it and it moves to a specific point. At 180 out it should be the same. If it's not then there is a problem in the way Its built. Again I will do more testing today with the better indicator.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> The neutral plane has got me confused. Going to do a little more checking. My standard dial indicater does not move enough on the blackeagles to see this.
> 
> Also I still not sue I agree with the 180 degree. Any thing that you put pressure on it and it moves to a specific point. At 180 out it should be the same. If it's not then there is a problem in the way Its built. Again I will do more testing today with the better indicator.


So your saying if you have one reading stiff and turn the arrow 180 you should be the same ?


----------



## enewman

See if this pic is better


----------



## ontarget7

I have never had to stiff readings at 2 points


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> So your saying if you have one reading stiff and turn the arrow 180 you should be the same ?


Just my thought process. I'm saying I've got to retest. I didn't pay a lot of attiontion to where it was at. I will redo. 

Seems like a lot of work to go hunting haha. But I like hunting Rams at 100 yards. So this should be worth it. If nothing else. When all done we should no the ends and outs of an arrow


----------



## NCBuckNBass

SouthShore just sent me a dozen Pro GT's that are marked. I wonder if that mark is stiff side up or something else. At least I know they are all the same whatever that is. :wink:


----------



## NCBuckNBass

enewman said:


> Just my thought process. I'm saying I've got to retest. I didn't pay a lot of attiontion to where it was at. I will redo.
> 
> Seems like a lot of work to go hunting haha. But I like hunting Rams at 100 yards. So this should be worth it. If nothing else. When all done we should no the ends and outs of an arrow



Or at least the brand you shoot. Maybe differing manufacturing techniques yield differing results?


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Just my thought process. I'm saying I've got to retest. I didn't pay a lot of attiontion to where it was at. I will redo.
> 
> Seems like a lot of work to go hunting haha. But I like hunting Rams at 100 yards. So this should be worth it. If nothing else. When all done we should no the ends and outs of an arrow


LOL ! It can be quite fast and very easy. At least it is for me. 

Lots of ways to get to the same goal. I'm just giving you mine


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> LOL ! It can be quite fast and very easy. At least it is for me.
> 
> Lots of ways to get to the same goal. I'm just giving you mine


Haha. I don't mine you giving me your goal. I like it. But can you send me some money to. Haha. 

I know this post has moved around a lot. But it still has been very good. And I'm not done yet. 
Thanks for the Input.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Got a thought. Yes I have them. Not always good.
> 
> 
> Ok we spine index the arrows. We set stiff side up. This means weak side at 90 degress. so we go shoot through the paper. In all reality it should have a horzonal tear. If you rotate 90 degrees you will have a vertical tear do to weak side up. Going to test this theory at lunch. If this is right. Then which one is easier to tune. A vertical tear or horzonal tear. If one is easier then the other, then would not that dictate where you would set the stiff plane on arrow.
> 
> If either is about the same to tune then would in not be better to set arrow up to shoot like this /. That way you have less adjustments in both directions.


LOL!!!!
The problem is that shooting through paper is unlikely to register arrow oscillation. What it will show is if the energy transfer from string to arrow is linier, much like when finger shooters release, the release is not in a straight line. The string will usually have some horizontal travel to it, this movement is transferred to the nock and the arrow doesn't receive a straight on push. this results in a side to side or fishtailing effect. The same can be said if the nock point of release is higher than the front of the arrow. the point is pushed forward but the nock is also pushed upward causing the arrow to sort of buck as it goes forward.
I suppose it will register the wobble effect if the arrow isn't released along a neutral plane but without a slow motion camera I don't know if you could tell one from the other.

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

I know if you tune them all to bullet hole they will hit one hole because I've tested them. It just takes quite a bit of time.
Thus the reason to ram test, flo test.


----------



## zwalls

This is a freakin awesome thread! keep it up!


----------



## ontarget7

Oh, it's going to get better 
Are we really spine indexing or indexing to the curvature of the shaft ? Can it be that simple ?


----------



## ontarget7

One of the things you hear a lot is how you can cut both ends on a .003 and .006 shaft and get the same results as .001 shafts. I have never been one to take this stance. Set up some Gold Tip Velocity Pro's .001's for some 3D and Fita shoots. Here is a few pics rotating the bareshaft nock 90* each time at 10 yards. Pay attention to parallel entry and vertical in relation to fletched shaft. Now those are some great tolerances, fletch and go regardless where you index your vanes. When I get a chance I will do the same with the different grades .003 - .006


----------



## enewman

spine indexting flo testing what are we really doing. i have been reading this post, and it has been a good one, but i have found a problem. its not what or how, but what we think we are doing.

lets look at a ram tester. it was design to test the spine of an arrow. some where we came up as using the spine tester to locate the stiff aand weak point of an arrow. this is where the problem starts. the static spine of an arrow is what the manufature has design that arrow to be. there is no stiff or weak point in that arrow. if you check what the spine of that arrow is, with a tester it will be the same 360 degrees. 

all arrows are built with a straight tolerance. this is generaly .001,.003.or .006.

lets start with a .006 this means the arrow has a bow or a arc in it. when you put the arrow in a spine tester and index it. what we see and call a stiff spine is really just the high point in the arc. this has nothing to do with how stiff or weak it is.
this is why when you check a .001 arrow you will see a wider portion of the arrow at the same reading. the arrow is straighter.
all of this is very easy to prove. 

the flo tester. some say this is better then a spine tester. this is incorrect statement. and again can be tested and shown. 
what you are doing when flo testing is looking for the laser to draw a straight line. now here comes the good part. all the flo testers have came on here and stated that it will not be the same as the stiff point of the tested arrow with a spine tester. this is correct it will not. now this is why. first i have shown that there is no stiff or weak point in an arrow just a high low point. this is the arc of the arrow. if you line this arc up and flow test it will have a hard time flexing againt the arc. so what they are doing is rotating to what they call the neutral point. this is not a weak point or stiff point this is just not in the arc of the arrow. so the movement at flex now will be easy. 

all of what im saying is not theroy. i have tested it. and its very repetable. 

all of my spine testing to find the high point is done with a .0005 indecator. 



i have done a lot of testing. i can show you and prove to you what i have done.


----------



## Etheis

Super 91 said:


> Classic mistake of a rookie air traffic controller......getting your planes crossed.....just a joke fellas.....:wink:


Lol does a plane actually have a stiff side and do they all fly stiff side up?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> The neutral plane has got me confused.
> Also I still not sue I agree with the 180 degree.


The reason is you are tying to identify the stiff plane and neutral plane with a RAM type spine tester, it does not work, the only way to identify the stiff plane and the neutral plane is with a frequency analyzer.

You can find the stiffest point and the weak side of an arrow with the RAM.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Etheis said:


> Lol does a plane actually have a stiff side and do they all fly stiff side up?


At the static spine level yes it is a stiff "side" at the dynamic spine level it is a stiff "plane" the same with the static weak side is not the dynamic neutral plane.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> spine indexting flo testing what are we really doing. i have been reading this post, and it has been a good one, but i have found a problem. its not what or how, but what we think we are doing.
> 
> lets look at a ram tester. it was design to test the spine of an arrow. some where we came up as using the spine tester to locate the stiff aand weak point of an arrow. this is where the problem starts. the static spine of an arrow is what the manufature has design that arrow to be. there is no stiff or weak point in that arrow. if you check what the spine of that arrow is, with a tester it will be the same 360 degrees.
> 
> all arrows are built with a straight tolerance. this is generaly .001,.003.or .006.
> 
> lets start with a .006 this means the arrow has a bow or a arc in it. when you put the arrow in a spine tester and index it. what we see and call a stiff spine is really just the high point in the arc. this has nothing to do with how stiff or weak it is.
> this is why when you check a .001 arrow you will see a wider portion of the arrow at the same reading. the arrow is straighter.
> all of this is very easy to prove.
> 
> the flo tester. some say this is better then a spine tester. this is incorrect statement. and again can be tested and shown.
> what you are doing when flo testing is looking for the laser to draw a straight line. now here comes the good part. all the flo testers have came on here and stated that it will not be the same as the stiff point of the tested arrow with a spine tester. this is correct it will not. now this is why. first i have shown that there is no stiff or weak point in an arrow just a high low point. this is the arc of the arrow. if you line this arc up and flow test it will have a hard time flexing againt the arc. so what they are doing is rotating to what they call the neutral point. this is not a weak point or stiff point this is just not in the arc of the arrow. so the movement at flex now will be easy.
> 
> all of what im saying is not theroy. i have tested it. and its very repetable.
> 
> all of my spine testing to find the high point is done with a .0005 indecator.
> 
> i have done a lot of testing. i can show you and prove to you what i have done.


The RAM is a static spine test and you can only test things that are at the static spine level. If you want to test an arrow at or close to the dynamic spine level it has to be done with a frequency analyzer.


----------



## enewman

you are incorecct on stiff vs weak spine. of an arrow. do some testing. take a arrow with no weight. rotate it and mark on the arrow what you call stiff and weak. you will see this. if you cannot. you need a better indicator. now put your weight on it. check it. you will see the the same points as with out the weight. that is a high side and and low side. nothing todo with spine. now put the high side up. put your weight on it. zero your indicater. now lift off the weight and read the spine of that arrow. now put the arrow to the low side, and repeat.you will see the same spine reading. if there was a weak or stiff side to a arrow this would show it. i understand you think this is wrong. you have been doing a long time. what yall are doing is still correct by setting the high point up. but thes is so the arrow will flex the same. this has absolutely nothing to do with spine. again it is easy to prove..im not asking you to believe me. test it your self and you will see.


----------



## ex-wolverine

So what is your conclusion of how to obtain optimum arrow performance, besides the obvious, proper spine, tune and grip? 



enewman said:


> spine indexting flo testing what are we really doing. i have been reading this post, and it has been a good one, but i have found a problem. its not what or how, but what we think we are doing.
> 
> lets look at a ram tester. it was design to test the spine of an arrow. some where we came up as using the spine tester to locate the stiff aand weak point of an arrow. this is where the problem starts. the static spine of an arrow is what the manufature has design that arrow to be. there is no stiff or weak point in that arrow. if you check what the spine of that arrow is, with a tester it will be the same 360 degrees.
> 
> all arrows are built with a straight tolerance. this is generaly .001,.003.or .006.
> 
> lets start with a .006 this means the arrow has a bow or a arc in it. when you put the arrow in a spine tester and index it. what we see and call a stiff spine is really just the high point in the arc. this has nothing to do with how stiff or weak it is.
> this is why when you check a .001 arrow you will see a wider portion of the arrow at the same reading. the arrow is straighter.
> all of this is very easy to prove.
> 
> the flo tester. some say this is better then a spine tester. this is incorrect statement. and again can be tested and shown.
> what you are doing when flo testing is looking for the laser to draw a straight line. now here comes the good part. all the flo testers have came on here and stated that it will not be the same as the stiff point of the tested arrow with a spine tester. this is correct it will not. now this is why. first i have shown that there is no stiff or weak point in an arrow just a high low point. this is the arc of the arrow. if you line this arc up and flow test it will have a hard time flexing againt the arc. so what they are doing is rotating to what they call the neutral point. this is not a weak point or stiff point this is just not in the arc of the arrow. so the movement at flex now will be easy.
> 
> all of what im saying is not theroy. i have tested it. and its very repetable.
> 
> all of my spine testing to find the high point is done with a .0005 indecator.
> 
> 
> 
> i have done a lot of testing. i can show you and prove to you what i have done.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Oh, it's going to get better [emoji2]
> Are we really spine indexing or indexing to the curvature of the shaft ? Can it be that simple ?


When you hang the weight on the shaft and it pulls it down while you read the dial gauge you are testing to identify the static stiff point. Is it effected by the imperfections in the surface of the shaft and the natural bend but you are still able to determine where the stiffest point is.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> The RAM is a static spine test and you can only test things that are at the static spine level. If you want to test an arrow at or close to the dynamic spine level it has to be done with a frequency analyzer.


i have no way of testing with a frequency meter. but from what i have tested with a spine tester and i can prove it. im betting a frequency tester is showing you the point the arrow is flexing with ease. this would be 90 degress from the high point of arrow. look at it this way. take a flexible rod that has a curve in it. now try to straighten that rod. it will bend in the curve portion but be hard trying to straight out. now turn it 90 degrees. it will flex with ease in both direction this is what yall are calling a neutral plane. again test it for your self.


----------



## ontarget7

Does the stiff point when testing with a weight match the high point when testing for straightness ?


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> When you hang the weight on the shaft and it pulls it down while you read the dial gauge you are testing to identify the static stiff point. Is it effected by the imperfections in the surface of the shaft and the natural bend but you are still able to determine where the stiffest point is.


no sir put the weight on it read your reading. take the weight off rotate arrow now put weight back on it will read the same. that is the spine of the arrow. 

lets look at it this way. say the arrow spined at 300 and your on the stiff side as you call it rotate the arrow i dont care how much if it has a weaker point the arrow will nolnger read 300 it would read 310. that would mean a weak point. the arrow will not do that it will read the same all around it. that means no stiff or weak part of the spine only a high and low point and that will be more or less depending on the arrow


----------



## NCBuckNBass

South Shore

When you mark a shaft what does the mark indicate?


----------



## enewman

please dont take what i have written wrong. i think jerry knows his stuff. what we have been doing is using the wrong termanolgy . like i said it is easy to prove.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> please dont take what i have written wrong. i think jerry knows his stuff. what we have been doing is using the wrong termanolgy . like i said it is easy to prove.


I am going to have to agree with you. When I test for straightness the high point is matching the exact reading I get when using the weight. Now the tighter tolerance arrows I cant get a reading for straightness so the weight amplifies it to make it easier to identify the high point in the shaft.


----------



## 07commander

enewman said:


> you are incorecct on stiff vs weak spine. of an arrow. do some testing. take a arrow with no weight. rotate it and mark on the arrow what you call stiff and weak. you will see this. if you cannot. you need a better indicator. now put your weight on it. check it. you will see the the same points as with out the weight. that is a high side and and low side. nothing todo with spine. now put the high side up. put your weight on it. zero your indicater. now lift off the weight and read the spine of that arrow. now put the arrow to the low side, and repeat.you will see the same spine reading. if there was a weak or stiff side to a arrow this would show it. i understand you think this is wrong. you have been doing a long time. what yall are doing is still correct by setting the high point up. but thes is so the arrow will flex the same. this has absolutely nothing to do with spine. again it is easy to prove..im not asking you to believe me. test it your self and you will see.


This sounds correct to me. I haven't tried it, but it makes sense.


----------



## hoytlifer

cordini said:


> I mark mine with the strong side up so when I fletch, the cock vane is lined up with that mark.....Just my personal preference.


I do the same. I don't think it matters which way you choose as long as they are all done the same way. I think all arrows should react the same way.


----------



## ontarget7

So spine is constant and the only thing that matters is indexing to the high point, which we have called the stiff side. Which in reality is just following the straightness of the shaft and the reason for the amplified same readings with the weight. 

So in the big picture from my findings with turning the high point out or in can cause more lateral movement, amplifying pre lean needed or centershot outside the normal parameters. I have always found it more forgiving high point / stiff side in a vertical plane vs a horizontal plane. 

I might even change my wording to indexing the high point [emoji2]

Good discussion guys !


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> please dont take what i have written wrong. i think jerry knows his stuff. what we have been doing is using the wrong termanolgy . like i said it is easy to prove.


LOL!!!!
What you are proving is why the Ram spine finder and ANY bearing based spine finder is inaccurate, it simply can't account for the residual bend. This is also why the frequency meter is considered an economical and accurate way of measuring spine(it doesn't rely on deflection) and yes spine does exist. It is possible to have very little to no spine or so little spine that we can't accurately measure it but it does exist.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

hoytlifer said:


> I do the same. I don't think it matters which way you choose as long as they are all done the same way. I think all arrows should react the same way.


They don't thou and can be easily proven


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> They don't thou and can be easily proven


They do a certain extent though, but by indexing the spine you do reduce the magnitude of the effects.


----------



## enewman

ex-wolverine said:


> So what is your conclusion of how to obtain optimum arrow performance, besides the obvious, proper spine, tune and grip?


if you want the best arrow you need a spine tester. this is to match your spine of your arrows to each other and to the tip weight you are using. then find the high point. this need to go up or down. this well need to be tested in your bow. after that all tuning is the same. i will add this does not mean you cant still just knoc tune. you asked how to get the best out of your arrow and bow


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> They do a certain extent though, but by indexing the spine you do reduce the magnitude of the effects.


Kinda why I started the thread, it does matter [emoji57]


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Kinda why I started the thread, it does matter [emoji57]


It does, I don't have the equipment to do it yet but I will, but it also doesn't prevent all flexing as has been stated in the thread.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> if you want the best arrow you need a spine tester. this is to match your spine of your arrows to each other and to the tip weight you are using. then find the high point. this need to go up or down. this well need to be tested in your bow. after that all tuning is the same. i will add this does not mean you cant still just knoc tune. you asked how to get the best out of your arrow and bow


Completely agree ! Spine testing matches your arrows very well, then throw in a arrow program and it's as easy as it gets


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> It does, I don't have the equipment to do it yet but I will, but it also doesn't prevent all flexing as has been stated in the thread.


Put it this way, when everything is in place there is very, very little flexing of the shaft


----------



## ex-wolverine

Thanks
Of course we all know that a ram spine tester is just that , tests for spine consistency through out a batch of arrows...Bottom line from what I gather everyone is saying , no matter what method you use eg FLO , you have to shoot the arrows to see if your in the sweet spot, if not index ...even If you do have the equipment described throughout this thread...Nock tuning yields/verifies the best results??




enewman said:


> if you want the best arrow you need a spine tester. this is to match your spine of your arrows to each other and to the tip weight you are using. then find the high point. this need to go up or down. this well need to be tested in your bow. after that all tuning is the same. i will add this does not mean you cant still just knoc tune. you asked how to get the best out of your arrow and bow


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> you are incorecct on stiff vs weak spine. of an arrow. do some testing. take a arrow with no weight. rotate it and mark on the arrow what you call stiff and weak. you will see this. if you cannot. you need a better indicator. now put your weight on it. check it. you will see the the same points as with out the weight. that is a high side and and low side. nothing todo with spine. now put the high side up. put your weight on it. zero your indicater. now lift off the weight and read the spine of that arrow. now put the arrow to the low side, and repeat.you will see the same spine reading. if there was a weak or stiff side to a arrow this would show it. i understand you think this is wrong. you have been doing a long time. what yall are doing is still correct by setting the high point up. but thes is so the arrow will flex the same. this has absolutely nothing to do with spine. again it is easy to prove..im not asking you to believe me. test it your self and you will see.


Yes I have tested quite a few arrows, somewhere around a half million in the last 10yrs. To be honest I have not idea what you are doing, if you will give me a call in the shop sometime I would love to discuss this with you.


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Put it this way, when everything is in place there is very, very little flexing of the shaft


What makes you think that? If that were true then being over spined would cease to matter. Being under spined would still be a problem but not being over. We could all just shoot max spined arrows and forgo the hassle of indexing.


----------



## zwalls

tuckerjt07 said:


> What makes you think that? If that were true then being over spined would cease to matter. Being under spined would still be a problem but not being over. We could all just shoot max spined arrows and forgo the hassle of indexing.


that's why he said when "EVERYTHING" is right.......spine to draw weight,draw length, etc. there is very very little flexing in the shaft when it leaves the bow. not completely non existent.


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> What makes you think that? If that were true then being over spined would cease to matter. Being under spined would still be a problem but not being over. We could all just shoot max spined arrows and forgo the hassle of indexing.


Hmmmm ! Never had a problem being over spined. 
Tuned many 50 and 60# bows with a 300 spine with perfect bareshaft results. 

I can test this on any given day and prove the over spine thing that you see posted on AT


----------



## tuckerjt07

zwalls said:


> that's why he said when "EVERYTHING" is right.......spine to draw weight,draw length, etc. there is very very little flexing in the shaft when it leaves the bow. not completely non existent.


And that's why I'm saying that there is no need to chase down indexing the spine if that is the Holy Grail, little to no flex. The arrow will still flex, not as much a non-indexed arrow granted, but it has to have a certain amount of flex. The flight attitude and potential flex imparted by an improper tune are a totally seperate discussion.


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Hmmmm ! Never had a problem being over spined.
> Tuned many 50 and 60# bows with a 300 spine with perfect bareshaft results.
> 
> I can test this on any given day and prove the over spine thing that you see posted on AT


And I don't doubt that you did, you are by all accounts a terrific tuner. However, I would have to hypothesize that those bows tuned to an improper spine were not performing at their optimum. The difference might be negligible but it will be there.


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> And that's why I'm saying that there is no need to chase down indexing the spine if that is the Holy Grail, little to no flex. The arrow will still flex, not as much a non-indexed arrow granted, but it has to have a certain amount of flex. The flight attitude and potential flex imparted by an improper tune are a totally seperate discussion.


When you test an arrow for straightness it will have a high point, not perfectly straight. The arrows with the wider range of tolerance the more your high point will vary. This is what matter when indexing


----------



## zwalls

tuckerjt07 said:


> And that's why I'm saying that there is no need to chase down indexing the spine if that is the Holy Grail, little to no flex. The arrow will still flex, not as much a non-indexed arrow granted, but it has to have a certain amount of flex. The flight attitude and potential flex imparted by an improper tune are a totally seperate discussion.


you may be right but by indexing you may find that the arrow will leave the bow better in one position vs another. such as nock tuning.


----------



## Hholland

I have a question on your post, is the frequency meter you speak of the flo check method?


----------



## ontarget7

zwalls said:


> you may be right but by indexing you may find that the arrow will leave the bow better in one position vs another. such as nock tuning.


Kinda my point to the whole thread. I find their is an ideal position. 

With that said the tighter the tolerance the arrows, it matters much less.


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> When you test an arrow for straightness it will have a high point, not perfectly straight. The arrows with the wider range of tolerance the more your high point will vary. This is what matter when indexing


Yes, what I'm speaking to is the idea that this eliminates flex. In fact, you want a certain amount of flex to your arrow, as stated above too much or not enough will reduce the efficiency. Can you tune around those issues, yes to a point.


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> Kinda my point to the whole thread. I find their is an ideal position.
> 
> With that said the tighter the tolerance the arrows, it matters much less.


Easily proven with different grade arrows and bareshaft tuning


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> What you are proving is why the Ram spine finder and ANY bearing based spine finder is inaccurate, it simply can't account for the residual bend. This is also why the frequency meter is considered an economical and accurate way of measuring spine(it doesn't rely on deflection) and yes spine does exist. It is possible to have very little to no spine or so little spine that we can't accurately measure it but it does exist.
> 
> GRIM


ok going to keep simple not for you but me. what i understand is a freq meter when testing an arrow your looking for a high freq location in the arrow a low freq would be more flex i high freq would mean faster recovery less flex... if im looking at that right. if so that has nothing to do with finding a stiff or weak spine of arrow. what it is doing is finding where the arrow flexes the most or least. the curve of an arrow is the high point. that means you will have to over come that point to make arrow flex. if you turn it 90 dgrees it will flex easier. i can do the same thing with a spine tester. now if the arrow was so straight that i could not read this the the freq meter would be better. and that would be only then. again you are looking at a flex point not a stiff or weak its not there. this is also why a .001 arrow tunes easier then a .006 you have less bend in the better arrow so the arrow will react better. the more bend in the arrow the harder it has to work to flex againt the bend


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes, what I'm speaking to is the idea that this eliminates flex. In fact, you want a certain amount of flex to your arrow, as stated above too much or not enough will reduce the efficiency. Can you tune around those issues, yes to a point.


Not sure how else to put this, I can prove quite easily you can tune an over spine arrow just as well as a perfectly spined arrow with equal results in bareshaft tuning.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> ok going to keep simple not for you but me. what i understand is a freq meter when testing an arrow your looking for a high freq location in the arrow a low freq would be more flex i high freq would mean faster recovery less flex... if im looking at that right. if so that has nothing to do with finding a stiff or weak spine of arrow. what it is doing is finding where the arrow flexes the most or least. the curve of an arrow is the high point. that means you will have to over come that point to make arrow flex. if you turn it 90 dgrees it will flex easier. i can do the same thing with a spine tester. now if the arrow was so straight that i could not read this the the freq meter would be better. and that would be only then. again you are looking at a flex point not a stiff or weak its not there. this is also why a .001 arrow tunes easier then a .006 you have less bend in the better arrow so the arrow will react better. the more bend in the arrow the harder it has to work to flex againt the bend


I can completely relate in my testing. [emoji106]


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Not sure how else to put this, I can prove quite easily you can tune an over spine arrow just as well as a perfectly spined arrow with equal results in bareshaft tuning.


And I told you I believe it. However, there will be a drop in efficiency. Whether it be noticeable or negligible it will be there. In order to perform at its maximum potential the bow and arrow combination need to be matched to allow for a certain degree of flex.


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> Kinda my point to the whole thread. I find their is an ideal position.
> 
> With that said the tighter the tolerance the arrows, it matters much less.


agreed!


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> And I told you I believe it. However, there will be a drop in efficiency. Whether it be noticeable or negligible it will be there. In order to perform at its maximum potential the bow and arrow combination need to be matched to allow for a certain degree of flex.


Please describe maximum potential ?


----------



## zwalls

tuckerjt07 said:


> And I told you I believe it. However, there will be a drop in efficiency. Whether it be noticeable or negligible it will be there. In order to perform at its maximum potential the bow and arrow combination need to be matched to allow for a certain degree of flex.


 I think another way to say what you are saying is, a properly spined arrow will recover much quicker than one that is not!


----------



## enewman

lets go back to flo testing. yall are saying your testing dynamic spine. no your not. look at a slow motion arrow it is flexing when center is high the two ends are low when center is low the two ends are high. you would have to build a tester that will allow this type of movement a flo tester does no more then find where the arrow flexs the easest i can do that with a spine tester and a .0005 indicator. i will also say the .0005 indicator is way more accurate then my eye trying to watch a light move up and down on graph paper


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Please describe maximum potential ?


A machine operating at its maximum achievable capacity. 


zwalls said:


> I think another way to say what you are saying is, a properly spined arrow will recover much quicker than one that is not!


That's part of it but not all of it. A properly spined arrow will allow for a more accurate and efficient transfer of energy when fired. Anything but this will see decreases in both. The accuracy bit can be fixed by the tuner but not the efficiency piece. 

I believe that part of the issue is a confusion about the different types of arrow movement in flight and which ones are pertinent to what.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> ok going to keep simple not for you but me. what i understand is a freq meter when testing an arrow your looking for a high freq location in the arrow a low freq would be more flex i high freq would mean faster recovery less flex... if im looking at that right. if so that has nothing to do with finding a stiff or weak spine of arrow. what it is doing is finding where the arrow flexes the most or least. the curve of an arrow is the high point. that means you will have to over come that point to make arrow flex. if you turn it 90 dgrees it will flex easier. i can do the same thing with a spine tester. now if the arrow was so straight that i could not read this the the freq meter would be better. and that would be only then. again you are looking at a flex point not a stiff or weak its not there. this is also why a .001 arrow tunes easier then a .006 you have less bend in the better arrow so the arrow will react better. the more bend in the arrow the harder it has to work to flex againt the bend


A frequency meter measures the rate at which the shaft oscillates, the faster the oscillation the stiffer the point. Picture a violin string, they are under a lot of torque so much so that when you drag the bow across the string it makes a screeching noise. I have no clue how fast the string is oscillation but the amount of oscillation increases or decreases as you adjust the tension. The tighter or stiffer you make the string. the higher the pitch(greater the oscillation), as you loosen the tension or soften it, the less it oscillates. 
The important point is that in no way does the residual bend effect the shaft, the fastest oscillation will occur along the stiff plane (not the stiff point) and the slowest oscillation will occur along the weaker neutral plane. They have two separate and distinct oscillations " If" spine is present. The closer the values the less the amount of spine. If the values are consistent at all points around the circumference of the shat, it essentially has no spine

Grim


----------



## GRIMWALD

Hholland said:


> I have a question on your post, is the frequency meter you speak of the flo check method?


No they are two separate but complimentary tools.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> A machine operating at its maximum achievable capacity.
> 
> That's part of it but not all of it. A properly spined arrow will allow for a more accurate and efficient transfer of energy when fired. Anything but this will see decreases in both. The accuracy bit can be fixed by the tuner but not the efficiency piece.
> 
> I believe that part of the issue is a confusion about the different types of arrow movement in flight and which ones are pertinent to what.


Both can be proven

I don't see the decrease in efficiency through chrono readings or accuracy.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> lets go back to flo testing. yall are saying your testing dynamic spine. no your not. look at a slow motion arrow it is flexing when center is high the two ends are low when center is low the two ends are high. you would have to build a tester that will allow this type of movement a flo tester does no more then find where the arrow flexs the easest i can do that with a spine tester and a .0005 indicator. i will also say the .0005 indicator is way more accurate then my eye trying to watch a light move up and down on graph paper


Your description is a little faulty the center of the shaft is where all of the flexing occurs, are you familiar as to why the spine finder is designed as it is and why testing requires a 31"shaft? 
The posts are at 28" because at 2" in from each end is where the arrow nodes are approximately located. As a shaft oscillates these nodes are where the neutral point are from where the upward motion becomes the downward motion. The forces essential cancel each other out becoming neutral. The nodes essentially travel in a straight line to the target, relatively speaking.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> A frequency meter measures the rate at which the shaft oscillates, the faster the oscillation the stiffer the point. Picture a violin string, they are under a lot of torque so much so that when you drag the bow across the string it makes a screeching noise. I have no clue how fast the string is oscillation but the amount of oscillation increases or decreases as you adjust the tension. The tighter or stiffer you make the string. the higher the pitch(greater the oscillation), as you loosen the tension or soften it, the less it oscillates.
> The important point is that in no way does the residual bend effect the shaft, the fastest oscillation will occur along the stiff plane (not the stiff point) and the slowest oscillation will occur along the weaker neutral plane. They have two separate and distinct oscillations " If" spine is present. The closer the values the less the amount of spine. If the values are consistent at all points around the circumference of the shat, it essentially has no spine
> 
> Grim


what your saying is correct but your application is incorrect as it applies. if the arrow has a bend in it and a .006 will have that bend. yall are calling that the stiff point. that is not the stiff point. that is the high point. so if you set the high point up. the yes it will see a higher freq. and a lower freq at say 90 degrees. if you have a .001 arrow you have less bend so you have less then a high point its more even around the shaft. so your freq sould be the same or close no matter where its at that is not spine. this is so easy to test just get a .006 and a.001 arrow and you will see it if there was a stiff or weak spot in an arrow you would see this with a static spine test but you doint spine is the same all around the arrow.


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Both can be proven
> 
> I don't see the decrease in efficiency through chrono readings or accuracy.


Both what?

And your chrono may not be sensitive enough to see the difference. Like I said the difference between the two could be negligible in the real world. 

As to the bareshaft tuning piece, that would be expected honestly. The arrow, even though it oscillates when shot, will self correct from the bend that spine deals with. Where the fetchings come into play is correct attitude issues. 

Here is my hypothesis as to what spine indexing is doing. First, it causes every arrow to flex in the same manner when fired. This is important but not the ultimate goal. As has been stated in this thread there is an optimum way the arrow can flex coming off the rest. I feel that by indexing the spine in the vertical you are introducing as little interference the rest as the arrow flexes as possible.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

ontarget7 said:


> Completely agree ! Spine testing matches your arrows very well, then throw in a arrow program and it's as easy as it gets


An arrow program? Like OT2? I've heard of it but never used it. What exactly do these arrow programs do for you?


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Your description is a little faulty the center of the shaft is where all of the flexing occurs, are you familiar as to why the spine finder is designed as it is and why testing requires a 31"shaft?
> The posts are at 28" because at 2" in from each end is where the arrow nodes are approximately located. As a shaft oscillates these nodes are where the neutral point are from where the upward motion becomes the downward motion. The forces essential cancel each other out becoming neutral. The nodes essentially travel in a straight line to the target, relatively speaking.
> 
> GRIM


yes but if the arrow has a arc in it do to it not being straight the arrow will have a harder time flexing against that point yall call that stiff side of arrow its not its the high point of the bend


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> what your saying is correct but your application is incorrect as it applies. if the arrow has a bend in it and a .006 will have that bend. yall are calling that the stiff point. that is not the stiff point. that is the high point. so if you set the high point up. the yes it will see a higher freq. and a lower freq at say 90 degrees. if you have a .001 arrow you have less bend so you have less then a high point its more even around the shaft. so your freq sould be the same or close no matter where its at that is not spine. this is so easy to test just get a .006 and a.001 arrow and you will see it if there was a stiff or weak spot in an arrow you would see this with a static spine test but you doint spine is the same all around the arrow.


LOL!!!!
Actually Jerry an I are trying to tell you that this pre-bend is NOT where the spine is, it could be but the Ram "CAN NOT" measure it because of this residual bend.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

tuckerjt07 said:


> Both what?
> 
> And your chrono may not be sensitive enough to see the difference. Like I said the difference between the two could be negligible in the real world.
> 
> As to the bareshaft tuning piece, that would be expected honestly. The arrow, even though it oscillates when shot, will self correct from the bend that spine deals with. Where the fetchings come into play is correct attitude issues.
> 
> Here is my hypothesis as to what spine indexing is doing. First, it causes every arrow to flex in the same manner when fired. This is important but not the ultimate goal. As has been stated in this thread there is an optimum way the arrow can flex coming off the rest. I feel that by indexing the spine in the vertical you are introducing as little interference the rest as the arrow flexes as possible.


your hypothesis is correct my point is that when we find the least amount of flex in that arrow its not because its a stiffer point in the spine its becuase that is the high point in the arc of the arrow this takes more force to over come.


----------



## whack n stack

My brain is melting


----------



## ontarget7

Arrow Afflicted said:


> An arrow program? Like OT2? I've heard of it but never used it. What exactly do these arrow programs do for you?


Gives you a great starting point because it factors in dynamic spine for any specific bow specs. I have never been steered wrong when selecting arrows this way.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> your hypothesis is correct my point is that when we find the least amount of flex in that arrow its not because its a stiffer point in the spine its becuase that is the high point in the arc of the arrow this takes more force to over come.


Your getting close. When there is a high degree of spine, the Ram will find the spine just fine but when the spine is less than the residual bend, what it is measuring is the pre-bend or residual bend. It's not the spine though.

GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Hholland said:


> I have a question on your post, is the frequency meter you speak of the flo check method?


No, flo uses a laser and a clamping system, the frequency analyzer measures the shafts spine deflection with a very accurate ability to test the shafts at a Cycles Per Minute method.


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> Actually Jerry an I are trying to tell you that this pre-bend is NOT where the spine is, it could be but the Ram "CAN NOT" measure it because of this residual bend.
> 
> GRIM


im telling you the same the spine of the arrow is the same 360 degrees on the shaft the bend takes more force to straight out that is not a stiffer spine. that is why a better arrow flys better and tunes better it has less bend so the arrow works less to over come this. if the arrow was perfect you would see zero movement when rotating the arrow on the ram you would also see a perfect line on a flo tester no matter what location and the freq of the shaft would be the same no matter how you place it.


----------



## ontarget7

tuckerjt07 said:


> Both what?
> 
> And your chrono may not be sensitive enough to see the difference. Like I said the difference between the two could be negligible in the real world.
> 
> As to the bareshaft tuning piece, that would be expected honestly. The arrow, even though it oscillates when shot, will self correct from the bend that spine deals with. Where the fetchings come into play is correct attitude issues.
> 
> Here is my hypothesis as to what spine indexing is doing. First, it causes every arrow to flex in the same manner when fired. This is important but not the ultimate goal. As has been stated in this thread there is an optimum way the arrow can flex coming off the rest. I feel that by indexing the spine in the vertical you are introducing as little interference the rest as the arrow flexes as possible.





enewman said:


> your hypothesis is correct my point is that when we find the least amount of flex in that arrow its not because its a stiffer point in the spine its becuase that is the high point in the arc of the arrow this takes more force to over come.


I can agree with that


----------



## zwalls

Arrow Afflicted said:


> An arrow program? Like OT2? I've heard of it but never used it. What exactly do these arrow programs do for you?


there are 3 different programs available. once you enter in your bow data and some arrow data such as tip weight, nock weight etc, it will give you a number of choices of arrows and what spine should work for your setup. takes some of the guessing game out of buying the wrong spined arrow. these programs do a lot more as well.


----------



## zwalls

whack n stack said:


> My brain is melting


:chortle:


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> No, flo uses a laser and a clamping system, the frequency analyzer measures the shafts spine deflection with a very accurate ability to test the shafts at a Cycles Per Minute method.


yes it does but again if the arrow was perfectlly straight the freq would be the same once you have a bend in the arrow the arrow has to try to straighten out and flex past the bend this is not because the arrow has a stiffer spine its because its not straight.


----------



## tuckerjt07

enewman said:


> yes it does but again if the arrow was perfectlly straight the freq would be the same once you have a bend in the arrow the arrow has to try to straighten out and flex past the bend this is not because the arrow has a stiffer spine its because its not straight.


Which, if true would explain why stiff side vertical, and inside of that stiff side up, performs better.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> im telling you the same the spine of the arrow is the same 360 degrees on the shaft the bend takes more force to straight out that is not a stiffer spine. that is why a better arrow flys better and tunes better it has less bend so the arrow works less to over come this. if the arrow was perfect you would see zero movement when rotating the arrow on the ram you would also see a perfect line on a flo tester no matter what location and the freq of the shaft would be the same no matter how you place it.


Again your getting closer but there is something in the middle that isn't correct but you getting to the point that Jerry has been trying prove conclusively. Jerry wants everyone to start not only matching the weak values as opposed to the stiff values but use these point to align the shafts. The simple truth is that the shaft does not want to flex, oscillate or even stay on the spine, it wants to do all of it's business on the weak sides because it is easer to do it's business.

GRIM


----------



## Hholland

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> Actually Jerry an I are trying to tell you that this pre-bend is NOT where the spine is, it could be but the Ram "CAN NOT" measure it because of this residual bend.
> 
> GRIM


then without a frequency meter, how do you the "spine, stiff or weak"


----------



## enewman

i will go as far as to say if you take a .001 arrow find high side set that up and shoot then get a .006 do the same it will not tune as good reason is if the arrow is straight its not trying to fight againt a arc in the arrow this means the arrow will flex easy and equal now take a arrow that is not straight the arrow works hard to flex up trying to straighten out the arrow but will flex into the bend at a faster rate so the flex will not be equal. meaning harder to tune and none of that has any thing to do with an arrow having a weak or stiff spine in the arrow.


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Again your getting closer but there is something in the middle that isn't correct but you getting to the point that Jerry has been trying prove conclusively. Jerry wants everyone to start not only matching the weak values as opposed to the stiff values but use these point to align the shafts. The simple truth is that the shaft does not want to flex, oscillate or even stay on the spine, it wants to do all of it's business on the weak sides because it is easer to do it's business.
> 
> GRIM


It seems all the arrows I have gotten in from Jerrys customers have been indexed with high point/stiff side up, unless he has changed that.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Hholland said:


> then without a frequency meter, how do you the "spine, stiff or weak"


This is the point of the discussion, to make people aware of what is actually happening. If the spine is larger than the residual or pre-bend the Ram will measure it just fine but when there is no spine the Ram measures this residual bend and people call it spine. Sorry but it is not.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Again your getting closer but there is something in the middle that isn't correct but you getting to the point that Jerry has been trying prove conclusively. Jerry wants everyone to start not only matching the weak values as opposed to the stiff values but use these point to align the shafts. The simple truth is that the shaft does not want to flex, oscillate or even stay on the spine, it wants to do all of it's business on the weak sides because it is easer to do it's business.
> 
> GRIM


yes but that is not weak or stiff that is just the curve of the arrow. the better the arrow the less curve i think we are same page as what we are trying to get to. its how we are using the terminology


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

zwalls said:


> there are 3 different programs available. once you enter in your bow data and some arrow data such as tip weight, nock weight etc, it will give you a number of choices of arrows and what spine should work for your setup. takes some of the guessing game out of buying the wrong spined arrow. these programs do a lot more as well.


Hmm I wonder if my local shop has this?...might be worth a phone call instead of buying a program I'll not use very often...thx 😊


----------



## tuckerjt07

Arrow Afflicted said:


> Hmm I wonder if my local shop has this?...might be worth a phone call instead of buying a program I'll not use very often...thx 😊


It's a very handy tool to have. It has all sorts of features. Download the trial and play with it.


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

tuckerjt07 said:


> It's a very handy tool to have. It has all sorts of features. Download the trial and play with it.


A trial would be awesome..OT2 then?


----------



## tuckerjt07

Arrow Afflicted said:


> A trial would be awesome..OT2 then?


Yes, or at least it has one on Mac.


----------



## swbuckmaster

One thing is ive noticed is the crossbow guys love Jerry's arrows at long range. So he must be doing something right. If the arrow isn't matched up those guys guys would see it at distance shooting portable hooter shooters.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> It seems all the arrows I have gotten in from Jerrys customers have been indexed with high point/stiff side up, unless he has changed that.


I am pretty sure you are correct and Jerry is a magician with the custom Ram that he has built. Indexing with the spine up could be the optimal position for me it is not because I "chose" to align mine differently. I have no desire tell you or anyone, where or how they should set their equipment up. 

GRIM


----------



## Arrow Afflicted

swbuckmaster said:


> One thing is ive noticed is the crossbow guys love Jerry's arrows at long range. So he must be doing something right. If the arrow isn't matched up those guys guys would see it at distance shooting portable hooter shooters.


Portable hooter shooters! Hahahahaha


----------



## J Whittington

You guys would laugh at my spine indexing method. But it works and it's real simple


----------



## tuckerjt07

J Whittington said:


> You guys would laugh at my spine indexing method. But it works and it's real simple


Try me, I'm already trying to figure out how to make my own RAM. I'm open to anything.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> One thing is ive noticed is the crossbow guys love Jerry's arrows at long range. So he must be doing something right. If the arrow isn't matched up those guys guys would see it at distance shooting portable hooter shooters.


The interesting thing about crossbow arrows, Jerry indexes them the same as his vertical arrows but with crossbow arrows the cock vane goes down. Another interesting tid bit. With vertical arrows, if you align the spine vertical, in plane with the string. With a crossbow aligning the cock vane either up or down, the spine is now at 90 degrees to the string.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Enewman 

This really explains in simple terms of why I have seen the same pattern when bareshaft tuning and the results they yield. Great way of explaining the results you have gotten and the reason behind it. 

Good job bro !


----------



## tuckerjt07

GRIMWALD said:


> The interesting thing about crossbow arrows, Jerry indexes them the same as his vertical arrows but with crossbow arrows the cock vane goes down. Another interesting tid bit. With vertical arrows, if you align the spine vertical, in plane with the string. With a crossbow aligning the cock vane either up or down, the spine is now at 90 degrees to the string.
> 
> GRIM


It's interesting but makes sense if you think about it. It may not be the optimum solution but it is repeatable. Since it is repeatable time after time, even though it is less than optimumal, it will still be more accurate than a non-repeated process.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Enewman
> 
> This really explains in simple terms of why I have seen the same pattern when bareshaft tuning and the results they yield. Great way of explaining the results you have gotten and the reason behind it.
> 
> Good job bro !


Thanks. Enjoyed the talk today


----------



## tuckerjt07

ontarget7 said:


> Enewman
> 
> This really explains in simple terms of why I have seen the same pattern when bareshaft tuning and the results they yield. Great way of explaining the results you have gotten and the reason behind it.
> 
> Good job bro !


I agree and think he and Grim are both correct. If the RAM cannot overcome the bend to get to the spine then the bend is acting as the stiff side. Likewise, if it can overcome it the true spine is now the stiff side.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Thanks. Enjoyed the talk today


Enjoyed it as well ! Now I just need to head to Texas and get out of the cold


----------



## Grunt-N-Gobble

After reading all of these post, I think I'm convinced that it's worth the extra $$ for the better.001 arrows.


----------



## ontarget7

Grunt-N-Gobble said:


> After reading all of these post, I think I'm convinced that it's worth the extra $$ for the better.001 arrows.


Well worth it ! I have said that for years


----------



## ex-wolverine

Depends on the company and their QC

Plenty of arrows in the .003 range will run out at .001 over 28" 



Grunt-N-Gobble said:


> After reading all of these post, I think I'm convinced that it's worth the extra $$ for the better.001 arrows.


----------



## ex-wolverine

Also here is a thread that I shared with enewman through a PM as I was very impressed with his testing and effort on this thread...Seemed like he was/is on a mission...His findings were interesting because he was starting from scratch...

But as you can see even by the date in which this was posted *spine testers* were not thought of as a tool to get your best grouping out of an arrow...Same arguments , different place and time...That said I learned of nock tuning from good ole brown hornet who used to be one of the regulars on here ...I used his and a combination of other folks methods for good arrow flight (for me) I'm kind of like Grim, I'm not going to impress upon you or tell you your method don't work for you, ....Reason being Im in no way shape or form an arrow guru like Shane, Grim or Jerry, I just think other options should be shared if you don't have any of this fancy dancy equipment or the means to build it or buy it

http://www.archerylive.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4828

After all the title of this (Shanes) thread is spine indexing, that can mean a couple different things...

Whether it be Shanes, Grimms, Jerry, etc...Just know there are options to get better arrow flight than just fletching up arrows ...Shane is spot on when he says that a poorly tuned arrow can translate to a bow being hard to tune, an arrow that isnt indexed in the optimum location can tell you a lot of things

It is an awesome thread Shane...I just wish you gurus would come up with a order of merit/process that combined your skill sets/test equipment so we can all get to building arrows using some of your process...

If any of you had to rank order your process from cutting to fletching how would you do it???


----------



## Etheis

SouthShoreRat said:


> At the static spine level yes it is a stiff "side" at the dynamic spine level it is a stiff "plane" the same with the static weak side is not the dynamic neutral plane.


So for a person like me, a person who shoots bareshafts through paper and turns nocks, a person who has never used a RAM or FLO tester, which would be most beneficial for me to start doing?


----------



## ontarget7

Etheis said:


> So for a person like me, a person who shoots bareshafts through paper and turns nocks, a person who has never used a RAM or FLO tester, which would be most beneficial for me to start doing?


Arrow software program and turn nocks, it's what I used to do :wink:


----------



## zwalls

Arrow Afflicted said:


> Hmm I wonder if my local shop has this?...might be worth a phone call instead of buying a program I'll not use very often...thx &#55357;&#56842;


they are all well worth the small investment for you will be using this for years to come. everytime you change bows or get new arrows. they print calculated sight tapes for different sights. and they have all sorts of ballistics to play around with. I feel they are priceless. I'm using TAP's the most right now but they are all good!


----------



## ontarget7

TAPs is the most user friendly IMO


----------



## Grunt-N-Gobble

ex-wolverine said:


> Depends on the company and their QC
> 
> Plenty of arrows in the .003 range will run out at .001 over 28"


Please expand on which company or companies that you feel will do this.


----------



## ontarget7

Personally I find this very hit and miss and generally in a dozen of .003 arrows you might have a few that will run .001. But the majority do not


----------



## jesses80

shane what would be the best spine for my set up right now I'm shooting 340 spine at arrow length of 29" 100 grain tips I want to goto 125 grain tips would the 340's still be ok or should I go to 300 spine bow is a matrix 65lb 29 1/2 draw thanks.


----------



## enewman

When we look at spine indexing. What are we doing. If you have been reading the post above you will see that I'm saying there is no such thing as a weak or stiff spine of an arrow.
When you buy a arrow , you have a choice in straightness. This is where the better arrow is worth the money.
All arrows will have an arc. Like the pic below. If you put the weight on a spine tester to test spine. What you read is the spine of the arrow. This will be at 360 degrees around the shaft. Spine is spine
Now let's take a look at the top pic. If you where to place the indicator you would see less movement. What people are saying is this is the stiff side. When really all you are seeing is the high point in the arc. Same as if you look at the second pic. They are saying this is the weak. This is just the low side of the arc.
The better the arrow the less you will see. If your arrow is is a good arrow and comes. very straight. Then we could say a ram tester can not test this. You can but you will not be able to do this with a .001 indicator. This will require a . 0005 indicator. This is where the freq tester grim is talking about. If the arrow is so straight the indicator won't see then this is the tester.
But even then you are not testing for a stiff or weak point in the shaft.
There is not one spine is spine. What you are looking for is where the freq is at its highest point. This is where the arrow has the hardest time flexing. Which is against the arc..
If you had an arrow like in pic three. Perfect. (This cannot happen.)
The flex would be the same all the way around the shaft. Meaning no high point or low point. Also meaning the freq would be the same. On a flow tester the laser would be in a straight line.
Part of our post has been you cannot find this point with a ram spine tester. The reason for this is only the indicator that comes with the tester. You need better testing equipment.


----------



## ontarget7

jesses80 said:


> shane what would be the best spine for my set up right now I'm shooting 340 spine at arrow length of 29" 100 grain tips I want to goto 125 grain tips would the 340's still be ok or should I go to 300 spine bow is a matrix 65lb 29 1/2 draw thanks.


The 340's would tune fine with a raw shaft length of 28" but if you are wanting to go 29" raw shaft and 125 gr tip, I would bump up to 300's personally.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

So the take away on this is you need a $300 Ram and a $300 indicator to really do this right and not an $18 Igloo cooler full of water?


----------



## dw'struth

Haha...I was going to attempt to build my own spine tester, but this thread has put so much doubt in my mind I think I'll just try to shoot them in! lol
EDIT: that's not totally true. I believe Shanes results would still make it a worthwhile venture, but dang...


----------



## ontarget7

I have no doubt what I am doing works very well and very fast [emoji2]


----------



## dw'struth

ontarget7 said:


> I have no doubt what I am doing works very well and very fast [emoji2]


See edit, please. Thanks for the info!


----------



## enewman

What Shane is doing has not changed one bit. Nor what he is doing with the ram tester has not changed. Just what we are looking at when spine testing to find the index point.


----------



## ex-wolverine

Grunt-N-Gobble said:


> Please expand on which company or companies that you feel will do this.


The gold tip xt hunters are rated at .003 but when I have run them out they have been .001 which tells me that the QC and manufacturing at gold tip is pretty tight

On the opposite side of the spectrum , right now I'm building some Easton SuperDrive 25 for 3D and they are rated at .003 and are running out at .001 out of the 6 so far that I have had time to do it ...I'm reall happy about that since they retail for 200 bucks by the time they are all set up

Those are just two examples and the reason I know this is because I'm all about saving people money and I show my customers that they can get a very good arrow and save a few bucks ...most people couldnt tell the difference between a .001 and .003 when shooting..

Too many people confuse straightness with consistent spine ...I have seen arrows that are .001 and have the most inconsistent spine or deflection since there are now people saying there is now such thing as spine...in reality al your really doing is measuring the deflection of an arrow on the ram spine tester ..maybe we could name it the ADT ( arrow deflection tester) ha ha


----------



## enewman

NCBuckNBass said:


> So the take away on this is you need a $300 Ram and a $300 indicator to really do this right and not an $18 Igloo cooler full of water?


Nope. Buy the igloo. But put ice for the beer. The just knoc tune. 

The hole point to this is so Shane can build the best arrow he can for his customers.


----------



## ontarget7

I have nothing to gain by spilling all this info. I have personally been in your shoes and sharing what has improved my consistency over the years.


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> TAPs is the most user friendly IMO


what he said^^^


----------



## ontarget7

I only do arrows for tuning customers so please don't send arrows from all over the country LOL ! Jerry would take care of you on the arrows. I prefer to stay with the tuning[emoji2]


----------



## zwalls

NCBuckNBass said:


> So the take away on this is you need a $300 Ram and a $300 indicator to really do this right and not an $18 Igloo cooler full of water?


remember the Ram does more than just test spine of an arrow. it also comes with a tool to check/index broadheads and nocks. I had an arrow that I cut and squared and inserted my nock and no matter where I spun the nock it had a wobble. 86'd that one and tried another that spun perfectly. same with broadheads. sometime I can spin the broadhead and get a little wobble out and sometimes you can't. and that's after squaring the arrow and the insert. 

Eders has them for the least amount if I remember correctly. worth checking into!


----------



## NCBuckNBass

zwalls said:


> remember the Ram does more than just test spine of an arrow. it also comes with a tool to check/index broadheads and nocks. I had an arrow that I cut and squared and inserted my nock and no matter where I spun the nock it had a wobble. 86'd that one and tried another that spun perfectly. same with broadheads. sometime I can spin the broadhead and get a little wobble out and sometimes you can't. and that's after squaring the arrow and the insert.
> 
> Eders has them for the least amount if I remember correctly. worth checking into!



Already got spin tool for broadheads but I agree the Ram should be called a deflection tester not spine tester


----------



## skynight

enewman said:


> When we look at spine indexing. What are we doing. If you have been reading the post above you will see that I'm saying there is no such thing as a weak or stiff spine of an arrow.
> When you buy a arrow , you have a choice in straightness. This is where the better arrow is worth the money.
> All arrows will have an arc. Like the pic below. If you put the weight on a spine tester to test spine. What you read is the spine of the arrow. This will be at 360 degrees around the shaft. Spine is spine
> Now let's take a look at the top pic. If you where to place the indicator you would see less movement. What people are saying is this is the stiff side. When really all you are seeing is the high point in the arc. Same as if you look at the second pic. They are saying this is the weak. This is just the low side of the arc.
> The better the arrow the less you will see. If your arrow is is a good arrow and comes. very straight. Then we could say a ram tester can not test this. You can but you will not be able to do this with a .001 indicator. This will require a . 0005 indicator. This is where the freq tester grim is talking about. If the arrow is so straight the indicator won't see then this is the tester.
> But even then you are not testing for a stiff or weak point in the shaft.
> There is not one spine is spine. What you are looking for is where the freq is at its highest point. This is where the arrow has the hardest time flexing. Which is against the arc..
> If you had an arrow like in pic three. Perfect. (This cannot happen.)
> The flex would be the same all the way around the shaft. Meaning no high point or low point. Also meaning the freq would be the same. On a flow tester the laser would be in a straight line.
> Part of our post has been you cannot find this point with a ram spine tester. The reason for this is only the indicator that comes with the tester. You need better testing equipment.


If this were true .001 arrows would only deflect .001, .006 would deflect .006 etc. This does not happen. Perhaps without the weight hanging on the arrow.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

enewman said:


> Nope. Buy the igloo. But put ice for the beer. The just knoc tune.
> 
> The hole point to this is so Shane can build the best arrow he can for his customers.


Yes but if guys pay Shane to tune their bow and then they go buy a bunch of random fletched arrows and try to see how good a job he did they might be disappointed.


----------



## swbuckmaster

One thing enema can't get his head arround is physics. He needs to go back and read grims links. All arrows do have a spine and a nbp. I'm not going to go back and read them or post the links but a section talked about different types of shafts and feel finders. It said a feel finder could be trusted finding the spine on a type one shaft but a type two shaft it couldn't and was worthless. Same thing I believe with a type three shaft. 
So as long as you are dealing with type one shafts then a ram tester would be fine. Who know what type of shaft you have until you flo test it or shoot the shafts in on a hooter. You may end up refletching arrows and this is what your trying to avoid using a ram and flo tester.


----------



## bbjavelina

NCBuckNBass said:


> So the take away on this is you need a $300 Ram and a $300 indicator to really do this right and not an $18 Igloo cooler full of water?


An Igloo full of water will show you the heavy/light side of the shaft. How can you tell if that's due to a variation in the spine or simply the pre-bend in the shaft? A residual bend will skew the result. 

Very few indicators cost $300, and a $20 one will give you all the information you need about your shafts. You can build a fully serviceable spine tester for less than $40. You don't need to buy the RAM. The DYI section is full of info.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## enewman

G


swbuckmaster said:


> One thing enema can't get his head arround is physics. He needs to go back and read grims links. All arrows do have a spine and a nbp. I'm not going to go back and read them or post the links but a section talked about different types of shafts and feel finders. It said a feel finder could be trusted finding the spine on a type one shaft but a type two shaft it couldn't and was worthless. Same thing I believe with a type three shaft.
> So as long as you are dealing with type one shafts then a ram tester would be fine. Who know what type of shaft you have until you flo test it or shoot the shafts in on a hooter. You may end up refletching arrows and this is what your trying to avoid using a ram and flo tester.


I have never said an arrow does not have a spine. All arrows have a spine. The spine is a measurement of how stiff an arrow is. What I'm saying. There is no stiff or weak to a spine. 

What you perceive as a stiff point in the arrow while testing is actually the high part of the arc. And in physics it takes more resistance to flex through the arc then to flex with the arc. This is what the freq tester and flo tester is showing. 

I'm not saying yall are wrong what I'm saying is yall are wrong on the terminology of that arrow. I can easily test and prove this with anyone of the three testers listed.


----------



## zwalls

skynight said:


> If this were true .001 arrows would only deflect .001, .006 would deflect .006 etc. This does not happen. Perhaps without the weight hanging on the arrow.


what the .001 or .003 or .006 means that the arrow, say a .001, should all be within .001 of an inch in straightness of each other. this has nothing to do with spine. at least that the way I understand it.


----------



## skynight

enewman said:


> G
> 
> I have never said an arrow does not have a spine. All arrows have a spine. The spine is a measurement of how stiff an arrow is. What I'm saying. There is no stiff or weak to a spine.
> 
> What you perceive as a stiff point in the arrow while testing is actually the high part of the arc. And in physics it takes more resistance to flex through the arc then to flex with the arc. This is what the freq tester and flo tester is showing.
> 
> I'm not saying yall are wrong what I'm saying is yall are wrong on the terminology of that arrow. I can easily test and prove this with anyone of the three testers listed.


Post a video showing deflection 360 degrees with no weight. Mark the high point and note the variation around the shaft. Hang the weight and show the variation around the shaft is unchanged and the high point is unchanged. Show half dozen arrows. Easy to prove your theory.


----------



## skynight

zwalls said:


> what the .001 or .003 or .006 means that the arrow, say a .001, should all be within .001 of an inch in straightness of each other. this has nothing to do with spine. at least that the way I understand it.


You are right. My point is that enewman is not.


----------



## enewman

Ok since we are all hung up on weak or stiff. I will use these words also. When you spine index an arrow we look for a stiff side and a weak side. Then we know the neutral plane side is in between these two points. Now we should all be back on board. When you flo test you are looking for the flex of the arrow to be up/dn. this is the neutral plane. Now let's go back to what I'm saying. The arc of the arrow. Let's place up. This will be stiffer as it's hard to push down against an arc of the arrow. If you rotate 180 degree and push down this is weaker. Duo to its easier to push into the arc. All this is telling you is there is a arc in the arrow. Spine is the same. If spine is 300 it will be the same around the arrow. So there is no stiffer spine point or a weaker spine point. Again it's not that yall are doing it wrong. I'm still doing it the same way. I still put the stiff side up. But the stiff side is only stiff because your forcing a bend against the arc of the arrow. 

If you have a spine tester. Pm me I can show you this. All of this came about cause someone said you can't spine an arrow and be right on you have to flo or freq test. Once you under stand what your looking for. And not use the indicator that comes the the ram tester. It's all the same


----------



## enewman

skynight said:


> You are right. My point is that enewman is not.


If I'm reading this right. Your saying that I'm saying the straightness of the arrow has all todo with spine. If that is what your saying then you donot understand a thing I'm talking about. The straightens of the arrow has nothing to do with spine. If that's not what you meant my fault on interpreting what you wrote


----------



## tuckerjt07

enewman said:


> If I'm reading this right. Your saying that I'm saying the straightness of the arrow has all todo with spine. If that is what your saying then you donot understand a thing I'm talking about. The straightens of the arrow has nothing to do with spine. If that's not what you meant my fault on interpreting what you wrote


I get what you're saying and I believe you are correct. I tried to summarize where I thought the disconnect was up the page but maybe I wasn't effective enough.


----------



## skynight

enewman said:


> If I'm reading this right. Your saying that I'm saying the straightness of the arrow has all todo with spine. If that is what your saying then you donot understand a thing I'm talking about. The straightens of the arrow has nothing to do with spine. If that's not what you meant my fault on interpreting what you wrote


You are saying the bend of the arrow is all a spine tester finds, that spine is uniform in carbon arrows. I say that is untrue.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

That's the way I understood him also although I have no idea if he's right. How do you know he's wrong?


----------



## enewman

skynight said:


> You are saying the bend of the arrow is all a spine tester finds, that spine is uniform in carbon arrows. I say that is untrue.


No sir. What I'm saying I can find the spine of the arrow. I can find the high side of the arc in the arrow. I can find the low side of the arrow. Once I do some more testing with the flo tester I believe I will be able to show you the neutral,plane of the arrow. All of this is with a ram tester.


----------



## skynight

NCBuckNBass said:


> That's the way I understood him also although I have no idea if he's right. How do you know he's wrong?


Ran a bunch of arrows through my RAM.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

enewman


Are you saying the high side is the same as the stiff side AND the spine changes ( i.e. 350 if measured with the stiff side of the arrow up and 345 if stiff side down) depending on which side you have the arrow flipped when applying the weight AND in a theoretically perfectly straight arrow the spine is uniform on all sides as in there is no inherently weak or stiff side in a shaft that's perfectly true?


----------



## NCBuckNBass

In fishing rod blanks there is a stiff and weak "spline" but that may have more to do with the way they are made on a mandrel and have nothing to do with arrows not sure.


----------



## enewman

Thank yall for this post. I believe I'm done for now. If any other question pop up and there for me please pm me and I will answer them. 


To grim and jerry. I think you for your time. To Shane. Thanks for helping us run some test and verify what we were seeing.


----------



## enewman

NCBuckNBass said:


> enewman
> 
> 
> Are you saying the high side is the same as the stiff side AND the spine changes ( i.e. 350 if measured with the stiff side of the arrow up and 345 if stiff side down) depending on which side you have the arrow flipped when applying the weight AND in a theoretically perfectly straight arrow the spine is uniform on all sides as in there is no inherently weak or stiff side in a shaft that's perfectly true?


Yes. This is right. You want see much if any different in in true spine reading From the high and low. What you will see is the indicator reading (arc) bend of arrow. This is just from lack of arrow not being straight. That has nothing to do with what the spine of the arrow is.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

It would great if you could post a picture of your Ram with your indicator modification sometime. Thanks. Very educational thread. I have no clue what flo tester is though.


----------



## ontarget7

NCBuckNBass said:


> Already got spin tool for broadheads but I agree the Ram should be called a deflection tester not spine tester


Why when it test just that, static spine consistency


----------



## NCBuckNBass

ontarget7 said:


> Why when it test just that, static spine consistency




Maybe it's a terminolgy thing, but I think using spine instead of deflection implies there is strong and weak side that's independent of where the curve is.


----------



## ontarget7

NCBuckNBass said:


> Yes but if guys pay Shane to tune their bow and then they go buy a bunch of random fletched arrows and try to see how good a job he did they might be disappointed.


Well some how they are never disappointed, I'm just picky so when I post this info keep in mind I am referring to getting the absolute most out of your set up. The stuff I do in tuning is not done at 95% of the shops across the country.


----------



## ontarget7

NCBuckNBass said:


> Maybe it's a terminolgy thing, but I think using spine instead of deflection implies there is strong and weak side that's independent of where the curve is.


Say you have a shaft that is a 400 spine. That is a static measurement given to that shaft .400 when hanging a 1.94 # weight in the center with a 28" span. The RAM is meant to test this and by doing so you can batch your arrows for consistency.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

ontarget7 said:


> Say you have a shaft that is a 400 spine. That is a static measurement given to that shaft .400 when hanging a 1.94 # weight in the center with a 28" span. The RAM is meant to test this and by doing so you can batch your arrows for consistency.



Gotcha

I'm sure guys are not disappointed I was just pointing out you go to a lot of trouble to have guys just slap some arrows together and not use the bow you sent them to it's new potential.

Tony has my new bow now and I got a dozen of South Shores indexed arrows waiting for it's return. Maybe I'll win Vegas next year................laffin


----------



## ontarget7

NCBuckNBass said:


> Gotcha
> 
> I'm sure guys are not disappointed I was just pointing out you go to a lot of trouble to have guys just slap some arrows together and not use the bow you sent them to it's new potential.
> 
> Tony has my new bow now and I got a dozen of South Shores indexed arrows waiting for it's return. Maybe I'll win Vegas next year................laffin


I will see you there . We will have to hook up


----------



## NCBuckNBass

ontarget7 said:


> I will see you there . We will have to hook up



I was kidding. I suck and would be lucky to win a local 3-d event these days. It is in fact the Indian and not the bow I've discovered.


----------



## ontarget7

NCBuckNBass said:


> I was kidding. I suck and would be lucky to win a local 3-d event these days. It is in fact the Indian and not the bow I've discovered.


LOL, I'm sure you would have a blast


----------



## chevman

Shane..i didnt read the whole thing and maybe this was mentioned. How much easier would bareshaft tuning be if you spine indexed first?


----------



## skynight

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/firefield-crossbow-laser-sighting-tool?a=1798253

Thought you guys interested in building your own FLO tester might like this link. There are quite a few versions of this on the market. Have to install insert to use it.


----------



## flinginairos

skynight said:


> http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/firefield-crossbow-laser-sighting-tool?a=1798253
> 
> Thought you guys interested in building your own FLO tester might like this link. There are quite a few versions of this on the market. Have to install insert to use it.


That's perfect! Thanks for the link.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

I have been reading a few posts on here today and frankly I have never labored so hard at trying to come up with a response and I finally decided that all i can say is "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat", "Hoooooooooooow", "Whaaaaaaaaaat"! If at anytime anyone has a question about the makeup of an arrow and how it responds dynamically you can go back and read my posts in this thread or please feel free to give me a call.


----------



## zwalls

skynight said:


> http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/firefield-crossbow-laser-sighting-tool?a=1798253
> 
> Thought you guys interested in building your own FLO tester might like this link. There are quite a few versions of this on the market. Have to install insert to use it.


I have a small vice in my shop so I'm wondering if there is some kind of clamp to hold the arrow in the vice?


----------



## zwalls

SouthShoreRat said:


> I have been reading a few posts on here today and frankly I have never labored so hard at trying to come up with a response and I finally decided that all i can say is "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat", "Hoooooooooooow", "Whaaaaaaaaaat"! If at anytime anyone has a question about the makeup of an arrow and how it responds dynamically you can go back and read my posts in this thread or please feel free to give me a call.


:chortle: 
this has been a very interesting and educating thread. has to be one of the best about arrows that has come across AT!!


----------



## Hholland

GRIMWALD said:


> This is the point of the discussion, to make people aware of what is actually happening. If the spine is larger than the residual or pre-bend the Ram will measure it just fine but when there is no spine the Ram measures this residual bend and people call it spine. Sorry but it is not.
> 
> GRIM


I agree that this is the point of the discussion, but you say when an arrow has "no spine", this is impossible. all arrows have spine always. they may not come in at advertised deflection, but they all have spine by definition. what we found in our testing on several arrows of different makes is that the arc or high point of the arrow coincided exactly with what you and Jerry are saying is the stiff side. by the way, I am in no way meaning any disrespect for anyone especially Jerry, he and I have talked several times and I appreciate the info he has shared with me and like buying from him. However, this was also true on the shafts I just received from him. So I propose a request if you have the equipment ie frequency tester, and would humor me, take three arrows of your choosing, then conduct four tests on it, spine checking for consistency, rotate shaft with and without weight and mark the high or stiff spot, flow test and frequency test all three and see if the high and stiff end up at the same point. I am trying to get the best performance from my equipment I can so trying to learn all that I can. please be patient as this is the reason for the request.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> I have been reading a few posts on here today and frankly I have never labored so hard at trying to come up with a response and I finally decided that all i can say is "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat", "Hoooooooooooow", "Whaaaaaaaaaat"! If at anytime anyone has a question about the makeup of an arrow and how it responds dynamically you can go back and read my posts in this thread or please feel free to give me a call.


The reason you have labored so hard and all you can say is whaaaaaaaaaaaaat. Is because you know We are right at what we are saying. At this point I have showed everyone what we have done with the spine tester. We have showed that spine is spine and there is know point in the arrow that the spine gets stiffer or weaker. Only that the curve of the arrow is what you are seeing. 

Now all I ask is prove us wrong. We are all seeing the same thing. Yall just say that is the spine is stiffer at this point. The spine is not stiffer. M I have no problems calling you. But I need you to be in front of the spine tester when we talk.


----------



## skynight

zwalls said:


> I have a small vice in my shop so I'm wondering if there is some kind of clamp to hold the arrow in the vice?


I have never flo tested anything, so this is worth what you are paying for it.
Most bench vises have curved teeth under the straight teeth for clamping pipes. Harbor freight sells drill chucks. Seems you could put the arrow in the chuck and the chuck in the pipe vise. Less than $40 total.

http://t.harborfreight.com/1-2-half...731.html?utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/


----------



## sludge

It's been 25 years since I've had any structural engineering classes and I don't use it in my current career so what I'm about to say could be complete garbage, but anyway.


If you took a perfectly homogeneous arrow that was not straight, then the deflection measurements would vary as you rotate the shaft.

Conversely,

if you took a perfectly straight arrow that was not homogeneous, then the deflection measurements would vary as you rotate the shaft. 


Seeing that manufactured arrows are not perfectly straight or perfect in material layup, the deflections measurements as you rotate the shaft are dependent on BOTH.

Which one affects modern arrows more? Who knows. I would assume the RAM tester is showing you the combination of both.


----------



## tuckerjt07

sludge said:


> It's been 25 years since I've had any structural engineering classes and I don't use it in my current career so what I'm about to say could be complete garbage, but anyway.
> 
> 
> If you took a perfectly homogeneous arrow that was not straight, then the deflection measurements would vary as you rotate the shaft.
> 
> Conversely,
> 
> if you took a perfectly straight arrow that was not homogeneous, then the deflection measurements would vary as you rotate the shaft.
> 
> 
> Seeing that manufactured arrows are not perfectly straight or perfect in material layup, the deflections measurements as you rotate the shaft are dependent on BOTH.
> 
> Which one affects modern arrows more? Who knows. I would assume the RAM tester is showing you the combination of both.


Exactly


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Is because you know We are right at what we are saying. At this point I have showed everyone what we have done with the spine tester. We have showed that spine is spine and there is know point in the arrow that the spine gets stiffer or weaker.
> 
> Now all I ask is prove us wrong. We are all seeing the same thing. Yall just say that is the spine is stiffer at this point. The spine is not stiffer. M I have no problems calling you. But I need you to be in front of the spine tester when we talk.



Sir, I don't think I know you are wrong! When you use a process that is flawed and a tool in a manner it was not designed to be used you get flawed results. I do not need to prove anything that has been done over the last 10 years of testing. 

The RAM spine tester is designed to be used in a certain way and if you deviate from that you have results but they are flawed. The method of testing you have designed is flawed and will give flawed results every single time. 

I know you are not going to take my advise and that is fine. Perception is a strange animal and if there is one thing I have learned over and over and over again that once a perception is formed it leads to an flawed opinion and once that happens the real facts no longer matter. 

So, have fun this is the last time I will post on this thread. I do have to say I am impressed at how long it has continued without any arguments it shows a very high level of integrity in all of the members who have gotten involved.


----------



## enewman

You know jerry it's ashame you don't want to respond. I have been very nice but since you started then let me say. What yall are doing is correct. But how and what you are saying finding a stiffer point are weaker point in the spine is incorrect. First you need to go read the definition of spine. Then you need to go back to the site by tutelage physics of flo. This is the site you are getting your info on. This is very good info. Now when you are looking at an arrow either with a flo a spine or a freq tester. You are looking for a stiff or weak plane. This is NOT SPINE. This is on his site. When yall say. If the arrow is perfect it has no spine. WHAT. It has spine. It has no stiff or weak plane. The hole study on flo testing is great. But you have completely miss understand what you are reading. Take a .006 arrow. There is a bow or curve In that shaft. When you find this. This is what you are indexing up this is correct. This is the stiff plane/high side of the shaft. This is not a stiffer spine. The ressoan you flo test is to find the neutral plane. This is going to be where the arrow flexest the easiest. This will be somewhere close to 90 degree to the stiff plane. This is because you are not fighting against the high part of the arrow. 

The whole idea to flo test a golf club is so when you swing the club you want it to flex straight back in forth so the head of the club stays flat and does not swing back and forth 

This is all on the web page you have done your research on. You are completely correct on what you are doing. You just have no ideal why. 

Some of the problem on this site is you old people have been tought one way. That is the only way and have no idea why you doint that way you just no that is the only way. Well I'm sorry to say there are people on this sight that are smarter then you. And way smarter then me. But I have an open mind. And I'm willing to improve on what I do. So should you


----------



## enewman

Jerry I reread my post. I'm not going to remove it. But what I will say. Is I apoligies to you for the way I wrote it toward you on a open forum. I have always seen good things about you. I'm sticking to my guns on what I wrote. But Im sorry for the way I did it toward you.


----------



## Skeeter 58

ontarget7 said:


> Spine indexing is very important for best results but buying the tightest tolerances possible will also shrink your groups. *When an arrow has a wider range of spine deviation from one to another it can and will open up your long range groups.*


Yes. I find that out past 40 yards or so, arrows with less tolerance, as well as less ideal spine from one to another, my groups stated opening up compared to higher quality arrows with spine indexing. 

I fletch with stiff side up. 

I do not have the disposable income to purchase a spine tester. Therefore I will be doing future purchases from Jerry.

Skeet.


----------



## ontarget7

I am looking at this with an open mind and the more I think about all this the more I can understand where Enewman is coming from.

The things I am taking from this

1) spine is a constant and the only reason we see a variance is do to the weight magnifying the straightness of the shaft. If spine wasn't a constant, your arrows would be all over the place. 

2) This is the reason why .001 shafts in general are far easier to tune do to the straightness. The high point/stiff plane stays more a constant around the circumference of the shaft. Leading to more forgiveness down range. 

3) indexing does matter and doing it stiff side up or down is optimal for the best overall balance when tuning. It may vary depending on cam rotation and rest what direction you want to go. 

4) dynamic spine is critical and so easy to obtain today with arrow software programs. It's not expensive at all so do your self a favor and select your arrows wisely. 

5) if you don't want to go through those steps, keep turning those nocks [emoji2]

Good info guys and thanks for all that have shared their experiences.


----------



## bowhuntermitch

Skeeter 58 said:


> Yes. I find that out past 40 yards or so, arrows with less tolerance, as well as less ideal spine from one to another, my groups stated opening up compared to higher quality arrows with spine indexing.
> 
> I fletch with stiff side up.
> 
> I do not have the disposable income to purchase a spine tester. Therefore I will be doing future purchases from Jerry.
> 
> Skeet.


How have you found the stiff side in the past? Floating them?


----------



## apt2106

So on a quality shaft that is .001 straightness, what is a general variance you see on a 360 degree spin when the weight is attached?


----------



## ex-wolverine

I dont care what any one says you can not tune your arrows with a static spine tester alone ..stiff side up , stiff side down what ever !...static spine tester is just that , static ...it's good for checking a batch of arrows and closely matching spine that's it...

The only way that you can truly tune arrows to your equipment is dynamic ie shooting the arrows and group tuning by nock indexing...guys who who know arrows and arrow dynamics , that are experts have written articles about it time after time and yet we are somhow smarter than the people who have been studying this for years 

Even Grimm and Jerry both who many consider experts or very knowledgable on arrow dynamics have stated in this thread ...the final determination of arrow tuning is shooting them in

Using an arrow program will help you find the correct spine, but it will not tell you or show you the correct or optimum indexing position of the arrow when shot out of the bow 



Ask any top level pro how they tune thier arrows , it's not with the ram tester alone and call it good ...

I'm pretty sure we can trust thier judgemt


----------



## ontarget7

Well I do it all the time and can prove the point over and over again. 
Dynamic can be established by the programs that are offered today and the reason I mentioned it my post above.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Jerry I reread my post. I'm not going to remove it. But what I will say. Is I apoligies to you for the way I wrote it toward you on a open forum. I have always seen good things about you. I'm sticking to my guns on what I wrote. But Im sorry for the way I did it toward you.


Your statement above reminded me of a joke that holds so true as it relates to how "Old People" are:

An old bull and a young bull were standing on a hill looking down a very large herd of cows. The young bull started hopping around and looked at the old bull and said lets run down the hill and service a couple of cows. The old bull paused, took a cleansing breath and with a twinkle in his eye said how about we just walk down and service them all! 

With age comes much wisdom as well as extreme patience (and OMG do I need patience right now ) but there is one thing we "Old People" know and that is we don't know everything unlike some young folks who think every idea they have is the Willy Wonka golden ticket. 

I find your apology interesting it is like saying I know I shot you and I am sorry but if I had it to do over I would shoot you again the exact same way. You have a great day young man!


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> I am looking at this with an open mind and the more I think about all this the more I can understand where Enewman is coming from.
> 
> The things I am taking from this
> 
> 1) spine is a constant and the only reason we see a variance is do to the weight magnifying the straightness of the shaft. If spine wasn't a constant, your arrows would be all over the place.
> 
> 2) This is the reason why .001 shafts in general are far easier to tune do to the straightness. The high point/stiff plane stays more a constant around the circumference of the shaft. Leading to more forgiveness down range.
> 
> 3) indexing does matter and doing it stiff side up or down is optimal for the best overall balance when tuning. It may vary depending on cam rotation and rest what direction you want to go.
> 
> 4) dynamic spine is critical and so easy to obtain today with arrow software programs. It's not expensive at all so do your self a favor and select your arrows wisely.
> 
> 5) if you don't want to go through those steps, keep turning those nocks [emoji2]
> 
> Good info guys and thanks for all that have shared their experiences.


It would sure be nice to end this thread on a positive note. I have already had quite a few emails from guys experiencing great results from the info on this thread. Others emailing saying it has been the best thread on spine indexing ever. With that said, there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat and by no means it should only be done one way. The info is here, if you care to, you can experiment on your own to come to your own conclusions. I have put in a lot of leg work and see what has worked for me, so I am just passing it along. For those that feel their way is better, that is fine too. Maybe you can start your own thread to help others out on the way you do things. After all we should all be trying to help others in this sport and that was my goal for this thread in general. Maybe I should just go back to concentrating on my website and plugging the info in there instead. 


Shane


----------



## tuckerjt07

SouthShoreRat said:


> Your statement above reminded me of a joke that holds so true as it relates to how "Old People" are:
> 
> An old bull and a young bull were standing on a hill looking down a very large herd of cows. The young bull started hopping around and looked at the old bull and said lets run down the hill and service a couple of cows. The old bull paused, took a cleansing breath and with a twinkle in his eye said how about we just walk down and service them all!
> 
> With age comes much wisdom as well as extreme patience (and OMG do I need patience right now ) but there is one thing we "Old People" know and that is we don't know everything unlike some young folks who think every idea they have is the Willy Wonka golden ticket.
> 
> I find your apology interesting it is like saying I know I shot you and I am sorry but if I had it to do over I would shoot you again the exact same way. You have a great day young man!


You know, I was considering abandoning my shop to buy arrows from you but I don't think I will now and this is why. You are too set in your ways and not open to new ideas or information. In this very thread you have several people explaining this to you from several different perspectives. 

You have people telling you experience lines up with what the physics backed people are telling you. However, instead of even taking the evidence into consideration you hurl thinly veiled insults and call us all idiots. I feel obligated to tell you this but in the scope that this discussion has come to you are woefully incorrect. 

You may be a masterful arrow tuner, evidence says you are, but one does not need to understand the underlying physics of it to do so. However, when one is accepting people's money to do so I would expect them to be open minded as to why they get the results they do. You are not and hence will not receive my business.


----------



## flinginairos

I've taken a lot from this thread, bickering or not. I have messed with compression testing a little and I am building a FLO rig now to further test some of this stuff. I have no clue whats right or wrong but I plan to do some experimenting and will report my results. One thing is for sure, I never really did anything before so this has opened my eyes to a whole new level of tuning, and I thank everyone for that!


----------



## enewman

U


tuckerjt07 said:


> You know, I was considering abandoning my shop to buy arrows from you but I don't think I will now and this is why. You are too set in your ways and not open to new ideas or information. In this very thread you have several people explaining this to you from several different perspectives.
> 
> You have people telling you experience lines up with what the physics backed people are telling you. However, instead of even taking the evidence into consideration you hurl thinly veiled insults and call us all idiots. I feel obligated to tell you this but in the scope that this discussion has come to you are woefully incorrect.
> 
> You may be a masterful arrow tuner, evidence says you are, but one does not need to understand the underlying physics of it to do so. However, when one is accepting people's money to do so I would expect them to be open minded as to why they get the results they do. You are not and hence will not receive my business.


Please do not look at this this way. I have actually called and talked to jerry. We had a good conversation. This man took the time to talk,to me even after I told him who I was. Hah. To me this is what people should be like. I will still do busness with thes man. Please to not take what I have wrote wrong about jerry. He is still very knowledgable man. Way more then me. You do what you need to do but don't base it off of mine and Jerrys post.


----------



## zwalls

skynight said:


> I have never flo tested anything, so this is worth what you are paying for it.
> Most bench vises have curved teeth under the straight teeth for clamping pipes. Harbor freight sells drill chucks. Seems you could put the arrow in the chuck and the chuck in the pipe vise. Less than $40 total.
> 
> http://t.harborfreight.com/1-2-half...731.html?utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/


good idea! I may just have something like that hanging around in my shop!


----------



## chevman

Well it made my mind up..i will be getting my arrows from Jerry from now on. Good thread guys.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

tuckerjt07 said:


> You know, I was considering abandoning my shop to buy arrows from you but I don't think I will now and this is why. You are too set in your ways and not open to new ideas or information. In this very thread you have several people explaining this to you from several different perspectives.
> 
> You have people telling you experience lines up with what the physics backed people are telling you. However, instead of even taking the evidence into consideration you hurl thinly veiled insults and call us all idiots. I feel obligated to tell you this but in the scope that this discussion has come to you are woefully incorrect.
> 
> You may be a masterful arrow tuner, evidence says you are, but one does not need to understand the underlying physics of it to do so. However, when one is accepting people's money to do so I would expect them to be open minded as to why they get the results they do. You are not and hence will not receive my business.


Im sorry you feel this way, Im a bit taken back by this because I have looked through my posts and I cant find where I have attacked or insulted any. But I have been attacked and my answer was not an attack I used a joke to get my point across. If this is what you feel is insulting I am very sorry for it I assure you it was not intended to insult anyone. And as for calling anyone an idiot I do not see anywhere in any of my posts where I said anyone was an idiot. Again if its the joke then again I am deeply sorry.

You stated I am too set in my ways, that is puzzling I would think you would want to use a company that had a deep belief in what they do. I admit I have very strong opinions on arrows which is based on 10 years of study and has been validated and proven time and time again. Am i always right, nope and I am the first to admit it when i come to the conclusion I was mistaken absolutely.

Let me try a different approach to explain my point of view, the reason I do not feel these new theories are accurate is because the results are based on the use of a RAM spine tester. Even though the RAM is the best piece of equipment we have in the industry to test arrows it was not build to do dynamic spine testing. 

The tests that a few of you have been doing were tried in the golf industry many years ago and they found that a RAM type tester produced flawed results unless the natural bend is accounted for and removed from the equation so a machine similar to a RAM called a EI machine was developed. The problem was it was extremely expensive so they began to look for a better less expensive method and they developed the frequency analyzers which was not effected by the natural bend in the shafts. So unless there is a way to remove the natural bend from the testing process the RAM is going to produce flawed results, this is why I do not agree with this train of thought, its not because I am set in my ways its because I have done the research and found documented evidence. 

Again I am very sorry if any of my posts were in anyway insulting or felt to be attacks they were surely not ment to be.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> U
> 
> Please do not look at this this way. I have actually called and talked to jerry. We had a good conversation. This man took the time to talk,to me even after I told him who I was. Hah. To me this is what people should be like. I will still do busness with thes man. Please to not take what I have wrote wrong about jerry. He is still very knowledgable man. Way more then me. You do what you need to do but don't base it off of mine and Jerrys post.


I never harbor ill feelings because its hard enough to get your point across face to face, it is far more difficult to do so posting on forums. Many, many times statements are misunderstood which leads to issues. Thank you for the call!


----------



## tuckerjt07

SouthShoreRat said:


> Im sorry you feel this way a bit taken back I have looked through my posts and I cant find where I have attacked or insulted any. But I have been attacked and my answer was not an attack I used a joke to get my point across. If this is what you feel is insulting I am very sorry for it I assure you it was not intended to insult anyone. And as for calling anyone an idiot I do not see anywhere in any of my posts where I said anyone was an idiot. Again if its the joke then again I am deeply sorry.
> 
> You stated I am too set in my ways, that is puzzling I would think you would want to use a company that had a deep belief in what they do. I admit I have very strong opinions on arrows which is based on 10 years of study and has been validated and proven time and time again. Am i always right, nope and I am the first to admit it when i come to the conclusion I was mistaken absolutely.
> 
> Let me try a different approach to explain my point of view, the reason I do not feel these new theories are flawed is because the results are based on the use of a RAM spine tester. Even though the RAM is the best piece of equipment we have in the industry to test arrows it was not build to do dynamic spine testing.
> 
> The tests that a few of you have been doing were tried in the golf industry many years ago and they found that a RAM type tester produced flawed results unless the natural bend is accounted for and removed from the equation so a machine similar to a RAM called a EI machine was developed. The problem was it was extremely expensive so they began to look for a better less expensive method and they developed the frequency analyzers which was not effected by the natural bend in the shafts. So unless there is a way to remove the natural bend from the testing process the RAM is going to produce flawed results, this is why I do not agree with this train of thought, its not because I am set in my ways its because I have done the research and found documented evidence.
> 
> Again I am very sorry if any of my posts were in anyway insulting or felt to be attacks they were surely not ment to be.


Thank you for the response. I must have read something in the wrong context. And I feel you a couple of others posts out of context as well. For example, you are arguing a side of the argument with me that I haven't even touched on. 

As to the set in your ways comment, yes, I do believe that someone can believe in something so much they become blinded to anything but that thing. You are arguing with physics. You don't want to remove the natural bend from the equation because it will influence the frequency and mode of vibration. FLO testing takes the bend of the shaft into consideration, as I should.


----------



## hoyt em all

ex-wolverine said:


> I dont care what any one says you can not tune your arrows with a static spine tester alone ..stiff side up , stiff side down what ever !...static spine tester is just that , static ...it's good for checking a batch of arrows and closely matching spine that's it...
> 
> The only way that you can truly tune arrows to your equipment is dynamic ie shooting the arrows and group tuning by nock indexing...guys who who know arrows and arrow dynamics , that are experts have written articles about it time after time and yet we are somhow smarter than the people who have been studying this for years
> 
> Even Grimm and Jerry both who many consider experts or very knowledgable on arrow dynamics have stated in this thread ...the final determination of arrow tuning is shooting them in
> 
> Using an arrow program will help you find the correct spine, but it will not tell you or show you the correct or optimum indexing position of the arrow when shot out of the bow
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any top level pro how they tune thier arrows , it's not with the ram tester alone and call it good ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can trust thier judgemt


shooting them in is the best way way i found also. i do use my spine tester to fletch my arrows the same to start with and most are fine with that . the 100% carbons arrows not so much (at all) compared to my acc's .


----------



## skynight

ontarget7 said:


> It would sure be nice to end this thread on a positive note. I have already had quite a few emails from guys experiencing great results from the info on this thread. Others emailing saying it has been the best thread on spine indexing ever. With that said, there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat and by no means it should only be done one way. The info is here, if you care to, you can experiment on your own to come to your own conclusions. I have put in a lot of leg work and see what has worked for me, so I am just passing it along. For those that feel their way is better, that is fine too. Maybe you can start your own thread to help others out on the way you do things. After all we should all be trying to help others in this sport and that was my goal for this thread in general. Maybe I should just go back to concentrating on my website and plugging the info in there instead.
> 
> 
> Shane


It is a great thread, I am fascinated by the subject.
IMO if Jerry says it I'll believe it. I have bought and will continue to buy from him. I have had a couple of phone conversations with him as well (a lot of the conversation way beyond me). He is an incredible resource on the subject.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Tucker you do realize when someone has spined tens of thousands of arrows like southshore has he may have found the best way to do something. You do realize that a huge part of his happy customers are shooting portable hooter shooters and their shooting out to hundred yards. If you haven't lined the dynamic spine up on those arrows like he has they won't hit each other at those distances. This is one reason it is so frustrating reading your post where you were the one set in your ways and attacking a mans proffesion for no reason. Southshore has been nothing but professional in this discussion and I fail to see where you read differently. The physical proof what southshore does is posted in grims links. I think a great deal of the people interested in this thread actually need to go back and read those links again and again until it actually sinks in. If you do you will see why the ram tester works on some of your arrows and it won't on the rest.


----------



## tuckerjt07

swbuckmaster said:


> Tucker you do realize when someone has spined tens of thousands of arrows like southshore has he may have found the best way to do something. You do realize that a huge part of his happy customers are shooting portable hooter shooters and their shooting out to hundred yards. If you haven't lined the dynamic spine up on those arrows like he has they won't hit each other at those distances. This is one reason it is so frustrating reading your post where you were the one set in your ways and attacking a mans proffesion for no reason. Southshore has been nothing but professional in this discussion and I fail to see where you read differently. The physical proof what southshore does is posted in grims links. I think a great deal of the people interested in this thread actually need to go back and read those links again and again until it actually sinks in. If you do you will see why the ram tester works on some of your arrows and it won't on the rest.


You do realize that I didn't say his methods wouldn't work? You do realize that I've already stated his methods would work? You do realize I've already addressed the portable hooter shooter question and why they are so happy with them even though they aren't oriented in the most optimum position? 

The effectiveness isn't being debated it's the underlying physics. Knowing the best way to do something does not mean you know all the reasons why that is the best way.


----------



## swbuckmaster

tuckerjt07 said:


> You do realize that I didn't say his methods wouldn't work? You do realize that I've already stated his methods would work? You do realize I've already addressed the portable hooter shooter question and why they are so happy with them even though they aren't oriented in the most optimum position?
> 
> The effectiveness isn't being debated it's the underlying physics. Knowing the best way to do something does not mean you know all the reasons why that is the best way.


Then why don't you school me on the best way to do it I'm all ears. That's what this thread is all about. Finding the easiest most consistant way to find the dynamic spine.


----------



## tuckerjt07

swbuckmaster said:


> Then why don't you school me on the best way to do it I'm all ears


You obviously can't understand what is being said so why should I waste my time? But, just for you I'll explain again. I haven't commented on a methodology. The interesting aspect of this discussion is in the minutia, the underlying physics. The way that the natural curve effects what we see as spine.


----------



## zwalls

tuckerjt07 said:


> You obviously can't understand what is being said so why should I waste my time? But, just for you I'll explain again. I haven't commented on a methodology. The interesting aspect of this discussion is in the minutia, the underlying physics. The way that the natural curve effects what we see as spine.


please continue in layman's terms!


----------



## 3-d buster x4

ex-wolverine said:


> I dont care what any one says you can not tune your arrows with a static spine tester alone ..stiff side up , stiff side down what ever !...static spine tester is just that , static ...it's good for checking a batch of arrows and closely matching spine that's it...
> 
> The only way that you can truly tune arrows to your equipment is dynamic ie shooting the arrows and group tuning by nock indexing...guys who who know arrows and arrow dynamics , that are experts have written articles about it time after time and yet we are somhow smarter than the people who have been studying this for years
> 
> Even Grimm and Jerry both who many consider experts or very knowledgable on arrow dynamics have stated in this thread ...the final determination of arrow tuning is shooting them in
> 
> Using an arrow program will help you find the correct spine, but it will not tell you or show you the correct or optimum indexing position of the arrow when shot out of the bow
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any top level pro how they tune thier arrows , it's not with the ram tester alone and call it good ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can trust thier judgemt


Couldn't AGREE more with this statement !! 
Well said :thumbs_up


----------



## swbuckmaster

tuckerjt07 said:


> You obviously can't understand what is being said so why should I waste my time? But, just for you I'll explain again. I haven't commented on a methodology. The interesting aspect of this discussion is in the minutia, the underlying physics. The way that the natural curve effects what we see as spine.


That's the problem. I can understand what's being said. I actually think I'm trying to get you up to speed. What you are saying about the "natural curve and it's effects what we see as spine" was explained 20 pages ago in grims links. It also goes into detail how and why a feel finder can't detect the spine with 100 percent accuracy because of the natural curve. Quick note read the rest so your up to speed.


----------



## tuckerjt07

swbuckmaster said:


> That's the problem. I can understand what's being said. I actually think I'm trying to get you up to speed. What you are saying about the "natural curve and it's effects what we see as spine" was explained 20 pages ago in grims links.


Then please enlighten us as to what you think it means. I will wait.


----------



## NCBuckNBass




----------



## tuckerjt07

swbuckmaster said:


> That's the problem. I can understand what's being said. I actually think I'm trying to get you up to speed. What you are saying about the "natural curve and it's effects what we see as spine" was explained 20 pages ago in grims links. It also goes into detail how and why a feel finder can't detect the spine with 100 percent accuracy because of the natural curve. Quick note read the rest so your up to speed.


Dude, you are hopelessly lost. I never once claimed a feel finder was better for anything. You still haven't been able to get down to the physics as to why. I know this will blow your mind but a FLO tester doesn't find the stiff spine. It finds the stiffest spot on the arrow, this may or may not be the exact spot of the stiff spine.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Tucker

Still waiting
"why don't you school me on the best way to do it I'm all ears. That's what this thread is all about. Finding the easiest most consistant way to find the dynamic spine."


----------



## GRIMWALD

tuckerjt07 said:


> Dude, you are hopelessly lost. I never once claimed a feel finder was better for anything. You still haven't been able to get down to the physics as to why. I know this will blow your mind but a FLO tester doesn't find the stiff spine. It finds the stiffest spot on the arrow, this may or may not be the exact spot of the stiff spine.


Actually that is not correct, FLO finds the flat line oscillation and that only happens in a neutral position. It is true that the spine can flat line but it is usually very hard to locate. The shaft naturally wants to flex along the easiest path, the spine by definition doesn't meet the optimal point of neutral oscillation. This is why I don't even pay attention to it in most cases. In a perfect shaft, balanced both inside and out the shaft will flat line at all points along the circumference of the shaft as depicted in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjGqZGiYGbs


GRIM


----------



## tuckerjt07

GRIMWALD said:


> Actually that is not correct, FLO finds the flat line oscillation and that only happens in a neutral position. It is true that the spine can flat line but it is usually very hard to locate. The shaft naturally wants to flex along the easiest path, the spine by definition doesn't meet the optimal point of neutral oscillation. This is why I don't even pay attention to it in most cases. In a perfect shaft, balanced both inside and out the shaft will flat line at all points along the circumference of the shaft as depicted in the following video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjGqZGiYGbs
> 
> 
> GRIM


Technically speaking you are correct, but by identifying the neutral plane you are then able to find the stiff plane. As to the rest you are spot on. I'll go a step further and say that the neutral position most often won't even be at a ninety from what would be the natural spine of the arrow. Unless the spine is perfectly aligned with the natural bend that is.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Hholland said:


> I agree that this is the point of the discussion, but you say when an arrow has "no spine", this is impossible. all arrows have spine always. they may not come in at advertised deflection, but they all have spine by definition. what we found in our testing on several arrows of different makes is that the arc or high point of the arrow coincided exactly with what you and Jerry are saying is the stiff side. by the way, I am in no way meaning any disrespect for anyone especially Jerry, he and I have talked several times and I appreciate the info he has shared with me and like buying from him. However, this was also true on the shafts I just received from him. So I propose a request if you have the equipment ie frequency tester, and would humor me, take three arrows of your choosing, then conduct four tests on it, spine checking for consistency, rotate shaft with and without weight and mark the high or stiff spot, flow test and frequency test all three and see if the high and stiff end up at the same point. I am trying to get the best performance from my equipment I can so trying to learn all that I can. please be patient as this is the reason for the request.


You are correct all shafts have a "spine" it is possible that a shaft is so perfectly symmetrical and balanced that the spine is considered to have no spine because in order for it to have a spine it needs a point, that is stiffer than the rest of the shaft.
I don't have a frequency meter and apparently, one of the few people who has a frequency meter and could discuss it possible uses and faults has been called old and infirm. LOL!!!!
This may be a form of tough love that you younger people use but I have found it to be counter productive.
At about the same time as Jerry was building his meter, I played around with a laser digital tachometer to see if I could make a more home user friendly version. It did work to an extent but the device is was using didn't have a fine enough range to make it really usable in my opinion. I will say that if I had put more energy into it "may" have had better results. I am also a little biased my method works for me and is simple set up and store. Plus it is pretty darn cheap and that is my middle name.

As few finial notes, I want to stress that FLO is not an end all be all, if you can't hit the target using FLO you will still miss the target, your shafts will be clustered nicely but it will still be a miss. Secondly FLO is only for fine tuning it is designed to be used in conjunction with other tools to extend the range of you arrow consistency, less than 50 yard shots will see no appreciable benefits over other methods.

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

http://www.subtool.com/st/mm25r_mini-master_spin_index_fixture.html

Might work for FLO testing arrows. It's too bad the price puts it out of reach from a home arrow builder so to speak.


----------



## GRIMWALD

I had planed on catching up with the thread but I find that the past few days have worn me a little thin so I will have to catch up later, sorry guys.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> http://www.subtool.com/st/mm25r_mini-master_spin_index_fixture.html
> 
> Might work for flow testing arrows. It's too bad the price puts it out of reach from a home builder so to speak.


I have seen them listed for as little as $ 50.00 I think, I will try to remember where I saw it.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> http://www.subtool.com/st/mm25r_mini-master_spin_index_fixture.html
> 
> Might work for FLO testing arrows. It's too bad the price puts it out of reach from a home arrow builder so to speak.


Holy crap. You need to find something like. Less then 50 bucks. Heck I got 90 in mine now


----------



## Super 91

swbuckmaster said:


> http://www.subtool.com/st/mm25r_mini-master_spin_index_fixture.html
> 
> Might work for FLO testing arrows. It's too bad the price puts it out of reach from a home arrow builder so to speak.


Man that's pretty.......expensive. Nice fixture though!


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> Holy crap. You need to find something like. Less then 50 bucks. Heck I got 90 in mine now


The only reason I posted it is because I like we'll made fine looking tools. I'd also rather buy one then build one. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I have 40 into my home build but I haven't put it together yet.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> http://www.subtool.com/st/mm25r_mini-master_spin_index_fixture.html
> 
> Might work for FLO testing arrows. It's too bad the price puts it out of reach from a home arrow builder so to speak.


Quick search
http://www.busybeetools.com/products/SPIN-INDEX-5-C.html

Have a good evening guys.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> The only reason I posted it is because I like we'll made fine looking tools. I'd also rather buy one then build one. No need to reinvent the wheel.
> 
> I have 40 into my home build but I haven't put it together yet.


You need to hurry. I see a lot of good info coming with this flo tester. I'm just glad I'm not the only one that spends all this money and time just to shoot a arrow.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Never mind I found a link on YouTube that answered my question. Thanks again
Grim


----------



## flinginairos

I have my FLO jig built just waiting on the laser to show up that I ordered. Just clamping the arrows in and only using weight at the end its pretty easy to see the difference as I rotate the shaft. I've found something pretty interesting already just testing a few shafts but I will wait until I get my rig fully done and tested before I post the results!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Here is the one I have! This one comes from overseas!

I would be willing to bring these in for anyone who wants them in one large order. Each person would pay the cost of the item and we would divide the shipping equally


----------



## enewman

That looks good. I could not wait so I went to academy. And bought the only bore sight they had. I spent 49 on it. And it sucks. That means I have 50 in laser and 20 in the chuck at that end. Jerry's looks like the one to have.


----------



## hooks

I built mine to spin 360*










Laser screws into insert.









Still testing for improvements






In the video GRIMWALD posted for the 360* shaft tester....the table moves when the shaft is moving. How accurate is that? Must be for demo only. Golf shafts are tapered. Can we expect the same results with non tapered arrow shafts?

In my video...I would rotate the arrow 90* either way to put the spine perpendicular? Is the spine equal across the diameter of the arrow?

After all is said and done...I still have to nock tune my arrows?


----------



## bow_hunter44

SouthShoreRat said:


> Here is the one I have! This one comes from overseas!
> 
> I would be willing to bring these in for anyone who wants them in one large order. Each person would pay the cost of the item and we would divide the shipping equally


Jerry, does this device completely replace a Spine tester (RAM type device)? Also, what do you use as a jig to hold the arrow?

Thanks!


----------



## GRIMWALD

ex-wolverine said:


> I dont care what any one says you can not tune your arrows with a static spine tester alone ..stiff side up , stiff side down what ever !...static spine tester is just that , static ...it's good for checking a batch of arrows and closely matching spine that's it...
> 
> The only way that you can truly tune arrows to your equipment is dynamic ie shooting the arrows and group tuning by nock indexing...guys who who know arrows and arrow dynamics , that are experts have written articles about it time after time and yet we are somhow smarter than the people who have been studying this for years
> 
> Even Grimm and Jerry both who many consider experts or very knowledgable on arrow dynamics have stated in this thread ...the final determination of arrow tuning is shooting them in
> 
> Using an arrow program will help you find the correct spine, but it will not tell you or show you the correct or optimum indexing position of the arrow when shot out of the bow
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any top level pro how they tune thier arrows , it's not with the ram tester alone and call it good ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can trust thier judgemt



I can only speculate as to what Ontarget7 is referring to because I am not versed in the program he is using and secondly, I don't know how he is applying the information.
That being said, the feature is most likely used in controlling archers paradox in tradition archery. In tradition archery, the archers paradox is used to gain fletching clearance for the shaft. The initial bend is directed into the bow, so that as the arrow moves forward the return spring will cause the fletching to flex around the bow.
There are a number of Dynamic spine calculators available on the net and may even be one in the traditional section of AT.
I don't know how Ontarget7 is using the calculator for compounds but generally speaking we want as little archers paradox as possible. We seek a more linear transfer of energy from string to nock to arrow. The straighter the force is applied, the straight the arrow will fly, the fletching simply wont need to work so hard at coarse corrections.
The dynamic spine is simply not the same dynamic spine information that Jerry is describing (I believe).

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

YouTube is your friend, the following is the laser that Jerry has described 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrGk45slao

GRIM


----------



## enewman

bow_hunter44 said:


> Jerry, does this device completely replace a Spine tester (RAM type device)? Also, what do you use as a jig to hold the arrow?
> 
> Thanks!


No it does not. No matter what. You have to have a spine tester to see what the static spine of the arrow is. Then you use the spine tester to match arrows. The flo tester is to find the siff weak flex of the arrow. Nothing to do with what the spine of the arrow is


----------



## Super 91

I think we are all doing it all wrong. At least the equipment is a lot cheaper! :wink:


----------



## bow_hunter44

bow_hunter44 said:


> Jerry, does this device completely replace a Spine tester (RAM type device)? Also, what do you use as a jig to hold the arrow?
> 
> Thanks!





enewman said:


> No it does not. No matter what. You have to have a spine tester to see what the static spine of the arrow is. Then you use the spine tester to match arrows. The flo tester is to find the siff weak flex of the arrow. Nothing to do with what the spine of the arrow is


I guess I should rephrase my question. Does the laser device replace the RAM spine tester in finding the stiff side of the arrow? I have used a RAM tester to find the stiff side of the arrow for a while, but don't really trust it to be the most effective as I still get arrows that still need to have the nock rotated afterwards...


----------



## enewman

bow_hunter44 said:


> I guess I should rephrase my question. Does the laser device replace the RAM spine tester in finding the stiff side of the arrow? I have used a RAM tester to find the stiff side of the arrow for a while, but don't really trust it to be the most effective as I still get arrows that still need to have the nock rotated afterwards...


this is the discussion me and jerry are having. jerry says you can not find the stiff side with a ram tester. remember we are not talking spine. we are talking about the stiff plane of the shaft. the natrual arc in the shaft. this depends on the shaft. if its an .006 or an .001 i say yes with the .006 shaft. the .001 is hard to find. this is only do to the indicator that comes with the ram tester the indicator is a .001 if you will get an .0005 indicator. then you will find the natrual arc of the shaft with your ram. if you are using a .001 indicator,for the money build a flo tester. this will be cheeper then a .0005 indicator. but the flo tester is not looking for the stiff flex of the shaft. it is looking for the natrual flex.


----------



## KS Bow Hunter

SouthShoreRat said:


> Here is the one I have! This one comes from overseas!
> 
> I would be willing to bring these in for anyone who wants them in one large order. Each person would pay the cost of the item and we would divide the shipping equally


Jerry I'm in...


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> this is the discussion me and jerry are having. jerry says you can not find the stiff side with a ram tester. remember we are not talking spine. we are talking about the stiff plane of the shaft. the natrual arc in the shaft. this depends on the shaft. if its an .006 or an .001 i say yes with the .006 shaft. the .001 is hard to find. this is only do to the indicator that comes with the ram tester the indicator is a .001 if you will get an .0005 indicator. then you will find the natrual arc of the shaft with your ram. if you are using a .001 indicator,for the money build a flo tester. this will be cheeper then a .0005 indicator. but the flo tester is not looking for the stiff flex of the shaft. it is looking for the natrual flex.


Thats not exactly what I said, (I actually used the RAM for years because it was the only tool available to come anywhere near finding the stiff side), I said because of the natural bend of a shaft effecting the readings taken with a RAM the frequency analyzer does a better job. 

enewman IMO the static stiff side and the dynamic stiff plane as tested on the frequency analyzer are the same point on a carbon shaft. 

IMO the natural bend or as some call it the natural arc of the shaft interferes with a RAMs accuracy. 

Because the frequency analyzer does not have any contact with the shafts it tests for spine deflection very accurately. I honestly think over the new few years we will see a move away from using the RAM, the frequency analyzer will very likely replace it. it is very likely that sometime this next year we will only use the frequency analyzer for arrow testing. I would love to fine tune them with a FLO laser but that is a time comsuming thing, I would have to charge for that and Im not sure of how many folks would want their arrows FLOed.


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Thats not exactly what I said, (I actually used the RAM for years because it was the only tool available to come anywhere near finding the stiff side), I said because of the natural bend of a shaft effecting the readings taken with a RAM the frequency analyzer does a better job.
> 
> enewman IMO the static stiff side and the dynamic stiff plane as tested on the frequency analyzer are the same point on a carbon shaft.
> 
> IMO the natural bend or as some call it the natural arc of the shaft interferes with a RAMs accuracy.
> 
> Because the frequency analyzer does not have any contact with the shafts it tests for spine deflection very accurately. I honestly think over the new few years we will see a move away from using the RAM, the frequency analyzer will very likely replace it. it is very likely that sometime this next year we will only use the frequency analyzer for arrow testing. I would love to fine tune them with a FLO laser but that is a time comsuming thing, I would have to charge for that and Im not sure of how many folks would want their arrows FLOed.


Hmmmmm ! I am amazed that when I check your arrows they are indexed the same as I would have indexed them. It has not been just a few either, get your arrows in from customers all the time. 

I guess my question is what is different ?


----------



## ontarget7

ex-wolverine said:


> Grim
> 
> If I'm not mistaking the definition of archers paradox only applies to finger shooters the way you describe it below...I have never seen Archers paradox or a description of it defined as oscillation that happens when shot out a bow with a release...
> 
> The calculators work great for finding an arrow for your set up...Even at that arrows still need to be shot in/indexed if need be or checked for grouping...The one thing I do know or can speculate is that if a person uses the spine tester to find what ever your trying to find, if you set all the arrows in that position, they will all be the same when shot out of the bow for consistency ...But that don't mean they are indexed properly for the bow on the shot...


Explain why I don't have to turn a nock please ? 

As you always say it, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm amazed as to why you think this can't be done when I can put the proof right before your eyes over and over again. 

Turning nocks and shooting in is all fine and dandy if you want to go that route, I used to do the same thing. 

With that said I don't do it anymore and some how my accuracy has not suffered one bit, imagine that.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Hmmmmm ! I am amazed that when I check your arrows they are indexed the same as I would have indexed them. It has not been just a few either, get your arrows in from customers all the time.
> 
> I guess my question is what is different ?


2 years ago I found the influence of the natural bend in the arrow gives flawed results using the ram. That is why I have been stating the enewmans results were flawed. When I found the frequency analyzer I realized it appeared to be a pure test, the natural bend in an arrow didnt effect the readings. Then I began trying to find a way that a RAM type tester could account for the natural bend in an arrow and remove it from the equation. The EI machine I spoke of is the golf industries first attempt to do this and it worked, problem is that machine cost an arm and a leg and I have had a hard time finding out if it is still used and so far havent been able to determine that. Then I began looking for a way to make the RAM very accurate in finding the stiff side of the shaft, by making the natural bend moot point, meanwhile with Grims help I found the frequency analyzer and it solved appeared to have solved those issues. 

Here is an example of what I see, just tested a GT Hunter 500, the Ram shows the static stiff side and the natural bend in the same location just as enewman has stated but the fact is the stiff plane is 90 degrees from that point which makes that point the neutral plane even thought the RAM says it is the static stiff point. 

This is why I have stated over and over that trying to rely on the type test enewman has been discussing is flawed because the readings are being influenced by the natural bend. 

The reason indexing has worked so well (using the RAM) is even though the test is flawed it does bring a level of consistency to the table. This is why we have continued to index arrows using the RAM but unless I can find a work around to take the natural bend out of the picture 100% of our indexing will be done using a frequency analyzer.

Now for 8 years I assumed just like everyone the RAM was the best tool for indexing, all evidence point to it as solid but that evidence was based on a flawed testing program plainly speaking we have ALL been wrong to a point about indexing. Now for the big question why have i continued to use it, first I had to prove the new testing was accurate second I had to prove the theories about the RAM were correct and third as I have already stated flawed results and all it is still a way to add consistency to a set of shafts.


----------



## ontarget7

So you index differently now ? I will be curious when I get some new arrows to come in to see how the results very from mine.


----------



## KS Bow Hunter

What exactly is the debate, and can't someone at one of the arrow/carbon manufacturers validate the spine/plane issue?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> So you index differently now ? I will be curious when I get some new arrows to come in to see how the results very from mine.


I still index with a RAM because as I stated even though the natural bend is interfering with the test results there is a level of consistency that is added. You have said that on indexed arrows you do not have to turn nocks. When you read the rest of my post you may think how can a flawed test produce positive results? The answer is even though the RAM is influenced by the natural bend it still produces a level of consistency. 

Here is another thought, I have an idea floating in the back of all of the stuff that once everything is proven and worked out we may not see any improvements at least with compound shooter between frequency testing, RAM testing or FLO testing

I hope I dont confuse anyone with this next statement. I am all about the best of the best, if I am going to offer my customers something it will be very well thought out and the process will add value or we do not add it to our process. 

Since we know for a fact that indexing with a RAM type tester has added value though proven results it may be safe and accurate to assume that the act of indexing no matter what tool is used to do it. As long as there is a level of consistency added it will produce a set of arrows that are very consistent and accurate. 

Again if the back of my mind idea is proven then FLO will produce excellent arrows, RAM indexing will produce excellent arrows and frequency testing will produce excellent arrows. They may all produce different results but the key COULD be the act of testing and indexing to a given place with all of the arrows adds enough consistency to work. To put this another way because I am concerned some will not understand what I am trying to say and that is all three tests find a stiff plane or neutral plane and anytime you index one you are indexing the other. 

I hope I havent confused anyone here if so give me a call and we can go over this last statement.

On a side note to all of you who are thinking how in the world can it be possible that all this gobbley **** is floating around in one guys head? My answer is you got me I have no clue but it is a hoot.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

KS Bow Hunter said:


> What exactly is the debate, and can't someone at one of the arrow/carbon manufacturers validate the spine/plane issue?


If you have ever talked to some of the "Engineers" at an arrow manufacturing company you will they have no idea or knowledge about any of the discussions listed in this thread. Some of them think they can find spine with a laser, ahhh, nope, Some think there are dual spines in an arrow, ahhh, nope. The only one that I know for sure that is looking into why arrows do what they do and that is Randy who owns Black Eagle Arrows.


----------



## Super 91

Some people had interest in the roller arms for the weight for the RAM tester that I posted a long ways back in this thread. I got several PM's asking me to price these out. I have a price now of $75 for a set, plus $5 to ship to the lower 48 states.

Just send me a pm if you want a set. It will take me 2-3 weeks to get these done, depending on my work load.


----------



## enewman

U


SouthShoreRat said:


> I still index with a RAM because as I stated even though the natural bend is interfering with the test results there is a level of consistency that is added. You have said that on indexed arrows you do not have to turn nocks. When you read the rest of my post you may think how can a flawed test produce positive results? The answer is even though the RAM is influenced by the natural bend it still produces a level of consistency.
> 
> Here is another thought, I have an idea floating in the back of all of the stuff that once everything is proven and worked out we may not see any improvements at least with compound shooter between frequency testing, RAM testing or FLO testing
> 
> I hope I dont confuse anyone with this next statement. I am all about the best of the best, if I am going to offer my customers something it will be very well thought out and the process will add value or we do not add it to our process.
> 
> Since we know for a fact that indexing with a RAM type tester has added value though proven results it may be safe and accurate to assume that the act of indexing no matter what tool is used to do it. As long as there is a level of consistency added it will produce a set of arrows that are very consistent and accurate.
> 
> Again if the back of my mind idea is proven then FLO will produce excellent arrows, RAM indexing will produce excellent arrows and frequency testing will produce excellent arrows. They may all produce different results but the key COULD be the act of testing and indexing to a given place with all of the arrows adds enough consistency to work. To put this another way because I am concerned some will not understand what I am trying to say and that is all three tests find a stiff plane or neutral plane and anytime you index one you are indexing the other.
> 
> I hope I havent confused anyone here if so give me a call and we can go over this last statement.
> 
> On a side note to all of you who are thinking how in the world can it be possible that all this gobbley **** is floating around in one guys head? My answer is you got me I have no clue but it is a hoot.


So from reading your post. IT looks like your agreeing with what I have been posting for two days. We can have close to the same results with a spine tester as you do with a freq meter. With our testing with the arrows you sent. Using a .0005 indicator what we would call the stiff plane of the arrow was less than 10 degrees from your mark. From our findings a freq tester would be the best it could be at locating the stiff plane. However we have found with close to the same result with our spine tester with the better indicater. I do believe I waisted Money building an flo tester.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Super 91 said:


> Some people had interest in the roller arms for the weight for the RAM tester that I posted a long ways back in this thread. I got several PM's asking me to price these out. I have a price now of $75 for a set, plus $5 to ship to the lower 48 states.
> 
> Just send me a pm if you want a set. It will take me 2-3 weeks to get these done, depending on my work load.


I will take two sets do you take paypal. I will send a pm


----------



## enewman

Super 91 said:


> Some people had interest in the roller arms for the weight for the RAM tester that I posted a long ways back in this thread. I got several PM's asking me to price these out. I have a price now of $75 for a set, plus $5 to ship to the lower 48 states.
> 
> Just send me a pm if you want a set. It will take me 2-3 weeks to get these done, depending on my work load.



Thank you but my hunting buddy is a machinist. But that is a great price.


----------



## zwalls

SouthShoreRat said:


> Here is the one I have! This one comes from overseas!
> 
> I would be willing to bring these in for anyone who wants them in one large order. Each person would pay the cost of the item and we would divide the shipping equally


 I'm in!!


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> U
> 
> So from reading your post. IT looks like your agreeing with what I have been posting for two days. We can have close to the same results with a spine tester as you do with a freq meter. With our testing with the arrows you sent. Using a .0005 indicator what we would call the stiff plane of the arrow was less than 10 degrees from your mark. From our findings a freq tester would be the best it could be at locating the stiff plane. However we have found with close to the same result with our spine tester with the better indicater. I do believe I waisted Money building an flo tester.


Lets see if I understand you correctly. Over the past few days you have been exposed to a number of new concept and methods that only a handful of top arrow builders are only now just becoming aware of. Even fewer actually comprehend enough of to even begin to ask questions about, let alone discuss and your response is, " I believe I wasted money on a FLOtester"? Even after I repeatedly commented on it only being an added layer of accuracy and would only benefit from it longer ranges?
You have cut me to the quick sir!!!!
That's funny!!!

LOL!!!!!!


GRIM


----------



## Super 91

SouthShoreRat said:


> I will take two sets do you take paypal. I will send a pm


Okay Jerry. Got you down for 2.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> U
> 
> So from reading your post. IT looks like your agreeing with what I have been posting for two days. We can have close to the same results with a spine tester as you do with a freq meter. With our testing with the arrows you sent. Using a .0005 indicator what we would call the stiff plane of the arrow was less than 10 degrees from your mark. From our findings a freq tester would be the best it could be at locating the stiff plane. However we have found with close to the same result with our spine tester with the better indicater. I do believe I waisted Money building an flo tester.


I posted an example that showed the RAM testing a stiff point and when placed on the frequency analyzer it tested that point as the neutral plane so not really. I still feel the most accurate way to test arrows is with a frequency analyzer. However I posted an opinion based on a non proven (wild) theory that it may be possible that no matter what equipment is used the key to arrow accuracy is indexing for consistency.


----------



## zwalls

not sure how to ask this question and I don't feel like reading the whole thread again but here goes.
when doing the test with the laser, and I have a perfect vertical line with the laser, where would I place my cock vane? at 12:00 or 3:00?


----------



## Super 91

enewman said:


> Thank you but my hunting buddy is a machinist. But that is a great price.


Yeah, not making any $ on these, just offering what I consider a huge upgrade to the RAM. I put my old teflon arms back on the unit to play with some new arrows tonight. Felt like I was dragging the arrow around a piece of sandpaper. I have just gotten used to the smoothness of the roller bearings. Plus I saw how much finger pressure would distort my readings. With the rollers it takes very little pressure to rotate the shaft so there is very little down pressure to affect the reading, and even though I keep my finger right over the rollers on the RAM, it was still amazing the difference in readings in the two methods.


----------



## ontarget7

Put me down for a set please

Thanks bro


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Lets see if I understand you correctly. Over the past few days you have been exposed to a number of new concept and methods that only a handful of top arrow builders are only now just becoming aware of. Even fewer actually comprehend enough of to even begin to ask questions about, let alone discuss and your response is, " I believe I wasted money on a FLOtester"? Even after I repeatedly commented on it only being an added layer of accuracy and would only benefit from it longer ranges?
> You have cut me to the quick sir!!!!
> That's funny!!!
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> GRIM[/QUOTE
> 
> If your saying I'm throwing you under this bus this is not what I meant. But what I'm seeing. I have to have a spine tester anyway. So why do I need a flo tester. I would say if if you want the best then save money and buy a freq tester. Do I like the flo yes. Did I waist money yes. I do not like the way I did it. The chucks is okay. But away to index would be better. The bore laser I bought. Well the batts don't last long at all. So again did I waist money yes. But it is funny that this is new to archery, and I'm guessing needs more testing. Then why was I being told what I was doing was incorecct.
> 
> From what I've seen. We are trying to base a tool that was design for a golf club. This is something that is held in your hand at one in and is swung In an arc. Then it's designed to find a netrual plane. So as the club is swung in the arc the head of the shaft stays straight and not oscillate side to side. I did not know this was a new tool. You your self stated you have been using this for 6 years.
> 
> I would have figured in 6 years we would have figured out it works.


----------



## swbuckmaster

zwalls said:


> not sure how to ask this question and I don't feel like reading the whole thread again but here goes.
> when doing the test with the laser, and I have a perfect vertical line with the laser, where would I place my cock vane? at 12:00 or 3:00?


I could be wrong and hope someone will correct me if I am but the way I see it is you can get two spots on an arrow that will FLO in a vertical line. You will need a ram tester to determine if you are looking at the stiff side or natural bend side. Then pick a side and make your arrow batch consistent.


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> I could be wrong and hope someone will correct me if I am but the way I see it is you can get two spots on an arrow that will FLO in a vertical line. You will need a ram tester to determine if you are looking at the stiff side or natural bend side. Then pick a side and make your arrow batch consistent.


Haha that's funny. 

I was thinking about this whole post

We went from spine indexing with a ram tester for indexing to this will not work. We need a flo tester. then to a freq tester Then back to well the flo tester needs more testing its really a new way of testing and only a few arrow gurus know about back to that well the spine tester might work. I love this site.


----------



## dw'struth

enewman said:


> Haha that's funny.
> 
> I was thinking about this whole post
> 
> We went from spine indexing with a ram tester for indexing to this will not work. We need a flo tester. then to a freq tester Then back to well the flo tester needs more testing its really a new way of testing and only a few arrow gurus know about back to that well the spine tester might work. I love this site.


Sounds like what we need is a shooting machine. lol


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Haha that's funny.
> 
> I was thinking about this whole post
> 
> We went from spine indexing with a ram tester for indexing to this will not work. We need a flo tester. then to a freq tester Then back to well the flo tester needs more testing its really a new way of testing and only a few arrow gurus know about back to that well the spine tester might work. I love this site.


First and fore most I don't believe anyone ever said that the Ram doesn't work(or more accurately can't be used) only that it is inaccurate. Secondly, FLO testing is a proven method and has been used for many years, just because you haven't been aware of it doesn't mean it hasn't been in use or that it needs more testing.

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

swbuckmaster said:


> I could be wrong and hope someone will correct me if I am but the way I see it is you can get two spots on an arrow that will FLO in a vertical line. You will need a ram tester to determine if you are looking at the stiff side or natural bend side. Then pick a side and make your arrow batch consistent.


sound about right!


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> not sure how to ask this question and I don't feel like reading the whole thread again but here goes.
> when doing the test with the laser, and I have a perfect vertical line with the laser, where would I place my cock vane? at 12:00 or 3:00?


That would depend on what you were testing for and weather you want the cock vane over the spine or not
If you were testing for the weak neutral plane and you want the cock vane over the spine then you would place the vane at the 3 o'clock position or at 90 degrees to weak flat line oscillation.
If you don't have a spine finder to help with identifying the two positions you can use a digital scale as a load sensor to help.

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

dw'struth said:


> Sounds like what we need is a shooting machine. lol


 got one of those and a ram just need a flo and frequency tester!! LOL


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> That would depend on what you were testing for and weather you want the cock vane over the spine or not
> If you were testing for the weak neutral plane and you want the cock vane over the spine then you would place the vane at the 3 o'clock position or at 90 degrees to weak flat line oscillation.
> If you don't have a spine finder to help with identifying the two positions you can use a digital scale as a load sensor to help.
> 
> GRIM


 got it! thanks!! I want my cock vane over the spine/stiff side up!


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> First and fore most I don't believe anyone ever said that the Ram doesn't work(or more accurately can't be used) only that it is inaccurate. Secondly, FLO testing is a proven method and has been used for many years, just because you haven't been aware of it doesn't mean it hasn't been in use or that it needs more testing.
> 
> GRIM


It was mainly a joke. But since we are on the subject. It has been used for years and it is proven for golf clubs. Same as freq tester. I know a guy that was freq tester building his clubs 20 years ago. Your the one that said it was new. Plus if this method was a great method and has been around then Why is there so many on here now looking at this. Look up flo testing arrows not much out there except you and jerry back in 2013. On an crossbow forum. I'm not saying it won't work. This may be the next best thing. But for the years you and jerry have been playing with this why are we just hearing about it now.


----------



## Hholland

Super 91 said:


> Yeah, not making any $ on these, just offering what I consider a huge upgrade to the RAM. I put my old teflon arms back on the unit to play with some new arrows tonight. Felt like I was dragging the arrow around a piece of sandpaper. I have just gotten used to the smoothness of the roller bearings. Plus I saw how much finger pressure would distort my readings. With the rollers it takes very little pressure to rotate the shaft so there is very little down pressure to affect the reading, and even though I keep my finger right over the rollers on the RAM, it was still amazing the difference in readings in the two methods.


Yes I can see where the bearings on the weight will make everything smoother and more accurate. it looks like a nice set up, my design is a little different but have not had a chance to build it yet.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> It was mainly a joke. But since we are on the subject. It has been used for years and it is proven for golf clubs. Same as freq tester. I know a guy that was freq tester building his clubs 20 years ago. Your the one that said it was new. Plus if this method was a great method and has been around then Why is there so many on here now looking at this. Look up flo testing arrows not much out there except you and jerry back in 2013. On an crossbow forum. I'm not saying it won't work. This may be the next best thing. But for the years you and jerry have been playing with this why are we just hearing about it now.


Because nobody want's to admit that maybe they don't know as much as they think and why fix something that isn't broken. The Ram is much like floating shafts, it works but at the same time it doesn't work. Some people swore by floating, but I have had inconsistent results and what good does only finding the spine, without a number value itfalls into the category of only doing half of the job. Compression testing and FLO also fall short in this regard but at least with FLO a method of indexing can be added to the mix rather easily.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Hmmmmm ! 

Selecting a dynamic spine with a software program, buy quality arrows and index the stiff/high plane that we can all find, then your done

It's really that simple, not hard at all


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Because nobody want's to admit that maybe they don't know as much as they think and why fix something that isn't broken. The Ram is much like floating shafts, it works but at the same time it doesn't work. Some people swore by floating, but I have had inconsistent results and what good does only finding the spine, without a number value itfalls into the category of only doing half of the job. Compression testing and FLO also fall short in this regard but at least with FLO a method of indexing can be added to the mix rather easily.
> 
> GRIM


Ok joking aside. So let's realy look at flo testing. We know there is a stiff plane. A weak plane Then there is a netrual plane. So what are we looking for when flo testing. If it's the netrual plane. Which will be the easiest flex of the shaft. Then we still need to know the stiff plane so to index the shaft. So how do we find that. We can turn the shaft 90 degrees from flo test. But that's a 50/50 chance. Or we can find the high side with a ram tester. But now we are back to the ram tester. If the flo tester is finding the stiff plane then great we don't need a spine tester. But now we're back to needing a spine tester to find the spine of arrow so we can match them. Since we have the spine tester and can fined the high side or stiffplane of the shaft then why do we need a flo tester. It's a dang circle. Truth be told why do any of this. Buy a good arrow. Knoc tune and go shoot.

I'm all for testing. I'll be glad to test any and everything we can. I well even send you all the data you want. What we realy need is a way to test for dynamic spine


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Ok joking aside. So let's realy look at flo testing. We know there is a stiff plane. A weak plane Then there is a netrual plane. So what are we looking for when flo testing. If it's the netrual plane. Which will be the easiest flex of the shaft. Then we still need to know the stiff plane so to index the shaft. So how do we find that. We can turn the shaft 90 degrees from flo test. But that's a 50/50 chance. Or we can find the high side with a ram tester. But now we are back to the ram tester. If the flo tester is finding the stiff plane then great we don't need a spine tester. But now we're back to needing a spine tester to find the spine of arrow so we can match them. Since we have the spine tester and can fined the high side or stiffplane of the shaft then why do we need a flo tester. It's a dang circle. Truth be told why do any of this. Buy a good arrow. Knoc tune and go shoot.
> 
> I'm all for testing. I'll be glad to test any and everything we can. I well even send you all the data you want. What we realy need is a dynamic spine tester. And please don't tell me that is what a flo or freq tester does.


Much of what you have said is correct but a big issue is why are you indexing the spine? Virtually no amount of activity takes place there. Wouldn't it be better to index the natural bend, so that all of the arrows start off not only bending in a consistent place but also bend in the same fashion with the same amount of flex.
There are also a number of ways to index shafts without the use of a Ram but you can't escape the fact that it has become the defacto standard, for good or bad.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Much of what you have said is correct but a big issue is why are you indexing the spine? Virtually no amount of activity takes place there. Wouldn't it be better to index the natural bend, so that all of the arrows start off not only bending in a consistent place but also bend in the same fashion with the same amount of flex.
> There are also a number of ways to index shafts without the use of a Ram but you can't escape the fact that it has become the defacto standard, for good or bad.
> 
> GRIM


i don't know if the best is stiff up or netraul bend up. That is always the question. You can tune your bow so both will work. What we want it all arrows to be the same. So tuning is faster. And your right on the spine tester we have always done it. That way. Is there a better way always. We just have to find it.


----------



## ontarget7

Have already tested this indexing and my reason for the side and direction to it. Posted pics etc to the different reactions. Quite easy to determine if you took the time and bareshaft tuned yourself and I am pretty sure you will have very similar results. The .001 shafts will yield the least amount of change when indexing and the lesser grades will see the most.


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> Haha that's funny.
> 
> I was thinking about this whole post
> 
> We went from spine indexing with a ram tester for indexing to this will not work. We need a flo tester. then to a freq tester Then back to well the flo tester needs more testing its really a new way of testing and only a few arrow gurus know about back to that well the spine tester might work. I love this site.


What you seem to fail to see is the ram will locate the natural bend of the arrow just fine. This may or may not be the actual spine of the arrow. The ram tester will also allow you to check for straightness and deflection.

FLO will find the two spots on an arrow that will flat line oscillate. One being the stiff side the other being neutral. You really have no way of telling which side you located with the FLO. FLO won't tell you straightness or spine deflection differences.

I can see its hard its hard for you to comprehend because of your jokes. Maybe floating yours in the tub is easier and funner lol but using both methods compliments each other so you get a consistant batch of arrows with their frequency tuned, indexed with consistancy, straightness checked, deflections matched up. Sounds like a good thing to me.


----------



## Super 91

Here is my "uneducated" take on what I am looking to do when I test a set of shafts. First, I don't test for the spine the arrow has printed on the side of the shaft. I leave that up to the arrow manufacturer to get that much right. I do test to see that each shaft reads close to the same deflection when placed on my RAM machine. That way I know each shaft should be in a range that will allow it to perform much like the other shafts in that group. 

Then I move to trying to determine which side of the shaft is going to flex or where the shaft is going to bend when a dynamic load is placed on the shaft. When I think I know that point, I try to place the arrow in my fletching jig so that each shaft is fletched in the exact same manner. I put the cock vane at the 12 o'clock position. What I try to do is have the shaft flex down and into my rest, allowing the rest to help guide my arrow prior to it dropping away. 

I say I put the "stiff" side up, because I personally believe than the stiff "plane" as some say in this thread, does not run all the way through a shaft. I feel it is one point on that shaft, and the shaft resists bending in that direction the most, but most times will bend in the exact same opposite direction, because that is the path of least resistance. The example of the ruler is flawed because the construction of the ruler, even if the ruler was made a hollow, rectangular tube, has no similarities to the properties of a round tube. But I understand why it was used, to illustrate a point.

So finding this magical place on the shaft where it will bend, is the what we are chasing. I think I have devised a device that will do just that, but I am several months away from the reality of that device. If it does come into being and works as some of my preliminary tests have shown, the RAM and FLO and Frequency will be processes that are more an educated guess and will not be looked at as "the" method to test a set of shafts. But in the meantime......carry on!


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> What you seem to fail to see is the ram will locate the natural bend of the arrow just fine. This may or may not be the actual spine of the arrow. The ram tester will also allow you to check for straightness and deflection.
> 
> FLO will find the two spots on an arrow that will flat line oscillate. One being the stiff side the other being neutral. You really have no way of telling which side you located with the FLO. FLO won't tell you straightness or spine deflection differences.
> 
> I can see its hard its hard for you to comprehend because of your jokes. Maybe floating yours in the tub is easier and funner lol but using both methods compliments each other so you get a consistant batch of arrows with their frequency tuned, indexed with consistancy, straightness checked, deflections matched up. Sounds like a good thing to me.


Ok you have no clue what you are saying. IM THE ONE in this whole post that is saying the natural bend. The high point. The stiff side the natreal arc or what ever you want to call it. Is the same point And IM THE ONE the whole time saying I can find this point with a ram tester. 

Also this may or may not be the spine is because we are not looking for spine at this point. Your are looking for the flex of the shaft. Not spine. Spine is the same on the shaft 360 degree around. So before you come on here and say I have no clue. Go back and read the post. Then do you research. 

Flo testing is a tool to find the flex of the shaft. And that is it.

The reason I made a joke was the whole time with ME saying I can do what I'm say. im the one saying it can't be done easily with the indicator that comes with the ram tester. You need a .0005 indicator. So again before you come on here and say I don't know what I'm doing. You need to do some reading.


----------



## enewman

All of this, I and a friend which is a 20 plus year machinist. Have done all this testing.

The good thing about this is you don't have to be a engineer you just to be able to understand what you read.





Please forgive me for my miss spelling and grammar. For I'm a working man providing for the lazy and illegals.


----------



## Hholland

Finally got to do some more testing last night. Now we have another observation/question, we arc indexed the six carnivore shafts we got in. comparing to the index mark jerry put on them, just as a reference, all of my points were less than 10deg from his, which I am good with that. now we shot these as bare shafts and got close to perfect holes, some on my mark and some on jerrys. By the way one of these shafts was almost perfectly straight, only .0003 of arc. we fletched these shafts and started shooting to make final adjustments. could not fletch all five, therefore there r only five used here. of the five four shot perfect at my bare shaft index, but the very straight shaft ended up with my mark at the 6 o'clock and jerry at 9 o'clock from the nock perspective. so I guess a very straight shaft may always still have to be nock tuned? will see on the next set I guess.


----------



## ontarget7

Did you happen to test and compare static spine ?


----------



## Super 91

That would in interesting test data to know.


----------



## ontarget7

Indeed

Here are my thoughts and the reason for the results I get

1) selecting quality batched arrows in the .001 grade
2) index to the stiff plane / high point in my case, others can index as they wish
3) Determining that static spine is a constant that can be tested by deflection and dynamic spine being a constant applied by the said bow you are using. You now have two constants in your build process, the bow and arrow. The right dynamic spine selection being easily determined by the archery software we have today
4) Once this is selected and chosen properly each arrow will act the same 99% of the time and the reason I am getting the results with the bareshafts to prove the process is accurate.


----------



## NCBuckNBass

After you guys get this sorted out maybe you can head on to this topic http://www.mhdowsers.org/default.htm


----------



## enewman

NCBuckNBass said:


> After you guys get this sorted out maybe you can head on to this topic http://www.mhdowsers.org/default.htm


Haha I do this finding conduit. I think it's bull but if I get close its fun to watch the guys to dig it up. I always tell then here and with in 2 ft. Gives me fudge factor.

I say I'm right and can find water. So just bring a water rig over I'm welling to let someone to drill some wells for free to see if I'm wrong or right.


----------



## enewman

Test


----------



## tuckerjt07

enewman said:


> Ok you have no clue what you are saying. IM THE ONE in this whole post that is saying the natural bend. The high point. The stiff side the natreal arc or what ever you want to call it. Is the same point And IM THE ONE the whole time saying I can find this point with a ram tester.
> 
> Also this may or may not be the spine is because we are not looking for spine at this point. Your are looking for the flex of the shaft. Not spine. Spine is the same on the shaft 360 degree around. So before you come on here and say I have no clue. Go back and read the post. Then do you research.
> 
> Flo testing is a tool to find the flex of the shaft. And that is it.
> 
> The reason I made a joke was the whole time with ME saying I can do what I'm say. im the one saying it can't be done easily with the indicator that comes with the ram tester. You need a .0005 indicator. So again before you come on here and say I don't know what I'm doing. You need to do some reading.


You're wasting your time with him.


----------



## enewman

Test velocity 300 .006 Arrow 1


----------



## enewman

Velocity 300. . 006 arrow 2


----------



## enewman

These where full lenth shafts. At this point I have not cut or shot them. I would not have figured flo would have been that close to. Stiff plane. I need a freq meter.


----------



## Bowtechforlife

I just got some indexed shafts from jerry! Is the mark on the stiff side because that's what I assumed. I only fletched one and plan to bare shaft all the others just to make sure.

Btw the new gold tips logos look good!


----------



## Super 91

If you are shooting the arrow in your sig, that is one crazy config! That is TONS of FOC for any shaft. No need to tune those, the tip is going to pull that arrow wherever you have it pointed! Ha! Ha!

Actually, you need to make sure they are tuned more than most. When that shaft flexes due to the high up front weight, it will flex more than most, so you want each one to flex as close to the same as the next shaft, or you will be all over the target. You are on the right path, but yes, I think Jerry marks the stiffer side, but better call and ask him to be 100% sure. Good luck!


----------



## enewman

Hn


Super 91 said:


> If you are shooting the arrow in your sig, that is one crazy config! That is TONS of FOC for any shaft. No need to tune those, the tip is going to pull that arrow wherever you have it pointed! Ha! Ha!
> 
> Actually, you need to make sure they are tuned more than most. When that shaft flexes due to the high up front weight, it will flex more than most, so you want each one to flex as close to the same as the next shaft, or you will be all over the target. You are on the right path, but yes, I think Jerry marks the stiffer side, but better call and ask him to be 100% sure. Good luck!


You know that's funny you say tune more than most with high foc. Most say easier. But I have to work harder to get my foc shooting good. I'm running 50 insert and a 240 tip. Foc is little over 26%. Arrow is 537 gn


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Hn
> 
> You know that's funny you say tune more than most with high foc. Most say easier. But I have to work harder to get my foc shooting good. I'm running 50 insert and a 240 tip. Foc is little over 26%. Arrow is 537 gn



It's why I don't shoot the EFOC stuff. Don't find the benefits down range. Like anything, it's all a balance. 
Yes, I know what Ashby says and personally won't compromise a perfect tune just to shoot a EFOC. If I found it more accurate I would shoot it.


----------



## Hholland

ontarget7 said:


> Did you happen to test and compare static spine ?


Only on three but they were all with in .001 so have not checked other three. limited time now and just trying to get ready for hunt next week.


----------



## Hoythunter01

Remember when we used to fletch our arrows and went out to shoot. Weren't those days the best of times ??

I had to stop reading toward the end of page 18.

Someone please take all methods and start your video camera. I am willing to learn at my age. All the back and forth.... this is right, that is wrong, add bearings, floating sucks, you don't know crap, RAM Spine does one thing, no it don't, FLO test, frequency what ? .....Jesus !!

33 pages and this still isn't settled. I will be dead by the time I get caught up to this point from page 18. 

Someone with all the knowledge needs to make a video so one person can stay focused on what is being taught. You can charge me for it !! Just don't take 15 months talking about it and have it be a slide show.

I'm more confused now than I was when I started with this thread.


----------



## KS Bow Hunter

Hoythunter01 said:


> Remember when we used to fletch our arrows and went out to shoot. Weren't those days the best of times ??
> 
> I had to stop reading toward the end of page 18.
> 
> Someone please take all methods and start your video camera. I am willing to learn at my age. All the back and forth.... this is right, that is wrong, add bearings, floating sucks, you don't know crap, RAM Spine does one thing, no it don't, FLO test, frequency what ? .....Jesus !!
> 
> 33 pages and this still isn't settled. I will be dead by the time I get caught up to this point from page 18.
> 
> Someone with all the knowledge needs to make a video so one person can stay focused on what is being taught. You can charge me for it !! Just don't take 15 months talking about it and have it be a slide show.
> 
> I'm more confused now than I was when I started with this thread.


YES! Best post of the thread...


----------



## ontarget7

Hoythunter01 said:


> Remember when we used to fletch our arrows and went out to shoot. Weren't those days the best of times ??
> 
> I had to stop reading toward the end of page 18.
> 
> Someone please take all methods and start your video camera. I am willing to learn at my age. All the back and forth.... this is right, that is wrong, add bearings, floating sucks, you don't know crap, RAM Spine does one thing, no it don't, FLO test, frequency what ? .....Jesus !!
> 
> 33 pages and this still isn't settled. I will be dead by the time I get caught up to this point from page 18.
> 
> Someone with all the knowledge needs to make a video so one person can stay focused on what is being taught. You can charge me for it !! Just don't take 15 months talking about it and have it be a slide show.
> 
> I'm more confused now than I was when I started with this thread.


I can understand where your coming from LOL 

However, with all do respect, I am having fun and much more accurate [emoji2]


----------



## skynight

Hoythunter01 said:


> Remember when we used to fletch our arrows and went out to shoot. Weren't those days the best of times ??
> 
> I had to stop reading toward the end of page 18.
> 
> Someone please take all methods and start your video camera. I am willing to learn at my age. All the back and forth.... this is right, that is wrong, add bearings, floating sucks, you don't know crap, RAM Spine does one thing, no it don't, FLO test, frequency what ? .....Jesus !!
> 
> 33 pages and this still isn't settled. I will be dead by the time I get caught up to this point from page 18.
> 
> Someone with all the knowledge needs to make a video so one person can stay focused on what is being taught. You can charge me for it !! Just don't take 15 months talking about it and have it be a slide show.
> 
> I'm more confused now than I was when I started with this thread.


Here you go:
Buy your arrows from southshore archery. Fletch them with cock vane on his dot. Shoot them.


----------



## hooks

Quote Super91..
So finding this magical place on the shaft where it will bend, is the what we are chasing. I think I have devised a device that will do just that, but I am several months away from the reality of that device. If it does come into being and works as some of my preliminary tests have shown, the RAM and FLO and Frequency will be processes that are more an educated guess and will not be looked at as "the" method to test a set of shafts. But in the meantime......carry on![/QUOTE]

Alrighty then! Before I do anything else I'll wait to see this device. In the mean time I'll just use .001 arrows and fletch them then nock tune them.

Thanks


----------



## Hoythunter01

skynight said:


> Here you go:
> Buy your arrows from southshore archery. Fletch them with cock vane on his dot. Shoot them.


I know what you are saying....

But, I want to learn where to put my own dot on the arrow shaft. I have a RAM spine tester on my watch list on Ebay, and having second thoughts on clicking the button. The way my luck goes, I will commit and click the button, then there will be a unanimous decision among the few individuals who are doing it "Their" way......settle on the way it should be done. Which won't involve the machine I just bought.
I realize there are different ways to do this accurately. But, 34 pages ??


----------



## skynight

Hoythunter01 said:


> I know what you are saying....
> 
> But, I want to learn where to put my own dot on the arrow shaft. I have a RAM spine tester on my watch list on Ebay, and having second thoughts on clicking the button. The way my luck goes, I will commit and click the button, then there will be a unanimous decision among the few individuals who are doing it "Their" way......settle on the way it should be done. Which won't involve the machine I just bought.
> I realize there are different ways to do this accurately. But, 34 pages ??


I hear you. The RAM works, I use it then shoot bare shafts through paper with a hooter shooter and turn very few nocks. If you think there is going to be a sudden group hug and unanimous concurrence on this issue - well....34 pages.


----------



## enewman

Hoythunter01 said:


> I know what you are saying....
> 
> But, I want to learn where to put my own dot on the arrow shaft. I have a RAM spine tester on my watch list on Ebay, and having second thoughts on clicking the button. The way my luck goes, I will commit and click the button, then there will be a unanimous decision among the few individuals who are doing it "Their" way......settle on the way it should be done. Which won't involve the machine I just bought.
> I realize there are different ways to do this accurately. But, 34 pages ??


No matter which way is the best to find. The natrual flex of the arrow. If your going to do your own arrows you need a ram tester to check the static spine of the arrow and to match the arrows so they are all with in tolerance of each other.


----------



## enewman

skynight said:


> I hear you. The RAM works, I use it then shoot bare shafts through paper with a hooter shooter and turn very few nocks. If you think there is going to be a sudden group hug and unanimous concurrence on this issue - well....34 pages.


What ? No group hug. Haha


----------



## ontarget7

It's really not that complicated and the reason I figured I would post the info. Batching arrows, indexing, dynamic spine selection and purchasing tight tolerance arrows can make a big difference down range. You can make it as complicated as you want but it's really very simple and not time consuming at all.


----------



## OCHO505

ontarget7 said:


> It's really not that complicated and the reason I figured I would post the info. Batching arrows, indexing, dynamic spine selection and purchasing tight tolerance arrows can make a big difference down range. You can make it as complicated as you want but it's really very simple and not time consuming at all.


Exactly! 34 pages later... Lol


----------



## apt2106

ontarget7 said:


> It's really not that complicated and the reason I figured I would post the info. Batching arrows, indexing, dynamic spine selection and purchasing tight tolerance arrows can make a big difference down range. You can make it as complicated as you want but it's really very simple and not time consuming at all.


Shane, when you have a good arrow, say .001, when you put it on the ram and hang the weight how much change do you typically see on one full rotation?


----------



## enewman

apt2106 said:


> Shane, when you have a good arrow, say .001, when you put it on the ram and hang the weight how much change do you typically see on one full rotation?


If you go,to post 812. That is a plot of an .001 blackeagle arrow. The two post below that are of a velocity .006.


----------



## apt2106

Ok thanks. I must have missed it.


----------



## Grunt-N-Gobble

enewman said:


> If you go,to post 812. That is a plot of an .001 blackeagle arrow. The two post below that are of a velocity .006.


If I'm reading those Velocity's right, they SHOULD be 340 spine, but you tested them out to be more of a 350 spine? Is that correct?


----------



## enewman

Grunt-N-Gobble said:


> If I'm reading those Velocity's right, they SHOULD be 340 spine, but you tested them out to be more of a 350 spine? Is that correct?


Yes sir. Gold tip told me there arrows on spine are +/- .020 So they are in spec. They also told me the 2015 arrows are going to be +/-.010


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Yes sir. Gold tip told me there arrows on spine are +/- .020 So they are in spec. They also told me the 2015 arrows are going to be +/-.010


The tolerances have been very good on the 2015 shafts


----------



## zwalls

has anyone FLO tested after the arrows have been cut? is it possible to do?


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> has anyone FLO tested after the arrows have been cut? is it possible to do?


Yes I have. I will give more info tonight. But I have what I beleive found a problem with how they are flo testing. I provedproved what I beleive to be the problem today. But I need to check more arrows. Tonight to see if I m getting same results.


----------



## flinginairos

I finally have my FLO rig done and working. It's pretty easy to find where the arrow wants to make a perfect vertical line with the laser. What does this show? Where would I fletch based on this mark?


----------



## skynight

flinginairos said:


> I finally have my FLO rig done and working. It's pretty easy to find where the arrow wants to make a perfect vertical line with the laser. What does this show? Where would I fletch based on this mark?


Can you post a pic of what you came up with? I don't know the answer but seems like you'd want that vertical oscillation facing up or down for release shooter.


----------



## zwalls

flinginairos said:


> I finally have my FLO rig done and working. It's pretty easy to find where the arrow wants to make a perfect vertical line with the laser. What does this show? Where would I fletch based on this mark?


90degrees or 3:00 is what I think was mentioned before.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> Yes I have. I will give more info tonight. But I have what I beleive found a problem with how they are flo testing. I provedproved what I beleive to be the problem today. But I need to check more arrows. Tonight to see if I m getting same results.


I'll be waiting. I just received 2 dozen arrows and I would like to FLO test them but if I don't get what I need soon I have nothing to shoot....lol
I have cut one that I ran thru my Ram for tunning purposes but I like to FLO before I cut the rest.


----------



## enewman

flinginairos said:


> I finally have my FLO rig done and working. It's pretty easy to find where the arrow wants to make a perfect vertical line with the laser. What does this show? Where would I fletch based on this mark?


Still,testing. One thing I found is to much weight will cause a problem. Using the drill chuck at around 250 grams. Plus laser is way to much. I was not understanding why when I did the charts a page back why flo was less then 45 from high point. What I think I was seeing is that is to much weight and the true flex of arrow neutral plane of arrow could not be found. So I removed the chuck and used the laser only. This put 330 gns on shaft. What this did was I would see the circles and ovals and when I fould the flo flex to be very obvious. This put the flo 90 degrees from the high point of shaft. I only had time to test the one arrow. So this is just one test need several more to really say. But I can say the chuck was to much weight. I will also say the one that jerry posted will be to much weight. That one will be like adding a 3100 gn tip. This will effect how the flo test comes out.

The information this is based off still says once you find the flo you still have to find the stiff plane. For a golf club this requires a freq tester. I'm saying for an arrow this can be found by a spine tester.


----------



## GRIMWALD

I have said this before but it is worth repeating.
By finding the natural bend first, by using whatever method you wish, you will save yourself a lot of time and frustration. Using the Ram is your choice, put the arrow in place, hang the weight and rotate to the greatest deflection. Make your mark along the top edge with the belly of the arrow down. Remove the arrow from the Ram and install it into your FLO clamping system and Twang the arrow lightly. 80% of the time the neural plane is found within 10-20 degrees on either side of your mark.
The spine will always be at 90 degree to the weak neutral plane. Weather you want the stiff plane vertical is your choice. I "choose" to have the neutral plane vertical, your choice will depend on you setup.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

Apparently enewman has had some issues with his personal setup and has requested confirmation as to the weight I am currently using.
I believe in a previous post I stated that my laser weighs in at 280 grains. It actually weighs in at 388 grains or 251 grams.


----------



## skynight

251 grams is over 3800 grains, I think you are missing a zero.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Sorry, it should read as 25.1 g. but the cold of my unheated, shop my be futzing with the scale.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Thanks grim. I think the drill chuck and the golf laser that is on this post. Is WAY to heavy for the flo testing. Works great on clubs just not arrows. I'm seeing good results at 330 gn and about same up to 1500 gn. At that point. It changes. So weight matters Now this is on a 340 spine arrow. 1500 gn mat be to much for a 400 spine. From reading the tutelman web. I believe I saw where you just need enough weight to get the arrow to flex. What I'm seeing is 300 to 400 gns should do what needs to be done. I have some 200 spine arrows. I will try to test at lunch. 


Thanks again grim.


----------



## zwalls

how about this question. what is the minimum amount in ounces that it would take to get the best readings? I guess 1.6 ounces or 45 grams would not be enough for a .300 spine arrow?


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> how about this question. what is the minimum amount in ounces that it would take to get the best readings? I guess 1.6 ounces or 45 grams would not be enough for a .300 spine arrow?


I will,test some of this, this week. As long as there s enough to flex shaft. I would think its good. But I do think we can have to much. This is what I'm seeing anyway.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> I will,test some of this, this week. As long as there s enough to flex shaft. I would think its good. But I do think we can have to much. This is what I'm seeing anyway.


maybe I can use the laser I have that screws into the insert and add a small drill chuck to it. I might try that. still working on a good way to clamp the arrow.


----------



## zwalls

they have this as well........http://csfa.com/accessories.php


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> they have this as well........http://csfa.com/accessories.php


LOL!!!!
You found the laser but missed the clamp

http://csfa.com/technote33.php

GRIM


----------



## flinginairos

enewman said:


> Still,testing. One thing I found is to much weight will cause a problem. Using the drill chuck at around 250 grams. Plus laser is way to much. I was not understanding why when I did the charts a page back why flo was less then 45 from high point. What I think I was seeing is that is to much weight and the true flex of arrow neutral plane of arrow could not be found. So I removed the chuck and used the laser only. This put 330 gns on shaft. What this did was I would see the circles and ovals and when I fould the flo flex to be very obvious. This put the flo 90 degrees from the high point of shaft. I only had time to test the one arrow. So this is just one test need several more to really say. But I can say the chuck was to much weight. I will also say the one that jerry posted will be to much weight. That one will be like adding a 3100 gn tip. This will effect how the flo test comes out.
> 
> The information this is based off still says once you find the flo you still have to find the stiff plane. For a golf club this requires a freq tester. I'm saying for an arrow this can be found by a spine tester.



I was using a drill chuck on the end with my laser on the end of the arrow. I made the drill chuck so I can slide it to any point along the shaft. I need to mess with it some more. The new laser I bought that screws into the insert stops working after being on a few minutes so I got mad and quit last night LOL


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> You found the laser but missed the clamp
> 
> http://csfa.com/technote33.php
> 
> GRIM


AH HA!! LOL
thanks!!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

I have 4 weights plus the laser is weighted. I will try to post the weight of them in a day or so


----------



## fresnohunter

Wow! Took me several hours to go through this thread. 

My summary for what it's worth. 

1. Shane uses a RAM tester, finds the stiff side and marks it. Puts his cock on the mark and has great results. 

2. Others use a RAM tester along with other gadgets to determine something of importance on a particular shaft and mark the shaft accordingly. Apparently they get good results using their method.

3. Shane evaluates a multi tested shaft that is marked using various gadgets by another person. Shane uses his RAM tester and his mark is the same as the mark from the original person who marked the shaft.

4. I am gonna take a guess and say Shanes method is probably pretty good.


----------



## Hoythunter01

fresnohunter said:


> Wow! Took me several hours to go through this thread.
> 
> My summary for what it's worth.
> 
> 1. Shane uses a RAM tester, finds the stiff side and marks it. Puts his cock on the mark and has great results.
> 
> 2. Others use a RAM tester along with other gadgets to determine something of importance on a particular shaft and mark the shaft accordingly. Apparently they get good results using their method.
> 
> 3. Shane evaluates a multi tested shaft that is marked using various gadgets by another person. Shane uses his RAM tester and his mark is the same as the mark from the original person who marked the shaft.
> 
> 4. I am gonna take a guess and say Shanes method is probably pretty good.


I have to agree 100%

I gave up on page 18. I just couldn't do it any more.


----------



## KS Bow Hunter

fresnohunter said:


> Wow! Took me several hours to go through this thread.
> 
> My summary for what it's worth.
> 
> 1. Shane uses a RAM tester, finds the stiff side and marks it. Puts his cock on the mark and has great results.
> 
> 2. Others use a RAM tester along with other gadgets to determine something of importance on a particular shaft and mark the shaft accordingly. Apparently they get good results using their method.
> 
> 3. Shane evaluates a multi tested shaft that is marked using various gadgets by another person. Shane uses his RAM tester and his mark is the same as the mark from the original person who marked the shaft.
> 
> 4. I am gonna take a guess and say Shanes method is probably pretty good.


Nice!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> You found the laser but missed the clamp
> 
> http://csfa.com/technote33.php
> 
> GRIM


John sells manual and pneumatic clamps


----------



## zwalls

fresnohunter said:


> Wow! Took me several hours to go through this thread.
> 
> My summary for what it's worth.
> 
> 1. Shane uses a RAM tester, finds the stiff side and marks it. Puts his cock on the mark and has great results.
> 
> 2. Others use a RAM tester along with other gadgets to determine something of importance on a particular shaft and mark the shaft accordingly. Apparently they get good results using their method.
> 
> 3. Shane evaluates a multi tested shaft that is marked using various gadgets by another person. Shane uses his RAM tester and his mark is the same as the mark from the original person who marked the shaft.
> 
> 4. I am gonna take a guess and say Shanes method is probably pretty good.


Shanes' method is great. but I've come to the conclusion that for me, flo testing will add another dimension to testing my arrows to the best that they can fly.if you like tinkering and making up your own arrows like I do. my conclusion also is that one test needs the other and that the 2 together makes the most tuned arrow you can get. therefore all that need to be done is fine tune the bow. you'll know you have the best tuned arrows coming out of your bow. may still need a little nock tuning but I doubt it.
for me it's been a great thread but I've been with it from the begging so it's easier to keep up with it!!


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!!
> You found the laser but missed the clamp
> 
> http://csfa.com/technote33.php
> 
> GRIM


GRIM......I was hoping I could find something already built. I may go with something like this......http://www.busybeetools.com/products/SPIN-INDEX-5-C.html
just waiting to get that laser with Jerry!


----------



## zwalls

SouthShoreRat said:


> I have 4 weights plus the laser is weighted. I will try to post the weight of them in a day or so


awesome!!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Guys if you look back a page or two you will see a post from me where I said I would order a bunch of lasers that would work on arrows to flo them. If you want one shoot me an email I am about to send the order in, they are located in England so we wanted to keep the shipping down by order at last a dozen. I am going to get these for you at the advertised price, I will not be marking it up.


----------



## GRIMWALD

fresnohunter said:


> Wow! Took me several hours to go through this thread.
> 
> My summary for what it's worth.
> 
> 1. Shane uses a RAM tester, finds the stiff side and marks it. Puts his cock on the mark and has great results.
> 
> 2. Others use a RAM tester along with other gadgets to determine something of importance on a particular shaft and mark the shaft accordingly. Apparently they get good results using their method.
> 
> 3. Shane evaluates a multi tested shaft that is marked using various gadgets by another person. Shane uses his RAM tester and his mark is the same as the mark from the original person who marked the shaft.
> 
> 4. I am gonna take a guess and say Shanes method is probably pretty good.


After 35 pages I would hope that you learned more than just these few points.

LOL!!!!

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> GRIM......I was hoping I could find something already built. I may go with something like this......http://www.busybeetools.com/products/SPIN-INDEX-5-C.html
> just waiting to get that laser with Jerry!


Make sure you search a little it can be found cheaper and you may even be able to find it locally
http://www.grizzly.com/products/5-C-Spin-Index/G5649

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

Yeah, when Shane puts his rooster on the mark, he get's great results.....:wink:


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> Guys if you look back a page or two you will see a post from me where I said I would order a bunch of lasers that would work on arrows to flo them. If you want one shoot me an email I am about to send the order in, they are located in England so we wanted to keep the shipping down by order at last a dozen. I am going to get these for you at the advertised price, I will not be marking it up.


Jerry. The one your showing is 205 grams. From the testing if done that is to heavy. That's 3157 grains. From the testing I'm seeing. The arrow 340 spine. Flo test shows the flo to start changing at about 1500 grains. There is going to be a weight limit.


----------



## fresnohunter

GRIMWALD said:


> After 35 pages I would hope that you learned more than just these few points.
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> GRIM


Don't flatter yourself.

It's a down and dirty to the point summary.


----------



## enewman

fresnohunter said:


> Don't flatter yourself.
> 
> It's a down and dirty to the point summary.


Since you seem to know Shane well. Give him a call and ask him about your number 3. I think you missed the post. Grim has given a lot of info.


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> Make sure you search a little it can be found cheaper and you may even be able to find it locally
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/5-C-Spin-Index/G5649
> 
> GRIM


you guys are so good to us!! you beat me to it!! thanks again!!


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> Make sure you search a little it can be found cheaper and you may even be able to find it locally
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/5-C-Spin-Index/G5649
> 
> GRIM


any idea if I need to order a specific collet for it? and if so what size?


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> any idea if I need to order a specific collet for it? and if so what size?


I believe you need a 5/16 collet. That is .3125. I think it well squeeze down to .290. So as long as od of shaft is between them to numbers that should be good


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> I believe you need a 5/16 collet. That is .3125. I think it well squeeze down to .290. So as long as od of shaft is between them to numbers that should be good


I have some black eagle magnum I think are .417 but would also like to be able to FLO my hunting shafts which are about what you said.....290 average. may I don't need a collet at all. will it clamp down to almost nothing?


----------



## ontarget7

You can't get better results IMO than perfect bareshaft flight. 
I think I will stay with my process [emoji2].

With all the other methods mentioned I have yet to see any proven results and what makes them better ?

Referring to FLO testing etc


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> I have some black eagle magnum I think are .417 but would also like to be able to FLO my hunting shafts which are about what you said.....290 average. may I don't need a collet at all. will it clamp down to almost nothing?


It has to have a collet. So,either buy several or buy a chuck with a collet


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> It has to have a collet. So,either buy several or buy a chuck with a collet


got it!


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> You can't get better results IMO than perfect bareshaft flight.
> I think I will stay with my process [emoji2].
> 
> With all the other methods mentioned I have yet to see any proven results and what makes them better ?
> 
> Referring to FLO testing etc


I hear ya and believe you! I like trying new things so I'm going to do both just to see!! keep up the good work Shane!!


----------



## ontarget7

I will be honest, if we spent more time perfecting our form instead of testing golf clubs we would all be better archers [emoji2]


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> I will be honest, if we spent more time perfecting our form instead of testing golf clubs we would all be better archers [emoji2]


guilty as charged........LOL

BTW............did you get my PM, question on the Ram?


----------



## ontarget7

zwalls said:


> guilty as charged........LOL
> 
> BTW............did you get my PM, question on the Ram?


I will pull it up. Don't check my PM's as much since having my website. 

The 10* or so difference from FLO to stiff plane means nothing in relation to arrow flight. I have tested this with over 10 bows the last 2 weeks by turning nocks. It doesn't come into play until you get the Stiff plane changing closer to that 90* point. 

Good luck guys ! I'm out on this one. Just don't see the benefit down range or from a tuning standpoint to go through all these extra steps.


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> I will pull it up. Don't check my PM's as much since having my website.
> 
> The 10* or so difference from FLO to stiff plane means nothing in relation to arrow flight. I have tested this with over 10 bows the last 2 weeks by turning nocks. It doesn't come into play until you get the Stiff plane changing closer to that 90* point.
> 
> Good luck guys ! I'm out on this one. Just don't see the benefit down range or from a tuning standpoint to go through all these extra steps.


later Shane! see ya around AT!


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> I will pull it up. Don't check my PM's as much since having my website.
> 
> The 10* or so difference from FLO to stiff plane means nothing in relation to arrow flight. I have tested this with over 10 bows the last 2 weeks by turning nocks. It doesn't come into play until you get the Stiff plane changing closer to that 90* point.
> 
> Good luck guys ! I'm out on this one. Just don't see the benefit down range or from a tuning standpoint to go through all these extra steps.


I will rephrase that

Should have said 45-90* point depending on the grade of arrows to its severity


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman, you sent me a PM requesting my opinion about the three drawing you posted. 

The physics of the dynamic stiff plane and the neutral plane is that these planes have to be 90 degrees apart 100% of the time, you pictures disagree with that law of physics so I have no idea how your tests produced these results.

As for the weight of the laser you are correct I had forgotten I use this laser for crossbow shafts only. 

the weight of this laser would need to be lowered to use it on standard shafts weaker than a 300 and you may be able to get away testing a 340 but not 400s or weaker.


----------



## enewman

Ugh


SouthShoreRat said:


> enewman, you sent me a PM requesting my opinion about the three drawing you posted.
> 
> The physics of the dynamic stiff plane and the neutral plane is that these planes have to be 90 degrees apart 100% of the time, you pictures disagree with that law of physics so I have no idea how your tests produced these results.
> 
> As for the weight of the laser you are correct I had forgotten I use this laser for crossbow shafts only.
> 
> the weight of this laser would need to be lowered to use it on standard shafts weaker than a 300 and you may be able to get away testing a 340 but not 400s or weaker.


Yes that is what I had figured out. I thought the out come was wrong. Once I started reading more into the tutelman page is when I figured the weight was to much. Once I went from the 250 gram chuck to the 337 grain laser. It all came together. So weight is a big factor. I guess this is why you keep testing.


----------



## enewman

After some more testing. I would like to start a new post. About flo testing. I'm not trying to discredit anyone on spine indexing. I do it. Really I think Shane doesn't need to spine index either. I've seen what he is doing. Why he gets what he gets is from him just being a damn good shooter and tuner.


----------



## flinginairos

I've been FLO and compression testing several shafts and I'm more confused now lol. I get very repeatable results with both methods, problem is I don't see any correlation between the two. Which one do I trust to shoot better? At this point I really don't know which one to believe lol. I need to shoot some distance with the shafts to see if there's any difference at all. I really don't think this needs to be that complicated haha


----------



## SouthShoreRat

flinginairos said:


> I've been FLO and compression testing several shafts and I'm more confused now lol. I get very repeatable results with both methods, problem is I don't see any correlation between the two. Which one do I trust to shoot better? At this point I really don't know which one to believe lol. I need to shoot some distance with the shafts to see if there's any difference at all. I really don't think this needs to be that complicated haha


Grim made a statement the other day " you can set a clock ahead an hour or two and even though it is wrong it keeps perfect time" Getting repeatable results is not difficult, accurate results is something all together different. The FLO is accurate if done correctly, compression is not! Bending an arrow in a bow press has zero to do with what happens to an arrow in flight.


----------



## flinginairos

SouthShoreRat said:


> Grim made a statement the other day " you can set a clock ahead an hour or two and even though it is wrong it keeps perfect time" Getting repeatable results is not difficult, accurate results is something all together different. The FLO is accurate if done correctly, compression is not! Bending an arrow in a bow press has zero to do with what happens to an arrow in flight.


I appreciate your insight and I know you know what you're doing when it comes to this. So if I throw compression testing out the window and only rely on the FLO test, where do I fletch the shafts after getting a perfect vertical line with the laser? I think I remember someone saying 3 o clock off that mark?


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> After some more testing. I would like to start a new post. About flo testing. I'm not trying to discredit anyone on spine indexing. I do it. Really I think Shane doesn't need to spine index either. I've seen what he is doing. Why he gets what he gets is from him just being a damn good shooter and tuner.


I'm just sharing all the things I do that have helped me be the shooter and tuner I am today. We can make it as complicated as we want but IMO, it is quite easy. You learn to appreciate where you are today when you reflect daily where you have been. The procedures are here, so take them for what it's worth.


----------



## Super 91

That is where you really need a RAM tool to be able to decide which way you want to index the shaft after you FLO. If you fletch at 3 o'clock, you might have the stiff side up, or it may be down. FLO won't give you that reading.


----------



## flinginairos

Super 91 said:


> That is where you really need a RAM tool to be able to decide which way you want to index the shaft after you FLO. If you fletch at 3 o'clock, you might have the stiff side up, or it may be down. FLO won't give you that reading.


That's kinda what I figured. But at this point if you have the RAM to find that you don't really need to FLO test then. Haha


----------



## enewman

flinginairos said:


> That's kinda what I figured. But at this point if you have the RAM to find that you don't really need to FLO test then. Haha


We can even go one more step. If you trust your arrow manufacture. Then you don't need a ram tester either. Just knoc tune. All these methods we are talking about are tools. It's just to get where you can spend less time on one portion of tuning. 

Any one of the test methods works. As long as you index all your arrows the same. But when you have two tools to find what your looking at. Then you have away to proof your self. It's like measuring something to find center. I measure from one in mark center am I right yes. Can I stop at this point yes. But I normally measure from the other end just to double check my self. 

It's like bareshaft tuning. Most don't do it. In our area they have never even heard of it. So can you tune a bow with out bare shafts yes. Bareshafts just gets you to the next level. 

The next level is what we are looking for. Some people are happy with a pie plate at 20 yards. Some want to be that you never shoot at same spot at 20 or you will be buying arrows weekly. That's where jerry wants you to be. Haha

I have shot at our local store before with bare shafts. It's funny to look at people's faces when you pull,the bare shafts out. It's even better when you stack them in the target. It's just another step in tuning.


----------



## SAVIOUR68

Looks like theres lots of different info on a persons said BEST way to index nocks on shafts, so since this thread is 36 pages long then lets put a end to this with a Archery Talk test and tune of your prefered ways to index. Hears a few ideals to do so.
1. Have a person with a neutral opinion with a Hooter shooter do all shaft testing with a bow set up/ specs known to all to accomadate the proper shaft spine.
2. All persons involved will send 6 arrows of a determined brand with there favorite indexing method, 2 fletched/ 4 bareshafts.
3. All arrows must be no straighter than .006 in which will be measured prior to testing your shafts,will see how good your indexing works.
4. All arrows with be bare shaft tuned to bow properly prior to measured groupings [baresaft/broadhead].
5. All arrows with be drug tested so no snake oil or magic dust rubbed on your shafts prior to shipping them, you will get DQed.
Hopefully this will give us a better ideal about ever ones indexing with testing in a some what controled area as well as there supposed BETTER way to skin the cat as per say.
You talk the talk now lets see who walks the walk.


----------



## zwalls

SAVIOUR68 said:


> Looks like theres lots of different info on a persons said BEST way to index nocks on shafts, so since this thread is 36 pages long then lets put a end to this with a Archery Talk test and tune of your prefered ways to index. Hears a few ideals to do so.
> 1. Have a person with a neutral opinion with a Hooter shooter do all shaft testing with a bow set up/ specs known to all to accomadate the proper shaft spine.
> 2. All persons involved will send 6 arrows of a determined brand with there favorite indexing method, 2 fletched/ 4 bareshafts.
> 3. All arrows must be no straighter than .006 in which will be measured prior to testing your shafts,will see how good your indexing works.
> 4. All arrows with be bare shaft tuned to bow properly prior to measured groupings [baresaft/broadhead].
> 5. All arrows with be drug tested so no snake oil or magic dust rubbed on your shafts prior to shipping them, you will get DQed.
> Hopefully this will give us a better ideal about ever ones indexing with testing in a some what controled area as well as there supposed BETTER way to skin the cat as per say.
> You talk the talk now lets see who walks the walk.


I have a Ram now and as soon as I can get setup to FLO test I will do just that with my arrows thru my HOOTER SHOOTER........why not?


----------



## SAVIOUR68

Jerry/Griv could you please show physical findings and results to support your finding why a compression test is flawed and your FLo is more accurate


----------



## SAVIOUR68

zwalls said:


> I have a Ram now and as soon as I can get setup to FLO test I will do just that with my arrows thru my HOOTER SHOOTER........why not?



You are more than welcome too show your indexing and entry but only a neutral person should be allowed to test the end result. We want this to be a un-bias test.
IMO between a PROPERLY set up/indexed arrow on a compression test, ram spine tester, FLO tester and even frequency tester results will be near the same, so this may be considered a CALL OUT and I for one would like to see the results of the findings . 
Best case for a arrow builder/seller if your method tests well you may increase sales due to this
Worst case if your method does not fair well than your sales may not fair so well.
WE do not need to see any graphs or videos other than arrows shot off a bow in a controlled enviroment.


----------



## zwalls

SAVIOUR68 said:


> You are more than welcome too show your indexing and entry but only a neutral person should be allowed to test the end result. We want this to be a un-bias test.
> IMO between a PROPERLY set up/indexed arrow on a compression test, ram spine tester, FLO tester and even frequency tester results will be near the same, so this may be considered a CALL OUT and I for one would like to see the results of the findings .
> Best case for a arrow builder/seller if your method tests well you may increase sales due to this
> Worst case if your method does not fair well than your sales may not fair so well.
> WE do not need to see any graphs or videos other than arrows shot off a bow in a controlled enviroment.


Hey I'm neutral! heck I'm stuck in neutral!! :chortle:

all kidding aside, I hear and understand what your saying. I'm not a special tuner or arrow builder. just a guy who likes to tinker and try new things! posting my findings would not benefit me in any way:wink:
if someone is able and willing to do all 4 test and post results that would be great!


----------



## GRIMWALD

While it is nice that you have shown interest in learning something new, I have nothing to sell, nothing to prove and no desire to rehash the last 30+ pages of comments.
Jerry has been producing a stellar product for the past ten years and at least to me, has nothing to prove and I'm sure his sales are more dependent on his current results than anything that might be revealed here.
If you truly wish to see a comparison of different bearing based spine finders and the use of FLO principles then either do a Google search for an article by Dave Tutelman, titled "All About Spines" or go back to about the 200 post mark where I posted the link.
I'm sorry if this seams a little blunt but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and I truly have no desire to try and convince anyone to change their testing methods but I do wish people would at least try to understand what it is they are doing and why.

GRIM


----------



## SAVIOUR68

zwalls said:


> Hey I'm neutral! heck I'm stuck in neutral!! :chortle:
> 
> all kidding aside, I hear and understand what your saying. I'm not a special tuner or arrow builder. just a guy who likes to tinker and try new things! posting my findings who not benefit me in any way:wink:
> if someone is able and willing to do all 4 test and post results that would be great!


Zwall my post was not to mean that a certain person do the indexing but rather that people could send there arrow/ shafts to be tested by a neutral party, I also love to test differnet aspects but as a mechanical inspector by trade in the automotive industry it is common to hear and see claimes that people can not back up. Rock on Brother


----------



## zwalls

SAVIOUR68 said:


> Zwall my post was not to mean that a certain person do the indexing but rather that people could send there arrow/ shafts to be tested by a neutral party, I also love to test differnet aspects but as a mechanical inspector by trade in the automotive industry it is common to hear and see claimes that people can not back up. Rock on Brother


Oooooooh,OK........Gotcha!:thumb:


----------



## enewman

SAVIOUR68 said:


> Zwall my post was not to mean that a certain person do the indexing but rather that people could send there arrow/ shafts to be tested by a neutral party, I also love to test differnet aspects but as a mechanical inspector by trade in the automotive industry it is common to hear and see claimes that people can not back up. Rock on Brother


To do that would cost a large amont of money. The only people that would benefit would be an arrow company. And it would be to see who made the best arrows. What we have seen in this post is 6 ways to index. Are any better then the other. Other then scienticlly no. How good the arrow flies and groups is only a small part of the arrow. The rest is the shooter. And the ability to tune a bow. I would bet that a a great shooter can take an arrow indexed by any of the 6 methods or not indexed at all will be able to shoot the arrows with good shot placement. Even shooting with a hooter shooter will not work. It's all in how you tune the bow.

But it has been fun testing. And I will keep,testing for a little while anyway.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

flinginairos said:


> I appreciate your insight and I know you know what you're doing when it comes to this. So if I throw compression testing out the window and only rely on the FLO test, where do I fletch the shafts after getting a perfect vertical line with the laser? I think I remember someone saying 3 o clock off that mark?


90 degrees from the flo will put you on the stiff plane


----------



## flinginairos

SouthShoreRat said:


> 90 degrees from the flo will put you on the stiff plane


So if I understand right, the stiff plane goes completely through the arrow so I could fletch at 9 or 3 o clock with the flo mark at 12 correct?


----------



## SAVIOUR68

GRIMWALD said:


> While it is nice that you have shown interest in learning something new, I have nothing to sell, nothing to prove and no desire to rehash the last 30+ pages of comments.
> Jerry has been producing a stellar product for the past ten years and at least to me, has nothing to prove and I'm sure his sales are more dependent on his current results than anything that might be revealed here.
> If you truly wish to see a comparison of different bearing based spine finders and the use of FLO principles then either do a Google search for an article by Dave Tutelman, titled "All About Spines" or go back to about the 200 post mark where I posted the link.
> I'm sorry if this seams a little blunt but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and I truly have no desire to try and convince anyone to change their testing methods but I do wish people would at least try to understand what it is they are doing and why.
> 
> GRIM


Grim no offense taken by your reply, I have read that article but what I am asking is physical proof/measured results of arrows being shot through a bow showing that a certain way is superior and others are flawed . I am not putting any ones method down.
Swinging a golf clug through multiple horizontal and vertical planes is slightly different than shooting a arrow from a horizontal position which rotates in flight due to flectching. and yes I know with FLO you are looking for a certain postion on the shaft toindex too.
Thanks too all for sharing there findings.


----------



## thwackaddict

One thing I have wondered is if placing the initial flex down with a two prong or blade rest might help push the blade down out of the way and help reduce tail high situations???

I had always been under the impression that having the initial flex in the arrow orientated up it would help get the arrow up and away from the rest faster. Much like a drop away rest. But after talking to many that have trouble tuning a blade rest rest and them having the same tail high reaction I wonder if the UP flex in the arrow causes the tail of the arrow to be low as it exits the bow and in turn it hits the blade harder resulting in a tail high kick up. 

Any of you want to test this for me?:teeth:


----------



## SAVIOUR68

thwackaddict said:


> One thing I have wondered is if placing the initial flex down with a two prong or blade rest might help push the blade down out of the way and help reduce tail high situations???
> 
> I had always been under the impression that having the initial flex in the arrow orientated up it would help get the arrow up and away from the rest faster. Much like a drop away rest. But after talking to many that have trouble tuning a blade rest rest and them having the same tail high reaction I wonder if the UP flex in the arrow causes the tail of the arrow to be low as it exits the bow and in turn it hits the blade harder resulting in a tail high kick up.
> 
> Any of you want to test this for me?:teeth:


I would think that indexing with the natrual bend down on to the blade rest as you state that the rear of the shaft may flex up as you say and possibily help lift the shaft upward , easy test that you my try is to spray foot powder onto the blade rest and rear of arrow and test the shaft in both directions and look at your contact patterns both ways. 
I shoot drop away rests and use a compression index and index my shaft also on the neutral plane/ bend down and it works great for me.
Good luck with the test and keep us posted.


----------



## Alakai12

Dumb question!
Can any arrow be used? Aluminum Carbon, like fmj's or ACC's?


----------



## Super 91

Not a dumb question. This thread or discussion is based mostly on carbon shafts, but it would also apply to FMJ's, ACC's, but I'm not sure it would apply to the older XX75 or similar aluminum shafts.


----------



## Alakai12

Thanks for the reply!!!!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Alakai12 said:


> Dumb question!
> Can any arrow be used? Aluminum Carbon, like fmj's or ACC's?


If its is a tube, carbon, aluminum, aluminum carbon they respond basically the same during flight. So yes you can test and index every arrow on the market.


----------



## thwackaddict

I thought this thread was gonna pass up the OG thread but it seems to have died. &#55357;&#56855;


----------



## stoz

Does South shore index for free? Didn't see up charge for it on their web site.


----------



## flinginairos

Just got a dozen GT Velocities from Jerry at South Shore. Built up three of them last night with the cock vane on the stiff side and shot a few groups at 45 yards. They shot awesome! I tried the compression test on them to see if there was any correlation to the mark that Jerry put on them. I sure couldn't find any. They all flexed different. I also tried the FLO test on a couple and it looked like it identified the stiff plane but I will have to mess with that more since my batteries died in my laser half way through lol.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

stoz said:


> Does South shore index for free? Didn't see up charge for it on their web site.


Yes indexing is included in all arrow and bare shafts that we sell.


----------



## thwackaddict

flinginairos said:


> Just got a dozen GT Velocities from Jerry at South Shore. Built up three of them last night with the cock vane on the stiff side and shot a few groups at 45 yards. They shot awesome! I tried the compression test on them to see if there was any correlation to the mark that Jerry put on them. I sure couldn't find any. They all flexed different. I also tried the FLO test on a couple and it looked like it identified the stiff plane but I will have to mess with that more since my batteries died in my laser half way through lol.


How did you do the compression test?


----------



## flinginairos

thwackaddict said:


> How did you do the compression test?


On my DIY press (similar to the EZ Press) with a sharp field tip in each end and the press set vertical. I get very repeatable results doing the compression test, there is just no comparison between that test and the spine index marks.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

flinginairos said:


> On my DIY press (similar to the EZ Press) with a sharp field tip in each end and the press set vertical. I get very repeatable results doing the compression test, there is just no comparison between that test and the spine index marks.


What bench mark are you using to determe its "repeatable results"?


----------



## flinginairos

SouthShoreRat said:


> What bench mark are you using to determe its "repeatable results"?


mark the bend and rotate the shaft. The bend always follows the mark no matter where it's rotated. I guess I would call that repeatable lol.


----------



## thwackaddict

flinginairos said:


> On my DIY press (similar to the EZ Press) with a sharp field tip in each end and the press set vertical. I get very repeatable results doing the compression test, there is just no comparison between that test and the spine index marks.


Vertical is what I was wondering about. Good straight high quality shafts always bend down when compressed horizontally.

How do you FLO test? Twang it until it twangs back and forth in a straight line? Any place I can look to find a simple example video or description of FLO testing?


----------



## flinginairos

thwackaddict said:


> Vertical is what I was wondering about. Good straight high quality shafts always bend down when compressed horizontally.
> 
> How do you FLO test? Twang it until it twangs back and forth in a straight line? Any place I can look to find a simple example video or description of FLO testing?


I have a drill chuck hard mounted onto my work bench and a screw in laser for the arrow. Chuck the arrow up and twang the shaft and watch the pattern of the laser. It's pretty easy to see where the shafts wants to make a perfect vertical line. Look up flat line oscillation on youtube there is a couple videos on it.


----------



## enewman

What I did to try to get a same release on my flo tester was I built a loop. Then I use my release and pull straight down on arrow. I have a. Graph on the wall. That way I pull to same point every time. I still don't get the results I was looking for. 

For me I still do the best buy rotating the knocs till all arrows fly the same.


----------



## flinginairos

enewman said:


> What I did to try to get a same release on my flo tester was I built a loop. Then I use my release and pull straight down on arrow. I have a. Graph on the wall. That way I pull to same point every time. I still don't get the results I was looking for.
> 
> *For me I still do the best buy rotating the knocs till all arrows fly the same*.


Honestly that's the best way for most home tuners to get the best results. It's free and you get to shoot your bow while doing it. Win/win lol


----------



## swbuckmaster

thwackaddict said:


> One thing I have wondered is if placing the initial flex down with a two prong or blade rest might help push the blade down out of the way and help reduce tail high situations???
> 
> I had always been under the impression that having the initial flex in the arrow orientated up it would help get the arrow up and away from the rest faster. Much like a drop away rest. But after talking to many that have trouble tuning a blade rest rest and them having the same tail high reaction I wonder if the UP flex in the arrow causes the tail of the arrow to be low as it exits the bow and in turn it hits the blade harder resulting in a tail high kick up.
> 
> Any of you want to test this for me?:teeth:


If you find the node of your arrow and place it on top of your rest your blade angle and thickness becomes less criticle. It also fixes the tail high situations your talking about.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

flinginairos said:


> mark the bend and rotate the shaft. The bend always follows the mark no matter where it's rotated. I guess I would call that repeatable lol.


Let me see if I am understanding you, when you place the arrow in the press and it bends you place a mark in the middle of the shafts where it has bent, is this correct?


----------



## flinginairos

I mark the concave side so the inside of the bend.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

So you compress it them Mark the concave side, correct, just want to make sure I understand what you are doing


----------



## hoyt em all

what is a perfect arrow ? to me it would be perfectly straight, have the same spine all the way around and stay that way .not bend or brake easily . as far as diameter and weight , that just depends on what your doing with it .
it's funny now because i thought carbon and aluminum arrows were perfect or as in the same in spine around 360 deg.nock indexing and my spine tester shows me that aluminum's are much closer than carbons , well carbons range in price. 
from $60-$600 a doz. it must be hard to make a good carbon arrow ?


----------



## bbjavelina

hoyt em all said:


> what is a perfect arrow ? to me it would be perfectly straight, have the same spine all the way around and stay that way .not bend or brake easily . as far as diameter and weight , that just depends on what your doing with it .
> it's funny now because i thought carbon and aluminum arrows were perfect or as in the same in spine around 360 deg.nock indexing and my spine tester shows me that aluminum's are much closer than carbons , well carbons range in price.
> from $60-$600 a doz. it must be hard to make a good carbon arrow ?


It may be hard to make to make the perfect Carbon arrow, but surely not hard to make a good one. 

I prefer to start with shafts (full length) from South Shore. Then put them on a tool witch tells me where the most run-out is, and cut the most crooked end. Square the ends and fletch according to Jerry's mark. 

I'm not a very good shot, but I know that I can't blame it on my arrows. 

Best of luck to you.


----------



## flinginairos

SouthShoreRat said:


> So you compress it them Mark the concave side, correct, just want to make sure I understand what you are doing


What's your opinion on that? It has to show something I'm just not sure what it is lol


----------



## hokiehunter373

Holy crap I just read through all 38 pages of this in the past 12 or so hours and man I feel like my brain is going to explode. A lot of awesome information that you guys are all sharing and I thank you for that! Learned a lot


----------



## KS Bow Hunter

hokiehunter373 said:


> Holy crap I just read through all 38 pages of this in the past 12 or so hours and man I feel like my brain is going to explode. A lot of awesome information that you guys are all sharing and I thank you for that! Learned a lot


Did you order some shafts?


----------



## Super 91

Super 91 said:


> These are the new improved roller bearings for the RAM machine. No, they are not available, this is just what I did to keep the teflon arms from grabbing the shaft and making the dial indicator jump around so much.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165664
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165665
> 
> 
> View attachment 2165666


Not sure if anyone else might have interest in upgrading their RAM tester, but these roller arms replace the teflon ones on your brass weight, and make the process extremely smooth and much more precise. The cost is $75 plus $5 to ship for total of $80. PM me for details. I only made a limited number of these, and I only have 10 sets left. After those are gone, I won't do any more.

For those who contacted me earlier, if I received payment, the parts have shipped. Thank you!


----------



## edthearcher

hokiehunter373 said:


> Holy crap I just read through all 38 pages of this in the past 12 or so hours and man I feel like my brain is going to explode. A lot of awesome information that you guys are all sharing and I thank you for that! Learned a lot


be like me i,am in the process of building my own, harbor freight probealy is wondering what is going on


----------



## zwalls

hokiehunter373 said:


> Holy crap I just read through all 38 pages of this in the past 12 or so hours and man I feel like my brain is going to explode. A lot of awesome information that you guys are all sharing and I thank you for that! Learned a lot



LMAO..........I'm lucky, I've been with it since it started so was able to keep up with it. but I've done what you done and go back and read it again. MAN...am I a glutton for punishment or what. I feel it's been one of the most informative and best threads in a long time!

read it again!!


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> Not sure if anyone else might have interest in upgrading their RAM tester, but these roller arms replace the teflon ones on your brass weight, and make the process extremely smooth and much more precise. The cost is $75 plus $5 to ship for total of $80. PM me for details. I only made a limited number of these, and I only have 10 sets left. After those are gone, I won't do any more.
> 
> For those who contacted me earlier, if I received payment, the parts have shipped. Thank you!


NO....thank you!!


----------



## zwalls

edthearcher said:


> be like me i,am in the process of building my own, harbor freight probealy is wondering what is going on


what are you building? something to FLO test with or to do Frequency testing?


----------



## Super 91

zwalls said:


> NO....thank you!!


Yours has shipped sir!


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> Yours has shipped sir!


great! I appreciate your work!


----------



## bbjavelina

zwalls said:


> LMAO..........I'm lucky, I've been with it since it started so was able to keep up with it. but I've done what you done and go back and read it again. MAN...am I a glutton for punishment or what. I feel it's been one of the most informative and best threads in a long time!
> 
> read it again!!


One of the most amazing things about this thread it is the tone of it. sure, a few folks got butt hurt, but overall it's been pretty much a mature discussion. Of course, not everyone agrees, but for the most part it been very civilized. There's hope, yet, for AT.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Super 91
Money sent thanks


----------



## hokiehunter373

KS Bow Hunter said:


> Did you order some shafts?


I actually ordered arrows from jerry a couple days ago and that's what led me to reading all this. I need to save up some money so I can start buying my own equipment to do it myself


----------



## hokiehunter373

edthearcher said:


> be like me i,am in the process of building my own, harbor freight probealy is wondering what is going on


Would you mind PMing me everything you've ordered that's needed to go through the process?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Super 91 said:


> Not sure if anyone else might have interest in upgrading their RAM tester, but these roller arms replace the teflon ones on your brass weight, and make the process extremely smooth and much more precise. The cost is $75 plus $5 to ship for total of $80. PM me for details. I only made a limited number of these, and I only have 10 sets left. After those are gone, I won't do any more.
> 
> For those who contacted me earlier, if I received payment, the parts have shipped. Thank you!


Let me know if you have any lefts I may have homes for them. I sent the payment for the two sets to come to me.


----------



## apt2106

This thread provoked me to build my version of a RAM. Now if I just knew how to use it!


----------



## GRIMWALD

There are many good videos available, the following video is a good example and was the first selection after a search on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J00I4yi0rYU

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

SouthShoreRat said:


> Let me know if you have any lefts I may have homes for them. I sent the payment for the two sets to come to me.



Jerry with your proclivity for quality tools, I am surprised that you don't have a battalion of Elves building you your own version of testing tools.

LOL!!!!

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

bbjavelina said:


> One of the most amazing things about this thread it is the tone of it. sure, a few folks got butt hurt, but overall it's been pretty much a mature discussion. Of course, not everyone agrees, but for the most part it been very civilized. There's hope, yet, for AT.


My wife has been ill, so I still need to catch up on a lot of conversation but I thought this thread was very balanced. If anyone was injured by trying to absorb some new thoughts, I am truly sorry but it is about time we started to update some of our testing methods. I don't care which method or methods everyone uses but it is important to understand what is going on.

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

apt2106 said:


> This thread provoked me to build my version of a RAM. Now if I just knew how to use it!


I thought you did a bang up job on that homemade RAM tool. Good job!


----------



## zwalls

bbjavelina said:


> One of the most amazing things about this thread it is the tone of it. sure, a few folks got butt hurt, but overall it's been pretty much a mature discussion. Of course, not everyone agrees, but for the most part it been very civilized. There's hope, yet, for AT.


exactly!! I guess that's another thing that has made it refreshing to hang with. a little disagreements but stayed on track.


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> My wife has been ill, so I still need to catch up on a lot of conversation but I thought this thread was very balanced. If anyone was injured by trying to absorb some new thoughts, I am truly sorry but it is about time we started to update some of our testing methods. I don't care which method or methods everyone uses but it is important to understand what is going on.
> 
> GRIM


I agree. I'm always open to try new things. especially if it will improve me and equipment's performance. I still haven't put anything together to flo test with. I was waiting for Jerry to order some lasers but haven't heard from him yet!


----------



## ontarget7

I just got done with 2 dozen of my personal shafts, Velocity Pro 340's. I ran all of them through the Ram and marked stiff plane up on all bareshafts. Grant it, some were very straight and extremely tight on tolerances so it did take some extra attention to determine the stiff plane on a few. After I was all done I shot all bareshafts into a 4X4 Spyder Web Target. All but two shot perfectly straight on entry into the target. I then pulled those two and left the rest in the target to compare, making sure it was not my form causing the slight tail left at 20 yards on both of them. I retested with the Ram and came up with the same original mark for stiff plane. On both of those, I rotated the nock by 10-15* and bingo, perfectly straight entry with the rest of the 22 bareshafts in the target. 

Not to shabby using the RAM, that would equate to a 90 +% accuracy rate in real world performance at 20 yards after initial stiff planes were located and indexed up with bareshafts.


----------



## skynight

ontarget7 said:


> I just got done with 2 dozen of my personal shafts, Velocity Pro 340's. I ran all of them through the Ram and marked stiff plane up on all bareshafts. Grant it, some were very straight and extremely tight on tolerances so it did take some extra attention to determine the stiff plane on a few. After I was all done I shot all bareshafts into a 4X4 Spyder Web Target. All but two shot perfectly straight on entry into the target. I then pulled those two and left the rest in the target to compare, making sure it was not my form causing the slight tail left at 20 yards on both of them. I retested with the Ram and came up with the same original mark for stiff plane. On both of those, I rotated the nock by 10-15* and bingo, perfectly straight entry with the rest of the 22 bareshafts in the target.
> 
> Not to shabby using the RAM, that would equate to a 90 +% accuracy rate in real world performance at 20 yards after initial stiff planes were located and indexed up with bareshafts.


I just picked up a spyderweb, do you think the anti kick front panel straightens entry vs a layered foam type of target?


----------



## ontarget7

skynight said:


> I just picked up a spyderweb, do you think the anti kick front panel straightens entry vs a layered foam type of target?


I don't notice that at all. It will read a tail left, tail right, tail high or tail low right away. You can see the same results with a tail left etc if you were to put a broadhead on that same arrow it would follow suite. 

I honestly find them very true in telling you whats going on with the entry into their targets.


----------



## skynight

ontarget7 said:


> I don't notice that at all. It will read a tail left, tail right, tail high or tail low right away. You can see the same results with a tail left etc if you were to put a broadhead on that same arrow it would follow suite.
> 
> I honestly find them very true in telling you whats going on with the entry into their targets.


Thanks, appreciate the info.


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> I just got done with 2 dozen of my personal shafts, Velocity Pro 340's. I ran all of them through the Ram and marked stiff plane up on all bareshafts. Grant it, some were very straight and extremely tight on tolerances so it did take some extra attention to determine the stiff plane on a few. After I was all done I shot all bareshafts into a 4X4 Spyder Web Target. All but two shot perfectly straight on entry into the target. I then pulled those two and left the rest in the target to compare, making sure it was not my form causing the slight tail left at 20 yards on both of them. I retested with the Ram and came up with the same original mark for stiff plane. On both of those, I rotated the nock by 10-15* and bingo, perfectly straight entry with the rest of the 22 bareshafts in the target.
> 
> Not to shabby using the RAM, that would equate to a 90 +% accuracy rate in real world performance at 20 yards after initial stiff planes were located and indexed up with bareshafts.


that is good! I had to turn a few myself but I'm really just getting the hang of using the ram. time will tell!


----------



## Super 91

Wait till you get the new roller arms! Sure gives the RAM a much more precise feel, and helps with any jumping or bumping you might get with the teflon arms.

Hope you find the upgrade a positive thing. I hate to use my RAM without the roller arms!


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> Wait till you get the new roller arms! Sure gives the RAM a much more precise feel, and helps with any jumping or bumping you might get with the teflon arms.
> 
> Hope you find the upgrade a positive thing. I hate to use my RAM without the roller arms!


Looking forward to it. I'm still trying to get set up to flo test. I still want to try that too just for the fun and compare results.
I'll let you know when they arrive and give the new roller arms a test drive:whoo:


----------



## Super 91

I would love to hear from those who get them, and get some feedback about them, good or bad. So far I can't find a down side to the upgrade.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> I would love to hear from those who get them, and get some feedback about them, good or bad. So far I can't find a down side to the upgrade.


I can do that bro ! Looking forward to them, thanks !


----------



## ontarget7

Didn't make any other adjustments after indexing and here is 12 arrows at 60 yards. Put up a 3 3/4" group 









Prior to that, here is two arrows at 80 yards, just checking sight tape before I shot 60 yards


----------



## Super 91

Awesome shooting and tuning there Shane!

By the way, I have 7 sets left of the upgraded roller arms for the RAM tool. Everyone else who has pm'ed me and wanted a set is in the mail. After these 7 sets are gone, that's it! There are no more.

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Super 91

Here is a pic of the upgraded roller arms so people can see what I'm doing. This allows the arrow to roll under the weight on the RAM tool, instead of the heavy friction of the teflon arms that they send with the RAM tool originally. Use the original screws that the teflon arms are fastened to the weight with, and put these new arms in place. These make reading the dial so much easier and smoother. Just wanted to let everyone see what was done here.


----------



## Rudyonthefly

apt2106 said:


> This thread provoked me to build my version of a RAM. Now if I just knew how to use it!


That is some nice machining! If I had the tools (mill, lathe) I would make one just like that. For now I just used angles, bearings and nuts & bolts. Works great and was cheap to build. $16 for a pack of 8 skateboard bearings. I already had the indicator. For the weight I use a plastic coke bottle filled with sand and some string attaching it to the bearing dolly...

One question: are you reading the indicator while it's resting on your "bearing dolly" that supports the weight? If so, would it not throw off the reading if the weight assembly rocks back and forth ever so slightly?

One way to get around that would be to make the bearing plate wider and machine a slot wide enough in the middle so that the indicator reaches through the block without touching the block and indicates off the arrow underneath directly... (This is how my Arten Arrowsett straightener is set up)


----------



## apt2106

Rudyonthefly said:


> That is some nice machining! If I had the tools (mill, lathe) I would make one just like that. For now I just used angles, bearings and nuts & bolts. Works great and was cheap to build. $16 for a pack of 8 skateboard bearings. I already had the indicator. For the weight I use a plastic coke bottle filled with sand and some string attaching it to the bearing dolly...
> 
> One question: are you reading the indicator while it's resting on your "bearing dolly" that supports the weight? If so, would it not throw off the reading if the weight assembly rocks back and forth ever so slightly?
> 
> One way to get around that would be to make the bearing plate wider and machine a slot wide enough in the middle so that the indicator reaches through the block without touching the block and indicates off the arrow underneath directly... (This is how my Arten Arrowsett straightener is set up)


I only have a basic knowledge to run a mill. No lathe. For the weight I melted fishing sinkers in a beenie weenie can! When I was using a Teflon piece on my weight the weight would rock. So I cut out a channel so that the indicator could set directly on the arrow. However I ran into friction problems there too. Some arrows have a more porous finish then others and the indicator surface was adding a lot of friction.

I had ordered in a set of hoyt cam bearings for a guys bow several years ago and never installed them so I repurposed them for the weight. With the bearings the weight does not rock unless you get to spinning it fast.


----------



## Super 91

Rudyonthefly said:


> That is some nice machining! If I had the tools (mill, lathe) I would make one just like that. For now I just used angles, bearings and nuts & bolts. Works great and was cheap to build. $16 for a pack of 8 skateboard bearings. I already had the indicator. For the weight I use a plastic coke bottle filled with sand and some string attaching it to the bearing dolly...
> 
> One question: are you reading the indicator while it's resting on your "bearing dolly" that supports the weight? If so, would it not throw off the reading if the weight assembly rocks back and forth ever so slightly?
> 
> One way to get around that would be to make the bearing plate wider and machine a slot wide enough in the middle so that the indicator reaches through the block without touching the block and indicates off the arrow underneath directly... (This is how my Arten Arrowsett straightener is set up)


No, that is the beauty of the roller arms, they nearly eliminate any "rocking". When you roll the shaft, the weight stays static. That gives you a better read on your indicator.


----------



## Super 91

apt2106 said:


> I only have a basic knowledge to run a mill. No lathe. For the weight I melted fishing sinkers in a beenie weenie can! When I was using a Teflon piece on my weight the weight would rock. So I cut out a channel so that the indicator could set directly on the arrow. However I ran into friction problems there too. Some arrows have a more porous finish then others and the indicator surface was adding a lot of friction.
> 
> I had ordered in a set of hoyt cam bearings for a guys bow several years ago and never installed them so I repurposed them for the weight. With the bearings the weight does not rock unless you get to spinning it fast.


Nothing wrong with re-purposing those bearings! The foot on the indicator helps with the roughness of the shaft. Some shafts are just plain rough though, for sure. Some are sanded to a nice smooth finish, making it much easier to read.


----------



## lucasm




----------



## lucasm

View attachment 2191613
View attachment 2191619
View attachment 2191620
View attachment 2191621
View attachment 2191622
super 91 wish I would seen your bearings nice


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> Didn't make any other adjustments after indexing and here is 12 arrows at 60 yards. Put up a 3 3/4" group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to that, here is two arrows at 80 yards, just checking sight tape before I shot 60 yards


DAAANG!! not bad for a rookie:chortle: 





JK !!


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> Here is a pic of the upgraded roller arms so people can see what I'm doing. This allows the arrow to roll under the weight on the RAM tool, instead of the heavy friction of the teflon arms that they send with the RAM tool originally. Use the original screws that the teflon arms are fastened to the weight with, and put these new arms in place. These make reading the dial so much easier and smoother. Just wanted to let everyone see what was done here.
> 
> View attachment 2191458


can't wait to get mine in. then I can retest all my arrows !:smile:


----------



## zwalls

lucasm said:


> View attachment 2191613
> View attachment 2191619
> View attachment 2191620
> View attachment 2191621
> View attachment 2191622


VERY NICE set there:thumb:


----------



## Super 91

lucasm said:


> View attachment 2191613
> View attachment 2191619
> View attachment 2191620
> View attachment 2191621
> View attachment 2191622
> super 91 wish I would seen your bearings nice


Wow....very nice work!


----------



## zwalls

SUPER91got my roller bearing replacements in today! they are so AWESOME the Ram is so much more precise. you can spin the arrow so slow and watch the indicator move in such small and precise increments. I'd say this was one of my best investments. right along with the Slick Shot I bought a couple weeks ago!

wait until SHANE gets his hands on his set. he's gonna go looking for arrows to spin on the Ram!! :chortle:

awesome job fella!! quality craftsmanship! thanks again!!

Z


----------



## swbuckmaster

I got my roller bearings today and I'm a happy guy. Thanks super91


----------



## Super 91

That is awesome to hear guys! When I built a set years ago, I thought they really improved the RAM tool. I had forgotten how nice it was till I put the teflon arms back on and went to work on a few shafts. Once I did that, I decided the the teflon arms had to go. I just hope that these are a big help to the guys who have a RAM tool and use it to work on their arrows. I think tuning your shafts is a must, as important as tuning your bow the best you can.

And thanks for the review.


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> That is awesome to hear guys! When I built a set years ago, I thought they really improved the RAM tool. I had forgotten how nice it was till I put the teflon arms back on and went to work on a few shafts. Once I did that, I decided the the teflon arms had to go. I just hope that these are a big help to the guys who have a RAM tool and use it to work on their arrows. I think tuning your shafts is a must, as important as tuning your bow the best you can.
> 
> And thanks for the review.


your welcome! well deserved!

maybe you should sell your idea to Ram?


----------



## enewman

Now we all have a spine tester. So let's do some testing and see what we are looking at. Take a .001 arrow. And a .006 arrow. Now find the high point. See if it's as easy to find on a good .001 arrow. If you get a real good arrow you will see only ,001 movement all around the arrow. Now ask your self why that is.


----------



## swbuckmaster

With the gt pros I have the needle doesn't move with weight off. Pretty straight! With the weight on I can find the high side pretty easy with the new rollers. Without the rollers it was harder for me to find and duplicate. Same with my daughters eclips aluminum arrows. I don't have any crooked arrows to test. 

I still want to build a FLO tester but the end all real test will be if they shoot bullet holes through paper or speed up my arrow tunning process.


----------



## Rudyonthefly

apt2106 said:


> I only have a basic knowledge to run a mill. No lathe. For the weight I melted fishing sinkers in a beenie weenie can! When I was using a Teflon piece on my weight the weight would rock. So I cut out a channel so that the indicator could set directly on the arrow. However I ran into friction problems there too. Some arrows have a more porous finish then others and the indicator surface was adding a lot of friction.
> 
> I had ordered in a set of hoyt cam bearings for a guys bow several years ago and never installed them so I repurposed them for the weight. With the bearings the weight does not rock unless you get to spinning it fast.


Very good thinking! Love it when things get "repurposed".

Love this thread and how people are getting encouraged to explore new ways to get the best our their equipment! In 10 years time we'll wonder what the big deal was all about because spine indexing, flow testing and any other way to make arrow set-up more consistent will be the order of the day....


----------



## bbjavelina

enewman said:


> Now we all have a spine tester. So let's do some testing and see what we are looking at. Take a .001 arrow. And a .006 arrow. Now find the high point. See if it's as easy to find on a good .001 arrow. If you get a real good arrow you will see only ,001 movement all around the arrow. Now ask your self why that is.


Teacher! Teacher! I think I know the answer! :wink: Jumping up and down waving my hand in the air.


----------



## enewman

bbjavelina said:


> Teacher! Teacher! I think I know the answer! :wink: Jumping up and down waving my hand in the air.


Ok little Johnny give me your answer. ( hope your old enough to know little Johnny)Hehe. I like it. I'm just trying to compile others info with mine. Part of this is from the video grim posted. The guy said he rotates his arrow and finds the stiff plane. Then he rotates the arrow and finds the weak plane. And this is 90 degree out. I agree that the weak plane may be 90 degree out. But with the spine tester I see the high side and the low side and its 180 degree out. Not 90 degree. Plus if I flo test and spine index. I'm not 90 degree I'm Closer to 20 degree. Which means I'm not flo testing correctly or the high side is not the stiff plane. This is what I've been saying this hole time. 

When I mark my high side. I place it at 12:00. Then shoot. I rotate till I get the best shot. That's been at about 5:00 for me. I need to test with a lighter tip. I shoot with 240 tip. So I need to compare it with a 125 and see

When I tune a bow. I put bow to factory specs. Then I'm shooting a bare shaft. I rotate the knoc till I have a vertical tear. No horzonal tear. Then all I have to do is fix knoc travel. This keeps my bow closer to specs. If you just mark shaft and place it at 12:00. You may have a horzonal and knoc tear. So why take the bow out of spec to fix when all I need todo is rotate the knoc.


----------



## GRIMWALD

The "high side" as you put it, is not the spine. Do you know how I know this, it is because this is where the shaft bends the easiest. It doesn't matter if it bends up, down or sideways. If it bends in one direction consistently first, then it can't be the spine. The spine is defined as the point at which it is stiffest not weakest.
The confusion comes into play when if there is so little spine(or so much consistency in the deflection), that the natural bend in the shaft is greater than the spine and this is what the Ram is reading. This is why the Ram Spine finder is only about 80% accurate but as long as you know this the Ram can and is still a very good way to index shafts. Even Ontarget7 will have to admit that on most indexed groups of Ram indexed arrows there will be one or two that will still need to have the nocks turned slightly to close the group in. 

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

I don't want to put words in grims mouth but I think that is one reason grim said to find the stiff side and rotate to 90 and test with FLO. He said the arrow resists flexing on the stiffer plane. He said the arrow wants to flex on the neutral plane. FLO should also find the neutral plane easier than it finds the stiff plane. Flow however won't tell you which plane you found and that's why it takes both ram and FLO.

Final test is always shooting

Shane says he finds high side and sets his stuff to factory and gets good results.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> I don't want to put words in grims mouth but I think that is one reason grim said to find the stiff side and rotate to 90 and test with FLO. He said the arrow resists flexing on the stiffer plane. He said the arrow wants to flex on the neutral plane. FLO should also find the neutral plane easier than it finds the stiff plane. Flow however won't tell you which plane you found and that's why it takes both ram and FLO.


I rarely even bother with the spine, what I index is the weak plane, more accurately the neutral plane of the weak planes because it is possible to achieve a flat line oscillation on the stiff plane. it is just easier to find the weak plane

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

GRIMWALD said:


> I rarely even bother with the spine, what I index is the weak plane, more accurately the neutral plane of the weak planes because it is possible to achieve a flat line oscillation on the stiff plane. it is just easier to find the weak plane
> 
> GRIM


Got it thanks


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> The "high side" as you put it, is not the spine. Do you know how I know this, it is because this is where the shaft bends the easiest. It doesn't matter if it bends up, down or sideways. If it bends in one direction consistently first, then it can't be the spine. The spine is defined as the point at which it is stiffest not weakest.
> The confusion comes into play when if there is so little spine(or so much consistency in the deflection), that the natural bend in the shaft is greater than the spine and this is what the Ram is reading. This is why the Ram Spine finder is only about 80% accurate but as long as you know this the Ram can and is still a very good way to index shafts. Even Ontarget7 will have to admit that on most indexed groups of Ram indexed arrows there will be one or two that will still need to have the nocks turned slightly to close the group in.
> 
> GRIM


Yes sir I know that the high point has nothing to do with spine. But your also saying some arrows ,that there is little spine. This is not true. Spine is spine an arrow cannot have little to no spine. if you see no deflection in the indicater is because the arrow is straight. A good arrow. This has nothing todo with spine. All we are doing with a spine tester is finding a point and mark it. Then do the same with all the arrows. They match. Then we tune the bow. Again all this means is the arrows are the same. We have found nothing to do with weak or stiff spine, plane or anything. 

The only true way to find that perfect spot on the arrow would be shoot it.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Yes sir I know that the high point has nothing to do with spine. But your also saying some arrows ,that there is little spine. This is not true. Spine is spine an arrow cannot have little to no spine. if you see no deflection in the indicater is because the arrow is straight. A good arrow. This has nothing todo with spine. All we are doing with a spine tester is finding a point and mark it. Then do the same with all the arrows. They match. Then we tune the bow. Again all this means is the arrows are the same. We have found nothing to do with weak or stiff spine, plane or anything.
> 
> The only true way to find that perfect spot on the arrow would be shoot it.


Your comment is true but we have the problem of the misuse use of terminology that has been going on for so long that if I use the proper terms, peoples eyes glaze over and brand it rocket science.
The Ram Spine finder actually does not find the spine, it finds deflection and can be use to find the difference in deflections. When the deflection values are the same around the entire circumference of the shaft, there is 0 deflection and unfortunately this is labeled as having 0 spine.
The interesting point for everyone to keep in mind, spine is certainty something to keep in the forefront but consistency my actually be more important in the long run. The Ram is proof positive of this. If you measure something, even if the method of measurement is flawed, as long as it "consistently" measures it wrong, it can still impart a degree of consistency and ultimately accuracy.

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

enewman, clear up some space in your inbox and I will respond to your pm.

I think we are all after the same thing basically, just looking at two different sides of the same coin. 

What I would like to be able to do, and I think I will be able if I ever get my parts in, is build a device that will be able to tell exactly which way any given shaft will bend when shot. If you can do this and fletch to any orientation you prefer, I think you will have tuned those shafts. Consistency is the key. I'm waiting on parts, then if I think the device will work as I hope, I will be sending it out to be beta tested and get a report as to whether it truely works or not. If it does, then each archer could find a pro shop with such a device and have their arrows indexed and fletched that way. It would really be a big help to many archers. 

By the way, the roller arms have been going out the door quickly. I have 5 sets left, then there are no more. Unless I start a business doing that sort of thing and become a AT sponsor!


----------



## Super 91

GRIMWALD said:


> Your comment is true but we have the problem of the misuse use of terminology that has been going on for so long that if I use the proper terms, peoples eyes glaze over and brand it rocket science.
> The Ram Spine finder actually does not find the spine, it finds deflection and can be use to find the difference in deflections. When the deflection values are the same around the entire circumference of the shaft, there is 0 deflection and unfortunately this is labeled as having 0 spine.
> The interesting point for everyone to keep in mind, spine is certainty something to keep in the forefront but consistency my actually be more important in the long run. The Ram is proof positive of this. If you measure something, even if the method of measurement is flawed, as long as it "consistently" measures it wrong, it can still impart a degree of consistency and ultimately accuracy.
> 
> GRIM


Well said Grim.


----------



## enewman

T


GRIMWALD said:


> Your comment is true but we have the problem of the misuse use of terminology that has been going on for so long that if I use the proper terms, peoples eyes glaze over and brand it rocket science.
> The Ram Spine finder actually does not find the spine, it finds deflection and can be use to find the difference in deflections. When the deflection values are the same around the entire circumference of the shaft, there is 0 deflection and unfortunately this is labeled as having 0 spine.
> The interesting point for everyone to keep in mind, spine is certainty something to keep in the forefront but consistency my actually be more important in the long run. The Ram is proof positive of this. If you measure something, even if the method of measurement is flawed, as long as it "consistently" measures it wrong, it can still impart a degree of consistency and ultimately accuracy.
> 
> GRIM


Your saying the same thing I tried saying 20 pages ago.


----------



## enewman

Ok super91. I opend up some space.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> T
> Your saying the same thing I tried saying 20 pages ago.


LOL!!!
Could be, I seem to remember making a similar comment at least twice but I have been a little preoccupied with family issues so maybe I had intended to make the comment but didn't.

GRIM


----------



## bbjavelina

enewman said:


> Ok little Johnny give me your answer. ( hope your old enough to know little Johnny)Hehe. I like it. I'm just trying to compile others info with mine. Part of this is from the video grim posted. The guy said he rotates his arrow and finds the stiff plane. Then he rotates the arrow and finds the weak plane. And this is 90 degree out. I agree that the weak plane may be 90 degree out. But with the spine tester I see the high side and the low side and its 180 degree out. Not 90 degree. Plus if I flo test and spine index. I'm not 90 degree I'm Closer to 20 degree. Which means I'm not flo testing correctly or the high side is not the stiff plane. This is what I've been saying this hole time.
> 
> When I mark my high side. I place it at 12:00. Then shoot. I rotate till I get the best shot. That's been at about 5:00 for me. I need to test with a lighter tip. I shoot with 240 tip. So I need to compare it with a 125 and see
> 
> When I tune a bow. I put bow to factory specs. Then I'm shooting a bare shaft. I rotate the knoc till I have a vertical tear. No horzonal tear. Then all I have to do is fix knoc travel. This keeps my bow closer to specs. If you just mark shaft and place it at 12:00. You may have a horzonal and knoc tear. So why take the bow out of spec to fix when all I need todo is rotate the knoc.


What I believe that I have learned is that a really straight arrow will make it more difficult to find the stiff side -- or the weak side. This seems to be true whether using a Ram type tester, or if using a compression testing method. Lots of folks have reported that compression testing is not definitive. I'd wager that they are using premium shafts. I'm tempted to break out some AL shafts to get a better look at this, but haven't yet. 

On a shaft that has, maybe, +/- 0.006" runout it will be much easier. On a less straight shaft, it seems to me that I find the stiff side is directly related to the pre-bend. With a standard deflection type tester, the indicator tells the tale. With compression testing it seems that the concave side is the stiff plane. 

I just got my FLO tester rigged up and haven't had much time to play with it, but I believe that once you find the FLO, the stiff side could be at 180 to it, but how do you know which is which? In other words, if you deflect the shaft horizontally and find the FLO, is the stiff side up or down? It seems to me that I've got about $50 invested in this test and don't know how to interpret the results. But, it was fun, and now I have a laser and jig I didn't have before. 

Obviously, the proof is in the shooting. That just makes me wish I were a better shooter. After all I've gone thru working with this, my only goal is to know that if I blow the shot, it's me and not the arrow. Way to easy to blame it on the gear, so I wish to eliminate that factor and focus on me. I can't do that unless I KNOW it's true. 

Yes, I remember Little Johnny! In fact, I may be very close kin to him. :wink:


----------



## enewman

I will tell you grim. I've learned a lot about arrows in the last month or so. What I do know is the terminology we use is wrong. But we are still getting same results. This is what has confused me. Everyone keeps saying stiff spine. When it's not. We all know that when reading the indicator the least amount of movement is where we mark it. This is what for years I've called right along with others the stiff spine of arrow. We know this is incorrect, but it still works for what we want it to do. Once we understand what we are looking at it all makes since. It also made a big difference in tuning for me. I hope super91 new tester works the way he thinks it will.


----------



## enewman

bbjavelina said:


> What I believe that I have learned is that a really straight arrow will make it more difficult to find the stiff side -- or the weak side. This seems to be true whether using a Ram type tester, or if using a compression testing method. Lots of folks have reported that compression testing is not definitive. I'd wager that they are using premium shafts. I'm tempted to break out some AL shafts to get a better look at this, but haven't yet.
> 
> On a shaft that has, maybe, +/- 0.006" runout it will be much easier. On a less straight shaft, it seems to me that I find the stiff side is directly related to the pre-bend. With a standard deflection type tester, gthe indicator tells the tale. With compression testing it seems that the concave side is the stiff plane.
> 
> I just got my FLO tester rigged up and haven't had much time to play with it, but I believe that once you find the FLO, the stiff side could be at 180 to it, but how do you know which is which? In other words, if you deflect the shaft horizontally and find the FLO, is the stiff side up or down? It seems to me that I've got about $50 invested in this test and don't know how to interpret the results. But, it was fun, and now I have a laser and jig I didn't have before.
> 
> Obviously, the proof is in the shooting. That just makes me wish I were a better shooter. After all I've gone thru working with this, my only goal is to know that if I blow the shot, it's me and not the arrow. Way to easy to blame it on the gear, so I wish to eliminate that factor and focus on me. I can't do that unless I KNOW it's true.
> 
> Yes, I remember Little Johnny! In fact, I may be very close kin to him. :wink:


I'm like you. Still not 100 % what the flo tester is telling me. Plan on doing more testing this weekend. I have the problem of not being a great shooter. So are some of my results bad. Don't know. It's like ontarget2. Is he doing it right or wrong don't know. But I have see his results. I believe that part of why he is getting good results has nothing todo with the spine indexing. I think it's cause he just flat out can shoot. 

I know this post has been long, but lots of good info. Just weed out the bickering. And I've done some of that. Then test and see what works. I hope this thread dosent die real soon. Looks like a lot of people are testing. Will be nice to see all the results.


----------



## GRIMWALD

The following comment seems to be the issue
" With compression testing it seems that the concave side is the stiff plane."
The fact that it bent means that it is NOT the stiff plane. The shaft will always along it's weakest axis.
The concave or convex aspect of it doesn't come into play because of the fact that it bent there as apposed to the plane at 90 degrees to it.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> I will tell you grim. I've learned a lot about arrows in the last month or so. What I do know is the terminology we use is wrong. But we are still getting same results. This is what has confused me. Everyone keeps saying stiff spine. When it's not. We all know that when reading the indicator the least amount of movement is where we mark it. This is what for years I've called right along with others the stiff spine of arrow. We know this is incorrect, but it still works for what we want it to do. Once we understand what we are looking at it all makes since. It also made a big difference in tuning for me. I hope super91 new tester works the way he thinks it will.


I'm glad you have found the information interesting, I just wish I was better able to describe the methods. I thought the Tutelman article was clearly defined but people seem to be hung up on the natural bend and don't fully understand the action. Maybe it will come in time, look how long it took for the Ram to become common.

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

Just wanted to be the one who had the 1000 post....lol


----------



## Super 91

Opps, looks like that goes to GRIMMY...lol:wink:


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> I'm glad you have found the information interesting, I just wish I was better able to describe the methods. I thought the Tutelman article was clearly defined but people seem to be hung up on the natural bend and don't fully understand the action. Maybe it will come in time, look how long it took for the Ram to become common.
> 
> GRIM


Yes I thought the tutelman info was great. But for me I'm not sure I agree. I understand the nutral plane. I'm just not 100. % where that needs to be on the arrow. The arrow and club are two differnt animals as what and how they are used. But this is me. I'm a visual person. I've got a lot more testing I want to do with the flo tester.

I will also make a comment on compressor testing. I tried it. Not very repetable enough. Plus I think to do a true compresson test you need to compress from both ends not just one when using a ez press. Also if the arrow is not perfect inline the test will be false. This is very hard to do with a ez press. The moving arm has to much slop in it. I would think for that test to be done you would need to put arrow on a center rest like in a lathe. This would make the arrow be true from end to end, but you still will need to move both ends and the same time and rate toward the center. 

Also I would think using a center rest would be better for spine indexing also. This would keep the arrow more centerd plus this would keep,you from any contact on the shaft while turning it


----------



## SAVIOUR68

enewman said:


> Yes I thought the tutelman info was great. But for me I'm not sure I agree. I understand the nutral plane. I'm just not 100. % where that needs to be on the arrow. The arrow and club are two differnt animals as what and how they are used. But this is me. I'm a visual person. I've got a lot more testing I want to do with the flo tester.
> 
> I will also make a comment on compressor testing. I tried it. Not very repetable enough. Plus I think to do a true compresson test you need to compress from both ends not just one when using a ez press. Also if the arrow is not perfect inline the test will be false. This is very hard to do with a ez press. The moving arm has to much slop in it. I would think for that test to be done you would need to put arrow on a center rest like in a lathe. This would make the arrow be true from end to end, but you still will need to move both ends and the same time and rate toward the center.
> 
> Also I would think using a center rest would be better for spine indexing also. This would keep the arrow more centerd plus this would keep,you from any contact on the shaft while turning it


 I believe that the indexing is only as the person doing it what ever means you use, the FINAL test will be bareshaft before fletching and broadhead testing after that.
And even when doing the bareshaft and broadhead testing you need a good monkey pulling on the string and shooting to verify results.
I will wait for the day when you get a 100% guarantee that your store purchased arrows will hit the X ever time.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> Now we all have a spine tester. So let's do some testing and see what we are looking at. Take a .001 arrow. And a .006 arrow. Now find the high point. See if it's as easy to find on a good .001 arrow. If you get a real good arrow you will see only ,001 movement all around the arrow. Now ask your self why that is.


I have some Black Eagle magnums that are .300/.001 that I tested. I spun 24 arrows. the dial didn't move a spec on 21 or 22. can't remember. only 2 or 3 bumped .001 or .002. I'd say that's some pretty straight arrows!!


----------



## bbjavelina

enewman said:


> Yes I thought the tutelman info was great. But for me I'm not sure I agree. I understand the nutral plane. I'm just not 100. % where that needs to be on the arrow. The arrow and club are two differnt animals as what and how they are used. But this is me. I'm a visual person. I've got a lot more testing I want to do with the flo tester.
> 
> I will also make a comment on compressor testing. I tried it. Not very repetable enough. Plus I think to do a true compresson test you need to compress from both ends not just one when using a ez press. Also if the arrow is not perfect inline the test will be false. This is very hard to do with a ez press. The moving arm has to much slop in it. I would think for that test to be done you would need to put arrow on a center rest like in a lathe. This would make the arrow be true from end to end, but you still will need to move both ends and the same time and rate toward the center.
> 
> Also I would think using a center rest would be better for spine indexing also. This would keep the arrow more centerd plus this would keep,you from any contact on the shaft while turning it


Meaning no dis-respect, but your whole middle paragraph leaves me wondering what you meant to say. Compress from both ends? When you touch the release, witch end does the arrow get compressed from? Both ends?

Again, no disrespect meant, but, could you clarify, please?


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> That is awesome to hear guys! When I built a set years ago, I thought they really improved the RAM tool. I had forgotten how nice it was till I put the teflon arms back on and went to work on a few shafts. Once I did that, I decided the the teflon arms had to go. I just hope that these are a big help to the guys who have a RAM tool and use it to work on their arrows. I think tuning your shafts is a must, as important as tuning your bow the best you can.
> 
> And thanks for the review.


Just had time to throw on the bearing upgrade you sent me, AWESOME bro ! Very smooth and enhances the readings so much better. Makes it easier to determine readings faster and more accurate. 

*I like it !* 

Thanks Bro !


----------



## zwalls

bbjavelina said:


> What I believe that I have learned is that a really straight arrow will make it more difficult to find the stiff side -- or the weak side. This seems to be true whether using a Ram type tester, or if using a compression testing method. Lots of folks have reported that compression testing is not definitive. I'd wager that they are using premium shafts. I'm tempted to break out some AL shafts to get a better look at this, but haven't yet.
> 
> On a shaft that has, maybe, +/- 0.006" runout it will be much easier. On a less straight shaft, it seems to me that I find the stiff side is directly related to the pre-bend. With a standard deflection type tester, the indicator tells the tale. With compression testing it seems that the concave side is the stiff plane.
> 
> I just got my FLO tester rigged up and haven't had much time to play with it, but I believe that once you find the FLO, the stiff side could be at 180 to it, but how do you know which is which? In other words, if you deflect the shaft horizontally and find the FLO, is the stiff side up or down? It seems to me that I've got about $50 invested in this test and don't know how to interpret the results. But, it was fun, and now I have a laser and jig I didn't have before.
> 
> Obviously, the proof is in the shooting. That just makes me wish I were a better shooter. After all I've gone thru working with this, my only goal is to know that if I blow the shot, it's me and not the arrow. Way to easy to blame it on the gear, so I wish to eliminate that factor and focus on me. I can't do that unless I KNOW it's true.
> 
> Yes, I remember Little Johnny! In fact, I may be very close kin to him. :wink:


just to touch on part of what you said.....since I received the rollers from Super91 it's so much more precise and easy to find the sweet spot on the arrow. I could move the arrow very slowly and what the dial move .001 at a time. I'm glad I invested!! maybe should've bought 2 sets just in case!! lol

BTW.....can you post pics of your FLO setup?


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> Opps, looks like that goes to GRIMMY...lol:wink:


dang it!! looks like you missed it :chortle:
maybe you'll get the 2000nt one!!


----------



## apt2106

Ok so I took 4 beman pro hunter 340's. They are cut at 27". I have the bearings on my weight so it easy to find the stiff side.....Marked with a sharpie. Set my paper tuner up and moved back to 30 feet. Two of the arrows were bullet ones. Of the other two one was sharpie mark down and one was sharpie mark at 45 degrees up. Am I missing something? Or is this confirmation that the RAM is not 100% accurate?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Why would you shoot at 30 feet? Try bare shafts at about 9 feet


----------



## swbuckmaster

enuman said mark the HP and the worst deflection is always 180 degrees off. I took one arrow marked the HP and rotated 90, 180, 270, back to zero. I find that to not be the case with this one arrow. 

stiff side marked. Will call it o degrees.


----------



## apt2106

swbuckmaster said:


> Why would you shoot at 30 feet? Try bare shafts at about 9 feet


Because that's the farthest I can shoot in my basement. I have always tuned using a bare shaft and tweak until I can get a bare shaft bullet hole out to 30 feet. I am usually pretty successful with this approach.


----------



## swbuckmaster

90 degrees


----------



## swbuckmaster

180 degrees


----------



## swbuckmaster

270 degrees


----------



## swbuckmaster

back to zero. It looks like it located the stiff side and neutral plane pretty close if you asked me


----------



## apt2106

I sort of expected to find the stiff side of the arrow, index them all stiff side up and shoot them all through paper with a similar tear or bullet hole depending on the tune of the bow.


----------



## Hoythunter01

I'm still following along but feeling a bit left out. I purchased the roller upgrade from Super91 before they were all gone. So after the $80.00 upgrade purchase, I was obligated to purchase the Ram Tester. 

Just so you guys know.... If you purchase the Ram Tester on their website it's 238.00 + 15.00 shipping. If you use the Paypal option, the shipping isn't calculated and all you are spending is the 238.00. 

I am waiting on both to show up still and chomping at the bit. I just want to compare the compression method against the Ram and finally put that idea to bed. 

Back to lurking in the shadows......


----------



## swbuckmaster

apt2106 said:


> Because that's the farthest I can shoot in my basement. I have always tuned using a bare shaft and tweak until I can get a bare shaft bullet hole out to 30 feet. I am usually pretty successful with this approach.


At thirty feet a bare shaft can be really touchy. If it's off slightly In paper at that distance I would think adding vanes would correct it so it wouldn't matter.

How big is the tear at that distance? Do you have a photo


----------



## swbuckmaster

apt2106 said:


> I sort of expected to find the stiff side of the arrow, index them all stiff side up and shoot them all through paper with a similar tear or bullet hole depending on the tune of the bow.


How many out of your dozen were off at that distance? 

Can you usually get them all to bullet hole at that distance?


----------



## zwalls

Hoythunter01 said:


> I'm still following along but feeling a bit left out. I purchased the roller upgrade from Super91 before they were all gone. So after the $80.00 upgrade purchase, I was obligated to purchase the Ram Tester.
> 
> Just so you guys know.... If you purchase the Ram Tester on their website it's 238.00 + 15.00 shipping. If you use the Paypal option, the shipping isn't calculated and all you are spending is the 238.00.
> 
> I am waiting on both to show up still and chomping at the bit. I just want to compare the compression method against the Ram and finally put that idea to bed.
> 
> Back to lurking in the shadows......


allright!! joining the Ram club!! we'll be waiting on your findings :whoo:


----------



## zwalls

after I spun my arrows thru the Ram, I shot them all bare shaft thru paper at 7ft just to see how close they all were. I only had 2 or 3 that I spun the nock just a little to get them all the same. good arrows or did I get lucky?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Super 91 said:


> Just wanted to be the one who had the 1000 post....lol


you have any of those works of art left I could use one or two more sets for a rainy day.


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Just had time to throw on the bearing upgrade you sent me, AWESOME bro ! Very smooth and enhances the readings so much better. Makes it easier to determine readings faster and more accurate.
> 
> *I like it !*
> 
> Thanks Bro !


That is great! Glad they got there okay. You should have the first bow tomorrow.


----------



## apt2106

swbuckmaster said:


> At thirty feet a bare shaft can be really touchy. If it's off slightly In paper at that distance I would think adding vanes would correct it so it wouldn't matter.
> 
> How big is the tear at that distance? Do you have a photo










this is at 30 ft.


----------



## Super 91

SouthShoreRat said:


> you have any of those works of art left I could use one or two more sets for a rainy day.


I will have to check. I think I have 4 or 5 sets left. I will check tomorrow when I get into the office.


----------



## apt2106

swbuckmaster said:


> How many out of your dozen were off at that distance?
> 
> Can you usually get them all to bullet hole at that distance?


I only have 4 that I have cut. I'm in the process of finding an arrow I'm happy with for elk hunting. 

After spinning the nocks on the two I can get them really darn close to a bullet hole. Maybe just a tad nock high.


----------



## Super 91

zwalls said:


> just to touch on part of what you said.....since I received the rollers from Super91 it's so much more precise and easy to find the sweet spot on the arrow. I could move the arrow very slowly and what the dial move .001 at a time. I'm glad I invested!! maybe should've bought 2 sets just in case!! lol
> 
> BTW.....can you post pics of your FLO setup?


Glad the roller arms are doing good for you too. Thanks for the review.


----------



## apt2106

swbuckmaster said:


> How many out of your dozen were off at that distance?
> 
> Can you usually get them all to bullet hole at that distance?










after turning nocks on the two.


----------



## swbuckmaster

apt2106 said:


> this is at 30 ft.


Nice If thats the same arrow it looks like you get the same results i get at 9 ft. Only difference is my tears are half that size. 

I can nock tune to perfect tiny holes with bare shafts. I can also get my bare shafts to hit at 40 yards with my fletched arrows. This only happens though if I nock tune each bare shaft arrow to bullet hole. 

This is one reason so many people get fed up with paper tunning arrows and head out to group tune. They don't understand you have to tune each arrow to the bow.


----------



## zwalls

apt2106 said:


> this is at 30 ft.


how far did you have to spin the nocks? before I put the roller bearings on, some arrows were hard to tell which was the stiff side. some arrows seemed like they had 2 stiff sides. maybe that's what happened with you and just actually marked the weakest side? the few I had to spin one I spun one 180* and matched the others.


----------



## apt2106

zwalls said:


> how far did you have to spin the nocks? before I put the roller bearings on, some arrows were hard to tell which was the stiff side. some arrows seemed like they had 2 stiff sides. maybe that's what happened with you and just actually marked the weakest side? the few I had to spin one I spun one 180* and matched the others.


One was 180 degrees off and one was about 45 degrees off. now I know these aren't stellar arrows but the specs are pretty good.


----------



## zwalls

swbuckmaster said:


> Nice If thats the same arrow it looks like you get the same results i get at 9 ft. Only difference is my tears are half that size.
> 
> I can nock tune to perfect tiny holes with bare shafts. I can also get my bare shafts to hit at 40 yards with my fletched arrows. This only happens though if I nock tune each bare shaft arrow to bullet hole.
> 
> This is one reason so many people get fed up with paper tunning arrows and head out to group tune. They don't understand you have to tune each arrow to the bow.


like wise! I tune every arrow to the bow. and once I'm done tuning I shoot all arrows thru the Hooter Shooter to see if thay all impact together.


----------



## apt2106

swbuckmaster said:


> Nice If thats the same arrow it looks like you get the same results i get at 9 ft. Only difference is my tears are half that size.
> 
> I can nock tune to perfect tiny holes with bare shafts. I can also get my bare shafts to hit at 40 yards with my fletched arrows. This only happens though if I nock tune each bare shaft arrow to bullet hole.
> 
> This is one reason so many people get fed up with paper tunning arrows and head out to group tune. They don't understand you have to tune each arrow to the bow.


I will always do this from now on. Explains why I was seeing a few flyers in the horizontal axis at 50 and 60 yds.


----------



## apt2106

In the past I would tune the bow using one bare shaft. I would yoke tune and tune for verticle nock travel until I had bullet holes out to 30 feet. Once I had that I called it good.


----------



## zwalls

apt2106 said:


> In the past I would tune the bow using one bare shaft. I would yoke tune and tune for verticle nock travel until I had bullet holes out to 30 feet. Once I had that I called it good.


I used too as well. if I understand you correctly, I wouldn't tune anymore arrows to the bow. but once I did I found that not all the arrows were tuned to the bow. so now I Ram test, nock tune thru paper at 7ft and then start bare shaft tuning at 10 and 20 yrds. before I nock tuned I found mixed results with different bare shafts. now that I nock tune all arrows before bare shaft testing, I get the same results from all of the arrows.
it's worked out pretty good for me.


----------



## apt2106

zwalls said:


> I used too as well. if I understand you correctly, I wouldn't tune anymore arrows to the bow. but once I did I found that not all the arrows were tuned to the bow. so now I Ram test, nock tune thru paper at 7ft and then start bare shaft tuning at 10 and 20 yrds. before I nock tuned I found mixed results with different bare shafts. now that I nock tune all arrows before bare shaft testing, I get the same results from all of the arrows.
> it's worked out pretty good for me.


Yep. I really want to thank the OP, ontarget, for starting this thread. I have learned quite a bit.


----------



## zwalls

apt2106 said:


> Yep. I really want to thank the OP, ontarget, for starting this thread. I have learned quite a bit.


I agree! one of the best threads for info In while! still learning!


----------



## enewman

bbjavelina said:


> Meaning no dis-respect, but your whole middle paragraph leaves me wondering what you meant to say. Compress from both ends? When you touch the release, witch end does the arrow get compressed from? Both ends?
> 
> Again, no disrespect meant, but, could you clarify, please?


No disrespect at all. I was just thinking out loud. The way I was looking at it. as you shoot you have pressure on the back of arrow and the arrow will have a deflection at the tip due to the weight of the tip. The more weight the more you have. Not sure how to write what I'm thinking. Not sure if it matters at all doing a compression test


Thinking out loud. As you release the arrow goes from zero to what ever. So with the weight of the tip the arrow will now flex making and arc. Then as Foward movement happens the arrow will flex less and less. Does that make since.


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> View attachment 2192584
> enuman said mark the HP and the worst deflection is always 180 degrees off. I took one arrow marked the HP and rotated 90, 180, 270, back to zero. I find that to not be the case with this one arrow.
> 
> stiff side marked. Will call it o degrees.


What arrows are you testing. I got some .001 to test. all my test have been with .006 so far


----------



## swbuckmaster

Gold tip pros and their cut to 27"
This is zero with no weight


----------



## swbuckmaster

90 degrees


----------



## swbuckmaster

180 degrees


----------



## swbuckmaster

270 degrees.

The whole dozen spins this straight


----------



## enewman

So. Now you went and did it. No movement. Where do you index at. That would be a good arrow to flo test with and see what happens.


----------



## swbuckmaster

It has movment if you add the weight and index them with the weight attached. That is the same arrow I posted above. This arrow plots a stiff spine and 90 degree neutral or week spine. The rest of the dozen had similar results although a few weren't a 90 degrees off for neutral spine. I these were my arrows for my bow I'd shoot them and see how they tear through paper. Their my daughters arrows and I'm not ready to cut them yet. Waiting on the new goldtip points. I'm hearing April 15th ish for that release.

This is just how the dozen spines without the weight. They are straight shafts! 

They are also all the same weight when finished.

On another side note, none of the labels show any sign of consistancy like I've heard a few say "line up the labels and you have the spine located"


----------



## ontarget7

swbuckmaster said:


> View attachment 2192670
> 270 degrees.
> 
> The whole dozen spins this straight


Lube the plunger and you will more than likely see movement. It's the first thing I like at if there is no movement at all.


----------



## ontarget7

apt2106 said:


> Yep. I really want to thank the OP, ontarget, for starting this thread. I have learned quite a bit.


Your welcome :thumbs_up


----------



## Super 91

No doubt Shane, this has been/is an awesome thread. This is something I've done for years and always believed in, once it actually hit me that you could tune your arrows. I used to work very hard on making up a dozen "perfect" arrows. Squared the ends, worked very hard to install the inserts square so the field point or broadhead had zero runout, Made sure the nocks had no runout, and fletched them as precise as I could. I would weigh the arrows, and really try to get them as right as I knew how.

Even with all that, I would get those danged "flyers" every now and again in my long range shooting. Very frustrating. Then one day I discovered the RAM tool, and bought one. After playing with it quite a bit, I started indexing my shafts. Maybe I'm not doing it the way the experts say, but I did it the best I could reason how. All I know is that the next time to the range, I got two robinhoods nearly back to back at extended ranges. My groups no longer were plagued with those pesky "flyers", and I was impressing my buddies with groups that even they had never seen me shoot. I was making them mad as I was actually busting their nocks on occasion on the 3D course.

Now my eyesight prohibits me from seeing as well as I did in those days, but I still love to shoot. I really prefer to shoot in the field with a good buddy, challenging each other to shoot judo points at random objects laying around like a leaf, or flowers, or bumblebee. That helps me more than anything else as far as judging distance in the field, and becoming the marksman I want to be. You see, when I draw my bow, whether there is a bumblebee or a huge elk, I want to be able to have the confidence in my equipment and my abilities to know that I am going to hit my target. I don't like just slinging arrows, hoping for the best. Do I miss? Sure, but with that miss I learn something each time, and hope to be the better archer the next shot.

So having a thread that helps other come to the realization that they too can be the better archer has really been great. I know I'm seeing some people reading this for the first time, and light bulbs are going off left and right. That is awesome! Some people are getting a little bogged down in the technicality introduced in some of this thread, but if they take away just the fact that there is something to tuning your arrows, then I believe you goal has been accomplished. 

So kudos to ya Shane, well done!


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> It has movment if you add the weight and index them with the weight attached. That is the same arrow I posted above. This arrow plots a stiff spine and 90 degree neutral or week spine. The rest of the dozen had similar results although a few weren't a 90 degrees off for neutral spine. I these were my arrows for my bow I'd shoot them and see how they tear through paper. Their my daughters arrows and I'm not ready to cut them yet. Waiting on the new goldtip points. I'm hearing April 15th ish for that release.
> 
> This is just how the dozen spines without the weight. They are straight shafts!
> 
> They are also all the same weight when finished.
> 
> On another side note, none of the labels show any sign of consistancy like I've heard a few say "line up the labels and you have the spine located"


Talking out loud here. If your high point is at 12:00. And your neutral plane is at 9:00. Then why is it not the same at 3:00. From what I read is the stiff plane and neutral plane are 90 degree out. But I would have thought you would have read the same 180 degree from each other. I don't see this on the .006 arrows. I will plot them out every 45 degree and see what I come ou with. I may have missed it but looking at it every 90 degrees. Still learning.


----------



## screamrider

Awesome thread! I'm all about getting the most out of my gear and have been contemplating a RAM tester for a while. This thread pushed me over the edge and now I have a RAM, a set of Super 91's roller arms, arrow saw, and squaring tool on the way!

Really appreciate all the valuable info on this thread.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Talking out loud here. If your high point is at 12:00. And your neutral plane is at 9:00. Then why is it not the same at 3:00. From what I read is the stiff plane and neutral plane are 90 degree out. But I would have thought you would have read the same 180 degree from each other. I don't see this on the .006 arrows. I will plot them out every 45 degree and see what I come ou with. I may have missed it but looking at it every 90 degrees. Still learning.



In a perfect world they would be, unfortunately we have to deal with inconsistencies in the shaft construction.
I posted the following video earlier but if you advance the video to the section on Zone Profiling (@ about the 6 min. mark), I think you will find the detailed information you are looking for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-x6YjhrTo


GRIMWALD


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> Talking out loud here. If your high point is at 12:00. And your neutral plane is at 9:00. Then why is it not the same at 3:00. From what I read is the stiff plane and neutral plane are 90 degree out. But I would have thought you would have read the same 180 degree from each other. I don't see this on the .006 arrows. I will plot them out every 45 degree and see what I come ou with. I may have missed it but looking at it every 90 degrees. Still learning.


My shafts are pretty straight as the needle with the weight off doesn't move but a tenth of .001 

When I add the weight I get 
0/.004
90/.0028
180/.0035
270/.000

This tells me the shaft deflects less on 0 and 180 then it did on 90 and 270. It would plot an oval'ish type circle on a graph. Now that I have the general stiff side located I could put the shaft in a FLO tester and locate the actual FLO on the stiff plane easier. Once i found the FLO on the stiff plane that is what I would put my cock vane on at this point. The reason is I feel its incorrect to put the cock vane on the neutral plane is, the arrow is going to deflect more at the shot in that plane. The blade will need to be more sensitive/criticle or tunned to the arrow better. Blades are nothing but shock absorbers for the arrow to ride on. Less deviation on the blade means less deflection at launch. Of course every theory needs to be tested.


----------



## bbjavelina

enewman said:


> No disrespect at all. I was just thinking out loud. The way I was looking at it. as you shoot you have pressure on the back of arrow and the arrow will have a deflection at the tip due to the weight of the tip. The more weight the more you have. Not sure how to write what I'm thinking. Not sure if it matters at all doing a compression test
> 
> 
> Thinking out loud. As you release the arrow goes from zero to what ever. So with the weight of the tip the arrow will now flex making and arc. Then as Foward movement happens the arrow will flex less and less. Does that make since.




I understand what you're saying.

I don't know how to explain my thinking, but, I'll try.

When the string begins to move forward it's pushing on the nock end of the arrow. This movement is resisted by the inertia of the head. This "column loads" the shaft. The impulse continues to be resisted until the arrow reaches it maximum velocity, after which the head is actually pulling the rest of the arrow. 

Seems to me that, even though the arrow is moving, the shaft is being compressed by the opposing forces as long as the arrow is being accelerated. Therefore, I reason that it's in compression just as it would be between the arms of my press.


----------



## enewman

G


swbuckmaster said:


> My shafts are pretty straight as the needle with the weight off doesn't move but a tenth of .001
> 
> When I add the weight I get
> 0/.004
> 90/.0028
> 180/.0035
> 270/.000
> 
> This tells me the shaft deflects less on 0 and 180 then it did on 90 and 270. It would plot an oval'ish type circle on a graph. Now that I have the general stiff side located I could put the shaft in a FLO tester and locate the actual FLO on the stiff plane easier. Once i found the FLO on the stiff plane that is what I would put my cock vane on at this point. The reason is I feel its incorrect to put the cock vane on the neutral plane is, the arrow is going to deflect more at the shot in that plane. The blade will need to be more sensitive/criticle or tunned to the arrow better. Blades are nothing but shock absorbers for the arrow to ride on. Less deviation on the blade means less deflection at launch. Of course every theory needs to be tested.


Ok is there a Chance that the shaft is not perfectly round. If not you would see what your seeing. Don't know. I flo tested a bare shaft and a fletched arrow last night .006 arrows. They grouped the best at 20 yards with my flo mark at 12:00. That is not what I would have thought. 

Here is another thought. I've always thought you should tune your arrow to the bow. Not the other way around. I've made lots of comments on other post about this last year. I was told that was not really the way. But now I'm back to thinking it is the way. If bow is in factory specs and you knoc tune your arrow. You should have very little adjustments to do to the bow. 
I still think that we can spine index with the ram tester. But last night I got better results with the flo tester. 
I still have some thoughts to test out before I ask or say much more. 
Thanks for your info. I will be back with you.


----------



## enewman

bbjavelina said:


> I understand what you're saying.
> 
> I don't know how to explain my thinking, but, I'll try.
> 
> When the string begins to move forward it's pushing on the nock end of the arrow. This movement is resisted by the inertia of the head. This "column loads" the shaft. The impulse continues to be resisted until the arrow reaches it maximum velocity, after which the head is actually pulling the rest of the arrow.
> 
> Seems to me that, even though the arrow is moving, the shaft is being compressed by the opposing forces as long as the arrow is being accelerated. Therefore, I reason that it's in compression just as it would be between the arms of my press.



ok that is how I'm seeing it. I tried to compresson test with my ez press. In put field points in both ends. The problem I see is the arrow has to be perfect inline from tip to tip. That is not easy done. Plus my moving arm has slop in it so it is not moving in a straight line. So by just making the tips in a line I could change my results. So at this point I need to see about putting the arrows on a lathe with centers. This would make the arrow as perfect as can be for being lined up. Then gust compress the arrow with the tail stock.


----------



## bbjavelina

enewman said:


> ok that is how I'm seeing it. I tried to compresson test with my ez press. In put field points in both ends. The problem I see is the arrow has to be perfect inline from tip to tip. That is not easy done. Plus my moving arm has slop in it so it is not moving in a straight line. So by just making the tips in a line I could change my results. So at this point I need to see about putting the arrows on a lathe with centers. This would make the arrow as perfect as can be for being lined up. Then gust compress the arrow with the tail stock.


With just one more thought on the matter;

It may be that with lower quality shafts, +/- 0.006", that gravity may have an effect if just holding the shaft in place and compressing. I'd think you'd want to give it several tries with different orientations. 

I've played with it vertical in a pipe press, but that has more slop than the EZ, so I didn't have a great deal of confidence with it. 

Best of luck to you.


----------



## apt2106

zwalls said:


> how far did you have to spin the nocks? before I put the roller bearings on, some arrows were hard to tell which was the stiff side. some arrows seemed like they had 2 stiff sides. maybe that's what happened with you and just actually marked the weakest side? the few I had to spin one I spun one 180* and matched the others.


Yes, in the 4 I was testing with 3 of them seemed to have two stiff sides. One was always slightly less then the other. One arrow had only one stiff plane.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I played with compressing arrows and found it simple didn't work. I squared both ends of the shaft and I still couldn't get repeatable results. I think with lesser grade shafts then I have you are just locating and compressing the bent side of the shaft. 

I finally gave up.


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> No doubt Shane, this has been/is an awesome thread. This is something I've done for years and always believed in, once it actually hit me that you could tune your arrows. I used to work very hard on making up a dozen "perfect" arrows. Squared the ends, worked very hard to install the inserts square so the field point or broadhead had zero runout, Made sure the nocks had no runout, and fletched them as precise as I could. I would weigh the arrows, and really try to get them as right as I knew how.
> 
> Even with all that, I would get those danged "flyers" every now and again in my long range shooting. Very frustrating. Then one day I discovered the RAM tool, and bought one. After playing with it quite a bit, I started indexing my shafts. Maybe I'm not doing it the way the experts say, but I did it the best I could reason how. All I know is that the next time to the range, I got two robinhoods nearly back to back at extended ranges. My groups no longer were plagued with those pesky "flyers", and I was impressing my buddies with groups that even they had never seen me shoot. I was making them mad as I was actually busting their nocks on occasion on the 3D course.
> 
> Now my eyesight prohibits me from seeing as well as I did in those days, but I still love to shoot. I really prefer to shoot in the field with a good buddy, challenging each other to shoot judo points at random objects laying around like a leaf, or flowers, or bumblebee. That helps me more than anything else as far as judging distance in the field, and becoming the marksman I want to be. You see, when I draw my bow, whether there is a bumblebee or a huge elk, I want to be able to have the confidence in my equipment and my abilities to know that I am going to hit my target. I don't like just slinging arrows, hoping for the best. Do I miss? Sure, but with that miss I learn something each time, and hope to be the better archer the next shot.
> 
> So having a thread that helps other come to the realization that they too can be the better archer has really been great. I know I'm seeing some people reading this for the first time, and light bulbs are going off left and right. That is awesome! Some people are getting a little bogged down in the technicality introduced in some of this thread, but if they take away just the fact that there is something to tuning your arrows, then I believe you goal has been accomplished.
> 
> So kudos to ya Shane, well done!


DITTO Bro!!


----------



## bbjavelina

swbuckmaster said:


> I played with compressing arrows and found it simple didn't work. I squared both ends of the shaft and I still couldn't get repeatable results. I think with lesser grade shafts then I have you are just locating and compressing the bent side of the shaft.
> 
> I finally gave up.


I believe that (from what I've seen) either compression testing or using a RAM type device, you have to consider the latent bend. I perceive that it makes more difference in compression testing, but should not be ignored in a RAM type device. Both can yield meaningful data. The higher quality shaft you start with, the harder it becomes to come to a decision. 

Last year I bought a dozen GT shafts from South Shore that were pre-marked. I put them thru a compression test and 10 of them agreed with the pre-marks. The other 2 were a bit off, but not a lot. I also have two other spine testers using dial indicators and weights. 

Now, I've rigged up a FLO tester, but have not yet compared the result with either weight deflection or compression deflection. 

None of this has made me a better shooter, but it does provide a bit of confidence in the arrow.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## swbuckmaster

bbjavelina said:


> Best of luck to you.


Ditto


----------



## zwalls

bbjavelina said:


> I believe that (from what I've seen) either compression testing or using a RAM type device, you have to consider the latent bend. I perceive that it makes more difference in compression testing, but should not be ignored in a RAM type device. Both can yield meaningful data. The higher quality shaft you start with, the harder it becomes to come to a decision.
> 
> Last year I bought a dozen GT shafts from South Shore that were pre-marked. I put them thru a compression test and 10 of them agreed with the pre-marks. The other 2 were a bit off, but not a lot. I also have two other spine testers using dial indicators and weights.
> 
> Now, I've rigged up a FLO tester, but have not yet compared the result with either weight deflection or compression deflection.
> 
> None of this has made me a better shooter, but it does provide a bit of confidence in the arrow.
> 
> Best of luck to you.


do have any pics of your FLO test set up?


----------



## Super 91

I've had lots of pm's asking for the roller arms, and most orders are filled. I have two sets left, and if the two guys who asked about buying them pay for them, then that will be the end of the run. I'll give these guys a day or two to respond, and if they choose not to purchase, I will let everyone know the availability.

Thank you everyone who made the purchase. I hope they work well for you.


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> I've had lots of pm's asking for the roller arms, and most orders are filled. I have two sets left, and if the two guys who asked about buying them pay for them, then that will be the end of the run. I'll give these guys a day or two to respond, and if they choose not to purchase, I will let everyone know the availability.
> 
> Thank you everyone who made the purchase. I hope they work well for you.


THANK YOU for making them. I'm glad I was following this thread to find them:thumb:


----------



## Hoythunter01

swbuckmaster said:


> 90 degrees
> View attachment 2192585


Can you "Zero" the face of this dial indicator ??

Pictured is my old arrow spinner with a small upgrade. That dial face is adjustable so you can zero it after the plunger is on the shaft.

From the looks of the one that comes on the Ram, it is not. That might be another upgrade to look into.

BTW....my Ram will be here tomorrow.


----------



## Super 91

You can zero the dial indicator on my RAM


----------



## zwalls

Hoythunter01 said:


> Can you "Zero" the face of this dial indicator ??
> 
> Pictured is my old arrow spinner with a small upgrade. That dial face is adjustable so you can zero it after the plunger is on the shaft.
> 
> From the looks of the one that comes on the Ram, it is not. That might be another upgrade to look into.
> 
> BTW....my Ram will be here tomorrow.


the dial on the Ram is adjustable just the same as the one you have. once you hang the weight you can turn the dial of the outer edge to "o".


----------



## Hoythunter01

Thanks guys !!

I will stop shopping for a replacement.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Hoythunter
You can zero it but it doesn't matter because your only measuring deflection. If the needle moves clock wise it's stiff. If it moves counter clockwise it's weak.


----------



## swbuckmaster

By the way I didn't want to wait for my flow tester to get made. I had my daughter shoot those arrows through paper tonight. She's not your average shooter. 

I eyeballed the hoyt pro comp fx center shot to aprox 3/4" and took one arrow and started tunning. Moved the rest to its final position 12/16" where it bullet holed a perfect hole. Set it aside and checked the rest. 5 out of the eight shot perfect holes. The other 3 needed the nock to be adjusted to bullet hole. I came back inside and checked those three again. One had a cracked nock. I replaced the nock and had her shoot it again. Bullet hole! The other two for what ever reason we're off. One was 90 degrees off the other was closer to 180 degrees off. Either way we tunned those arrows faster then I've tunned arrows before. I'd say as many arrows as we shoot the ram is a good investment. Even better with the up graded rollers. 

On a side note the bare shafts would shoot a 3/8" tear if it wasn't nock tunned. Twisting the nock you can see the tear move until it finds the perfect hole. The hole is also repeatable. The distance we shot through paper was about 12 to 13 feet.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Talking out loud here. If your high point is at 12:00. And your neutral plane is at 9:00. Then why is it not the same at 3:00. From what I read is the stiff plane and neutral plane are 90 degree out. But I would have thought you would have read the same 180 degree from each other. I don't see this on the .006 arrows. I will plot them out every 45 degree and see what I come ou with. I may have missed it but looking at it every 90 degrees. Still learning.


You cant read a dynamic spine attribute with a RAM tester. The stiff point (statically tested) and the stiff plane (dynamically tested) is the only point that can be tested statically with a RAM, it is impossible to get an accurate neutral plane test with a RAM, this is why I have said over and over that the RAM is flawed in that it cant test dynamically. To see the true stiff plane and neutral plane (dynamically speaking) you have to use a dynamic type tester. This is where the frequency analyzer shines it will give you a true neutral plane frequency number. The FLO is another process all together it fine tunes the exact location of the neutral plane or the natural bending plane (dynamically speaking)


----------



## bbjavelina

zwalls said:


> do have any pics of your FLO test set up?


I do not have any just now. At this point it's just a "proof of concept" using a piece of 1X4 split on the bandsaw with a hole drill in the slit, a vise, and a wood screw for a stop to hold the shaft. 

On the free end of the shaft I have a key-less 3/8 drill chuck with a laser boresighter in the threaded end. 

This particular laser uses O-rings of various sizes to fit different bore sizes. I think I've got too much weight with the old drill chuck, but the laser seems too light by itself. It'll probably be after turkey season before I get a more appropriate weight built.


----------



## GRIMWALD

bbjavelina said:


> I do not have any just now. At this point it's just a "proof of concept" using a piece of 1X4 split on the bandsaw with a hole drill in the slit, a vise, and a wood screw for a stop to hold the shaft.
> 
> On the free end of the shaft I have a key-less 3/8 drill chuck with a laser boresighter in the threaded end.
> 
> This particular laser uses O-rings of various sizes to fit different bore sizes. I think I've got too much weight with the old drill chuck, but the laser seems too light by itself. It'll probably be after turkey season before I get a more appropriate weight built.



If you have a stand alone drill press, try hanging the shaft with the heaver weight from the press chuck. When I just need a quick reference FLO while in my shop this method works very well. Just be careful not to crush the shaft in the chuck.
I have even used a bench mounted drill press but it had to be bolted securely to my bench top and I had to cut a hole to accommodate the shaft.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> You cant read a dynamic spine attribute with a RAM tester. The stiff point (statically tested) and the stiff plane (dynamically tested) is the only point that can be tested statically with a RAM, it is impossible to get an accurate neutral plane test with a RAM, this is why I have said over and over that the RAM is flawed in that it cant test dynamically. To see the true stiff plane and neutral plane (dynamically speaking) you have to use a dynamic type tester. This is where the frequency analyzer shines it will give you a true neutral plane frequency number. The FLO is another process all together it fine tunes the exact location of the neutral plane or the natural bending plane (dynamically speaking)


I agree with you jerry. I don't think the ram tester is finding what people are saying it is. That is why I asked the question. I'm still testing. But the ram tester is not finding anything but deflection. That is what the ram tester was made for. Can this be used to our advantage yes. And that works. As long long as you find the high point in the shaft and match all the arrows. They will all be close. Are they perfect no. Are you finding a stiff plane or weak plane. Not realy. But it dosent matter as long as there all the same. Now does the flo or freq tester work. Well I don't know about the freq tester but the flo for me is. But I'm still testing. But what I'm seeing is on an .006 arrow flo is about 90 degree from the high point in the bend of the arrow. And it should be. But it's because the arrow will flex at the least amount of resistance in the shaft. The high point will have the most resistance do to it has to flex against the bend in the shaft and over come that point. That's just physics. On a .001 arrow. Flo may not be 90 degrees to the highest point. The arrow is straight so it has less of a point to flex and over come. 
The hole point to this is away to match arrows faster and make tunning easier. But what people are looking at and calling it is not correct. Even you are saying dynamic spine. Dynamic spine can be calculated. But unless you have the right camera an graph drawn on the wall and shoot the arrow so you can measure the movement. Dynamic spine cannot be tested. 
A flo tester or a freq tester does no more then find where the arrow flexes with the least amount of resistance. No more no less. 
You guys are taking a testing of golf clubs and trying to use it on arrows. Will it work. Yes. But it is not the same as clubs. 

Again look at what the testers are doing. Understand what a arrow is doing. Then use it. The ram is looking for deflection. The flo and freq tester are looking at the least amount of resistance of flex in the shaft. That's it.


----------



## swbuckmaster

If I just used FLO I would have 4 nock positions to test per arrow x 12 shots through paper. This equals 48 shots minimum. That is a significant improvement in time savings if you just put the nock on and started shooting checking tears and twisting till it shoots straight.

Ram found the dynamic side/crooked side or whatever side it doesn't matter of 75% of my arrows. They're consistent that's all that matters when you prove it on paper. If it didn't we wouldn't have had them shooting perfect bullet holes with bare shafts. You won't be able to hit the same hole down range if you don't get a perfect consistant paper tears with your bare shafts.

Testing with both RAM and FLO will almost cut your arrow shooting down to one shot per arrow through paper and just confirm your getting perfect tears.


----------



## zwalls

swbuckmaster said:


> By the way I didn't want to wait for my flow tester to get made. I had my daughter shoot those arrows through paper tonight. She's not your average shooter.
> 
> I eyeballed the hoyt pro comp fx center shot to aprox 3/4" and took one arrow and started tunning. Moved the rest to its final position 12/16" where it bullet holed a perfect hole. Set it aside and checked the rest. 5 out of the eight shot perfect holes. The other 3 needed the nock to be adjusted to bullet hole. I came back inside and checked those three again. One had a cracked nock. I replaced the nock and had her shoot it again. Bullet hole! The other two for what ever reason we're off. One was 90 degrees off the other was closer to 180 degrees off. Either way we tunned those arrows faster then I've tunned arrows before. I'd say as many arrows as we shoot the ram is a good investment. Even better with the up graded rollers.
> 
> On a side note the bare shafts would shoot a 3/8" tear if it wasn't nock tunned. Twisting the nock you can see the tear move until it finds the perfect hole. The hole is also repeatable. The distance we shot through paper was about 12 to 13 feet.


now that's how a plan comes together. I'm also glad I invested in a Ram but still want to rig a FLO test too. I just love tinkering. I cant help it.


----------



## zwalls

swbuckmaster said:


> If I just used FLO I would have 4 nock positions to test per arrow x 12 shots through paper. This equals 48 shots minimum. That is a significant improvement in time savings if you just put the nock on and started shooting checking tears and twisting till it shoots straight.
> 
> Ram found the dynamic side/crooked side or whatever side it doesn't matter of 75% of my arrows. They're consistent that's all that matters when you prove it on paper. If it didn't we wouldn't have had them shooting perfect bullet holes with bare shafts. You won't be able to hit the same hole down range if you don't get a perfect consistant paper tears with your bare shafts.
> 
> Testing with both RAM and FLO will almost cut your arrow shooting down to one shot per arrow through paper and just confirm your getting perfect tears.


I agree! using the RAM to check static spine as cut down time on nock tuning. but I feel once I get setup to do FLO testing it will cut it down even more!! JMHO


----------



## Super 91

Just a quick note, there is one set of rollers left. All others have been sold and shipped. If anyone wants the last set, send me a pm. First come, first served.

Thank you! Once this set is sold, I won't be "advertising" any more on this or any other thread. I would like to hear from the other guys who bought a set, pro's and con's either way. Let me know if there is any improvement you would do to them, and if there is anything that you don't like about them, other than the price of course! :wink:


----------



## enewman

Just remember when testing with a ram tester. All you are doing is deflection of shaft and run out. Nothing else. 

Look at the pic. It shows what we are doing. Low and high point. Means nothing else. Now the shaft will have more resistance to flex past the bend. This is why the flo tester is 90 degree from that point. Least amount of resistance. 

What we should be saying is we are trying to line the nodes of the arrow so that they are straight up and down.


----------



## enewman

This is my findings, and my thoughts. Again I have no problem using a ram tester. But all we are doing is finding a point and matching the arrows so they are all the same. Then we adjust the bow to shoot bullet holes. The flo tester is a better method. This gives you the flex point of the arrow. We just now need to under stand the relation ship of the flo test and the knocking point.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Enewman 
I dissagree with you saying all I did was show run out and here's why. Those shafts without the ram weight can't even measure run out because their too straight. When I add the weight you can defiantly see the way the shaft is built or see its inconsistances. The proof was getting 6 out of 8 of the shafts to bullet hole with one shot after ram testing. That won't happen without lining up the dynamic spine. In fact I could turn the nocks on those arrows 90 degrees and I'd get 3/8" to 3/4" tears. I tested them again last night. I guarantee you those 8 arrows now would hit the same hole out to 20 yards through a hooter shooter. I also guarantee you without nock tunning they wouldn't have. 

Now if your measuring crooked arrows your absolutly mudding your results measuring the deflection aspects or run out. That's where FLO or shooting helps.

FLO is good but you need the ram to narrow which side your going to index. 
With flow you still have four options where your going to index your nock. That's still at least 4 possible shots through paper to verify. Shots equals time. Time is money. 

RAM and FLO complement each other. I wouldn't say one is better then the other. You need both imho


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> Enewman
> I dissagree with you saying all I did was show run out and here's why. Those shafts without the ram weight can't even measure run out because their too straight. When I add the weight you can defiantly see the way the shaft is built or see its inconsistances. The proof was getting 6 out of 8 of the shafts to bullet hole with one shot after ram testing. That won't happen without lining up the dynamic spine. In fact I could turn the nocks on those arrows 90 degrees and I'd get 3/8" to 3/4" tears. I tested them again last night. I guarantee you those 8 arrows now would hit the same hole out to 20 yards through a hooter shooter. I also guarantee you without nock tunning they wouldn't have.
> 
> Now if your measuring crooked arrows your absolutly mudding your results measuring the deflection aspects or run out. That's where FLO or shooting helps.
> 
> FLO is good but you need the ram to narrow which side your going to index.
> With flow you still have four options where your going to index your nock. That's still at least 4 possible shots through paper to verify. Shots equals time. Time is money.
> 
> RAM and FLO complement each other. I wouldn't say one is better then the other. You need both imho


I'm not arguing with you. So please don't take it that way. I'm still testing my self. But I do understand how an arrow works. But we are not measuring dynamic spine. This can not be tested with anything we are testing with. 
When you add the weight. You will see more of the run out do to exaggerated bend you have now put into the arrow. If a spine tester could do what everyone on here is saying. It would be 100 percent. It's not. Because all we are doing is matching the bend in the arrow to the next arrow. Yes this will cause them to flex close to the same. So they shoot good. You your self is saying you would not had a perfect shot if you had not knoc tuned. No where have I ever said that this will keep you from knoc tuning. You will still have to knoc tune some or all the arrows to get that hole. Just indexing cuts the time down. 
I'm all for ram and flo testing. Never said I wasnt. I'm just showing everyone that what they are calling it is wrong. For years everyone said you look for stiff spine when indexing with a ram. No such thing. Spine is spine 360 degrees around the arrow. 
Now we have got onto saying stiff plane and weak plane. This is incorrect. This cannot be found by a ram tester. 
All a ram tester is for and can do is find the deflection of a shaft. 
Same thing with a flo tester. All it is doing is finding where the shaft flexes with the least amount of resistance. It's that simple. We can call it what ever you want. But it is what it is. 

I have another thought for you. How do you know that the 6 arrows where the good ones and the other two where the bad ones. You don't. This is part of the tuning problem. We take a bad arrow tune your yokes, tune your rest, advance cam to get better knoc travel. Now the bad arrow shoots a hole. Now you take the good arrow and shoot it after all that tuning Is it going to shoot a hole. Nope. Now you say. That is a bad arrow. When really it was the good one you just tuned the bad one to shoot good. 

why you still have to knoc tune. It's all in the dynamic spine of the arrow. This dynamic spine can change. Take one of your arrows. Do your spine indexing how ever you want. Put a 75 gn tip in it. Shoot it. And get a bullet hole. Now put a 125 gn tip. You will not have the bullet hole. What happened. You changed the dynamic spine of that arrow. 
We are all getting to the same point. You just to understand what we are looking at. Tuning we'll be easier. 

Once we all get this worked out and people understand what is going on. There will be a hole lot less of twist the cable, twist string, induce cam lean, no take cam lean out. 

If your center shot is straight In front of the power stroke. And you have no vertical knoc travel. And the nodes of the arrow are lined up and down. The arrow will shoot a hole. Any adjustment needed will be because of induced touqure by the shooter. This is of course nothing is wrong with the bow. And you are shooting correct spine.


----------



## Hoythunter01

Ram spine tester came in today along with the roller upgrade. The same day !!!

So, after assembly, I sat back and looked at it and thought... "there's $318.00 I will never get back". But, it is what it is and I rubbed my hands together and said out loud "Here we go" !

I went out to the shop and grabbed a brand new dozen of Easton Fat Boy 400's.
Now before I continue, I have a few questions...
1. When checking spine... Set up at 28"... do you look for the stiff side of the shaft ? That will get you a correct spine reading ? Or the weak side ??
2. If you barely touch the shaft the needle goes crazy. Where do you guys roll the shaft from ?? My finger pressure seemed to work best right on top of the roller bearings where the shaft is resting.
3. Rolling the shaft... Do you roll it towards you or away ? I know this sounds absurd, but I get different high and low readings depending on what way I rotate the shaft. No debris on the shafts because they are brand new out of the sealed plastic.

I didn't even try the Teflon things. I swapped them out for the rollers during assembly.

Thought I would do a simple spine test. I found the stiff side according to the dial indicator. 400 spine shafts new in the sealed wrapper. How flippin' disappointing that was...
1. .380 *
2. .381
3. .401
4. .379 *
5. .390
6. .376 *
7. .378 *
8. .371
9. .379 *
10. .379 *
11. .381
12. .383 

The ones with asterisks would be my best 1/2 dozen. Now, how do you make this work with OnTarget2 ??

One shaft out of a whole dozen was closest to what the label says. What did I get myself into here ? Is this "Keeping it Simple" ?


----------



## Hoythunter01

Super 91 said:


> Just a quick note, there is one set of rollers left. All others have been sold and shipped. If anyone wants the last set, send me a pm. First come, first served.
> 
> Thank you! Once this set is sold, I won't be "advertising" any more on this or any other thread. I would like to hear from the other guys who bought a set, pro's and con's either way. Let me know if there is any improvement you would do to them, and if there is anything that you don't like about them, other than the price of course! :wink:


Got my rollers today. Never even tried the Teflon ones. You had me fooled though. I was expecting something heavier. I opened the little envelope...and the little white one.....thanks for making it fun.....and there they were. Taa Daa !! They are very light and add very little extra weight to the Brass weight. Very impressed with the quality.

Now let's talk about Leg Extensions. Either for the Ram or my kitchen table. I sat there for over an hour with my head cocked sideways looking at that stupid dial. Seriously though. 12" leg extensions for the Ram is on my wish list from you. Please and Thank You !!


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> I have another thought for you. How do you know that the 6 arrows where the good ones and the other two where the bad ones. You don't. This is part of the tuning problem. We take a bad arrow tune your yokes, tune your rest, advance cam to get better knoc travel. Now the bad arrow shoots a hole. Now you take the good arrow and shoot it after all that tuning Is it going to shoot a hole. Nope. Now you say. That is a bad arrow. When really it was the good one you just tuned the bad one to shoot good.
> 
> why you still have to knoc tune. It's all in the dynamic spine of the arrow. This dynamic spine can change. Take one of your arrows. Do your spine indexing how ever you want. Put a 75 gn tip in it. Shoot it. And get a bullet hole. Now put a 125 gn tip. You will not have the bullet hole. What happened. You changed the dynamic spine of that arrow.
> We are all getting to the same point. You just to understand what we are looking at. Tuning we'll be easier.


We're just discussing things here and I'm not mad.

I feel I have a grasp of what's going on just fine. 

I tunned seven kenitic arrows for myself tonight. 

You asked a question, how do I know I didnt tune a bad arrow and made all my good arrows tune to it? I put them on the ram and sorted the spines. I tested the run out. I marked the stiff side and the weak or neutral sides. This only took me about 15 minutes. The results were good enough. I shot a few through paper and saw similar tears on several. Moved the rest for those and got several to bullet hole. Fine tunned or tweaked the nocks on the other two and was done in about 15 minutes. The ram sped up my normal tunning process. Again how do I know I picked a bad arrow and tunned the rest to it? It doesn't matter their all good because their all consistant with each other! 

The results speak for themselves and I'm happy. Now I don't shoot but once every few weeks and usually take the summers off. I work out of town for weeks at a time. 446 out of 450 with kenitic arrows. Didn't count x's but I should have. I was rotating all seven arrows through when shooting. Nothing sticks out to me as bad flyiers. The four I missed were me and I new they weren't going to hit but still shot them anyways. That's a weak part of my own mental game.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I also tested my daughters 2312's on the ram. I didn't have the rollers then but lined up the high sides. I didn't shoot them through paper though. I went straight to bare shaft tunning with fletched shafts at 20 yards. Had a slight high tear with bare shaft that was fixed by cutting the arrow down an inch placing the node on the rest. I also shaved the blade down a touch.

This was her first game. 299 20 or 22x can't remember. Arrows were shot in order. They all show the same pattern


----------



## Super 91

Hoythunter01 said:


> Got my rollers today. Never even tried the Teflon ones. You had me fooled though. I was expecting something heavier. I opened the little envelope...and the little white one.....thanks for making it fun.....and there they were. Taa Daa !! They are very light and add very little extra weight to the Brass weight. Very impressed with the quality.
> 
> Now let's talk about Leg Extensions. Either for the Ram or my kitchen table. I sat there for over an hour with my head cocked sideways looking at that stupid dial. Seriously though. 12" leg extensions for the Ram is on my wish list from you. Please and Thank You !!


Well, after sending a few of these out, I decided that to help keep the side of the rollers from poking through the package, the little white "pouch" was in order. Plus it messes with the recipient, which is always fun.....lol

Glad you got them in, now the fun begins! And I know what you mean about the legs being short. At counter-top height, your get a crick in your neck! May have to work on that one someday.

Thanks for the review!


----------



## Super 91

swbuckmaster said:


> I also tested my daughters 2312's on the ram. I didn't have the rollers then but lined up the high sides. I didn't shoot them through paper though. I went straight to bare shaft tunning with fletched shafts at 20 yards. Had a slight high tear with bare shaft that was fixed by cutting the arrow down an inch placing the node on the rest. I also shaved the blade down a touch.
> 
> This was her first game. 299 20 or 22x can't remember. Arrows were shot in order. They all show the same pattern


That is some very impressive shooting!


----------



## ontarget7

Hoythunter01 said:


> Ram spine tester came in today along with the roller upgrade. The same day !!!
> 
> So, after assembly, I sat back and looked at it and thought... "there's $318.00 I will never get back". But, it is what it is and I rubbed my hands together and said out loud "Here we go" !
> 
> I went out to the shop and grabbed a brand new dozen of Easton Fat Boy 400's.
> Now before I continue, I have a few questions...
> 1. When checking spine... Set up at 28"... do you look for the stiff side of the shaft ? That will get you a correct spine reading ? Or the weak side ??
> 2. If you barely touch the shaft the needle goes crazy. Where do you guys roll the shaft from ?? My finger pressure seemed to work best right on top of the roller bearings where the shaft is resting.
> 3. Rolling the shaft... Do you roll it towards you or away ? I know this sounds absurd, but I get different high and low readings depending on what way I rotate the shaft. No debris on the shafts because they are brand new out of the sealed plastic.
> 
> I didn't even try the Teflon things. I swapped them out for the rollers during assembly.
> 
> Thought I would do a simple spine test. I found the stiff side according to the dial indicator. 400 spine shafts new in the sealed wrapper. How flippin' disappointing that was...
> 1. .380 *
> 2. .381
> 3. .401
> 4. .379 *
> 5. .390
> 6. .376 *
> 7. .378 *
> 8. .371
> 9. .379 *
> 10. .379 *
> 11. .381
> 12. .383
> 
> The ones with asterisks would be my best 1/2 dozen. Now, how do you make this work with OnTarget2 ??
> 
> One shaft out of a whole dozen was closest to what the label says. What did I get myself into here ? Is this "Keeping it Simple" ?


I promise I will keep this simple and truely amazed what this has turned into. Makes for a very interesting read 

1) Don't sweat if they don't read in your case the actual .400. In most cases the arrows will test stiffer than their actual rating, generally not going weaker than.
Let the arrow manufacture labeling determine your static spine. Let the arrow software determine your dynamic spine. Now if you have a huge difference in static spine with some 400 arrows that are testing 350, well there is a good chance they got labeled wrong.

2) The finger pressure will be a learning curve and is easily picked up in no time. I prefer right next to the roller, just outside of where the arrow sits on them. For me personally I find it easier to roll towards you with very even pressure. Make the movements smaller in nature, like breaking the shaft up in 45* segments. For me personally if you go farther than that it is harder to keep that pressure even as you roll the arrow

When you do this enough you will get an idea of how much variation you can get away with when batching arrows

It's really very simply and I very seldom ever have to nock tune when taking my approach.


----------



## Super 91

What Shane said, and I roll very slowly as well. If you roll the shaft quickly, you get readings all over the place. I place my finger as close to the RAM rollers as I can, and as far as which way I roll, most of the time I roll away from myself, as for me I can control the speed and pressure better. It just takes a little trial and errror, you will get it in no time.


----------



## enewman

Swbuckmaster. Nice shooting for you and daughter. 


When rolling the arrow I never could get a smooth roll. So I take a bobby pin and clip it to the knoc. Then I roll the arrow with that. I get a better movement that way.


We need to build some form of a wing that will snap onto the knoc. Or in the groove. That way you can just put your finger on the one side and just rotate the shaft.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I agree with you jerry. I don't think the ram tester is finding what people are saying it is. That is why I asked the question. I'm still testing. But the ram tester is not finding anything but deflection. That is what the ram tester was made for. Can this be used to our advantage yes. And that works. As long long as you find the high point in the shaft and match all the arrows. They will all be close. Are they perfect no. Are you finding a stiff plane or weak plane. Not realy. But it dosent matter as long as there all the same. Now does the flo or freq tester work. Well I don't know about the freq tester but the flo for me is. But I'm still testing. But what I'm seeing is on an .006 arrow flo is about 90 degree from the high point in the bend of the arrow. And it should be. But it's because the arrow will flex at the least amount of resistance in the shaft. The high point will have the most resistance do to it has to flex against the bend in the shaft and over come that point. That's just physics. On a .001 arrow. Flo may not be 90 degrees to the highest point. The arrow is straight so it has less of a point to flex and over come.
> The hole point to this is away to match arrows faster and make tunning easier. But what people are looking at and calling it is not correct. Even you are saying dynamic spine. Dynamic spine can be calculated. But unless you have the right camera an graph drawn on the wall and shoot the arrow so you can measure the movement. Dynamic spine cannot be tested.
> A flo tester or a freq tester does no more then find where the arrow flexes with the least amount of resistance. No more no less.
> You guys are taking a testing of golf clubs and trying to use it on arrows. Will it work. Yes. But it is not the same as clubs.
> 
> Again look at what the testers are doing. Understand what a arrow is doing. Then use it. The ram is looking for deflection. The flo and freq tester are looking at the least amount of resistance of flex in the shaft. That's it.


I do not for the life of me understand where you are getting the data to form an opinion that dynamic spine cant be tested. I have shown time and time again that it can. All dynamic spine is is a response to energy being applied to a tube. Is energy being applied in the same manner it is applied to an arrow, golf club or fishing rod, no but that doesnt matter, what matters is that any tube responds the exact same way when energy is applied, they form a stiff plane and they form a neutral plane and direct the energy toward the neutral plane, that physics.

The RAM finds the deflection and run out and it can find the stiffest point (statically speaking), accurate enough to let folks index arrows so the neutral plane can be oriented so that all arrow shafts flex during flight in the same plane. 

I have said this almost countless time and still it seems folks do not want to accept it, Golf Clubs, Fishing Rods, Arrows etc are tubes and if its a tube it responds the "exact same way dynamically". As energy is applied the stiff plane directs the energy applied to flow toward the neutral plane. It does not matter if its a tube and what that tube is used for the frequency analyzer and FLO will find the neutral plane (dynamically speaking). 

Now the frequency analyzers can produce two readings, a stiff plane and a neutral plane (dynamically speaking). The frequency analyzer can read 4 quadrants, the stiff plane and the neutral plane, you will never get any other readings, you get one reading within the neutral plane and one reading within the stiff plane. 

If you divide a shafts into quarters you will see the same cycles per minute reading in opposing quadrants. Example, lets say you are about to test a shaft and you place the shaft so the stiff plane will be the first to test and you get a reading of 150.10 cpm you will get the same reading 180 degrees on the other side of the shaft and 22.5 degrees on either side of that reading will be the same reading. Likewise if you rotate the shaft 90 degrees and you get a reading of say 149.20 cpm you will get that same reading 22.5 degrees on either side of that reading will be the same reading. This proves there are only 4 quadrants at the dynamic spine level. 

The word spine is being misused a lot in this tread, spine is the deflection at every point 360 degrees around the shaft, spine is deflection, every arrow has spine variances 360 degrees around the arrow every golf club has spine variances 360 degrees around the shaft and a fishing rod has spine variances 360 degrees around the shaft.

Now once you have this data you can use the FLO test to fine tune exactly where an arrow wants to bend within the neutral plane. 

I think when when all is said and done

The frequency analyzer will be best used to dynamically spine match arrows along the neutral plane

The FLO test will be best used to fine tune where the natural bending point ( dynamically speaking aka neutral plane) is located

And the RAM test will still be the go to test to find the stiffest point on shafts so shafts can be indexed.


----------



## enewman

Jerry the only way I have found to test the dynamic flex of the arrow is to shoot the arrow next to a wall with a graph on it. Then video this with a slow motion camera. Then you have to measure the flex next to the graph. This is how you would test the dynamic flex of the shaft. 

There is no possible way to test dynamic flex of a arrow shaft with one one of the arrow in a clamp. 
You keep referring to a golf club. A gulf club is held in your hand and swung in an arc. I don't know about you but my arrow is shot from a bow. Not swung. 

Now where I'm I getting my info. It's called commen since. And physics. 

If there is another way to test for dynamic flex then you need to show me. 

It's funny half of your post is saying the same thing I am and yet you think Im the one that dosent know what I'm talking about. You write like I don't know spine is 360 degrees around the arrow. I'm the one that made that first comment 20 pages ago. And in some of my last post. you write that the ram is now finding the stiffest point. In the beginng and on the phone you where calling that stiffest spine. Now your calling it stiffest point. Which is what I have been saying it is only because it's the high point in the natrual bend of the arrow and the flex of the shaft will be harder just because it's againts the bend. I've also been saying this since 20 pages ago. You are now saying the same as I have been but yet you write all of this like I'm the one that has no clue. 

I understand you have been doing this along time, but understand there are people out there that are just as smart as you on arrows. 


If you can test for the dynamic spine then tell me a number. What is the dynamic spine. You can test static spine you have a member a measurement. Now tell me what the measurement number is with a flo tester. You can't. So you are not testing crap for dynamic spine,flex. You are looking at the least amount of flex.


----------



## enewman

Since you keep wanting to compare an arrow to a golf club let's look at a golf club. First you flo or freq test to find the stiff plane and week plane. Then you put the stiff plane straight out and the weak plane horizontal to you. Now get in your stance. Now as you move the shaft in a swinging motion to above your head. The shaft will flex so that the head is lagging. Once you stop the head will now move past that point. Now your on the stroke side the head is now lagging again. As you hit the ball the head will be trying to lead the shaft. Now we know that. The only reason you flo or freq test a club is so you find the least amount of resistance so the shaft will flex at that point. If it's out the head of the shaft will not stay straight. It will twist in the swing. That makes the head not contact the ball flat. This is why the ball does not drive down a straight line. 
That is why you test shafts 
Now for arrows. I agree to flo test. This will find the point in the arrow so the flex is equal or flexes with less restriction. This is what we are looking for. This has nothing todo with dynamic spine or flex. 

Dynamic flex/spine is effected by everything. So even if you could test for dynamic spine you would have to test with the weight of your tip in the arrow. Not just a weight to make the arrow flex. Once you change the weight on the tip of the arrow you change the position of the nodes of the arrow and you change the dynamic spine reaction of the shaft. 

So again if you could test for the dynamic spine you would have to do it. With the customers cut arrow. With his weight tip, his fletchings his exact amount of force put to the noc end of the arrow. Then you can test dynamic spine.

The whole post was to spine index an arrow. It dosent matter how we do it as long as we are consistent. But all this other got started because you came on here and said ontarget is not doing what he said he is doing. But yet it works. What you are doing works. But now I'm telling you just like you told Shane. It's working for you but you don't know why. Well you do now cause I just told you. If I'm wrong prove it. Then I will come on here and tell you I'm sorry for everyone to read.


----------



## zwalls

Hoythunter01 said:


> Ram spine tester came in today along with the roller upgrade. The same day !!!
> 
> So, after assembly, I sat back and looked at it and thought... "there's $318.00 I will never get back". But, it is what it is and I rubbed my hands together and said out loud "Here we go" !
> 
> I went out to the shop and grabbed a brand new dozen of Easton Fat Boy 400's.
> Now before I continue, I have a few questions...
> 1. When checking spine... Set up at 28"... do you look for the stiff side of the shaft ? That will get you a correct spine reading ? Or the weak side ??
> 2. If you barely touch the shaft the needle goes crazy. Where do you guys roll the shaft from ?? My finger pressure seemed to work best right on top of the roller bearings where the shaft is resting.
> 3. Rolling the shaft... Do you roll it towards you or away ? I know this sounds absurd, but I get different high and low readings depending on what way I rotate the shaft. No debris on the shafts because they are brand new out of the sealed plastic.
> 
> I didn't even try the Teflon things. I swapped them out for the rollers during assembly.
> 
> Thought I would do a simple spine test. I found the stiff side according to the dial indicator. 400 spine shafts new in the sealed wrapper. How flippin' disappointing that was...
> 1. .380 *
> 2. .381
> 3. .401
> 4. .379 *
> 5. .390
> 6. .376 *
> 7. .378 *
> 8. .371
> 9. .379 *
> 10. .379 *
> 11. .381
> 12. .383
> 
> The ones with asterisks would be my best 1/2 dozen. Now, how do you make this work with OnTarget2 ??
> 
> One shaft out of a whole dozen was closest to what the label says. What did I get myself into here ? Is this "Keeping it Simple" ?


like Shane said....what I've learned for me is, I usually use one finger on one roller and I put my finger dead center of the rollers at one end or the other. I find that gently tapping the arrow before I move lets me know if I'm in the right place.if the dial doesn't move I begin to spin slowly in small increments which is now much easier with the new roller bearing from Super91. once I hang the weight I make one revolution to try to find the weakest spot and just for myself spin the dial to "0". and then start again very slowly in small increments. with the new roller bearing the dial seems to be more precise and finding the static spine.stiff side seems to be easier and more accurate then before. so as Shane said, we are not measuring for the actual spine(.400) just the static spine(stiffest spot) on the arrow and then mark it.

I did the same exact thing is you did until Shane explained it to me and know I feel I made a good investment. the more you use it the better you get at it. just keep testing the same arrows until you get your process down pat!!

another note....I spin them before I put the weight on to check for straightness too!


----------



## zwalls

swbuckmaster said:


> I also tested my daughters 2312's on the ram. I didn't have the rollers then but lined up the high sides. I didn't shoot them through paper though. I went straight to bare shaft tunning with fletched shafts at 20 yards. Had a slight high tear with bare shaft that was fixed by cutting the arrow down an inch placing the node on the rest. I also shaved the blade down a touch.
> 
> This was her first game. 299 20 or 22x can't remember. Arrows were shot in order. They all show the same pattern


that is some awesome shooting right there! wish I could do that!


----------



## DFA

Super 91 said:


> I've had lots of pm's asking for the roller arms, and most orders are filled. I have two sets left, and if the two guys who asked about buying them pay for them, then that will be the end of the run. I'll give these guys a day or two to respond, and if they choose not to purchase, I will let everyone know the availability.
> 
> Thank you everyone who made the purchase. I hope they work well for you.


 Got mine yesterday.........AWESOME difference from the old hangers............. thank you for a great product.
DFA


----------



## zwalls

Hoythunter01 said:


> Got my rollers today. Never even tried the Teflon ones. You had me fooled though. I was expecting something heavier. I opened the little envelope...and the little white one.....thanks for making it fun.....and there they were. Taa Daa !! They are very light and add very little extra weight to the Brass weight. Very impressed with the quality.
> 
> Now let's talk about Leg Extensions. Either for the Ram or my kitchen table. I sat there for over an hour with my head cocked sideways looking at that stupid dial. Seriously though. 12" leg extensions for the Ram is on my wish list from you. Please and Thank You !!





Super 91 said:


> Well, after sending a few of these out, I decided that to help keep the side of the rollers from poking through the package, the little white "pouch" was in order. Plus it messes with the recipient, which is always fun.....lol
> 
> Glad you got them in, now the fun begins! And I know what you mean about the legs being short. At counter-top height, your get a crick in your neck! May have to work on that one someday.
> 
> Thanks for the review!


HECK......I'm 6'4" and sitting at the desk wasn't getting it done. I had more than a crick in my neck:chortle:
so now I set it on the coffee table in the living room and sit on the floor which isn't much easier for me but at least I can look directly at the dial. my wife ask me....."what in the world do you have now"?
I told her something that all archers should have to test their arrows for safety reasons!! she said "yeah, right"! lol


----------



## zwalls

SouthShoreRat said:


> I do not for the life of me understand where you are getting the data to form an opinion that dynamic spine cant be tested. I have shown time and time again that it can. All dynamic spine is is a response to energy being applied to a tube. Is energy being applied in the same manner it is applied to an arrow, golf club or fishing rod, no but that doesnt matter, what matters is that any tube responds the exact same way when energy is applied, they form a stiff plane and they form a neutral plane and direct the energy toward the neutral plane, that physics.
> 
> The RAM finds the deflection and run out and it can find the stiffest point (statically speaking), accurate enough to let folks index arrows so the neutral plane can be oriented so that all arrow shafts flex during flight in the same plane.
> 
> I have said this almost countless time and still it seems folks do not want to accept it, Golf Clubs, Fishing Rods, Arrows etc are tubes and if its a tube it responds the "exact same way dynamically". As energy is applied the stiff plane directs the energy applied to flow toward the neutral plane. It does not matter if its a tube and what that tube is used for the frequency analyzer and FLO will find the neutral plane (dynamically speaking).
> 
> Now the frequency analyzers can produce two readings, a stiff plane and a neutral plane (dynamically speaking). The frequency analyzer can read 4 quadrants, the stiff plane and the neutral plane, you will never get any other readings, you get one reading within the neutral plane and one reading within the stiff plane.
> 
> If you divide a shafts into quarters you will see the same cycles per minute reading in opposing quadrants. Example, lets say you are about to test a shaft and you place the shaft so the stiff plane will be the first to test and you get a reading of 150.10 cpm you will get the same reading 180 degrees on the other side of the shaft and 22.5 degrees on either side of that reading will be the same reading. Likewise if you rotate the shaft 90 degrees and you get a reading of say 149.20 cpm you will get that same reading 22.5 degrees on either side of that reading will be the same reading. This proves there are only 4 quadrants at the dynamic spine level.
> 
> The word spine is being misused a lot in this tread, spine is the deflection at every point 360 degrees around the shaft, spine is deflection, every arrow has spine variances 360 degrees around the arrow every golf club has spine variances 360 degrees around the shaft and a fishing rod has spine variances 360 degrees around the shaft.
> 
> Now once you have this data you can use the FLO test to fine tune exactly where an arrow wants to bend within the neutral plane.
> 
> I think when when all is said and done
> 
> The frequency analyzer will be best used to dynamically spine match arrows along the neutral plane
> 
> The FLO test will be best used to fine tune where the natural bending point ( dynamically speaking aka neutral plane) is located
> 
> And the RAM test will still be the go to test to find the stiffest point on shafts so shafts can be indexed.


makes since and totally understandable:thumb:


----------



## enewman

Static spine is how much deflection at a 28” span a shaft has with a weight of just over a pound hanging from the middle. In other words, how much bend? Dynamic spine is how much that shaft bends, or reacts, at the actual thrust from the string when the arrow is released. In essence, this is how quickly the arrow recovers or how forgiving it is.

This was taken from carbon express. Key word is thrust. This is why clamping an shaft at one end and testing by fleixing the shaft has nothing todo with dynamic spine. 

This is just one statement. From one arrow manufacture. I can post tons of info like this, Just look it up they all say the same. My opinion is made from the info that the manufacture of the arrows are saying. 

Again jerry. If you can prove me wrong. Then show me. I'll be glad to say I'm sorry. But till then I'm standing my ground.


----------



## swbuckmaster

zwalls said:


> makes since and totally understandable:thumb:


Agreed 
Is it perfect no or it would give you 100 percent perfect results
Grims links really explain the why.

The only way an arrow spine can be 360 degrees arround is if your looking at it from outer space. The closer you examine it the more you realize it has inconsistances built in and it's not perfect all the way arround. Now if an arrow is perfectly straight if it has a stiff side it will be stiff all the way through that arrow just like a ruler is stiffest on its edge and wiggles easiest on the flat side.

If I was only measuring the most bent side or High point of a bent arrow bent like was suggested I would have measured the greatest deflection 180 degrees from the high point. That wasn't the case if you know how to read the scale on the photos I posted. The photos I posted showed the arrow weakest or most deflected side to be 90 degrees from its stiffest side. I'll call that a type A arrow.

The problem with the ram tester is your not always dealing with a type A arrows and that's why it doest work 100 percent of the time. Maybe the weakest side is on the bent side of the shaft "Type B arrow." This may read the high point and weak side 180 degrees apart. If I index that arrow with a type A arrow I don't think they will group together. 

Their may also be other types of arrows I'm not aware of and the ram tester is barely good enough to begin seeing what your looking at. If you also have heavy inconstent fingers you will get inconsistent results.


----------



## Super 91

DFA said:


> Got mine yesterday.........AWESOME difference from the old hangers............. thank you for a great product.
> DFA


Very good, glad you got them okay, and that they are working well for you. Thanks for letting me know!


----------



## Super 91

zwalls said:


> HECK......I'm 6'4" and sitting at the desk wasn't getting it done. I had more than a crick in my neck:chortle:
> so now I set it on the coffee table in the living room and sit on the floor which isn't much easier for me but at least I can look directly at the dial. my wife ask me....."what in the world do you have now"?
> I told her something that all archers should have to test their arrows for safety reasons!! she said "yeah, right"! lol


Finally! An advantage to being short.....lol. 

Pretty slick explanation with the wife there.....ha! Mind if I use that one? :wink:


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Static spine is how much deflection at a 28” span a shaft has with a weight of just over a pound hanging from the middle. In other words, how much bend? Dynamic spine is how much that shaft bends, or reacts, at the actual thrust from the string when the arrow is released. In essence, this is how quickly the arrow recovers or how forgiving it is.
> 
> This was taken from carbon express. Key word is thrust. This is why clamping an shaft at one end and testing by fleixing the shaft has nothing todo with dynamic spine.
> 
> This is just one statement. From one arrow manufacture. I can post tons of info like this, Just look it up they all say the same. My opinion is made from the info that the manufacture of the arrows are saying.
> 
> Again jerry. If you can prove me wrong. Then show me. I'll be glad to say I'm sorry. But till then I'm standing my ground.


That quote is one of those interesting little facts which are correct and at the same time incorrect.
It is obvious that one end of the shafts is stationary up to the point of launch from the string, so the shaft completes it's entire first bend or oscillation while one end is fixed stationary. Depending on the spine of the shaft, it may even complete the full return oscillation before the shaft is released. Now ideally, for the truest readings to take places, the shaft would need to be free of all influences but as long as the influences are consistent from one shaft to the next. The readings will be different but proportionally consistent. 
The same applies for when the arrow components are added. Each change to the shaft will change the shaft oscillation but if you do it consistently the results should be consistent.
This is also why it has been stated repeatedly that a firm consistent clamping system is needed. As long as the same amount is clamped with the same consistent preasure the result should be proportional.
There are always trade offs to be made in most everything. A frequency meter has been determined to be the best ways to measure "Spine", not by us or Jerry but by people who have a lot more brain cells then most of us combined. These are the tools we are trying to use to make sense of our surroundings, are they always correct, probably not but getting hung up on verbiage that most of us barely understand is doing a disservice the experience that is being conveyed.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

It took me a few moments to find it but the following link has the best description of static and dynamic spine that Ihave found.

http://www.africanarcher.com/dynamicSPINE.html

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> That quote is one of those interesting little facts which are correct and at the same time incorrect.
> It is obvious that one end of the shafts is stationary up to the point of launch from the string, so the shaft completes it's entire first bend or oscillation while one end is fixed stationary. Depending on the spine of the shaft, it may even complete the full return oscillation before the shaft is released. Now ideally, for the truest readings to take places, the shaft would need to be free of all influences but as long as the influences are consistent from one shaft to the next. The readings will be different but proportionally consistent.
> The same applies for when the arrow components are added. Each change to the shaft will change the shaft oscillation but if you do it consistently the results should be consistent.
> This is also why it has been stated repeatedly that a firm consistent clamping system is needed. As long as the same amount is clamped with the same consistent preasure the result should be proportional.
> There are always trade offs to be made in most everything. A frequency meter has been determined to be the best ways to measure "Spine", not by us or Jerry but by people who have a lot more brain cells then most of us combined. These are the tools we are trying to use to make sense of our surroundings, are they always correct, probably not but getting hung up on verbiage that most of us barely understand is doing a disservice the experience that is being conveyed.
> 
> GRIM


I see what you are saying. But let me now put this in. Your saying that the arrow is connected to the string. So now it's stationary. Ok it is till its shot. Once it's released the arrow will flex. But so does the end on the string. The arrow can move up and down. So it is not fixed. It can pivot up/dn So again the clamp devise is holding a portion of the arrow. So again it is not reacting the same as being shot. So we are not looking at dynamic spine when flo testing. 

Neither is a freq tester. It is looking a flex. Has nothing todo with spine finding or dynamic spine. 

I agree there are smarter people out there.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> I see what you are saying. But let me now put this in. Your saying that the arrow is connected to the string. So now it's stationary. Ok it is till its shot. Once it's released the arrow will flex. But so does the end on the string. The arrow can move up and down. So it is not fixed. It can pivot up/dn So again the clamp devise is holding a portion of the arrow. So again it is not reacting the same as being shot. So we are not looking at dynamic spine when flo testing.
> 
> Neither is a freq tester. It is looking a flex. Has nothing todo with spine finding or dynamic spine.
> 
> I agree there are smarter people out there.


The following quote is from the link posted above

"The sixth difference is dimensions. S-spine is a single number, but d-spine actually consists of two numbers. If you think about it, d-spine is a measurement of how an arrow vibrates and not how it bends, and all vibrations have two dimensions: amplitude (how far it bends) and frequency (how fast it bends). These two quantities are independent of each other. If, for example, you increase the pile weight, you increase how far the arrow will bend (as we saw above), but not directly, and only slightly, how fast it will bend. So we will have to investigate the two dimensions separately. So far we have only looked at the amplitude and will continue to do so for now. I will get back to frequency later."


Perspective is everything.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

But how do you measure how far the arrow bends when you shoot it? This is very difficult. You need a high-speed camera, which I don’t have. So instead we will hypothesise, 

Grim I took this right of what you just posted. So I have already talked about the camera. So now he's saying we have to hypothesize.

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms:	theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
PHILOSOPHY
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Again nice read grim! Thanks


----------



## Super 91

A high speed camera sure would be useful in all this. Anyone got a spare one laying around, or an extra $20,000 to let me buy one? lol

By the way, one set of rollers left. If anyone wants them, pm me and I'll give you the information needed to buy them. After these are gone, there will be no more.


----------



## enewman

Your posting how dynamic spine is looked at But you have not shown me. How you are testing dynamic spine. Even in your post he said you need a camera. 

I'm not saying you cannot set up your arrow with a flo tester or a ram tester or a freq tester. But yall are the ones saying your checking dynamic spine. No your not. But please don't stop trying to prove me wrong. I enjoy the info yall are giving me. Hopefully others will get same amount of info I have and make us all abetter tuner/ shooter.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> But how do you measure how far the arrow bends when you shoot it? This is very difficult. You need a high-speed camera, which I don’t have. So instead we will hypothesise,
> 
> Grim I took this right of what you just posted. So I have already talked about the camera. So now he's saying we have to hypothesize.
> 
> hy·poth·e·sis
> hīˈpäTHəsəs/
> noun
> a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
> "professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
> synonyms:	theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
> PHILOSOPHY
> a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.


Again you are correct but just like the Ram spine finder measurements are inaccurate, they can still be used to impart a degree of consistency and accuracy. The frequency meter is more accurate than a Ram spine finder just as the Ram is more accurate them floating them.

A simple proof of method. Take two identical pots of water, if you were to apply consistent heat to each. They will boil ate the same time and temp.
Add a spoon to each, they will still boil at the same time and temp but at a different time and temp. as the first.
The same concept is and has been applied to most if not all of daily lives.

GRIM


----------



## SAVIOUR68

I believe the verbage used here is used loosely.
Static means at rest not moving, so people that call adding a 1.94# weight on a arrow suspended on 2 pivot points 28" apart are actually inducing movement caused by the weight which is now called Dymanic. 
Static at rest
Dynamic is moving
Arrow being shot from a bow is also dymanic but at a different rate than what was tested with a 1.94# weight.
A shaft can be dymanic [moved/flexed] in any plane or side of the plane BUTTTT one side should have/be the stiffest point measurement weather is bent 1 in or 3 in.

static

adj.adjective

Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.

Fixed; stationary.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Your posting how dynamic spine is looked at But you have not shown me. How you are testing dynamic spine. Even in your post he said you need a camera.
> 
> I'm not saying you cannot set up your arrow with a flo tester or a ram tester or a freq tester. But yall are the ones saying your checking dynamic spine. No your not. But please don't stop trying to prove me wrong. I enjoy the info yall are giving me. Hopefully others will get same amount of info I have and make us all abetter tuner/ shooter.


The use of a camera is used to slow the oscillation enough to be able to measure the amplitudes length, This is what a frequency meter does, it measures the highs and lows of the vibration. It just measures it in cycles per min.(or seconds) as apposed to inches of deflection.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Again grim thanks for the info. I got to go get another binder. Mine is filling up with all the info I've printed out. Sorry tree hugers I killed another one.



You know grim. With all I have learned and understand how an arrow works. I have another thought on tuning. But I'm keeping that thought to my self


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Again grim thanks for the info. I got to go get another binder. Mine is filling up with all the info I've printed out. Sorry tree hugers I killed another one.
> 
> 
> 
> You know grim. With all I have learned and understand how an arrow works. I have another thought on tuning. But I'm keeping that thought to my self



As much fun as testing and building is, I hope the thought runs more alone the lines of "As much fun as being OCD is, it's much more fun to shoot and be shooting than it is sitting at a bench stressing over the smallest details". Go out and take someone with you. Have fun guys and gals.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> As much fun as testing and building is, I hope the thought runs more alone the lines of "As much fun as being OCD is, it's much more fun to shoot and be shooting than it is sitting at a bench stressing over the smallest details". Go out and take someone with you. Have fun guys and gals.
> 
> GRIM


Haha my OCD kills me. Once I look at something. I have to dissect it down to nothing. Understand what it is and then make it work. It's horrible. I will be doing this testing and building a flo tester for a while now. I'm really having to tell my self no on a freq tester haha. But I bet it's coming. So if you get a call from a lady mad at you its my wife and I threw you under the bus.


----------



## ex-wolverine

I respectfully beg to differ..The arrow only bends when you put the weight on it...Dynamic by definition is continuous motion ...Once the arrow stops bending from the weight its static...Your not measuring movement your measuring deflection ...


http://www.arrowtrademagazine.com/articles/july_06/ControllingDynamicArrowSpine-July2006.pdf

*STATIC SPINE:*
The at-rest measurement of a shaft’s stiffness is called static spine. This measurement is the distance that a 28-inch shaft bends when a 1.94 pound (880 gram) weight is placed at the shaft’s center. Thismeasure is recorded in thousandths of an inch and often appears printed on shafts. For example, the spine measure 440 would mean that the shaft would bend .440inches at its center if a 1.94 pound weight were hung midway between two supports placed 28 inches apart (26 inches and 2 pounds are used for wood shafts). By the way, I shoot a shaft with a 440-spine rating but the static spine value is just the beginning. I have to fletch the shaft, put a nock in it, put a point in it, nock it on the bowstring, place it on an arrow rest, draw and shoot it. Now it gets interesting because everything involved is in motion! Now we’re talking about DYNAMIC SPINE! 

*DYNAMIC SPINE: *
The bending and recovery properties of a shaft during its flight is Dynamic Spine. *We can’t measure it but we sure have to deal with its effects *on the arrow and how well all of our arrows group in the target. It’s almost as if this moving, vibrating object takes on a life of its own during its time in flight and, sometimes, it defies us to find a way to control it. However, most of the time we can control it by following a set of strategies that affect the dynamic spine. These strategies begin with the selection of shaft size, making of the arrow, arrow rest type and adjustment, nock fit, D-loop style and long-distance fine-tuning. You can use this article 






SAVIOUR68 said:


> I believe the verbage used here is used loosely.
> Static means at rest not moving, so people that call adding a 1.94# weight on a arrow suspended on 2 pivot points 28" apart are actually inducing movement caused by the weight which is now called Dymanic.
> Static at rest
> Dynamic is moving
> Arrow being shot from a bow is also dymanic but at a different rate than what was tested with a 1.94# weight.
> A shaft can be dymanic [moved/flexed] in any plane or side of the plane BUTTTT one side should have/be the stiffest point measurement weather is bent 1 in or 3 in.
> 
> static
> 
> adj.adjective
> 
> Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.
> 
> Fixed; stationary.


----------



## SAVIOUR68

ex-wolverine said:


> I respectfully beg to differ..The arrow only bends when you put the weight on it...Dynamic by definition is continuous motion ...Once the arrow stops bending from the weight its static...Your not measuring movement your measuring deflection ...
> 
> 
> http://www.arrowtrademagazine.com/articles/july_06/ControllingDynamicArrowSpine-July2006.pdf
> 
> *STATIC SPINE:*
> The at-rest measurement of a shaft’s stiffness is called static spine. This measurement is the distance that a 28-inch shaft bends when a 1.94 pound (880 gram) weight is placed at the shaft’s center. Thismeasure is recorded in thousandths of an inch and often appears printed on shafts. For example, the spine measure 440 would mean that the shaft would bend .440inches at its center if a 1.94 pound weight were hung midway between two supports placed 28 inches apart (26 inches and 2 pounds are used for wood shafts). By the way, I shoot a shaft with a 440-spine rating but the static spine value is just the beginning. I have to fletch the shaft, put a nock in it, put a point in it, nock it on the bowstring, place it on an arrow rest, draw and shoot it. Now it gets interesting because everything involved is in motion! Now we’re talking about DYNAMIC SPINE!
> 
> *DYNAMIC SPINE: *
> The bending and recovery properties of a shaft during its flight is Dynamic Spine. *We can’t measure it but we sure have to deal with its effects *on the arrow and how well all of our arrows group in the target. It’s almost as if this moving, vibrating object takes on a life of its own during its time in flight and, sometimes, it defies us to find a way to control it. However, most of the time we can control it by following a set of strategies that affect the dynamic spine. These strategies begin with the selection of shaft size, making of the arrow, arrow rest type and adjustment, nock fit, D-loop style and long-distance fine-tuning. You can use this article


Tom your post on defintions are from a arrow trade magazine not a dictionary, AGAIN there using the terms loosely. Arrow trade magazine did not create these words NOR definitions but using them in a way for there testing.
If you were to show me a picture of the moon and call it the sun, GUESS WHAT ITS STILL THE MOON under definition.

And yes after we loaded the shaft with a weight and it stopped moving now it is STATIC but a LOADED STATIC not the objects natural state of rest . I am not talking about measuring any deflection or spine per say.

We all have opinions on are beliefs and this post shares many in which is good to help all being better archers.
I deal everyday with insurance litigation claims daily and believe me see lots of people have there --- handed to them because of the THERE ON THOUGHS OF VERBAGE and its true definition.


----------



## enewman

Her you go


----------



## zwalls

Super 91 said:


> Finally! An advantage to being short.....lol.
> 
> Pretty slick explanation with the wife there.....ha! Mind if I use that one? :wink:


by all means.....go right ahead! it was the first thing that popped in my mind. lol
I think she acts a little dumb just I don't have to fib sometimes. she knows when I have something new. even though I bought it with my mad money! :smile:


----------



## Hoythunter01

zwalls said:


> HECK......I'm 6'4" and sitting at the desk wasn't getting it done. I had more than a crick in my neck:chortle:
> so now I set it on the coffee table in the living room and sit on the floor which isn't much easier for me but at least I can look directly at the dial. my wife ask me....."what in the world do you have now"?
> I told her something that all archers should have to test their arrows for safety reasons!! she said "yeah, right"! lol


I'm 6'4" also... I got off work early and thought I would grab another dozen shafts and have a go at it again. This morning was rough. I don't know if I slept wrong or it was the 90 degree head tilt that made my neck sore. I'm a Heavy Haul Driver. I haul underground mining equipment back and forth from the mine sites to town here. Driving this morning was a challenge. Definitely going to try the coffee table trick.


----------



## Hoythunter01

enewman said:


> Again grim thanks for the info. I got to go get another binder. Mine is filling up with all the info I've printed out. Sorry tree hugers I killed another one.
> 
> 
> 
> You know grim. With all I have learned and understand how an arrow works. I have another thought on tuning. But I'm keeping that thought to my self


Buying all this test equipment isn't expensive enough. Now you need more ink cartridges and a ream of paper. Nice !!


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Haha my OCD kills me. Once I look at something. I have to dissect it down to nothing. Understand what it is and then make it work. It's horrible. I will be doing this testing and building a flo tester for a while now. I'm really having to tell my self no on a freq tester haha. But I bet it's coming. So if you get a call from a lady mad at you its my wife and I threw you under the bus.


I'm not sure I would recommend a frequency meter for DIY's, at this time there is no support or standardization you would have to create your own data bases. Also it can be a considerable expense for just a few dozen shafts. This may change over time but look at how long it took for the Ram to become popular.
If you wanted to play with methods on the cheap. I did build a prototype station by using a $20.00 laser tachometer but it didn't have a fine enough range to carry the decimal point out far enough to be useful. Secondly the use of the reflective tape was annoying. Thirdly it measured in rotation per min. and trying to remember the conversion to Htz. was taxing to my two remaining brain cells.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

Hoythunter01 said:


> Ram spine tester came in today along with the roller upgrade. The same day !!!
> 
> So, after assembly, I sat back and looked at it and thought... "there's $318.00 I will never get back". But, it is what it is and I rubbed my hands together and said out loud "Here we go" !
> 
> I went out to the shop and grabbed a brand new dozen of Easton Fat Boy 400's.
> Now before I continue, I have a few questions...
> 1. When checking spine... Set up at 28"... do you look for the stiff side of the shaft ? That will get you a correct spine reading ? Or the weak side ??
> 2. If you barely touch the shaft the needle goes crazy. Where do you guys roll the shaft from ?? My finger pressure seemed to work best right on top of the roller bearings where the shaft is resting.
> 3. Rolling the shaft... Do you roll it towards you or away ? I know this sounds absurd, but I get different high and low readings depending on what way I rotate the shaft. No debris on the shafts because they are brand new out of the sealed plastic.
> 
> I didn't even try the Teflon things. I swapped them out for the rollers during assembly.
> 
> Thought I would do a simple spine test. I found the stiff side according to the dial indicator. 400 spine shafts new in the sealed wrapper. How flippin' disappointing that was...
> 1. .380 *
> 2. .381
> 3. .401
> 4. .379 *
> 5. .390
> 6. .376 *
> 7. .378 *
> 8. .371
> 9. .379 *
> 10. .379 *
> 11. .381
> 12. .383
> 
> The ones with asterisks would be my best 1/2 dozen. Now, how do you make this work with OnTarget2 ??
> 
> One shaft out of a whole dozen was closest to what the label says. What did I get myself into here ? Is this "Keeping it Simple" ?


I had meant to comment on your post earlier but I have decided to ask you what your take on this information is and how do you plan to make use of it?

GRIM


----------



## SAVIOUR68

enewman said:


> Her you go


Correct enewman as per my initial post my wording was incorrect that the shaft moves from static to dymanic [weight added] and than a loaded static
Static = at rest
Dymanic = moving 
I believe that the FLO and frequncy MAY be a better alternative BUTTTTTTT as in any thing theres no guaranatte nor does any seller wish to guarantte this that i know of.
I still use the old fashion compression test that does not work because it may be flawed in some peoples opinion nor do I trust this test as a stand alone.
For the time people spend to FLO/frequency test I would safely assure you that I could have a dozen shafts bareshafted and nocks turned if needed after a compression test and know EXACTLY what every arrow was going to do from my bow with me shooting it.
I thank all the people that are trying to help all archers increase there accuracy and advance our sport, but when you add the human element to anything it could be flawed.


----------



## ontarget7

I would like to know what makes one process better than another ? What are your end results that make it more accurate than another process ?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Static spine is how much deflection at a 28” span a shaft has with a weight of just over a pound hanging from the middle. In other words, how much bend? Dynamic spine is how much that shaft bends, or reacts, at the actual thrust from the string when the arrow is released. In essence, this is how quickly the arrow recovers or how forgiving it is.
> 
> This was taken from carbon express. Key word is thrust. This is why clamping an shaft at one end and testing by fleixing the shaft has nothing todo with dynamic spine.
> 
> This is just one statement. From one arrow manufacture. I can post tons of info like this, Just look it up they all say the same. My opinion is made from the info that the manufacture of the arrows are saying.
> 
> Again jerry. If you can prove me wrong. Then show me. I'll be glad to say I'm sorry. But till then I'm standing my ground.



Nope not necessary!


----------



## zwalls

Hoythunter01 said:


> I'm 6'4" also... I got off work early and thought I would grab another dozen shafts and have a go at it again. This morning was rough. I don't know if I slept wrong or it was the 90 degree head tilt that made my neck sore. I'm a Heavy Haul Driver. I haul underground mining equipment back and forth from the mine sites to town here. Driving this morning was a challenge. Definitely going to try the coffee table trick.


 I hope your day gets better! keep us posted on the coffee! :thumb:


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> I would like to know what makes one process better than another ? What are your end results that make it more accurate than another process ?


Anybody ????????


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Anybody ????????



Shane I'm going todo some more testing today. I'm going to compare some .006 to .001. And I will post my findings. 

This is just my thoughts. All three mothods we have Been talking about will work. Do I think one is better. Yes. But we have to remember what we are looking at. Then make it work so all will work.

One may be better then the other, but what you are doing works great for you. I've seen the proof. But here is a thought about that. Is it that your doing it right or is it cause your a heck of a shooter. I've seen your videos. Not a ton of people can do that. I have a good friend that is like that. He can take a bow that is way out. Shoot it a couple of times and then he can stack arrows. As long as it's repeatable he can shoot it.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Frequency doesn't need anything else as far as I'm aware. 

Flo identifies the stiff and neutral sides but you don't know which ones you indexed so it requires shooting.

Ram may only be good for 60-75% of your arrows. They all need to be shot and verified.

Hooter shooter my be the best but it cost more and takes a lot more time to use.

On a side note My daughter shot a 297 with the indexed ultra light 600 pro arrows last night. Next step will be group tunning (moving rest tiny bit) at 60-70 yards at the easton center to see if I can get her x count up


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Anybody ????????


Shane if you have time sometime give me a call and we will discuss what I have found over the last 10 years. 

10 years ago when I started spine indexing at the pro shop level nobody was talking about it and I even received some not so nice pms. Now any forum you wish to visit and ask about indexing you will find folks doing it and saying it works. 

I think in another 10 years when FLO and frequency testing has grown in popularity and people realize compression really does not work folks will begin to understand that FLO and frequency testing is the correct way to go. Until then I will just keep doing what I do!

Oh and for any requires proof about the indexing get with mods and have them take the first posts I made about indexing out of the archives.


----------



## enewman

Jj


SouthShoreRat said:


> Shane if you have time sometime give me a call and we will discuss what I have found over the last 10 years.
> 
> 10 years ago when I started spine indexing at the pro shop level nobody was talking about it and I even received some not so nice pms. Now any forum you wish to visit and ask about indexing you will find folks doing it and saying it works.
> 
> I think in another 10 years when FLO and frequency testing has grown in popularity and people realize compression really does not work folks will begin to understand that FLO and frequency testing is the correct way to go. Until then I will just keep doing what I do!
> 
> Oh and for any requires proof about the indexing get with mods and have them take the first posts I made about indexing out of the archives.


Jerry I don't think it's going to take 10 years for flo testing. It's coming soon.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Shane I'm going todo some more testing today. I'm going to compare some .006 to .001. And I will post my findings.
> 
> This is just my thoughts. All three mothods we have Been talking about will work. Do I think one is better. Yes. But we have to remember what we are looking at. Then make it work so all will work.
> 
> One may be better then the other, but what you are doing works great for you. I've seen the proof. But here is a thought about that. Is it that your doing it right or is it cause your a heck of a shooter. I've seen your videos. Not a ton of people can do that. I have a good friend that is like that. He can take a bow that is way out. Shoot it a couple of times and then he can stack arrows. As long as it's repeatable he can shoot it.


I am picky on my groups and the reason why I posted this thread to begin with, it gives the best results from my in accurate RAM :wink: and the procedures I take. My groups will be different down range when I don't use the steps I have mentioned. 



swbuckmaster said:


> Frequency doesn't need anything else as far as I'm aware.
> 
> Flo identifies the stiff and neutral sides but you don't know which ones you indexed so it requires shooting.
> 
> Ram may only be good for 60-75% of your arrows. They all need to be shot and verified.
> 
> Hooter shooter my be the best but it cost more and takes a lot more time to use.
> 
> On a side note My daughter shot a 297 with the indexed ultra light 600 pro arrows last night. Next step will be group tunning (moving rest tiny bit) at 60-70 yards at the easton center to see if I can get her x count up


I will say I find the RAM more in the 90% + range from my findings over the last 7-8 years using it.



SouthShoreRat said:


> Shane if you have time sometime give me a call and we will discuss what I have found over the last 10 years.
> 
> 10 years ago when I started spine indexing at the pro shop level nobody was talking about it and I even received some not so nice pms. Now any forum you wish to visit and ask about indexing you will find folks doing it and saying it works.
> 
> I think in another 10 years when FLO and frequency testing has grown in popularity and people realize compression really does not work folks will begin to understand that FLO and frequency testing is the correct way to go. Until then I will just keep doing what I do!
> 
> Oh and for any requires proof about the indexing get with mods and have them take the first posts I made about indexing out of the archives.


I will have to call you when I get some free time

As far as your results, it would be much easier for you to pull your own info up than me to take the time and contact a mod to do some searching.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> As far as your results, it would be much easier for you to pull your own info up than me to take the time and contact a mod to do some searching.


I only suggested that for anyone who needs proof I started the indexing discussions 10 years ago. It had been around longer because target guys were doing it but nobody was doing it at the pro shop level.

So Im out, back to doing what I do. If anyone is interested in frequency testing give me a call in the shop and I will try to answer your questions.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> I only suggested that for anyone who needs proof I started the indexing discussions 10 years ago. It had been around longer because target guys were doing it but nobody was doing it at the pro shop level.
> 
> So Im out, back to doing what I do. If anyone is interested in frequency testing give me a call in the shop and I will try to answer your questions.


I don't think anyone including me is doubting or needing proof that you have been indexing for 10 years. The proof I asked is about what you are saying it is or calling it. This is where I was having the problem with. When I started all of this thanks to this post. I was confused. But once I figured out what it really is I was looking at it made since. I feel if we could all get close to the same page on what we are doing and looking at. We can jump to the next stage of archery. 

I have been chasing my tail for a year now bare shaft tunning. But now. I can get good results and I make very little adjustments to my bow now. All just by tuning the arrow. If this works out right. There will be very little time needed in walk back tuning or any other tuning. As long as your bow is in spec. If your bare shaft is making holes at 20 yards. Your arrow is flying just about as straight out of your bow as it can be. So if your fletchings are big enough to control what ever head you are shooting. Then you will have your arrows spot on.

Just my thoughts. Ram testing is needed. We still need to spine test to match the arrows. But I do think for the best arrow flight other then just knock tuning. Is moving to the next level, and flo testing may be it. I still think you will need to knoc tune cause you have to add the shooter into it. But t will be a lot faster todo after testing the arrows.


----------



## Super 91

I started this same sort of testing at least 10 years ago myself.


----------



## Hoythunter01

GRIMWALD said:


> I had meant to comment on your post earlier but I have decided to ask you what your take on this information is and how do you plan to make use of it?
> 
> GRIM


Greetings Grim...

Still playing with procedures... My question is...when checking spine, where does one zero the indicator at ? If you set the shaft on the bearings and set the plunger and roll the shaft you will get movement in the needle. Highest mark or the lowest mark ?? Set the shaft on...hang the weight...find the stiff side...hold the shaft...remove the weight and zero the indicator according to the stiff side ? Weak side ?? I can get a couple different readings depending on the procedure.

Do you have to have the rollers set at 28" to find the stiff side ?? Or can it be accomplished with a shorter distance ? (26" shafts.....you'd have to shorten them up.) Complete shafts are one thing but after they are already cut ?

This is all new to me and I'm still trying to figure things out. I do know this though... The compression testing with a linear press or anything of that matter is a waste of time. I found out that my compression marks were 90 degrees or more off. (Rolling the indicator to the high reading, zero the dial and then hang the weight.) What is the "Gospel" as far as procedure ?

I guess the current info I have on the Fat Boy's are ballpark close. If these numbers were indeed correct, I would chose the closest 6 and go to work with those. 

If you had that dozen, and the numbers were indeed correct, where would you go with them ??

I'm still learning so.......take it easy on me.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Hoythunter01 said:


> Greetings Grim...
> 
> Still playing with procedures... My question is...when checking spine, where does one zero the indicator at ? If you set the shaft on the bearings and set the plunger and roll the shaft you will get movement in the needle. Highest mark or the lowest mark ?? Set the shaft on...hang the weight...find the stiff side...hold the shaft...remove the weight and zero the indicator according to the stiff side ? Weak side ?? I can get a couple different readings depending on the procedure.
> 
> Do you have to have the rollers set at 28" to find the stiff side ?? Or can it be accomplished with a shorter distance ? (26" shafts.....you'd have to shorten them up.) Complete shafts are one thing but after they are already cut ?
> 
> This is all new to me and I'm still trying to figure things out. I do know this though... The compression testing with a linear press or anything of that matter is a waste of time. I found out that my compression marks were 90 degrees or more off. (Rolling the indicator to the high reading, zero the dial and then hang the weight.) What is the "Gospel" as far as procedure ?
> 
> I guess the current info I have on the Fat Boy's are ballpark close. If these numbers were indeed correct, I would chose the closest 6 and go to work with those.
> 
> If you had that dozen, and the numbers were indeed correct, where would you go with them ??
> 
> I'm still learning so.......take it easy on me.



I guess the easiest way to answer you questions is to describe how I interpret the information, that way other can chime in or offer an alternative method.
First the reading you posted would lend the spine rating more to a .380 shaft verse a .400 shaft. I say this because most shaft makers warrant a + or - tolerance for spine consistency. I don't know what the Fat Boy specs. are but if they to give a rating of +/- of .020. that would mean that the shafts numbers would need to be in the range of .380-.420 and just leaves to many of your numbers out of the group to be considered a good batch. If the shafts were rated at.380 with a tolerance +/- .010, the range would be .370-.390, which is a much better match.
As side note I just read that Jerry's new Spynal Tapps for crossbow users are rated for spine variation at +/- .0025 and straightness of .0005.

As disclaimer before I start my methods, I no longer use a Ram style spine finder and I very rarely have to bare shaft through paper but this is the methods I did use.
While checking for spine consistency, I would mark the natural bend(it doesn't matter if you mark the inside or the outside of the bow) on each shaft. Cut them to length and install my components(matching weights for shafts and components to achieve the tightest tolerances, without vanes). Then picking one shaft at random, I would shoot a bare shaft through paper, starting with the natural bend in the vertical position. If you are lucky, you get a clean bullet hole, if not I rotate the nock either right or left until I do have a bullet hole. Regardless of where my mark ends up in relation to it's original position. I then match the nock position to the remaining shafts and shoot each to confirm that no more nock rotation is needed. The final step is to fletch to what ever vane placement you prefer.
It is important to note that I have made a number of assumptions to shorten my dialog
1. that the bow is to spec. not tuned but to spec.
2. that the bow was new to me and that I was not familiar to it's particular preferences 
3. the shafts being tested where new to being shot from this bow and that I had no particular need to have a specific spine orientation.
There are a few others but they don't need to displayed.
Now to cover a few small note on my methods
1. I mark the natural bend verse the spine because it is easier to find the natural bend and by indexing the natural bend, I am also indexing the spine at the same time.
2. I start with the natural bend in the vertical 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock position because this is the position I have found to require the least amount of nock turning.
As a side note when you do actually do need to rotate the natural bend mark to say, the 2 o'clock to 8 o'clock position, this moves the spine(which is approximately 90 degrees to the natural bend) into the 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock position.

Your question as to the shaft span, yes you can use any distance you wish for your own personal testing but if you need to compare your number to the ratings supplied by the manufacturer, then no their ratings are based off of the 28" span.
I hope I have covered the basics and other can add to or criticize these procedures, especially since I no longer use them. I have developed others as should you.

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> I would like to know what makes one process better than another ? What are your end results that make it more accurate than another process ?


Hey Shane,
I don't know if I would say one is better than the other but from what I've read in this thread I think for me due to cost, that FLO and the Ram will compliment each other. FLO test and then find the stiffest side at 3 or 9 o'clock with the RAM. for me it's just something else to try and see what the heck the results are going to be!! I still use my RAM no matter what!


----------



## zwalls

Hoythunter01 said:


> Greetings Grim...
> 
> Still playing with procedures... My question is...when checking spine, where does one zero the indicator at ? If you set the shaft on the bearings and set the plunger and roll the shaft you will get movement in the needle. Highest mark or the lowest mark ?? Set the shaft on...hang the weight...find the stiff side...hold the shaft...remove the weight and zero the indicator according to the stiff side ? Weak side ?? I can get a couple different readings depending on the procedure.
> 
> Do you have to have the rollers set at 28" to find the stiff side ?? Or can it be accomplished with a shorter distance ? (26" shafts.....you'd have to shorten them up.) Complete shafts are one thing but after they are already cut ?
> 
> This is all new to me and I'm still trying to figure things out. I do know this though... The compression testing with a linear press or anything of that matter is a waste of time. I found out that my compression marks were 90 degrees or more off. (Rolling the indicator to the high reading, zero the dial and then hang the weight.) What is the "Gospel" as far as procedure ?
> 
> I guess the current info I have on the Fat Boy's are ballpark close. If these numbers were indeed correct, I would chose the closest 6 and go to work with those.
> 
> If you had that dozen, and the numbers were indeed correct, where would you go with them ??
> 
> I'm still learning so.......take it easy on me.


Hey HH01,
This it what I do. hang the weight, roll the arrow slowly 360* and I try to find the weakest spot and then move my dial to "0". which in turn helps a little in reading it. but it really doesn't matter if you can keep up with the numbers no matter where the "0" is when you hang the weight and spin slowly. not sure how to say this but I don't use the RAM to actually test the actual spine. JMHO


----------



## swbuckmaster

We had a chance to test the shafts at 55 yards indoors. The 2 shafts we had a hard time tunning through paper were labeled 7 and 8. Those arrows also flew like crap at 55 yards. Twisted the nocks on each vane and was only able to one to conform with the others. It was still one of the ones I don't have complete confidence in. The others grouped so good she broke a couple of pin bushings.

Cant wait to get the FLO tester done.


----------



## Hoythunter01

zwalls said:


> Hey HH01,
> This it what I do. hang the weight, roll the arrow slowly 360* and I try to find the weakest spot and then move my dial to "0". which in turn helps a little in reading it. but it really doesn't matter if you can keep up with the numbers no matter where the "0" is when you hang the weight and spin slowly. JMHO


I roll the shaft with no weight just to see the straightness. I find the highest point and set to zero then hang the weight in that same shaft position. Wouldn't my way give a more accurate reading when checking static spine ? 

So when the manufacturer labels these as 340 or 400, are they just throwing the shaft on and hanging the weight and bingo....here's the spine ?? Or is there a sweet spot on the initial test. I guess when checking run out for straightness and you set the dial to zero on the low side for static and hang the weight and looking for the stiff side, aren't you creating a bigger number reading low to high ?? Does that make sense ?
If you zero the dial, no weight, on the high side. Hang the weight on the shaft in the same position without rotating the shaft at all...give the most accurate number ?? (just checking static spine)
If you find the low number and hang the weight and record the reading, and then, find the high number and hang the weight your results will be different. This is why I think my results for the Fat Boy's aren't correct. Close but not correct. What is the standard procedure for this test ?? (just the static spine)


----------



## Hoythunter01

swbuckmaster said:


> We had a chance to test the shafts at 55 yards indoors. The 2 shafts we had a hard time tunning through paper were labeled 7 and 8. Those arrows also flew like crap at 55 yards. Twisted the nocks on each vane and was only able to one to conform with the others. It was still one of the ones I don't have complete confidence in. The others grouped so good she broke a couple of pin bushings.
> 
> Cant wait to get the FLO tester done.


That place is so awesome !!

Is that arrow still stuck in the wall on that far end up by the ceiling ? I know who's that is. He usually runs around there like he has no arms. LOL !!


----------



## GRIMWALD

Be careful of those shafts that just don't want to behave. Over the years I have had about a dozen shafts that just wouldn't give consistent results.
Last year I started to track the durability of my shafts, I wanted to see how the repeated impacts could impact the longevity of their accuracy and weather the spine would suffer after 100 shot or 1000 shots and so forth.
These dozen or so shafts, even though they passed a flex test failed miserable with a torque test. weather the failure was do to an impact event or a manufacturing defect, I don't know but just be careful with shafts that don't give consistent result.

GRIM


----------



## swbuckmaster

GRIMWALD said:


> Be careful of those shafts that just don't want to behave. Over the years I have had about a dozen shafts that just wouldn't give consistent results.
> Last year I started to track the durability of my shafts, I wanted to see how the repeated impacts could impact the longevity of their accuracy and weather the spine would suffer after 100 shot or 1000 shots and so forth.
> These dozen or so shafts, even though they passed a flex test failed miserable with a torque test. weather the failure was do to an impact event or a manufacturing defect, I don't know but just be careful with shafts that don't give consistent result.
> 
> GRIM


What's a torque test?

We planned in using those shafts on the close 2 and 3 yard targets in 3d shoots. Maybe 10 yard first shot


----------



## swbuckmaster

Hoythunter01 said:


> That place is so awesome !!
> 
> Is that arrow still stuck in the wall on that far end up by the ceiling ? I know who's that is. He usually runs around there like he has no arms. LOL !!


Didn't see it but I'll look next time. Are you talking about Matt lol he's a stud!


----------



## GRIMWALD

It's just measuring the amount of twist that occurs when a specific weight is applied and then plotting or recording any changes over time.

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

swbuckmaster said:


> We had a chance to test the shafts at 55 yards indoors. The 2 shafts we had a hard time tunning through paper were labeled 7 and 8. Those arrows also flew like crap at 55 yards. Twisted the nocks on each vane and was only able to one to conform with the others. It was still one of the ones I don't have complete confidence in. The others grouped so good she broke a couple of pin bushings.
> 
> Cant wait to get the FLO tester done.


I wish I could shoot groups at 55yrds like your daughter!!
like you, I can't wait for my FLO testing gear to come in. I've already tested them all on the RAM and nock tuned but I still want to FLO test them too.

I forgot, I have 2 dozen hunting shafts I haven't cut yet and I could FLO test them:whoo:


----------



## toypar

I'm just trying to learn something so I don't want to start anything on here. And I'm not the shapes knife in the world. But here is my thoughts. On the ram I can see where it will find the high side or natural bent. But
If I put a 4x4 between 2 blocks with the natural bent up it will be strongest this way with weight hanging from it. 
But if I stand it up and down and put a 1000 pounds on it. It will flex to its natural bend. So to me this is the weak side that way.
With this being said when the bow fires the arrow will flex to the high side or natural bent. And if you have them all index the same they will flex to the high side. Now some may flex more or less because of more natural bent.
Am I missing something


----------



## GRIMWALD

toypar said:


> I'm just trying to learn something so I don't want to start anything on here. And I'm not the shapes knife in the world. But here is my thoughts. On the ram I can see where it will find the high side or natural bent. But
> If I put a 4x4 between 2 blocks with the natural bent up it will be strongest this way with weight hanging from it.
> But if I stand it up and down and put a 1000 pounds on it. It will flex to its natural bend. So to me this is the weak side that way.
> With this being said when the bow fires the arrow will flex to the high side or natural bent. And if you have them all index the same they will flex to the high side. Now some may flex more or less because of more natural bent.
> Am I missing something


Your comparison isn't an apples to apples comparison but may be this will help people understand the limitations of the Ram a little better.
If you place the 4x4 with a 1" natural bend in it, in the down position. In order to bend achieve a 2" downward bend past it's level line to it. It will only need to apply enough force to bend it an additional 1" because it is already bent 1".
When you place the bend in the upward position, it will require more force to bend it the same 2" past it's level line because it not only has to bend the 2" but it has to bend the additional 1" of natural bend.
The interesting thing though, is that it is still not the "spine" or the stiffest flex point on the 4x4. the spine of the 4x4 will actually run from corner to corner, simply because there is more material there. Along the flat planes, it measures 4" but from corner to corner it will measure more like 5.5".
The same effect can happen with a cylindrical shaft and the Ram spine finder can't tell the difference between spine and natural bend.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

The 4x4 is not apples to apples. But your answer was great. Ram finds static spine of shaft by deflection only. 

Can you send a link on what freq tester yall have used or is jerry the only one using one.


----------



## Hoythunter01

swbuckmaster said:


> Didn't see it but I'll look next time. Are you talking about Matt lol he's a stud!


That be him ! He's a good friend of mine.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> The 4x4 is not apples to apples. But your answer was great. Ram finds static spine of shaft by deflection only.
> 
> Can you send a link on what freq tester yall have used or is jerry the only one using one.




The following link is where Jerry obtained his meter and I believe this is also the model he acquired

http://csfa.com/clubscout4.php

You would have to confirm with Jerry to be certain but I think it is his model

As a side note Mr. Kaufman has supplied a series of "Tech note" that I would recommend reading and then start asking question of either Mr. Kaufman or maybe Jerry would be willing to let you pick his brain.
Myself, I don't think it is something a home user should be concerned with but who am I to judge, the tech notes link is as follows

http://csfa.com/technotes.php

If you had been a little quicker a meter was listed in ebay for $200.00, I don't know what the final price ended up being but I don't see the listing there currently.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> The following link is where Jerry obtained his meter and I believe this is also the model he acquired
> 
> http://csfa.com/clubscout4.php
> 
> You would have to confirm with Jerry to be certain but I think it is his model
> 
> As a side note Mr. Kaufman has supplied a series of "Tech note" that I would recommend reading and then start asking question of either Mr. Kaufman or maybe Jerry would be willing to let you pick his brain.
> Myself, I don't think it is something a home user should be concerned with but who am I to judge, the tech notes link is as follows
> 
> http://csfa.com/technotes.php
> 
> If you had been a little quicker a meter was listed in ebay for $200.00, I don't know what the final price ended up being but I don't see the listing there currently.
> 
> GRIM


thanks grim I saw the one on eBay my self dollar late and a dollar short. I have another thought and a design on a flo tester, got to do some more research on it. the problem I see is the further I get into this the less I need a spine tester other then just matching arrows. from my understanding one tester checks for static spine. then one looks for the least amount of resistance which means the weak plane and the third fines weak and stiff plane. none find static stiff/weak spine or dynamic spine.


----------



## GRIMWALD

This is why I no longer use my Ram spine finder. On the link for Kaufmans tech notes, look for a heading titled "Inverted flex board". With the flex board, I can find the points I need using the same clamping method, that I use for FLO. Makes for a one stop testing station.
Just remember there are trade offs in every thing we do, the flex board suffers from the same flaws as the Ram as far as reading for spine. It can be made to test more accurately but it is far more labor intensive.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

ok jerry

I have gone back and reread some of your post. I have gone back and read some of my post. we are saying the about the same for what we are doing, but some of our wording is different. one of the problem I was having was your use of the word dynamic spine, and that the flo and freq tester are dynamic spine testers. which we know its not, but when I read one of your post it said dynamic tester not dynamic spine tester. so yes you are correct. the flo and freq testers are types of dynamic testers. there is a difference between what dynamic spineand an dynamic tester is.

definition of dynamic: in generalize terms an object in motion.

so jerry. picture fonzi on happy days. trying to apologize. sooooorrrrrrr sooorrrrr haha. sorry. 

now that I've said I'm sorry, just remember that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you out again. haha


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> This is why I no longer use my Ram spine finder. On the link for Kaufmans tech notes, look for a heading titled "Inverted flex board". With the flex board, I can find the points I need using the same clamping method, that I use for FLO. Makes for a one stop testing station.
> Just remember there are trade offs in every thing we do, the flex board suffers from the same flaws as the Ram as far as reading for spine. It can be made to test more accurately but it is far more labor intensive.
> 
> GRIM


thanks grim


----------



## regas

can any one post pictures of their flo testers? or lead me to a video of one in use?


----------



## GRIMWALD

regas said:


> can any one post pictures of their flo testers? or lead me to a video of one in use?


Check on page 12, I posted a couple of YouTube videos and there are images posted throughout this thread.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Grim

I have a question for you. How can you come up with an orientation of indexing and think it is not influenced by the Whisker Biscuit rest you use ? 

Now, if you used a dropaway rest you would maybe have a better feel of the reaction from different indexing positions ?


----------



## GRIMWALD

Why wouldn't I want to control the influence, the whole point of the bow and it's accessories is to influence the arrow. Even a lack of contact can have an influence. I just chose what and how the influences are to be applied, as much as possible anyways. Weather I am successful is determined by if I hit the target. To think there is only one way to achieve the goal is foolish.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Why wouldn't I want to control the influence, the whole point of the bow and it's accessories is to influence the arrow. Even a lack of contact can have an influence. I just chose what and how the influences are to be applied, as much as possible anyways. Weather I am successful is determined by if I hit the target. To think there is only one way to achieve the goal is foolish.
> 
> GRIM


Never said there was one way to achieve a goal.

However, the topic is in regards to indexing and the effects it has on the arrow. With that said, how do you know the effects it has on the arrow when the rest you use is influencing the very topic we are discussing ? 

Now, I could care less how you get to the end results or what rest you use, that is up to the individual person. You have stated yourself all along about flaws in these designs of how we test and index, correct ? So since you use a rest that influences the arrow and it's testing of how indexing reacts to the shafts in different ways, wouldn't it be foolish to suggest these other ways are flawed, when your way might have flaws itself ? Again speaking in regards to the topic at hand, not the rest you choose to use. I have tuned many bows with a Whisker Biscuit and it can have a different reaction all together in regards to the arrow

I feel all this testing can get you to the point you are indexing arrows in a consistent way. I'm just amazed at the great length some are taking to achieve this goal. Not necessarily a bad thing and the very reason we have great minds to invent new products.


----------



## enewman

Got another thought. Which way is the weak/stiff plane to be placed. So say we have a 400 spine arrow that is slight weak. Would we place the stiff plane up to help. Now say we have a stiff arrow. Would we be better to place the weak plane up to help for the arrow being to stiff.

What I see. This is been a good post. But I do not think spine indexing and saying this is it will be every time. If you use a program this puts your arrow close. I see that spine indexing will get you close with out much knoc tuning. 
If you are just getting arrows then flo testing may be the way. Then you need to see what is the best to set up. If arrow is on the weak side stiff plane up. If arrow on the stiff side weak plane up. 

If your worried about it just knoc tune and none of this means a thing. 

I plotted two .006 arrows. Once I found where the high point of arrow with the ram tester .I Flo tested it. One arrow came out with the flo being around 30 degrees to the high point. The other came out right at the high point. Now neither arrow flo tested perfect. I believe this is do to a cheeper arrow. Some time this week I will test some .001. But if I flo tested correctly. Then and I found the weak plane. Then this would mean that the ram tester is completly flawed for finding anything but deflection. 

Now this is getting to which arrow is better. I think a good arrow will have very little trouble tuning as long as spine is close. A cheep arrow like the ones I'm testing will be harder to tune. 

Ok I have a lot more thought but stop here for now.


----------



## bbjavelina

enewman said:


> Got another thought. Which way is the weak/stiff plane to be placed. So say we have a 400 spine arrow that is slight weak. Would we place the stiff plane up to help. Now say we have a stiff arrow. Would we be better to place the weak plane up to help for the arrow being to stiff.
> 
> What I see. This is been a good post. But I do not think spine indexing and saying this is it will be every time. If you use a program this puts your arrow close. I see that spine indexing will get you close with out much knoc tuning.
> If you are just getting arrows then flo testing may be the way. Then you need to see what is the best to set up. If arrow is on the weak side stiff plane up. If arrow on the stiff side weak plane up.
> 
> If your worried about it just knoc tune and none of this means a thing.
> 
> I plotted two .006 arrows. Once I found where the high point of arrow with the ram tester .I Flo tested it. One arrow came out with the flo being around 30 degrees to the high point. The other came out right at the high point. Now neither arrow flo tested perfect. I believe this is do to a cheeper arrow. Some time this week I will test some .001. But if I flo tested correctly. Then and I found the weak plane. Then this would mean that the ram tester is completly flawed for finding anything but deflection.
> 
> Now this is getting to which arrow is better. I think a good arrow will have very little trouble tuning as long as spine is close. A cheep arrow like the ones I'm testing will be harder to tune.
> 
> Ok I have a lot more thought but stop here for now.


I believe that enewman is exactly correct. 

Cheaper shafts are easier to test conclusively. The higher quality shafts make it harder to see what you're doing. 

If that's the case, are you better off buying the more expensive shafts and getting a good 11 (or better) out of a dozen, are is it more economical to buy the less expensive shafts and get 9 or 10 good arrows out of the dozen?

I think I know which way suits me the best, but what about you?


----------



## apt2106

Shane, I would like to see you make a short video on indexing a half a dozen arrows or so. I know you likely won't have time for it but it would sure be nice to see what you do. Your results cannot be argued. But, when I index shafts with a RAM I don't get consistent results. Am I indexing the wrong spot? Is it because the arrows I am using are junk? I indexed 4 more arrows over the weekend. Two had, what I will call, 4 points. Two stiff points and two weak points. In theory they all should have been 90 degrees from one another but that was not the case. I marked every spot and will shoot through paper when I get them cut to length. It will be interesting to see at which marks give me bullet holes.


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> Got another thought. Which way is the weak/stiff plane to be placed. So say we have a 400 spine arrow that is slight weak. Would we place the stiff plane up to help. Now say we have a stiff arrow. Would we be better to place the weak plane up to help for the arrow being to stiff.
> 
> What I see. This is been a good post. But I do not think spine indexing and saying this is it will be every time. If you use a program this puts your arrow close. I see that spine indexing will get you close with out much knoc tuning.
> If you are just getting arrows then flo testing may be the way. Then you need to see what is the best to set up. If arrow is on the weak side stiff plane up. If arrow on the stiff side weak plane up.
> 
> If your worried about it just knoc tune and none of this means a thing.
> 
> I plotted two .006 arrows. Once I found where the high point of arrow with the ram tester .I Flo tested it. One arrow came out with the flo being around 30 degrees to the high point. The other came out right at the high point. Now neither arrow flo tested perfect. I believe this is do to a cheeper arrow. Some time this week I will test some .001. But if I flo tested correctly. Then and I found the weak plane. Then this would mean that the ram tester is completly flawed for finding anything but deflection.
> 
> Now this is getting to which arrow is better. I think a good arrow will have very little trouble tuning as long as spine is close. A cheep arrow like the ones I'm testing will be harder to tune.


Grim posted a post saying its hard to test flow on the stiff side or what your calling the HP. He said to mark stiff or HP twist the arrow 90% and locate the neutral side and flow testing will be easier. I don't think it has anything to do with quality of shaft. In fact I think if you have some .006 shafts and nock tune them you can get them to group pretty dang good as long as the static spines, arrow weights are close and you nock tunned the arrows.

Another thing programs will get you close on spine but I always play with tip weight because the programs or charts can't possibly work for every bow out. Results based tunning will work for your setup. So worrying about which way the arrow rests to make it less stiff or more stiff is over thinking things. Just move the rest and tune it.

I don't think it really matters which side neutral or stiff you place on your rest as long do it consistantly. However i can see grims logic saying placing the neutral side up because with flow it's easier to find and the arrow resists bending in the opposite direction. If your nodes are on the rest the shaft bending won't affect the rest and blade stiffness won't be as criticle.


----------



## swbuckmaster

apt2106 said:


> Shane, I would like to see you make a short video on indexing a half a dozen arrows or so. I know you likely won't have time for it but it would sure be nice to see what you do. Your results cannot be argued. But, when I index shafts with a RAM I don't get consistent results. Am I indexing the wrong spot? Is it because the arrows I am using are junk? I indexed 4 more arrows over the weekend. Two had, what I will call, 4 points. Two stiff points and two weak points. In theory they all should have been 90 degrees from one another but that was not the case. I marked every spot and will shoot through paper when I get them cut to length. It will be interesting to see at which marks give me bullet holes.


If you watch fire nocks video on his paps arrow tester he says some arrows can have up to seven natural bending points. He says "the stiffer the more the higher." However I've watched his video three times and I don't know what the heck he's talking about lol. His delivery on tape is as bad as mine is in type lol.


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> Grim posted a post saying its hard to test flow on the stiff side or what your calling the HP. He said to mark stiff or HP twist the arrow 90% and locate the neutral side and flow testing will be easier. I don't think it has anything to do with quality of shaft. In fact I think if you have some .006 shafts and nock tune them you can get them to group pretty dang good as long as the static spines, arrow weights are close and you nock tunned the arrows.
> 
> Another thing programs will get you close on spine but I always play with tip weight because the programs or charts can't possibly work for every bow out. Results based tunning will work for your setup. So worrying about which way the arrow rests to make it less stiff or more stiff is over thinking things. Just move the rest and tune it.
> 
> I don't think it really matters which side neutral or stiff you place on your rest as long do it consistantly. However i can see grims logic saying placing the neutral side up because with flow it's easier to find and the arrow resists bending in the opposite direction. If your nodes are on the rest the shaft bending won't affect the rest and blade stiffness won't be as criticle.


I don't think its hard to flo test stiff. It's imposable. The only place the flo will make a straight line is in the weak plane. A freq tester can find a stiff plane from my understanding of operation. The weak plane my be 90 degree from the stiff. But I had an arrow test with flo lining up with the high point on the ram tester. If I didn't goof the flo test.


----------



## ontarget7

apt2106 said:


> Shane, I would like to see you make a short video on indexing a half a dozen arrows or so. I know you likely won't have time for it but it would sure be nice to see what you do. Your results cannot be argued. But, when I index shafts with a RAM I don't get consistent results. Am I indexing the wrong spot? Is it because the arrows I am using are junk? I indexed 4 more arrows over the weekend. Two had, what I will call, 4 points. Two stiff points and two weak points. In theory they all should have been 90 degrees from one another but that was not the case. I marked every spot and will shoot through paper when I get them cut to length. It will be interesting to see at which marks give me bullet holes.


There are a couple reasons why your results can vary

1) wide swings in static spine in a few arrows
2) Those same wide swings causing a dynamic spine change as well. 
3) Shooter influence is always a factor if you are judging your results off of shooting holes through paper. This can change from day to day just by grip alone when shooting bareshafts. 

Now from my testing I have never seen two stiff sides. When using the RAM you will have 4 marks when everything is testing correctly

1) High point or stiff plane
2) You will have two readings that will read the same 180* from each other and this reading will be right in between your high and low reading
3) Lastly will be your weakest reading or low point.


----------



## ontarget7

It's quite easy to see why the high tolerance arrows will perform better, I have said it for years with much opposition.

The less expensive arrows .006, will have wider swings in static spine. This will also pave the way to wider swings in dynamic spine, which really can come into play when fine tuning arrows. 

Some might say it doesn't matter which way you index, I don't take that same logic. You take one of these same .006 bareshafts and tune it to stiff plane up to perfect bareshaft results. For the sake of argument, say it's a Hybrid cam and your pre lean is what you feel is on the verge as to much, but tuning perfect. Now take that same arrow and rotate the stiff plane so it is in or out from the riser. More than likely you will find that perfect bareshaft result will require even more pre lean now to get it to tune with equal results. 

Again, it's all a balance, these small things make up that healthy balance IMO to a well tuned bow and arrow.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Never said there was one way to achieve a goal.
> 
> However, the topic is in regards to indexing and the effects it has on the arrow. With that said, how do you know the effects it has on the arrow when the rest you use is influencing the very topic we are discussing ?
> 
> Now, I could care less how you get to the end results or what rest you use, that is up to the individual person. You have stated yourself all along about flaws in these designs of how we test and index, correct ? So since you use a rest that influences the arrow and it's testing of how indexing reacts to the shafts in different ways, wouldn't it be foolish to suggest these other ways are flawed, when your way might have flaws itself ? Again speaking in regards to the topic at hand, not the rest you choose to use. I have tuned many bows with a Whisker Biscuit and it can have a different reaction all together in regards to the arrow
> 
> I feel all this testing can get you to the point you are indexing arrows in a consistent way. I'm just amazed at the great length some are taking to achieve this goal. Not necessarily a bad thing and the very reason we have great minds to invent new products.


How does my choice of rests have any bearing on how or why I spine index?
I find the natural bend of the shaft, mark it and then FLO test to find the neutral bend, nowhere does my rest influence my testing. Does my rest influence the arrow, of coarse it does. Any and all rest effect the arrow including a drop away rest. 
My testing is as simple and least time consuming as I can make it. The only reason I use an inverted flex board to find the natural bend, is because the shafts are being built to such high tolerances, that I need something more sensitive then just feeling for the natural bend to locate it accurately( that's not exactly true but close enough).

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> If you watch fire nocks video on his paps arrow tester he says some arrows can have up to seven natural bending points. He says "the stiffer the more the higher." However I've watched his video three times and I don't know what the heck he's talking about lol. His delivery on tape is as bad as mine is in type lol.


It's not common but with the quality of the shaft being produces it is indeed possible and even becoming more common.
I posted this earlier but it clearly shows a shaft with a "zero spine", not a zero deflection but zero spine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjGqZGiYGbs

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

bbjavelina said:


> I believe that enewman is exactly correct.
> 
> Cheaper shafts are easier to test conclusively. The higher quality shafts make it harder to see what you're doing.
> 
> If that's the case, are you better off buying the more expensive shafts and getting a good 11 (or better) out of a dozen, are is it more economical to buy the less expensive shafts and get 9 or 10 good arrows out of the dozen?
> 
> I think I know which way suits me the best, but what about you?


I like building arrows but if I knew about Jerry and his operation years ago, I would have simply called Jerry.
In fact. most of the people who I have built for in the past, I have referred to Jerry. The only shafts I build now are for me and my family, even this may stop soon because Jerry builds to such a high standard, why shouldn't I shoot his shafts.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> It's not common but with the quality of the shaft being produces it is indeed possible and even becoming more common.
> I posted this earlier but it clearly shows a shaft with a "zero spine", not a zero deflection but zero spine.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjGqZGiYGbs
> 
> GRIM


Ok I watched that video. The shaft still has spine. Spine is spine. I know why you call it that. And that's fine. But do others understand that. If a shaft is a 300 spine then that is what it is. Now if the arrow flo tested with its natrual plane 360 degrees. This means the shaft is equal in resistance all around. This arrow will prolly test with the same cps on an freq tester 360 degree. This arrow should tune no matter where you place it as long as it is correct spine. This arrow will have no high or low point that can be found with an ram tester. Zero deflection on a run out test.


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> I like building arrows but if I knew about Jerry and his operation years ago, I would have simply called Jerry.
> In fact. most of the people who I have built for in the past, I have referred to Jerry. The only shafts I build now are for me and my family, even this may stop soon because Jerry builds to such a high standard, why shouldn't I shoot his shafts.
> 
> GRIM



If jerry is testing his arrows with a freq tester then you are right. Why bother let him do it. I'm all for it. But when we bought some arrows from him he told us he would mark the stiff spine of the arrow I believe with a ram tester. This can not be done with this type of tester. Nor can stiff spine be found. There is no such thing as stiff or weak spine in an arrow. Spine being the key word. Now if he is marking the stiff plane again with an ram tester. Then he's the one to get arrows from


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Ok I watched that video. The shaft still has spine. Spine is spine. I know why you call it that. And that's fine. But do others understand that. If a shaft is a 300 spine then that is what it is. Now if the arrow flo tested with its natrual plane 360 degrees. This means the shaft is equal in resistance all around. This arrow will prolly test with the same cps on an freq tester 360 degree. This arrow should tune no matter where you place it as long as it is correct spine. This arrow will have no high or low point that can be found with an ram tester. Zero deflection on a run out test.


This is where using the correct terminology comes into play. The shaft has a deflection value, call it .300. This means that when the weight is applied the shaft deflects or bends .300 on an inch. The shaft though has a zero spine because it DOES have an equal deflection around the entire circumference of the shaft . For it to have a spine, at some point the deflection value will need to be different at some point on the circumference of the shaft.

I should amend my post a little every shaft will have a spine. The problem is it may be so small that we can't accurately measure it and for us, at some point it simply won't matter. 

GRIM


----------



## enewman

enewman said:


> If jerry is testing his arrows with a freq tester then you are right. Why bother let him do it. I'm all for it. But when we bought some arrows from him he told us he would mark the stiff spine of the arrow I believe with a ram tester. This can not be done with this type of tester. Nor can stiff spine be found. There is no such thing as stiff or weak spine in an arrow. Spine being the key word. Now if he is marking the stiff plane again with an ram tester. Then he's the one to get arrows from


Stiff plane with an freq Not ram


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> If jerry is testing his arrows with a freq tester then you are right. Why bother let him do it. I'm all for it. But when we bought some arrows from him he told us he would mark the stiff spine of the arrow I believe with a ram tester. This can not be done with this type of tester. Nor can stiff spine be found. There is no such thing as stiff or weak spine in an arrow. Spine being the key word. Now if he is marking the stiff plane again with an ram tester. Then he's the one to get arrows from


I had made the decision to not post on this thread again until I read this, Please, one evening when you have about 1-2 hours would you give me a call.


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> This is where using the correct terminology comes into play. The shaft has a deflection value, call it .300. This means that when the weight is applied the shaft deflects or bends .300 on an inch. The shaft though has a zero spine because it DOES have an equal deflection around the entire circumference of the shaft . For it to have a spine, at some point the deflection value will need to be different at some point on the circumference of the shaft.
> 
> I should amend my post a little every shaft will have a spine. The problem is it may be so small that we can't accurately measure it and for us, at some point it simply won't matter.
> 
> GRIM


I'm not sure why your using the word spine the way you are. I know what your talking about. Just not sure how it fits. 

If the arrow has .300 spine when testing that is spine. And it will always be equal around the shaft. Every arrow I test with run out. I can re zero the indicator and it will spine the same. So if I find high point. Then zero the indicator and remove the weight it will read .300. Now same arrow put weight back on it. Find low point. Now re zero indicator. Remove weight. It will be .300. 
If you put the weight back on the arrow and rotate it and see no change. This is what your calling no spine. This just means the arrow has zero run out. 

If a spine tester could find the stiff spine or weak spine. Then you would not have the same reading. Meaning if arrow is a .300 arrow then there would be a point that would be .305 for weak. And .295 for stiff. And .300 some where. 

I have never seen this. Just to recap. Put your weight on the arrow. Find what you are calling the stiff plan. Now re zero and read indicator as taking the weight off do it again find what your calling weak plane re zero and remove weight. It will read the same as the other. That means no weak or stiff spine just deflection do to the arrow not being round. 

Another way to look at it. We all have seen on an good arrow very little movement meaning hard to find the stiff plane. But it's easier to find on an .006. If you where truly looking at stiff plane or weak/natrual plane it would be the same no matter what arrow


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> I had made the decision to not post on this thread again until I read this, Please, one evening when you have about 1-2 hours would you give me a call.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> I've said the same. I'm not posting any more then here I am again haha. Yes I will try some time this weekend and call and see if you have time. Thanks.


----------



## bbjavelina

GRIMWALD said:


> I like building arrows but if I knew about Jerry and his operation years ago, I would have simply called Jerry.
> In fact. most of the people who I have built for in the past, I have referred to Jerry. The only shafts I build now are for me and my family, even this may stop soon because Jerry builds to such a high standard, why shouldn't I shoot his shafts.
> 
> GRIM


The last shafts I ordered were from SSA. The next will be, also. Probably well into the future. Can't see any reason to buy anywhere else. 

I cheated myself on the last batch. I compared their marks to what I found with compression testing. I think I found full agreement on 10 of the 12. Fletched and shot.

On the next batch I intend to compare his marks with the compression test, FLO test, and deflection test. I really don't expect to see much discrepancy. Always considering the latent bend.

I like to be picky about my shafts/arrows. I always run a batch of new shafts over my ancient arrow straightener and cut the most crooked end. Rarely does that include cutting both ends.

I can no longer shoot as well as I did a few years back, but I won't have lack of attention to detail to blame. It's important for me to know that if a shot goes bad, it's me, not the hardware.

I really appreciate the civility throughout this thread. 

I just wish that I was a good enough shot to see whether this was all making a marked difference.


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> How does my choice of rests have any bearing on how or why I spine index?
> I find the natural bend of the shaft, mark it and then FLO test to find the neutral bend, nowhere does my rest influence my testing. Does my rest influence the arrow, of coarse it does. Any and all rest effect the arrow including a drop away rest.
> My testing is as simple and least time consuming as I can make it. The only reason I use an inverted flex board to find the natural bend, is because the shafts are being built to such high tolerances, that I need something more sensitive then just feeling for the natural bend to locate it accurately( that's not exactly true but close enough).
> 
> GRIM


Just to be clear, not knocking the rest, I have several very good friends that use the Biscuit

In regards to the indexing, it can be seen pretty easy when trying to bareshaft tune with them. Lots of bows you will never get perfect bareshaft flight with that rest.


----------



## apt2106

So back to the results that Shane posted when he started this thread is what got me interested in this subject and intrigued me to build a RAM type device. Regardless of which side to mark and whether to use FLO, deflection, RAM, frequency tester, etc. Shane was able to index arrows with a RAM and get excellent results without nock tuning. I want to get to this point which is why I built a RAM. I can only shoot in my basement and it is only 30ft so that is why I am doing my testing through paper. Yes, I know grip can affect it but I am pretty consistent now days with my grip. I just indexed 5 new uncut shafts. I am using Beman Pro Hunters. 340 spine. The straightness tolerance is .002 so I would consider these better than average arrow. Is that wrong to assume? So here are my results. The numbers mean nothing other than the higher number is the stiff reading. 

Arrow 1 - 0deg 36, 90deg 33, 180deg 31, 270deg 33, 360deg 36
Arrow 2 - 0deg 39, 90deg 23, 180deg 36, 270deg 27, 360deg 38
Arrow 3 - 0deg 33, 90deg 29, 180deg 31, 270deg 29, 360deg 33
Arrow 4 - 0deg 35, 90deg 28, 180deg 32, 270deg 28, 360deg 34
Arrow 5 - 0deg 37, 90deg 31, 180deg 29, 270deg 30, 360deg 36

So with this information which reading would you put the cock vane on?


----------



## ontarget7

The larger number being the farthest point in a clockwise direction ?


----------



## hokiehunter373

apt2106 said:


> So back to the results that Shane posted when he started this thread is what got me interested in this subject and intrigued me to build a RAM type device. Regardless of which side to mark and whether to use FLO, deflection, RAM, frequency tester, etc. Shane was able to index arrows with a RAM and get excellent results without nock tuning. I want to get to this point which is why I built a RAM. I can only shoot in my basement and it is only 30ft so that is why I am doing my testing through paper. Yes, I know grip can affect it but I am pretty consistent now days with my grip. I just indexed 5 new uncut shafts. I am using Beman Pro Hunters. 340 spine. The straightness tolerance is .002 so I would consider these better than average arrow. Is that wrong to assume? So here are my results. The numbers mean nothing other than the higher number is the stiff reading.
> 
> Arrow 1 - 0deg 36, 90deg 33, 180deg 31, 270deg 33, 360deg 36
> Arrow 2 - 0deg 39, 90deg 23, 180deg 36, 270deg 27, 360deg 38
> Arrow 3 - 0deg 33, 90deg 29, 180deg 31, 270deg 29, 360deg 33
> Arrow 4 - 0deg 35, 90deg 28, 180deg 32, 270deg 28, 360deg 34
> Arrow 5 - 0deg 37, 90deg 31, 180deg 29, 270deg 30, 360deg 36
> 
> So with this information which reading would you put the cock vane on?


Shouldn't 0 and 360 have the same number? Like arrows 1 and 3


----------



## apt2106

ontarget7 said:


> The larger number being the farthest point in a clockwise direction ?


Correct.


----------



## apt2106

hokiehunter373 said:


> Shouldn't 0 and 360 have the same number? Like arrows 1 and 3


Yes but i recorded them to see just how accurate my readings would be. I also bounced my weight a tad at each measurement.


----------



## enewman

Which way was your indicator moving as you put the weight on it. Should be moving counter clock wise. Is so then the high number is less deflection then the low number. So arrow one 36 would be the least amount of deflection. High point. 


So your arrows have a .002 straight ness. That means total run out is .004. With your arrows 
(1) has .005
(2) has .016. Bad
(3) has .004
(4) has .007
(5) has .006
If this is correct. Number three is the only arrow in spec. With all being close except number 2. Did you spine them. If so what was the spine on all 5 arrows.


----------



## apt2106

Yes high number is less deflection. Did not spine them....not really sure I understand how to do that?? Hang the weight, zero the dial then remove weight and see how much it changes?


----------



## enewman

apt2106 said:


> Yes high number is less deflection. Did not spine them....not really sure I understand how to do that?? Hang the weight, zero the dial then remove weight and see how much it changes?


Yes. That is how. I do mine both ways. I zero then hang weight. See what it is. Then I rezero and remove weight. Should be the same. I only do this to doulbe check myself


----------



## apt2106

Ok. Spine check.

Arrow 1 - .337
Arrow 2 - .334
Arrow 3 - .338
Arrow 4 - .338
Arrow 5 - .340


----------



## enewman

apt2106 said:


> Ok. Spine check.
> 
> Arrow 1 - .337
> Arrow 2 - .334
> Arrow 3 - .338
> Arrow 4 - .338
> Arrow 5 - .340


Looks good. It's funny how number two came out. All with in a +/- 10 on spine, but the one with the most deflection is the stiffest one. 

If you didn't do this take number two and check static spine in several locations. 

Have you shot them as bare shafts to compare how the fly.


----------



## ontarget7

High number would mean high point / Stiff plane. For me personally I would mark that point and index up to it.

Depends how picky you want to be but generally speaking if you had to move a nock I find it only to be within a 10-15* point from that high point.


----------



## apt2106

enewman said:


> Looks good. It's funny how number two came out. All with in a +/- 10 on spine, but the one with the most deflection is the stiffest one.
> 
> If you didn't do this take number two and check static spine in several locations.
> 
> Have you shot them as bare shafts to compare how the fly.


Have not shot them yet. Waiting for my brass inserts to arrive.


----------



## apt2106

enewman said:


> Looks good. It's funny how number two came out. All with in a +/- 10 on spine, but the one with the most deflection is the stiffest one.
> 
> If you didn't do this take number two and check static spine in several locations.
> 
> Have you shot them as bare shafts to compare how the fly.


Static spine was measured with stiff side up on all shafts.


----------



## outdoorkid1

I'm sure this has already been posted bu the way i spine test my arrows is very simple.

I shoot the arrows as bareshaft and turn the nocks until they are all hitting exactly perfect with my fletched arrows. I make a mark on which side up the bareshaft comes out of the bow best and put the cock feather on that side of the arrow.


----------



## apt2106

outdoorkid1 said:


> I'm sure this has already been posted bu the way i spine test my arrows is very simple.
> 
> I shoot the arrows as bareshaft and turn the nocks until they are all hitting exactly perfect with my fletched arrows. I make a mark on which side up the bareshaft comes out of the bow best and put the cock feather on that side of the arrow.


Yep that's how I'm doing it from now on. Would be nice to use the RAM but based on my paper results it's not working.


----------



## swbuckmaster

apt2106 said:


> Yep that's how I'm doing it from now on. Would be nice to use the RAM but based on my paper results it's not working.


If you having a hard time consistantly shoot bullet holes through paper you want get the bare shafts to fly down range either.


----------



## enewman

apt2106 said:


> Yep that's how I'm doing it from now on. Would be nice to use the RAM but based on my paper results it's not working.


Just a question. Your saying it's not working. Whats not working. Your finding a point on the arrow and you go shoot it. It's not going to shoot a bullet hole that's normal. 

All you are doing is trying to get all arrows to fly the same. Fist step. Then you knoc tune to the next level. Then you bow tune. 

No matter what tool you use ram,flo,or freq. If you set up a dozen arrow. This way then go shoot. You will not have a bullet hole. You still have to tune. 

I still believe the best way is shoot and knoc tune. Tools are just to make this process faster. I'm betting Shane is making small adjustments on some of the knoc maybe not all but some. But I bet he dosent make more then two moves. Doing this by shoot and turn you have no starting point that means you may make up to 8 rotations before finding the sweet spot


----------



## apt2106

enewman said:


> Just a question. Your saying it's not working. Whats not working. Your finding a point on the arrow and you go shoot it. It's not going to shoot a bullet hole that's normal.
> 
> All you are doing is trying to get all arrows to fly the same. Fist step. Then you knoc tune to the next level. Then you bow tune.
> 
> No matter what tool you use ram,flo,or freq. If you set up a dozen arrow. This way then go shoot. You will not have a bullet hole. You still have to tune.
> 
> I still believe the best way is shoot and knoc tune. Tools are just to make this process faster. I'm betting Shane is making small adjustments on some of the knoc maybe not all but some. But I bet he dosent make more then two moves. Doing this by shoot and turn you have no starting point that means you may make up to 8 rotations before finding the sweet spot


I feel my bow is tuned well. Do I know for sure? Not really, I am fairly new to tuning....learning every day. But my cam lean and sync is similar to others. Good speed and the bow matches the specs. 

Just the other night I indexed 4 shafts on the RAM. Easily found the stiff side. Made a mark. Shot the 4 shafts through paper. Two were bullet holes. Two I had to search the nock position to get the bullet hole. One was 45 degrees from my marked high side and one was 180 deg off from my high side. So this is why I'm saying it doesn't work for me......and this is why I'm asking questions because I think I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. Shane says he marks the high side and for the most part he is good to go. His arrows are likely better quality then the ones I'm trying out because based on my paper results I don't get consistent tears. If you look at Shane's pic that he posted on the original thread every one of those shafts would have a consistent tear in paper otherwise they would not all be grouped and straight in the target. 

My experience is if I can get a bare shaft bullet hole through paper at 30 ft then at 20 yds bare shaft vs. fletched is good. 

In the past when I tuned a bow I used one bare shaft and adjusted the bow for that bare shaft. What this thread has taught me is my tuning method needs to change.....I was tuning a bow to that particular arrow. 

Paper is what I'm basing my results on because during the week I don't get home early enough to shoot out side. Plus I can't really shoot in my yard anymore. Yes, I need to move....i can't stand living in a box.


----------



## enewman

J


apt2106 said:


> I feel my bow is tuned well. Do I know for sure? Not really, I am fairly new to tuning....learning every day. But my cam lean and sync is similar to others. Good speed and the bow matches the specs.
> 
> Just the other night I indexed 4 shafts on the RAM. Easily found the stiff side. Made a mark. Shot the 4 shafts through paper. Two were bullet holes. Two I had to search the nock position to get the bullet hole. One was 45 degrees from my marked high side and one was 180 deg off from my high side. So this is why I'm saying it doesn't work for me......and this is why I'm asking questions because I think I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. Shane says he marks the high side and for the most part he is good to go. His arrows are likely better quality then the ones I'm trying out because based on my paper results I don't get consistent tears. If you look at Shane's pic that he posted on the original thread every one of those shafts would have a consistent tear in paper otherwise they would not all be grouped and straight in the target.
> 
> My experience is if I can get a bare shaft bullet hole through paper at 30 ft then at 20 yds bare shaft vs. fletched is good.
> 
> In the past when I tuned a bow I used one bare shaft and adjusted the bow for that bare shaft. What this thread has taught me is my tuning method needs to change.....I was tuning a bow to that particular arrow.
> 
> Paper is what I'm basing my results on because during the week I don't get home early enough to shoot out side. Plus I can't really shoot in my yard anymore. Yes, I need to move....i can't stand living in a box.


Don't worry about a bullet hole up front. You just need to find where all arrows have the same tear and the smallest tear. Then you start tuning. One thing to always look at. The one that shoots the bullet hole may be the bad arrow. If the others all have the same tear. This is why you do this process with ore then one arrow. 
From my testing. And I'm no where done. I see no problem from what you are seeing from your arrows. The ram tester is a great tool. But we are trying to use it for something it's not design todo. It's for finding spine from deflection. That's all. But it is a tool you must have to shoot great.


----------



## apt2106

Enewman,

Look at post 1026. This shows my 4 arrows....before and after nock tuning.


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> All you are doing is trying to get all arrows to fly the same. Fist step. Then you knoc tune to the next level. Then you bow tune.
> 
> No matter what tool you use ram,flo,or freq. If you set up a dozen arrow. This way then go shoot. You will not have a bullet hole. You still have to tune.
> 
> I still believe the best way is shoot and knoc tune. Tools are just to make this process faster. I'm betting Shane is making small adjustments on some of the knoc maybe not all but some. But I bet he dosent make more then two moves. Doing this by shoot and turn you have no starting point that means you may make up to 8 rotations before finding the sweet spot


This^^


----------



## enewman

apt2106 said:


> Enewman,
> 
> Look at post 1026. This shows my 4 arrows....before and after nock tuning.


ok look at my post 1183. when you do this test you will see that spine is spine. no such thing as weak or stiff spine. a spine tester can only read deflection. so I see no problem with what you had and what you had todo to get there. when your knoc tuning your lining up the nodes of the arrow. this has to do with the weak plane and stiff plane. you cannot test for these points with a ram tester and can only check for the weak plane with a flo tester. if what I'm understanding a freq tester does,its the only way to find stiff plane. now which way do you index. not sure at this time. this is why we still have to shoot it. 

even if we all come to the same conclusion, and say we all say stiff plane up. you will still need to shoot it. you still have to look at the shooter. spine indexing is not a fix all. it is to get you even closer to your tuning point.


----------



## apt2106

I agree completely with what you are saying. This will be my standard operating procedure for tuning from now on. I will still use the RAM to index the high side and low side of the shaft in hopes that it will speed up the nock tuning process.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Just a question. Your saying it's not working. Whats not working. Your finding a point on the arrow and you go shoot it. It's not going to shoot a bullet hole that's normal.
> 
> All you are doing is trying to get all arrows to fly the same. Fist step. Then you knoc tune to the next level. Then you bow tune.
> 
> No matter what tool you use ram,flo,or freq. If you set up a dozen arrow. This way then go shoot. You will not have a bullet hole. You still have to tune.
> 
> I still believe the best way is shoot and knoc tune. Tools are just to make this process faster. I'm betting Shane is making small adjustments on some of the knoc maybe not all but some. But I bet he dosent make more then two moves. Doing this by shoot and turn you have no starting point that means you may make up to 8 rotations before finding the sweet spot


I would say generally 90+% of the shafts I set up need know further tuning. The remainder in the -10% range might need a 10-15* turn in the nock. 

I have set up for my personal use 4 dozen arrows this year so far. Out of that 4 dozen, I have turned only 3 nocks in that 10-15* range, the others, I did not move at all after initial setup.

After everything is in tune and I am checking arrows that I have indexed I assume that it was me when I get a flier. I will then pull a perfect entry shaft and shoot it with the flier over and over again to verify it's results. Most the time, I find it's actually me, more times than not, causing the random flier. 

I can't stress it enough to verify us (the archer )first and don't automatically assume it's the equipment. I use to do this all to often turning nocks and labeling shafts. Seems a lot of those shafts I was just chasing my tail turning nocks. Looking back on those days, I would say the majority of those inconsistencies were me :teeth: .

Fast forward to the present, I generally never have an issue with indexing arrows and the results I get down range. I still slip up from time to time, but it wasn't until I started looking at myself first, that's when everything changed for the better. 

Consistency, accuracy all increased when I stopped blaming the equipment. 

This is not to say its always us, I just feel we overlook ourselves all to often.


----------



## apt2106

ontarget7 said:


> I would say generally 90+% of the shafts I set up need know further tuning. The remainder in the -10% range might need a 10-15* turn in the nock.
> 
> I have set up for my personal use 4 dozen arrows this year so far. Out of that 4 dozen, I have turned only 3 nocks in that 10-15* range, the others, I did not move at all after initial setup.
> 
> After everything is in tune and I am checking arrows that I have indexed I assume that it was me when I get a flier. I will then pull a perfect entry shaft and shoot it with the flier over and over again to verify it's results. Most the time, I find it's actually me, more times than not, causing the random flier.
> 
> I can't stress it enough to verify us (the archer )first and don't automatically assume it's the equipment. I use to do this all to often turning nocks and labeling shafts. Seems a lot of those shafts I was just chasing my tail turning nocks. Looking back on those days, I would say the majority of those inconsistencies were me :teeth: .
> 
> Fast forward to the present, I generally never have an issue with indexing arrows and the results I get down range. I still slip up from time to time, but it wasn't until I started looking at myself first, that's when everything changed for the better.
> 
> Consistency, accuracy all increased when I stopped blaming the equipment.
> 
> This is not to say its always us, I just feel we overlook ourselves all to often.


And, I agree with this as well. A bare shaft through paper will tell you how consistent your grip is. 

The other night when I was testing my indexing I shot the same arrow at least 10 times and compared the tears before I began nock tuning.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> ok look at my post 1183. when you do this test you will see that spine is spine. no such thing as weak or stiff spine. a spine tester can only read deflection. so I see no problem with what you had and what you had todo to get there. when your knoc tuning your lining up the nodes of the arrow. this has to do with the weak plane and stiff plane. you cannot test for these points with a ram tester and can only check for the weak plane with a flo tester. if what I'm understanding a freq tester does,its the only way to find stiff plane. now which way do you index. not sure at this time. this is why we still have to shoot it.
> 
> even if we all come to the same conclusion, and say we all say stiff plane up. you will still need to shoot it. you still have to look at the shooter. spine indexing is not a fix all. it is to get you even closer to your tuning point.


 I don't know if any of you know who John Kaufman is. I ordered my FLO testing clamp and weights from him. I think his background is engineering. we have been having discussions by email and this is what he sent me lately :"Yes the arrow or any shaft consists of two PLANES and they are at right angles to one another. One is the stiffest plane or spine the other the weakest or neutral. The arrow will FLO in either plane so just finding a FLO plane does not tell you which one you have. Jerry is using a frequency analyzer to determine that."

a little different than what I was expecting. I thought once you fond the vertical FLO, that would be the neutral plane. but that's not necessarily the case. so when you find the vertical FLO, you only have to nock test 4 spots. assuming the first spot wasn't the best spot on the arrow to begin with.

this is something else he said: " As I've mentioned when any shaft is bent it will try to rotate into its weak or neutral plane. That's the way spine finder works. Unfortunately a spine finder also strongly reacts to any natural bend in the shaft which can disquise the location of the neutral plane. So if an arrow is flexing in the horizontal plane at relase I would want the neutral plane in the horizontal plane or 3:00 - 9:00. If the arrow were to flex in the vertical plane I'd want the neutral plane to be vertical also."




here is one more thing. he uses a scale to find the stiff plane: " I mentioned that when you get flat line oscillation, we call it FLO in the golf business, you will have found either the weak or strong plane of the arrow but you won't know which. I said you'd need a frequency analyzer to determine which is which. That's not really true. 



In my article I mentioned the EI testing I did with a simple gram weight scale using a differential deflection technique. A simple digital gram weight postal scale can be purchaced from a place like Harbor Frieght for $10 to $20. Once you find a FLO plane you can use the scale to determine the stiffness at that point. Then rotate the arrow exactly 90 degrees and use the scale again to find the stiffness. The stiffer plane will be the Spine or Principal plane the weaker the Neutral plane. This should be quick and easy. "

a scale that goes to at least 500 grams. I'll have to post his article for a better understanding in finding the strong/stiff plane.


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> I don't know if any of you know who John Kaufman is. I ordered my FLO testing clamp and weights from him. I think his background is engineering. we have been having discussions by email and this is what he sent me lately :"Yes the arrow or any shaft consists of two PLANES and they are at right angles to one another. One is the stiffest plane or spine the other the weakest or neutral. The arrow will FLO in either plane so just finding a FLO plane does not tell you which one you have. Jerry is using a frequency analyzer to determine that."
> 
> a little different than what I was expecting. I thought once you fond the vertical FLO, that would be the neutral plane. but that's not necessarily the case. so when you find the vertical FLO, you only have to nock test 4 spots. assuming the first spot wasn't the best spot on the arrow to begin with.
> 
> this is something else he said: " As I've mentioned when any shaft is bent it will try to rotate into its weak or neutral plane. That's the way spine finder works. Unfortunately a spine finder also strongly reacts to any natural bend in the shaft which can disquise the location of the neutral plane. So if an arrow is flexing in the horizontal plane at relase I would want the neutral plane in the horizontal plane or 3:00 - 9:00. If the arrow were to flex in the vertical plane I'd want the neutral plane to be vertical also."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is one more thing. he uses a scale to find the stiff plane: " I mentioned that when you get flat line oscillation, we call it FLO in the golf business, you will have found either the weak or strong plane of the arrow but you won't know which. I said you'd need a frequency analyzer to determine which is which. That's not really true.
> 
> 
> 
> In my article I mentioned the EI testing I did with a simple gram weight scale using a differential deflection technique. A simple digital gram weight postal scale can be purchaced from a place like Harbor Frieght for $10 to $20. Once you find a FLO plane you can use the scale to determine the stiffness at that point. Then rotate the arrow exactly 90 degrees and use the scale again to find the stiffness. The stiffer plane will be the Spine or Principal plane the weaker the Neutral plane. This should be quick and easy. "
> 
> a scale that goes to at least 500 grams. I'll have to post his article for a better understanding in finding the strong/stiff plane.


The link is already posted above and the device he uses to find the spine is an inverted flex board, which is also posted above

Post 1157

GRIM


----------



## Super 91

By the way, all of the upgraded roller arms for the RAM have been sold. Thank you everyone! Enjoy!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Super 91 said:


> By the way, all of the upgraded roller arms for the RAM have been sold. Thank you everyone! Enjoy!


I bought 4 sets so I have 2 extra sets i could be talked into selling for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, $1,000,000.00 each been wanting these for 10 years just havent had time to find someone to make them, thank you!

I will get with you on that last pm, I havent forgotten just been super busy.


----------



## ontarget7

The way I see it the neutral planes would have the same readings 180* from each other, and the reason maybe they are called neutral.


----------



## enewman

Zwalls. Thanks I did read it. But I can't find two planes with the flo tester. I've been playing with the weights. I will reread his again. Looks like I missed something. I'm also going to call jerry this weekend.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> The way I see it the neutral planes would have the same readings 180* from each other, and the reason maybe they are called neutral.


Shane! You are correct! 

Picture an arrow (dynamically speaking) looking at the end of the shaft like you are trying to see through it. Imagine for sake of this post the stiff plane is placed vertically You would have the same frequency from 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right of 12 oclock and at 6 oclock you would have the same reading 45 degrees from the left of 6 oclock and 45 degrees right of 6 oclock. Likewise the neutral planes will be the same reading 45 degrees on either side of 3 and 9 oclock. There may only be a few tenths of a cycle difference between the stiff and neutral planes but at the dynamic spine level energy finds the path of least resistance. 

If you look at the picture below you will see why you like to place the stiff plane vertically and why it helps control vertical nock travel, it resisted the force applied to the shaft by the bow forcing the arrow to flex left and right.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> The way I see it the neutral planes would have the same readings 180* from each other, and the reason maybe they are called neutral.


Shane! You are correct! 

Picture an arrow (dynamically speaking) looking at the end of the shaft like you are trying to see through it. Imagine for sake of this post the stiff plane is placed vertically You would have the same frequency from 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right of 12 oclock and at 6 oclock you would have the same reading 45 degrees from the left of 6 oclock and 45 degrees right of 6 oclock. Likewise the neutral planes will be the same reading 45 degrees on either side of 3 and 9 oclock. There may only be a few tenths of a cycle difference between the stiff and neutral planes but at the dynamic spine level energy finds the path of least resistance. 

If you look at the picture below you will see why you like to place the stiff plane vertically and why it help control vertical nock travel, it resisted the force applied to the shaft by the bow forcing the arrow to flex left and right and at the same time resists being flexed up or down by the nock travel of the bow


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> The way I see it the neutral planes would have the same readings 180* from each other, and the reason maybe they are called neutral.


That is the way it has tested for me


----------



## enewman

Zwalls. I went back to that john page. That is the one grim sent. He has freq testers from $100 bare min up to $400. I guess I'm going to break down and get a free tester. I need all three to compare.


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> The link is already posted above and the device he uses to find the spine is an inverted flex board, which is also posted above
> 
> Post 1157
> 
> GRIM


MY BAD! I missed that one:noidea:


----------



## zwalls

SouthShoreRat said:


> I bought 4 sets so I have 2 extra sets i could be talked into selling for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, $1,000,000.00 each been wanting these for 10 years just havent had time to find someone to make them, thank you!
> 
> I will get with you on that last pm, I havent forgotten just been super busy.


 I tell you what.......I'll give you $999,999.00 and that's my final offer!!


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> Zwalls. Thanks I did read it. But I can't find two planes with the flo tester. I've been playing with the weights. I will reread his again. Looks like I missed something. I'm also going to call jerry this weekend.


you should only be able to find one. which one is what we have to figure out afterwards.


----------



## zwalls

SouthShoreRat said:


> Shane! You are correct!
> 
> Picture an arrow (dynamically speaking) looking at the end of the shaft like you are trying to see through it. Imagine for sake of this post the stiff plane is placed vertically You would have the same frequency from 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right of 12 oclock and at 6 oclock you would have the same reading 45 degrees from the left of 6 oclock and 45 degrees right of 6 oclock. Likewise the neutral planes will be the same reading 45 degrees on either side of 3 and 9 oclock. There may only be a few tenths of a cycle difference between the stiff and neutral planes but at the dynamic spine level energy finds the path of least resistance.
> 
> If you look at the picture below you will see why you like to place the stiff plane vertically and why it help control vertical nock travel, it resisted the force applied to the shaft by the bow forcing the arrow to flex left and right and at the same time resists being flexed up or down by the nock travel of the bow


thanks for the diagram. that makes since. once I get my FLO set up it will be interesting to test stiff and neutral plane in different locations. I just want to see how the arrow would react out of my bow by shooting both the stiff plane and neutral planes at vertical. for experiment sake!


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Zwalls. I went back to that john page. That is the one grim sent. He has freq testers from $100 bare min up to $400. I guess I'm going to break down and get a free tester. I need all three to compare.


Please, please, I am begging you. Before you spend more money try, indexing with using a flex board described in the kaufman tech notes.
If you have already built the FLO tools with the clamp running horizontal. The only other equipment needed is a simple block of wood with a notch in it and a digital gram scale with a zeroing ability.
The procedure is simple. after you find "A" neutral plane using FLO. Mark the spot, remove your laser and insert your scale under the end where the laser was installed. If you haven't done so already measure the distance from the bottom of the arrow to the top of the scale. Cut a block of wood that is one inch longer in one direction and two inches longer in the other direction. Cut a small grove in each side to accommodate the placement of the shaft so that it won't move laterally. 
Now insert the block, with the shortest side vertical, on top of the scale and measure the displacement with the mark you made previously using FLO vertical.
Zero the scale with the block still in place, Now rotate the block until the longer side is vertical, record this measurement. Do the same procedure as describe but rotate the shaft 90 degrees first. Which ever displacement measurement is larger, is the stiff plane. Obviously the weaker number is the neutral plane. From here, shoot the bare shaft through paper as normal. Once the best position is located with this one arrow, duplicate the same nock rotation with the others. If you are lucky, any and all other brand of arrows, will correspond to the tested nock tune position.


----------



## enewman

Thanks grim. I will look at this tonight and play with it. You know you just have added a fourth tester to all this. haha.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Grim
I would think if you place that wood block different under the arrow even the slightest you could get false readings. the ram tester has a hard time locating the spines how is that one more accurate.


----------



## GRIMWALD

swbuckmaster said:


> Grim
> I would think if you place that wood block different under the arrow even the slightest you could get false readings. the ram tester has a hard time locating the spines how is that one more accurate.


Because you are dealing with spring values the differences is much greater. In the above image the position depicted is the stiff value. The neutral value was much lower. While placement is not critical, it is still best to not move the scale.

GRIM


----------



## bbjavelina

GRIMWALD said:


> Please, please, I am begging you. Before you spend more money try, indexing with using a flex board described in the kaufman tech notes.
> If you have already built the FLO tools with the clamp running horizontal. The only other equipment needed is a simple block of wood with a notch in it and a digital gram scale with a zeroing ability.
> The procedure is simple. after you find "A" neutral plane using FLO. Mark the spot, remove your laser and insert your scale under the end where the laser was installed. If you haven't done so already measure the distance from the bottom of the arrow to the top of the scale. Cut a block of wood that is one inch longer in one direction and two inches longer in the other direction. Cut a small grove in each side to accommodate the placement of the shaft so that it won't move laterally.
> Now insert the block, with the shortest side vertical, on top of the scale and measure the displacement with the mark you made previously using FLO vertical.
> Zero the scale with the block still in place, Now rotate the block until the longer side is vertical, record this measurement. Do the same procedure as describe but rotate the shaft 90 degrees first. Which ever displacement measurement is larger, is the stiff plane. Obviously the weaker number is the neutral plane. From here, shoot the bare shaft through paper as normal. Once the best position is located with this one arrow, duplicate the same nock rotation with the others. If you are lucky, any and all other brand of arrows, will correspond to the tested nock tune position.


Grim,

Nice post. Thank you for that.

I have played with the flex board a little, and I think it gives good data. What my little pea brain can't get past is how the latent bend in a shaft affects the readings. I believe (but haven't yet proven to my satisfaction) that the latent bend comes into play when testing with a Ram type device, or compression testing. Can't quite figure it into FLO testing. 

I also believe that straighter (read more expensive) shafts are in less need of testing than the lower quality shafts, but that there is more ambiguation. 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.


----------



## GRIMWALD

bbjavelina said:


> Grim,
> 
> Nice post. Thank you for that.
> 
> I have played with the flex board a little, and I think it gives good data. What my little pea brain can't get past is how the latent bend in a shaft affects the readings. I believe (but haven't yet proven to my satisfaction) that the latent bend comes into play when testing with a Ram type device, or compression testing. Can't quite figure it into FLO testing.
> 
> I also believe that straighter (read more expensive) shafts are in less need of testing than the lower quality shafts, but that there is more ambiguation.
> 
> I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.


The point of FLO testing is because the residual doesn't play a direct part in it. 
The use of the flex board actually has an additional step which I should have included but I was typing on my phone and I have a tendency to take short cuts when I deem them unnecessary for the type of shooting I do.
The additional step include the recording of the first measurement with the shorter side of the block and subtracting that number from the long sided measurement. Then comparing the differences of those two numbers the find the neutral or stiff plane. 
The reason for doing this, is to remove the effects of the residual bend. By making an initial bend and then zeroing the scale and subtracting that number from the second measurement, you are measuring just the difference of the material bend because both measurement are taken with a pre-bend.
I posted a video many pages ago where the topic was different types of spinning devices. I am to lazy to find the original post so I will repost the link. The entire video is interesting but fat forward to about the 6 min. mark. He begins talking about zone profiling but take a close look at how and what he is doing. He is using a similar clamp to what FLO testing uses and instead of bending the shaft upward, he is bending it downward like when using the "Inverted" flex tool. Fro m there it is clear that he is making the same measurements I described, just more of them. He measures at 10 degree intervals to "profile "the entire shaft, where I am only interested in two point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-x6YjhrTo

GRIM


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> Please, please, I am begging you. Before you spend more money try, indexing with using a flex board described in the kaufman tech notes.
> If you have already built the FLO tools with the clamp running horizontal. The only other equipment needed is a simple block of wood with a notch in it and a digital gram scale with a zeroing ability.
> The procedure is simple. after you find "A" neutral plane using FLO. Mark the spot, remove your laser and insert your scale under the end where the laser was installed. If you haven't done so already measure the distance from the bottom of the arrow to the top of the scale. Cut a block of wood that is one inch longer in one direction and two inches longer in the other direction. Cut a small grove in each side to accommodate the placement of the shaft so that it won't move laterally.
> Now insert the block, with the shortest side vertical, on top of the scale and measure the displacement with the mark you made previously using FLO vertical.
> Zero the scale with the block still in place, Now rotate the block until the longer side is vertical, record this measurement. Do the same procedure as describe but rotate the shaft 90 degrees first. Which ever displacement measurement is larger, is the stiff plane. Obviously the weaker number is the neutral plane. From here, shoot the bare shaft through paper as normal. Once the best position is located with this one arrow, duplicate the same nock rotation with the others. If you are lucky, any and all other brand of arrows, will correspond to the tested nock tune position.


thanks Grim! my intentions were to get a scale real soon. this looks very easy and simple to do!


----------



## bbjavelina

Grim,

My flex board as it is now rigged has two bearings a couple of inches apart that the shaft rides in. At the far end is another bearing on the shaft bearing on the scale. Do you see this as being inferior to your V-block arrangement?

I based the design upon a post by an European gentleman, but his scale was vertical whereas mine is horizontal under the shaft. 

I appreciate your time.


----------



## GRIMWALD

bbjavelina said:


> Grim,
> 
> My flex board as it is now rigged has two bearings a couple of inches apart that the shaft rides in. At the far end is another bearing on the shaft bearing on the scale. Do you see this as being inferior to your V-block arrangement?
> 
> I based the design upon a post by an European gentleman, but his scale was vertical whereas mine is horizontal under the shaft.
> 
> I appreciate your time.


The video you describe I think is one that appeared in the DIY section a year or so ago. I have no doubt that it works in a comparable manner, weather it is suitable to your needs, only you can decide that.
I do think that using two bearings on the clamping end will work fine but it will limit you in the arrows which can be tested, to only those arrows which have the same outside diameter as the inside of the bearings. If you want to test an arrow with a different diameter you will need the corresponding bearings.

GRIM


----------



## bbjavelina

GRIMWALD said:


> The video you describe I think is one that appeared in the DIY section a year or so ago. I have no doubt that it works in a comparable manner, weather it is suitable to your needs, only you can decide that.
> I do think that using two bearings on the clamping end will work fine but it will limit you in the arrows which can be tested, to only those arrows which have the same outside diameter as the inside of the bearings. If you want to test an arrow with a different diameter you will need the corresponding bearings.
> 
> GRIM


Understood. And thanks for your time.


----------



## Hoyt slayer

Ok so I kind of skimmed through here didn't want to read all 1200 posts but there was something about the highest part of the arrow is usually the stiff side? If so I found this this weekend with a bunch of old stuff and was wondering how useful it could be


----------



## bbjavelina

Hoyt Slayer,

I have the same tool. Bought if for straightening AL arrows -- believe that's what is was designed for. I don't see how it could be used for indexing arrow shafts, but maybe I'm just not thinking right. 

I use mine everytime I get a new batch of shafts. I prefer to find the most crooked end of the shaft and cut it off. I've never bought into aways cutting both ends, but I occasionally find a shaft that is about equal on each end, and will do so then. 

If you find a way to use it for indexing, please let me know. The dial indicator on mine has a total travel of only 0.400", so even it could be used only on shafts with a 340 or heavier spine if trying to find your actual spine value. 

Best of luck to you.


----------



## Hoyt slayer

bbjavelina said:


> Hoyt Slayer,
> 
> I have the same tool. Bought if for straightening AL arrows -- believe that's what is was designed for. I don't see how it could be used for indexing arrow shafts, but maybe I'm just not thinking right.
> 
> I use mine everytime I get a new batch of shafts. I prefer to find the most crooked end of the shaft and cut it off. I've never bought into aways cutting both ends, but I occasionally find a shaft that is about equal on each end, and will do so then.
> 
> If you find a way to use it for indexing, please let me know. The dial indicator on mine has a total travel of only 0.400", so even it could be used only on shafts with a 340 or heavier spine if trying to find your actual spine value.
> 
> Best of luck to you.


It will measure straightness just fine i know that it's not set up to spine index. I thought I saw somewhere in this post saying that most of the time the high point or the highest bend in the arrow ended up being the stiff side. If so I could use this for that without forking over a bunch of cash for anything else


----------



## bbjavelina

Hoyt slayer said:


> It will measure straightness just fine i know that it's not set up to spine index. I thought I saw somewhere in this post saying that most of the time the high point or the highest bend in the arrow ended up being the stiff side. If so I could use this for that without forking over a bunch of cash for anything else


I got it, now.


----------



## zwalls

Hoyt slayer said:


> It will measure straightness just fine i know that it's not set up to spine index. I thought I saw somewhere in this post saying that most of the time the high point or the highest bend in the arrow ended up being the stiff side. If so I could use this for that without forking over a bunch of cash for anything else


HS,
you might want to take some time to try to read highlights of this thread. I have a RAM and from what I've gathered in this thread, that only finds the static spine, not the dynamic spine. I've been lucky to be with this thread from the start. what I'm realizing is, the best use for the RAM is to check straightness, not the actual stiff plane. even after FLO testing the RAM will not find the stiff plane of the arrow. an arrow will FLO either in the stiff or neutral plane and another step has to be taken to find the stiff plane. that was described above in weighing the end of the arrow after you have FLO tested.
o


----------



## ontarget7

IMO you can locate the stiff plane on a RAM . You can also locate the Neutral and weak .


----------



## Super 91

Oooooooo! You rebel you! LOL.....:wink:


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> IMO you can locate the stiff plane on a RAM . You can also locate the Neutral and weak .


we were waiting for you Shane:thumb:


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> IMO you can locate the stiff plane on a RAM . You can also locate the Neutral and weak .


Now Shane why would you go and say that


----------



## FS560

I just found this thread today and read through 521 posts and will continue reading the remainder shortly after making some comments.

A length of tubing of a diameter, wall thickness, and material will have a natural frequency of vibration along its flat line oscillation orientation. The FLO test will determine that orientation.

The actual value of the natural frequency of vibration is not very relevant in archery using a release. It is quite relevant with fingers because it affects the timing of when the fletch passes the arrow rest.

The arrow, being an unsupported column, reacts to the column loading from the bowstring by bending (vibrating) in its neutral bending plane. It is obvious that the neutral bending plane must be indexed the same for all arrows in the set for optimum results.

Through post 521, it was not obvious to me that the neutral bending plane is perpendicular to the plane of the stiffest static spine, however the FLO test will determine its location. It may be that the variation in spine at different points around the shaft and positions along the length of the shaft may cause the location relative to the stiff side to be different from arrow to arrow.

Also, has anyone determined if the neutral bending plane is better suited at the 12/6 position or the 2/8 position or what position?

So, now I will go back and finish reading the next 700 or so posts.

If I have said anything that is dispelled in the next 700 posts, do not shoot me, yet.


----------



## ontarget7

The neutral is generally 90* from the stiff plane and if you interpret it like this I generally have mine at 3 and 9 o'clock, with the stiff plane at 12


----------



## KS Bow Hunter

This thread is like a rejected pilot for Myth Busters.


----------



## zwalls

FS560 said:


> I just found this thread today and read through 521 posts and will continue reading the remainder shortly after making some comments.
> 
> A length of tubing of a diameter, wall thickness, and material will have a natural frequency of vibration along its flat line oscillation orientation. The FLO test will determine that orientation.
> 
> The actual value of the natural frequency of vibration is not very relevant in archery using a release. It is quite relevant with fingers because it affects the timing of when the fletch passes the arrow rest.
> 
> The arrow, being an unsupported column, reacts to the column loading from the bowstring by bending (vibrating) in its neutral bending plane. It is obvious that the neutral bending plane must be indexed the same for all arrows in the set for optimum results.
> 
> Through post 521, it was not obvious to me that the neutral bending plane is perpendicular to the plane of the stiffest static spine, however the FLO test will determine its location. It may be that the variation in spine at different points around the shaft and positions along the length of the shaft may cause the location relative to the stiff side to be different from arrow to arrow.
> 
> Also, has anyone determined if the neutral bending plane is better suited at the 12/6 position or the 2/8 position or what position?
> 
> So, now I will go back and finish reading the next 700 or so posts.
> 
> If I have said anything that is dispelled in the next 700 posts, do not shoot me, yet.


according to those who know more than I do on the matter, FLO will find either the neutral "or" the stiff plane. as mentioned above on this page either the tip of the arrow would have to be weighed in a certain manner to find the stiff plane of each arrow. then shoot one arrow at the mark you found at 12 0'clock thru paper,rotate 90* and repeat and which ever performed the best is where you index the rest of the arrows. or you just shoot each arrow from your bow with the mark you found with FLO at 12o'clock thru paper and then spin the arrow 90* and shoot again to see which performed out of that bow the best. the second way does not tell you if you have the neutral or stiff plane at 12 o'clock.

just my interpretation!


----------



## FS560

Wow, I read all 1248 posts in this thread, 50 pages worth after just finding this thread yesterday. The main issue I regret about just finding this is not getting the opportunity to buy the RAM weight upgrade hangers before they were all gone.

It was stated early on that the actual static spine of a shaft is consistent 360 degrees around and that any readings to the contrary are a result of the shaft not being straight. I do not think that is correct, especially with carbon reinforced plastic, a matrix of carbon fiber and resin. It is a contributing factor however. There is ample opportunity for the matrix to have inconsistencies that will produce a variation of spine around the shaft and different variations at different locations along the length of the shaft.

Is there adequate documentation that the neutral oscillation plane is 90 degrees from the stiff spine plane? I would think that it would not be exactly so and that less quality shafts would have a greater chance of a variation from that alignment.

I think the response of the arrow to the bowstring column loading hit would be to buckle in the neutral oscillation plane of least resistance and this plane should be oriented in the 12/6 position for release shooters. However, Shane's experience indicates otherwise.

Regarding the issue of floating shafts, I fully agree that it is as bogus as a seven dollar bill, but if you are going to float shafts, they should be floated in used beer.


----------



## ontarget7

The orientation with stiff plane up can be easily seen from a visual standpoint when testing bareshafts. First tune to perfect bareshaft flight then rotate the stiff plane 90* and you will more than likely find you have to induce more pre lean for equal results


----------



## GRIMWALD

FS560 said:


> Wow, I read all 1248 posts in this thread, 50 pages worth after just finding this thread yesterday. The main issue I regret about just finding this is not getting the opportunity to buy the RAM weight upgrade hangers before they were all gone.
> 
> It was stated early on that the actual static spine of a shaft is consistent 360 degrees around and that any readings to the contrary are a result of the shaft not being straight. I do not think that is correct, especially with carbon reinforced plastic, a matrix of carbon fiber and resin. It is a contributing factor however. There is ample opportunity for the matrix to have inconsistencies that will produce a variation of spine around the shaft and different variations at different locations along the length of the shaft.
> 
> Is there adequate documentation that the neutral oscillation plane is 90 degrees from the stiff spine plane? I would think that it would not be exactly so and that less quality shafts would have a greater chance of a variation from that alignment.
> 
> I think the response of the arrow to the bowstring column loading hit would be to buckle in the neutral oscillation plane of least resistance and this plane should be oriented in the 12/6 position for release shooters. However, Shane's experience indicates otherwise.
> 
> Regarding the issue of floating shafts, I fully agree that it is as bogus as a seven dollar bill, but if you are going to float shafts, they should be floated in used beer.


As far as the neutral plane orientation in relation to the spine, I think I would direct you to the link to the Tutelman article that I posted. If you need the link posted again, I can but it has already been posted a number of times.
Weather the weak neutral plane should be positioned vertical or horizontal. I position it vertical, in the 12 O'clock to 6 O'clock position, by choice and I have results just a fine as Ontarget7. Granted, I am not shooting a top of the line bow but I think there is a lot more options available than just one mans opinion. He could be correct for him and his equipment but not everyone shots the same or has the same equipment. The best option is simple, be open to other options.

GRIM


----------



## skynight

FS560 said:


> It was stated early on that the actual static spine of a shaft is consistent 360 degrees around and that any readings to the contrary are a result of the shaft not being straight. I do not think that is correct,


I don't either. In fact I think the idea is ridiculous. But it sure got repeated a lot.


----------



## GRIMWALD

It certainly is possible with the quality of shafts currently being produced but the majority of shafts do not have a consistent deflection 360 degrees around the shaft. The Ram shows this very well about 80% of the time. The remaining 20 % is often confused with the residual bend and can give inaccurate results.

GRIM


----------



## tripleb2431

Wish I could afford spine tester but since I'm poor have to do it old fashion way. Shoot each on as bare shaft and turn nocks till they all hitting same. I do mine at 30 yards though to get better picture.


----------



## ontarget7

skynight said:


> I don't either. In fact I think the idea is ridiculous. But it sure got repeated a lot.


I don't feel this is true with all shafts but there are others I would have to say are very close after more testing


----------



## enewman

On spine. I will repeat it again. Spine is the same 360 degrees around the shaft. Spine of any shaft is the same The good thing is you do not have to believe me. Test it your self and you will see. Easy test. Set arrow on stand. Zero gauge. Read it as weight is put on. You will read what the spine of the arrow is. Say it's 300. No rotate the arrow to any location you want. Including the side with less indicator reading which is what every one wants to say stiff is. Now rezero the indicator. Now remove the weight. It will read 300 spine. Now rezero indicator. Put weight back on. It will read 300. That is spine. 

Again you don't have to believe me just test it. 

Now take it one step futher. Go find you a mechanist . Show him what you are doing. He is going to tell you the same as I have for a long time. You are reading run out. 

Easy to prove. Take a .001 and a .006. Read the indicator while rotating. You will find the high point of an .006 arrow easily. You will find that the .001 is harder plus will find where ther is a greater area that has no indicator movement. Again this is because the arrow is straighter. No run out. 

Again don't have to believe me. Take it to any one that knows what run out on a shaft is. They will show you. Or just look up on the Internet. It will show you.


----------



## enewman

I posted this all ready but here is what we are looking at when we rotate an arrow. This picture is exaggerated but you can see what we are doing. In this pic is where we are saying it's week. If it's was 180 we would call this stiff. 

But as you can see its no more then run out. Stiff or weak can not be found with a ram tester.


----------



## NoDeerInIowa

enewman said:


> On spine. I will repeat it again. Spine is the same 360 degrees around the shaft. Spine of any shaft is the same The good thing is you do not have to believe me. Test it your self and you will see. Easy test. Set arrow on stand. Zero gauge. Read it as weight is put on. You will read what the spine of the arrow is. Say it's 300. No rotate the arrow to any location you want. Including the side with less indicator reading which is what every one wants to say stiff is. Now rezero the indicator. Now remove the weight. It will read 300 spine. Now rezero indicator. Put weight back on. It will read 300. That is spine.
> 
> Again you don't have to believe me just test it.
> 
> Now take it one step futher. Go find you a mechanist . Show him what you are doing. He is going to tell you the same as I have for a long time. You are reading run out.
> 
> Easy to prove. Take a .001 and a .006. Read the indicator while rotating. You will find the high point of an .006 arrow easily. You will find that the .001 is harder plus will find where ther is a greater area that has no indicator movement. Again this is because the arrow is straighter. No run out.
> 
> Again don't have to believe me. Take it to any one that knows what run out on a shaft is. They will show you. Or just look up on the Internet. It will show you.


It's not actually straightness. It is concentricity.


----------



## enewman

NoDeerInIowa said:


> It's not actually straightness. It is concentricity.


Concentricity is a measure of the run out of the OD to the ID in this case. No one up to this point has actually checked this, so, no we are not checking for nor referencing concentricity as measured With a ram style tester. All u can check for is the static spine an any run out caused by the arc in the arrow and/ or any deviation in the OD. This is why it is hard spine index this way on a .001 shaft.


----------



## ontarget7

Got these indexed with the RAM and figured I would open up my group a little in hopes to not damage any LOL ! Well that didn't turn out so well . On the other hand I think these need no further indexing after running them through the RAM. 
My Nitrum Turbo and GT Kaos arrows are going to pack a punch come hunting season.


----------



## Super 91

So much for the nock busing protecting the back end of those shafts!! LOL Nice setup, now just to see that bad boy laying over something dead!


----------



## zwalls

here are my results after FLO testing, weighing the tips of the arrows on a gram scale as mentioned above and also using a spine finder a friend built. after determining displacement on the gram scale and determining where the neutral and stiff planes were we fond the spine finder always found the neutral plane. in my opinion the spine finder could be used alone to accomplish the same thing as FLO and weighing for displacement.

after a little testing we found that the neutral plane performed better at 12&6 0'clock. I fletched all cock vanes up on the neutral plane and shot them thru the Hooter Shooter. a few I had to put cock vane down to get them all in the same whole. the few wholes outside of the main whole were the few arrows I turned cock vane down. once I did all of the arrow impacted in the same whole.

so I put tape on the old wholes to get a better view of the finished product.


EDIT: I can't get the pics to download. going any advice? going to try from a different computer.


----------



## zwalls

zwalls said:


> here are my results after FLO testing, weighing the tips of the arrows on a gram scale as mentioned above and also using a spine finder a friend built. after determining displacement on the gram scale and determining where the neutral and stiff planes were we fond the spine finder always found the neutral plane. in my opinion the spine finder could be used alone to accomplish the same thing as FLO and weighing for displacement.
> 
> after a little testing we found that the neutral plane performed better at 12&6 0'clock. I fletched all cock vanes up on the neutral plane and shot them thru the Hooter Shooter. a few I had to put cock vane down to get them all in the same whole. the few wholes outside of the main whole were the few arrows I turned cock vane down. once I did all of the arrow impacted in the same whole.
> 
> so I put tape on the old wholes to get a better view of the finished product.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I can't get the pics to download. going any advice? going to try from a different computer.


having problems uploading pics :noidea:


----------



## ontarget7

So your saying the stiffest reading on the RAM is the neutral plane ?


----------



## SonnyThomas

51 pages and still going.... 

I touched on it a bit way back, floating arrows in soapy water - "2 arrows slapped so hard I thought I broke one." So I got my right shoulder banged up good, separated shoulder and multiple tears in rotor cuff (Feb 26). However, Feb 25, the day before the wreck I shot the 6 Absolute 22s I floated. 20 yards, cold, snow on the ground, no warm up shots. Ripped a vane off in 2nd group and reshot the arrow just to see what it'd do. Finger holding arrow over to show vane missing.


----------



## bbjavelina

I can't understand how you can shoot with all that white stuff on the ground. 

Our yard looked a bit like that last Friday night, but it was hail and gone in 10 minutes. 

Nice shooting.


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> So your saying the stiffest reading on the RAM is the neutral plane ?


no, we were not using the Ram. something like this but not exactly.........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqlRIiz_OLE

I would post a pic but I'm still having trouble uploading pics.
I'll try to describe it.

a pair of roller bearings on each end and another pair in the middle that pushed down the arrow a certain distance to apply enough force and the gently try to spin the arrow and it always pops back into the same position which we always found the neutral plane.


----------



## zwalls

SonnyThomas said:


> 51 pages and still going....
> 
> I touched on it a bit way back, floating arrows in soapy water - "2 arrows slapped so hard I thought I broke one." So I got my right shoulder banged up good, separated shoulder and multiple tears in rotor cuff (Feb 26). However, Feb 25, the day before the wreck I shot the 6 Absolute 22s I floated. 20 yards, cold, snow on the ground, no warm up shots. Ripped a vane off in 2nd group and reshot the arrow just to see what it'd do. Finger holding arrow over to show vane missing.


that is some awesome shooting there!!!


----------



## zwalls

anyone have any tips on uploading pics. I've done it before just can't figure out why I can't now. when I click to upload file it acts like it uploads but does not!


----------



## zwalls

zwalls said:


> here are my results after FLO testing, weighing the tips of the arrows on a gram scale as mentioned above and also using a spine finder a friend built. after determining displacement on the gram scale and determining where the neutral and stiff planes were we fond the spine finder always found the neutral plane. in my opinion the spine finder could be used alone to accomplish the same thing as FLO and weighing for displacement.
> 
> after a little testing we found that the neutral plane performed better at 12&6 0'clock. I fletched all cock vanes up on the neutral plane and shot them thru the Hooter Shooter. a few I had to put cock vane down to get them all in the same whole. the few wholes outside of the main whole were the few arrows I turned cock vane down. once I did all of the arrow impacted in the same whole.
> 
> so I put tape on the old wholes to get a better view of the finished product.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I can't get the pics to download. going any advice? going to try from a different computer.

















can't get the pics to rotate but it's better than nothing!!


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> anyone have any tips on uploading pics. I've done it before just can't figure out why I can't now. when I click to upload file it acts like it uploads but does not!




What I'm seeing with all this testing. Is who is right or what is the right tool. Ram tester yall say it's finding a stiff plan. I don't think so. Zwalls just used a deffernt type tester and is saying he's finding the neutral plane. But yet it shoots the best at 12 and 6. Same as ontarget is saying the stiff plane for him shoots the best. What yall all have done is disprove what yall are finding and what it does. 

Now if it works for you then don't stop. But you do need to look at what your doing and ask what you are finding. 

I know a ram tester is finding spine and defection only. Nothing to do with stiff plane or neutral plane. Look up how to measure deflection and you will see what your doing with a ram tester. Flo testing finds the neutral plane. Does it. All our info for this is on golf clubs. From my testing on a flo tester is it does find somthing. What is it finding. It is finding where the arrow flexs with the least amount of resistance. If you rotate it , now it does not flo good. This is do to the arrow trying to flex in a point that has more resistance in that point of shaft. Now thanks to our club makers. This is neutral plane. And 90 degress is the stiff plan. Only because we've been told this. It cannot be tested with flo tester. 

Now what is better. Neutral plane if that is what we are looking at. Does it go 12/6 or 9/3. Look at how an arrow is suposed to flex when shot out of a compound. It is to flex up and down. So if this is correct. Then where the arrow flexs with the least amount of resistance should go at 12/6. If the arrow is not flexing like this when shot the arrow will flex in flight just like the flo tester when not in line. 

What does all this mean. Bows can be tuned with the arrow being correct or not. If you flo test and set the arrows at 12/6. There will be less adjustments made then shooting an arrow that is indexed with a ram tester that is finding the high side of run out. Can this be tuned yes it can. The good thing about all this is just like getting the answer 10. 5+5 is not the only way to get it

I know shane says if he indexes he does not have to knoc tune. I see this with good arrows. I don't have to even index. Most will be the same with a coulple needing knoc tuning. Cheep arrows. I can ram test or flo and I still have to knoc tune them. 

There is a video out the for red dragon golf club. It flo tested 360 degrees around. This is a great shaft. So if an arrow is of good quality. It to will do the same. This arrow will make no difference where you index.


----------



## ontarget7

For the sack of argument, whatever I index on the RAM it does it very well and how I orientate the shaft, works exceptionally well. Whatever you want to call the plane of the shaft is all up to you. It's not just the best arrows, it's hundreds of arrows that I bareshaft tune on a daily basis from .001 to .006. It's really not that hard to determine what gives great results. However you want to get there is completely up to you.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> What I'm seeing with all this testing. Is who is right or what is the right tool. Ram tester yall say it's finding a stiff plan. I don't think so. Zwalls just used a deffernt type tester and is saying he's finding the neutral plane. But yet it shoots the best at 12 and 6. Same as ontarget is saying the stiff plane for him shoots the best. What yall all have done is disprove what yall are finding and what it does.
> 
> Now if it works for you then don't stop. But you do need to look at what your doing and ask what you are finding.
> 
> I know a ram tester is finding spine and defection only. Nothing to do with stiff plane or neutral plane. Look up how to measure deflection and you will see what your doing with a ram tester. Flo testing finds the neutral plane. Does it. All our info for this is on golf clubs. From my testing on a flo tester is it does find somthing. What is it finding. It is finding where the arrow flexs with the least amount of resistance. If you rotate it , now it does not flo good. This is do to the arrow trying to flex in a point that has more resistance in that point of shaft. Now thanks to our club makers. This is neutral plane. And 90 degress is the stiff plan. Only because we've been told this. It cannot be tested with flo tester.
> 
> Now what is better. Neutral plane if that is what we are looking at. Does it go 12/6 or 9/3. Look at how an arrow is suposed to flex when shot out of a compound. It is to flex up and down. So if this is correct. Then where the arrow flexs with the least amount of resistance should go at 12/6. If the arrow is not flexing like this when shot the arrow will flex in flight just like the flo tester when not in line.
> 
> What does all this mean. Bows can be tuned with the arrow being correct or not. If you flo test and set the arrows at 12/6. There will be less adjustments made then shooting an arrow that is indexed with a ram tester that is finding the high side of run out. Can this be tuned yes it can. The good thing about all this is just like getting the answer 10. 5+5 is not the only way to get it
> 
> I know shane says if he indexes he does not have to knoc tune. I see this with good arrows. I don't have to even index. Most will be the same with a coulple needing knoc tuning. Cheep arrows. I can ram test or flo and I still have to knoc tune them.
> 
> There is a video out the for red dragon golf club. It flo tested 360 degrees around. This is a great shaft. So if an arrow is of good quality. It to will do the same. This arrow will make no difference where you index.


first of all I didn't use the RAM for any of the testing. according to Mr. Kaufman, an arrow will FLO in the stiff or neutral plane. once you have found FLO, one would then either weigh the tips of the arrow as mentioned above to measure displacement and determine how the arrow FLO'd and which is the stiff and or neutral plane. what we also found is that the mechanism we used called by the golfing industry a spine finder, not a RAM, always found the neutral plane that we had already determined by measuring displacement. 

based off of what worked for me was neutral plane vertical. all I can tell you is it put 17 arrows in about a nickel size whole at 30 yrds. I'll keep doing what I'm doing because it's working for me!!


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> For the sack of argument, whatever I index on the RAM it does it very well and how I orientate the shaft, works exceptionally well. Whatever you want to call the plane of the shaft is all up to you. It's not just the best arrows, it's hundreds of arrows that I bareshaft tune on a daily basis from .001 to .006. It's really not that hard to determine what gives great results. However you want to get there is completely up to you.


I'm not trying to say what your doing is wrong. I've seen a lot of good results from you. And I think you know exactly what your doing. I'm just saying what we all have been tought is wrong at what we are looking at. And it's all been proven. But as long as it works for you then that is the way to do it. I have just gone back to knoc tuning. I can normally get the arrow doing what I want in 3 to 4 turns of knoc.


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> first of all I didn't use the RAM for any of the testing. according to Mr. Kaufman, an arrow will FLO in the stiff or neutral plane. once you have found FLO, one would then either weigh the tips of the arrow as mentioned above to measure displacement and determine how the arrow FLO'd and which is the stiff and or neutral plane. what we also found is that the mechanism we used called by the golfing industry a spine finder, not a RAM, always found the neutral plane that we had already determined by measuring displacement.
> 
> based off of what worked for me was neutral plane vertical. all I can tell you is it put 17 arrows in about a nickel size whole at 30 yrds. I'll keep doing what I'm doing because it's working for me!!



And if you found the neutral plane. Then you should have shot just like you posted. This is where the arrow should flex with ease and the same.


----------



## tripleb2431

The way I see it we are just trying to get arrows to fly together and elemninate flyers. So instead of spending crap ton of money on equipment take your arrows in bareshaft form and go shoot them all and if they group together with no vanes they will group together with vanes. If they don't nock tune the flyers out. I shoot mine at 30 yards instead of 20 just because it will show more info. If I can get all my BS hitting bullseye at 30 I fletch them up. I'm a firm believer in spine indexing cause I'm anal about stuff. But I'm a firm believer in saving money too.💰💰💰💰 








30 yards


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> I'm not trying to say what your doing is wrong. I've seen a lot of good results from you. And I think you know exactly what your doing. I'm just saying what we all have been tought is wrong at what we are looking at. And it's all been proven. But as long as it works for you then that is the way to do it. I have just gone back to knoc tuning. I can normally get the arrow doing what I want in 3 to 4 turns of knoc.


I still say there is a stiff plane, weak plane and your neutral planes. At least from my testing and can be found on the RAM


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> I'm not trying to say what your doing is wrong. I've seen a lot of good results from you. And I think you know exactly what your doing. I'm just saying what we all have been tought is wrong at what we are looking at. And it's all been proven. But as long as it works for you then that is the way to do it. I have just gone back to knoc tuning. I can normally get the arrow doing what I want in 3 to 4 turns of knoc.





enewman said:


> And if you found the neutral plane. Then you should have shot just like you posted. This is where the arrow should flex with ease and the same.


I understand what you are saying! yes, after a lot of reading a testing, what I have found for me is that the so called "SPIN FINDER" that's been used in the gold industry is really all I need to use to find the neutral or the stiff plane.
maybe I'm wrong but to make sure we are going to FLO test some more arrows, fine the stiff and neutral plane by measuring displacement and then I will roll them on the spine finder. if the spine finder produces the same results we get by measuring displacement and finding the neutral plane then I think all I really need to do is use the spine finder and shoot them out of my bow neutral plane vertical. 

now, I have other bows and you never know, one of those may rather stiff plane vertical :noidea:


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> I'm not trying to say what your doing is wrong. I've seen a lot of good results from you. And I think you know exactly what your doing. I'm just saying what we all have been tought is wrong at what we are looking at. And it's all been proven. But as long as it works for you then that is the way to do it. I have just gone back to knoc tuning. I can normally get the arrow doing what I want in 3 to 4 turns of knoc.





enewman said:


> And if you found the neutral plane. Then you should have shot just like you posted. This is where the arrow should flex with ease and the same.





tripleb2431 said:


> The way I see it we are just trying to get arrows to fly together and elemninate flyers. So instead of spending crap ton of money on equipment take your arrows in bareshaft form and go shoot them all and if they group together with no vanes they will group together with vanes. If they don't nock tune the flyers out. I shoot mine at 30 yards instead of 20 just because it will show more info. If I can get all my BS hitting bullseye at 30 I fletch them up. I'm a firm believer in spine indexing cause I'm anal about stuff. But I'm a firm believer in saving money too.&#55357;&#56496;&#55357;&#56496;&#55357;&#56496;&#55357;&#56496;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 yards


yeah, I spent a little money, but I bet I'm more anal than you.....lol
but I'm satisfied with what I have learned without spending a whole lot of money and now I know what I will do from here on out which will illuminate me having to shoot,nock tune every arrow. time is important to me as well. after learning some things here it will cut way down on arrow tuning and get to shooting!! JMHO


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> I still say there is a stiff plane, weak plane and your neutral planes. At least from my testing and can be found on the RAM


Hey Shane,
I used to believe the same as you but I'm not sure anymore. I'm going to take a few of these arrows I FLO tested, measured displacement and use the spine finder(not the RAM) and I will test them on the RAM to see exactly what it tell me. I will already know where the neutral and stiff plane are. what I think may happen is one side of the stiff plane may be sifter than the other, not sure. but I will post my results when I get a chance to do it!!


----------



## tripleb2431

zwalls said:


> yeah, I spent a little money, but I bet I'm more anal than you.....lol
> but I'm satisfied with what I have learned without spending a whole lot of money and now I know what I will do from here on out which will illuminate me having to shoot,nock tune every arrow. time is important to me as well. after learning some things here it will cut way down on arrow tuning and get to shooting!! JMHO


I don't know I think I can give ya a run for your money on who's more anal I missed almost all of last hunting season just because my BH were impacting right of my BS and fletched arrows about 5" and just would not adjust sights just for hunting season. Lol. But I do my best to get a starting point some how like my GT you can see the seam inside so started there think I only needed to turn nock on one. Then had some Bemans I floated those in the tub turned couple of those to get them all perfect.


----------



## ontarget7

zwalls said:


> I understand what you are saying! yes, after a lot of reading a testing, what I have found for me is that the so called "SPIN FINDER" that's been used in the gold industry is really all I need to use to find the neutral or the stiff plane.
> maybe I'm wrong but to make sure we are going to FLO test some more arrows, fine the stiff and neutral plane by measuring displacement and then I will roll them on the spine finder. if the spine finder produces the same results we get by measuring displacement and finding the neutral plane then I think all I really need to do is use the spine finder and shoot them out of my bow neutral plane vertical.
> 
> now, I have other bows and you never know, one of those may rather stiff plane vertical :noidea:


So I am understanding you correctly, what side is the measured stiffest static spine facing ?


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> I understand what you are saying! yes, after a lot of reading a testing, what I have found for me is that the so called "SPIN FINDER" that's been used in the gold industry is really all I need to use to find the neutral or the stiff plane.
> maybe I'm wrong but to make sure we are going to FLO test some more arrows, fine the stiff and neutral plane by measuring displacement and then I will roll them on the spine finder. if the spine finder produces the same results we get by measuring displacement and finding the neutral plane then I think all I really need to do is use the spine finder and shoot them out of my bow neutral plane vertical.
> 
> now, I have other bows and you never know, one of those may rather stiff plane vertical :noidea:


If the spine finder is finding the neutral plane. Then you should get the same results as the flo tester. I have not done much looking into this type of tester. If it works then this will be a lot faster then flo testing. 

Would like to see how what you find with the spine finder compairs to the run out on arrows that is found with the ram.


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> no, we were not using the Ram. something like this but not exactly.........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqlRIiz_OLE
> 
> I would post a pic but I'm still having trouble uploading pics.
> I'll try to describe it.
> 
> a pair of roller bearings on each end and another pair in the middle that pushed down the arrow a certain distance to apply enough force and the gently try to spin the arrow and it always pops back into the same position which we always found the neutral plane.


If the following photo is similar to what you have described, it is based on the same principles as the Ram, it just doesn't have the dial gauge. The results should be also similar.


----------



## SonnyThomas

bbjavelina said:


> I can't understand how you can shoot with all that white stuff on the ground.
> 
> Our yard looked a bit like that last Friday night, but it was hail and gone in 10 minutes.
> 
> Nice shooting.


Thank you, bbjavelina. Snow? Fulton County Illinois is something else. As kids snow was fence post deep. My brothers and sisters used to tunnel to our Aunt and Uncle's house a 1/4 mile up the road. If the weather man call's for a skiff of snow, look out! Yeah, called for maybe a overnight "dusting" and woke up to 14 inches. 



zwalls said:


> that is some awesome shooting there!!!


Thank you, zwalls. Actually, just common groups for 20 yards.


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> no, we were not using the Ram. something like this but not exactly.........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqlRIiz_OLE
> 
> I would post a pic but I'm still having trouble uploading pics.
> I'll try to describe it.
> 
> a pair of roller bearings on each end and another pair in the middle that pushed down the arrow a certain distance to apply enough force and the gently try to spin the arrow and it always pops back into the same position which we always found the neutral plane.



I apologize for not including this in my previous comment but for some reason I was booted off and now it won't let me edit it.
The previous photo was posted on Crossbow nation by member Boo a few years ago.
Now to the link you provide for the golf spine finder, it is a perfectly serviceable tool for finding spine as long as you are aware of it's limitation.
The following video gives a good representation of how it is used and those limitations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=DecL0hWralc&feature=fvwp

GRIM


----------



## soonerboy

Tagged for spine finder.


----------



## zwalls

tripleb2431 said:


> I don't know I think I can give ya a run for your money on who's more anal I missed almost all of last hunting season just because my BH were impacting right of my BS and fletched arrows about 5" and just would not adjust sights just for hunting season. Lol. But I do my best to get a starting point some how like my GT you can see the seam inside so started there think I only needed to turn nock on one. Then had some Bemans I floated those in the tub turned couple of those to get them all perfect.


:chortle: we are running a very close race my friend:thumb:


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> If the following photo is similar to what you have described, it is based on the same principles as the Ram, it just doesn't have the dial gauge. The results should be also similar.


Why can you not just do the same with the ram and just add more weight.


----------



## zwalls

ontarget7 said:


> So I am understanding you correctly, what side is the measured stiffest static spine facing ?


that I did not do before I shot them thru the machine. but I have some I'm going to re-fletch and I'll run them on the RAM to see which side was the stiffest static side. but the stiff plane according to our test and displacement measurements was always horizontal......3&9 o'clock.

to me there has to be a stiffer side because I had to rotate 3 of the arrows 180* to get them in the same whole.maybe I'm wrong. I always kept neutral plane vertical in the process though!


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> If the spine finder is finding the neutral plane. Then you should get the same results as the flo tester. I have not done much looking into this type of tester. If it works then this will be a lot faster then flo testing.
> 
> Would like to see how what you find with the spine finder compairs to the run out on arrows that is found with the ram.


in my conversations with Mr. Kaufman, he tells me that an arrow or golf club can and will FLO in either plane. that's where measuring displacement or using a spine finder comes into play. and I would agree that if our future testing reveals that the spine finder always finds the weaker plane then I can just skip FLO and measuring displacement.

as I mentioned to Shane, I have some arrow that need to be re-fletched and I'll run them on the RAM to see what results I get compared to the other test.


----------



## zwalls

GRIMWALD said:


> If the following photo is similar to what you have described, it is based on the same principles as the Ram, it just doesn't have the dial gauge. The results should be also similar.


yes, similar! it's hard to explain how my friend made it but the ends of the arrows sit on a pair of bearing on each end and the one in the center can be rotated downward to apply pressure on the arrow.
can you explain why out of all of the arrows we FLO tested and then measured displacement to find stiff/neutral plane, that the "SPINE FINDER" always found the neutral plane that we had marked previously?

Edit: another thing I forgot to mention, when using the spine finder the arrow would always pop into the same place even when we rotated 180*. no matter what we tried the arrows always fell into the neutral plane and the stiff plane was at 9&3o'clock in the spine finder. keep in mind we had already determined the stiff and neutral plane of all the arrows we tested.


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> yes, similar! it's hard to explain how my friend made it but the ends of the arrows sit on a pair of bearing on each end and the one in the center can be rotated downward to apply pressure on the arrow.
> can you explain why out of all of the arrows we FLO tested and then measured displacement to find stiff/neutral plane, that the "SPINE FINDER" always found the neutral plane that we had marked previously?
> 
> Edit: another thing I forgot to mention, when using the spine finder the arrow would always pop into the same place even when we rotated 180*. no matter what we tried the arrows always fell into the neutral plane and the stiff plane was at 9&3o'clock in the spine finder. keep in mind we had already determined the stiff and neutral plane of all the arrows we tested.


If there is a neutral plane and a stiff plane there would be same at 180 degree. Grim has posted pictures some where on the post that shows this. So if you can rotate the arrow 180 and it rotates back to the same place everytime with out question. Then you are not finding anything but the low point in the residual bend of the shaft. Run out.

In my opinion. For this to work. The neutral plane is where the arrow flexes with the least amount of work. So if you find this its the same straight through the arrow. 180 degrees. So if your not seeing this then something is wrong. This type of tester may be flawed like the ram tester for what we think your finding.


----------



## enewman

Let me add to my above post. Zwalls. What test did you use to find the neutral plane before using the spine finder. 

If what you did and it always came back to the same point. In my opinion this is the low side of the run out. Then this is why you have the same results as Shane. He is finding the high point of the run out. But your both indexing the arrow on the high/low point. 

I've stated before that the ram tester is flawed. It's not. It's we are trying to use equipment that is made for one thing for another. 
This means the ram and spine finder is doing nothing more then finding the bend in the shaft. Does it work yes can you index to this yes. Are we finding the stiff/weak plane or stiff spine of arrow. NO Not with these testers. Does it matter. No. As long as there all the same you can tune a bow to shoot it. 

There are a lot of ways to tune. If your arrow is knoc left you can move the rest from center shot to fix, you can yoke tune to fix, you can rotate the knoc on arrow and fix. They all do the same. Just which one to use. I prefer to knoc tune first this is after bow is set to factory specs. Once my arrows fly the same with the least amount of side tear. Then I move my rest this is very little movement. Then yoke tune for the micro tune. 

I would say that a lot of bows that tune inside or outside center shot could be fixed by knoc tuning.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> Let me add to my above post. Zwalls. What test did you use to find the neutral plane before using the spine finder.
> 
> If what you did and it always came back to the same point. In my opinion this is the low side of the run out. Then this is why you have the same results as Shane. He is finding the high point of the run out. But your both indexing the arrow on the high/low point.
> 
> I've stated before that the ram tester is flawed. It's not. It's we are trying to use equipment that is made for one thing for another.
> This means the ram and spine finder is doing nothing more then finding the bend in the shaft. Does it work yes can you index to this yes. Are we finding the stiff/weak plane or stiff spine of arrow. NO Not with these testers. Does it matter. No. As long as there all the same you can tune a bow to shoot it.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to tune. If your arrow is knoc left you can move the rest from center shot to fix, you can yoke tune to fix, you can rotate the knoc on arrow and fix. They all do the same. Just which one to use. I prefer to knoc tune first this is after bow is set to factory specs. Once my arrows fly the same with the least amount of side tear. Then I move my rest this is very little movement. Then yoke tune for the micro tune.
> 
> I would say that a lot of bows that tune inside or outside center shot could be fixed by knoc tuning.


let me try to keep this short and hopefully I can explain correctly,
we FLO tested the arrows fist. then with a gram scale we measured for displacement to determine stiff/neutral plane. then we ran all the arrows thru the spine finder.

let me try to clarify something. in the spine finder the arrow always wanted to POP to the neutral plane on one side of the arrow or the other. which made since to me that the neutral plane goes completely thru the arrow 180*. I might have not explained it well the first time. hopefully this helps!


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> Why can you not just do the same with the ram and just add more weight.


that's an interesting question! I think the RAM has enough weight, the arrow just reacts differently for some reason. maybe because the weight is hanging instead of pushing:noidea:


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Why can you not just do the same with the ram and just add more weight.


You can as long as your weight has roller bearings similar to the ones Super91 built. The problem is that these are classified as "Feel finders" because you feel for the lump or roll over but as the shafts become more and more uniform, the harder it is to feel the rollover. The Ram with it's dial indicator will allow for closer tolerances.
I had a similar discussion (argument) with Firenock when he was introducing his PAPS system, he insisted that his device was the be all end all of spine testers. It is definitely well made but it still works on the same principles as pictured above with the three roller bearing. without the dial indicator the Ram, while not a better piece of equipment, it offers more bang for the buck. I am not positive but I believe he now does offer a dial indicator option but it is an add on for an additional charge.


GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

zwalls said:


> yes, similar! it's hard to explain how my friend made it but the ends of the arrows sit on a pair of bearing on each end and the one in the center can be rotated downward to apply pressure on the arrow.
> can you explain why out of all of the arrows we FLO tested and then measured displacement to find stiff/neutral plane, that the "SPINE FINDER" always found the neutral plane that we had marked previously?
> 
> Edit: another thing I forgot to mention, when using the spine finder the arrow would always pop into the same place even when we rotated 180*. no matter what we tried the arrows always fell into the neutral plane and the stiff plane was at 9&3o'clock in the spine finder. keep in mind we had already determined the stiff and neutral plane of all the arrows we tested.


It found the same results because in most cases the "Neutral" plane is in very close proximity to the natural bend. This is why I don't even bother with the "Spine" I find the natural bend and then fine tune until I locate the neutral plane. The only thing I use the inverted flex board for is to locate the natural bend, having to locate the spine is just a side effect of the process.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Y


GRIMWALD said:


> It found the same results because in most cases the "Neutral" plane is in very close proximity to the natural bend. This is why I don't even bother with the "Spine" I find the natural bend and then fine tune until I locate the neutral plane. The only thing I use the inverted flex board for is to locate the natural bend, having to locate the spine is just a side effect of the process.
> 
> GRIM


Ok grim. Your finding the natural bend. With a inverted flex board. Then how are you finding the neutral plane. With flo. Or you just knoc turning. 

Also the natural bend. Is this what I'm calling the low side of the run out. That we see with the ram.


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> that's an interesting question! I think the RAM has enough weight, the arrow just reacts differently for some reason. maybe because the weight is hanging instead of pushing:noidea:


If you could guess at how much your pushing down. Then do this on an scale. Would that give us a rough amount of weight needed to do the same.


----------



## Firenock

GRIMWALD said:


> I believe he now does offer a dial indicator option but it is an add on for an additional charge.


I specially design that the dial indicator cannot be used to locate the high and low side of the arrow. I do not believe the high and low spine of arrow have any major value. That is indeed my position when I design the PAOS. So if you are looking to use the dial indicator to see which is the high or low side of the arrow, the PAPS is not the tool to use. The digital dial indicator on the PAPS is design to find the actual spine reading of an arrow deflection base on AMO standard... i.e. 28" spread with 1.92 lbs of weight. That is why it comes with a reference ZERO point and a weight that combines to 1.92 lbs.


----------



## ontarget7

Interesting !!!!
Field testing I would have to disagree. I always index to the stiffest static spine reading and get very consistent results. 

For those doing all the other testing, I just would like to know what you are calling this plane of the shaft ?


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Interesting !!!!
> Field testing I would have to disagree. I always index to the stiffest static spine reading and get very consistent results.
> 
> For those doing all the other testing, I just would like to know what you are calling this plane of the shaft ?


From my testing and reading and my opinion. You know I do not believe in there is a stiffer static spine on an arrow. Spine is spine. Can their be a stiffer reaction yes, but this will be in the way the arrow is built. Static spine is the same. Even this Dorge guy just stated the same thing. I have made many post on how to prove what I have stated. There has been many post telling me in about way that I'm wrong, but yet know one has tested the way I stated and come on here and tell me that they tested it and Say if I'm Right or wrong. There are to many koolaid drinkers. 
Now flo testing. I find where the arrow makes a vertical line. We are all calling this a neutral plane. What is this. I don't know. It is what someone years ago while testing golf clubs came up with it. Then some one in the archery field decided we can do the same and used the same terminology. If it had been called the the dot plane, then this is what we would be calling it. But what I do know by watching the flo tester and how it works. When the arrow is at its equal point in the flex it will make a straight line. When it's not it will make ovals. The oval is where the what they call the stiff plane is. 
For what we are looking for the stiff plane means nothing to me. In a golf club and there testing then thay want to know this. All we need to know is where the arrow flexes with the least amount of resistance. 
The only purpose to index is to make all arrows fly the same. It will not matter where you index at. The high point in the run out measurement on the ram tester or the neutral plane on the flo tester. As long as the arrows respond the same. You can tune them. 

Now is there a better location for the knoc to be at before you start tuning. Yes. Can this be done with a ram tester not in my opinion. All of my arrows that I have set up with the ram. Fly basically the same so I can tune, but if I rotate my knocs from that point I can find a spot that will have less tuning to do. This is finding the flow of the shaft. 

Is the flo tester the way to find this. Well I'm still testing. So I cannot give a good answer yet. But I do know it's closer to what I'm looking for in bareshaft flight then with a ram tester. 

I still use the ram to find my high point in run out. I use this point as a Referance. Then I knoc tune. To get the outcome I'm looking for then I tune my bow


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> If you could guess at how much your pushing down. Then do this on an scale. Would that give us a rough amount of weight needed to do the same.


next time I go to the pro shop I'll try to remember to measure the distance. I'll try to take a short video too!


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> From my testing and reading and my opinion. You know I do not believe in there is a stiffer static spine on an arrow. Spine is spine. Can their be a stiffer reaction yes, but this will be in the way the arrow is built. Static spine is the same. Even this Dorge guy just stated the same thing. I have made many post on how to prove what I have stated. There has been many post telling me in about way that I'm wrong, but yet know one has tested the way I stated and come on here and tell me that they tested it and Say if I'm Right or wrong. There are to many koolaid drinkers.
> Now flo testing. I find where the arrow makes a vertical line. We are all calling this a neutral plane. What is this. I don't know. It is what someone years ago while testing golf clubs came up with it. Then some one in the archery field decided we can do the same and used the same terminology. If it had been called the the dot plane, then this is what we would be calling it. But what I do know by watching the flo tester and how it works. When the arrow is at its equal point in the flex it will make a straight line. When it's not it will make ovals. The oval is where the what they call the stiff plane is.
> For what we are looking for the stiff plane means nothing to me. In a golf club and there testing then thay want to know this. All we need to know is where the arrow flexes with the least amount of resistance.
> The only purpose to index is to make all arrows fly the same. It will not matter where you index at. The high point in the run out measurement on the ram tester or the neutral plane on the flo tester. As long as the arrows respond the same. You can tune them.
> 
> Now is there a better location for the knoc to be at before you start tuning. Yes. Can this be done with a ram tester not in my opinion. All of my arrows that I have set up with the ram. Fly basically the same so I can tune, but if I rotate my knocs from that point I can find a spot that will have less tuning to do. This is finding the flow of the shaft.
> 
> Is the flo tester the way to find this. Well I'm still testing. So I cannot give a good answer yet. But I do know it's closer to what I'm looking for in bareshaft flight then with a ram tester.
> 
> I still use the ram to find my high point in run out. I use this point as a Referance. Then I knoc tune. To get the outcome I'm looking for then I tune my bow


enewman,
as I mentioned before that an arrow will FLO in the neutral or the stiff plane. other test are required to find either plane on each arrow.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> From my testing and reading and my opinion. You know I do not believe in there is a stiffer static spine on an arrow. Spine is spine. Can their be a stiffer reaction yes, but this will be in the way the arrow is built. Static spine is the same. Even this Dorge guy just stated the same thing. I have made many post on how to prove what I have stated. There has been many post telling me in about way that I'm wrong, but yet know one has tested the way I stated and come on here and tell me that they tested it and Say if I'm Right or wrong. There are to many koolaid drinkers.
> Now flo testing. I find where the arrow makes a vertical line. We are all calling this a neutral plane. What is this. I don't know. It is what someone years ago while testing golf clubs came up with it. Then some one in the archery field decided we can do the same and used the same terminology. If it had been called the the dot plane, then this is what we would be calling it. But what I do know by watching the flo tester and how it works. When the arrow is at its equal point in the flex it will make a straight line. When it's not it will make ovals. The oval is where the what they call the stiff plane is.
> For what we are looking for the stiff plane means nothing to me. In a golf club and there testing then thay want to know this. All we need to know is where the arrow flexes with the least amount of resistance.
> The only purpose to index is to make all arrows fly the same. It will not matter where you index at. The high point in the run out measurement on the ram tester or the neutral plane on the flo tester. As long as the arrows respond the same. You can tune them.
> 
> Now is there a better location for the knoc to be at before you start tuning. Yes. Can this be done with a ram tester not in my opinion. All of my arrows that I have set up with the ram. Fly basically the same so I can tune, but if I rotate my knocs from that point I can find a spot that will have less tuning to do. This is finding the flow of the shaft.
> 
> Is the flo tester the way to find this. Well I'm still testing. So I cannot give a good answer yet. But I do know it's closer to what I'm looking for in bareshaft flight then with a ram tester.
> 
> I still use the ram to find my high point in run out. I use this point as a Referance. Then I knoc tune. To get the outcome I'm looking for then I tune my bow


Wow !! You are really loosing me now. Say I take a dozen arrows and I do not index them to the static stiff plane like I do on the RAM, I will have to turn nocks all over the place to get all 12 to be true. 

I am speaking from bareshaft results at 20 yards. 

I must get extremely lucky all the time.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Wow !! You are really loosing me now. Say I take a dozen arrows and I do not index them to the static stiff plane like I do on the RAM, I will have to turn nocks all over the place to get all 12 to be true.
> 
> I am speaking from bareshaft results at 20 yards.
> 
> I must get extremely lucky all the time.[/QUOT
> 
> Yes if you don't index you will have turn turn knocs all over the place. I'm saying to,index. But you can index with any method. And it does not matter. As long as the arrows fly the same. You can tune. That is what you are doing. You are finding a point on the arrows. That is the same. Then You tune. I see nothing wrong on what and how you are doing. And the good thing you have proofed this with out a doubt. I'm just saying your not finding stiff of anything.
> 
> I'm also saying that I believe there is a better point in the arrow that tuning will be done with less movement to the bow. And that cannot be found with a ram tester. This is where I'm at in my testing.


----------



## enewman

zwalls said:


> enewman,
> as I mentioned before that an arrow will FLO in the neutral or the stiff plane. other test are required to find either plane on each arrow.


If we believe what the golf people are saying the flo tester finds the neutral plane and we except that stiff plane is 90 degrees. From my reading the only way to find stiff plane as we call it is with a freq tester. But I have not done much research on the inverted flex tester.


----------



## enewman

Shane. Part of my problem with all of this. Is my job causes me to,have to analyse things. So I cannot do anything with out doing this. Very OCD. So when I'm looking at something I break it down. And I look at what I'm doing and why and how. So here is where I'm at and why I question what we are doing. Really not so much what we are doing its what we are looking at while we are doing it.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> I'm also saying that I believe there is a better point in the arrow that tuning will be done with less movement to the bow. And that cannot be found with a ram tester. This is where I'm at in my testing.


Agree and disagree !

I believe you can find it with a RAM, at least it works for me every day. You can easily see the reaction with a bareshaft and which orientation gives you the least amount of pre lean for instance in a Hybrid cam. Pretty consistent pattern starts to show itself


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> If we believe what the golf people are saying the flo tester finds the neutral plane and we except that stiff plane is 90 degrees. From my reading the only way to find stiff plane as we call it is with a freq tester. But I have not done much research on the inverted flex tester.


lol.........no! according to Mr. Kaufman, and arrow will FLO in either the stiff or neutral plane. this I found out for my self. after we FLO tested about 2 dozen arrows, we measured displacement with a gram scale as GRIM showed us earlier. about half of the arrows FOL'd in the neutral and the other half in the stiff plane.

then that is when we used the spine finder and surprisingly it always ended up in the neutral plane that we had previously located.


----------



## enewman

B


zwalls said:


> lol.........no! according to Mr. Kaufman, and arrow will FLO in either the stiff or neutral plane. this I found out for my self. after we FLO tested about 2 dozen arrows, we measured displacement with a gram scale as GRIM showed us earlier. about half of the arrows FOL'd in the neutral and the other half in the stiff plane.
> 
> then that is when we used the spine finder and surprisingly it always ended up in the neutral plane that we had previously located.


You know now I have to build two more testers. Haha. I'm wondering if I just should save money and buy a freq tester from mr Kaufman.

Here is just a thought. How do we know that the arrow flexing with one end clamped is giving us a good reading when an arrow does not flex that way in flight. 

So if we had say a swivel socket with a tapord ends to fit in the shafts. Put the weight in the middle of shaft then let it bounce. Would this not be more like how the arrow would flex in flight.


----------



## zwalls

enewman said:


> B
> 
> You know now I have to build two more testers. Haha. I'm wondering if I just should save money and buy a freq tester from mr Kaufman.
> 
> Here is just a thought. How do we know that the arrow flexing with one end clamped is giving us a good reading when an arrow does not flex that way in flight.
> 
> So if we had say a swivel socket with a tapord ends to fit in the shafts. Put the weight in the middle of shaft then let it bounce. Would this not be more like how the arrow would flex in flight.


lol......your guess is as good as mine!


----------



## ontarget7

OK, took the time with one of my customers bows and his .006 arrows to do a little testing. I did not take and rune anything on the RAM and just set up with initial starting points. Keep in mind a health tune is always a balance between cam synch, nock height, centershot etc. not one being way out of whack vs the other. Fast forward to the shooting results. This particular model I already know likes a nock high setting and being in the #1 cam they usually require very little pre lean with the shorter draw length. I got to the point the bareshaft was either tail low with already a nock high and top cam at about max for what I like to see hitting ahead, which is typical for this model. Pre lean is running parallel with string after a few preliminary adjustment with yoke and nock height. 

Result perfect bareshaft, not once but twice. Keep in mind, I have not checked any readings on the RAM









[emoji15]









Now I put a white dot to indicate orientation with those results. Then proceeded to turn the nock in 90* increments and marked a white dot in all 4 positions, 12,3,6,9

These are the results in the other positions, tail right
In two of the positions


















Tail low in the other position










Now keep in mind the current settings for a tune, centershot down the middle, nock high with top cam hitting well before the bottom and pre lean parallel. You would not want to adjust for these other arrow reactions with the current settings. It would leave you with way to much top cam hitting before the bottom and a negative pre lean at brace. 

Lastly, I went and checked the marks with the RAM after I was done. Wouldn't you know the perfect bareshaft results were with bareshaft indexed to the stiffest static spine reading up. 

Think I am done with my testing and conclusion for optimal indexing [emoji6]


----------



## NoDeerInIowa

How did you arrive at your initial starting points? Just wherever the nocks were at?


----------



## ontarget7

NoDeerInIowa said:


> How did you arrive at your initial starting points? Just wherever the nocks were at?


Went back to turning nocks once I felt there was nothing left in the settings I had to that point. Remember, I look at the big picture and not jumping the gun to get one thing to far out of whack. Once I got to the point where I was on that edged I stopped adjusting the bows settings, then proceeded to turn nocks and in one location only I had perfect results. The others would have had a negative effect on the current setting. 

I did mark each white dot with a different color marker to indicate the 4 different sides. Every time I tested I came up with the same conclusion


----------



## enewman

That is the way I do it. Shane. But I do not get the end result with the ram. But I also even knowing the bow likes knoc high do not start out that way. I level knoc. Then move my knock around till I get a left right straight and knoc low. Then I adjust my loop. 



Also the bow you just did which one and what draw on the 1 cam. And lb and did you chrono it.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> That is the way I do it. Shane. But I do not get the end result with the ram. But I also even knowing the bow likes knoc high do not start out that way. I level knoc. Then move my knock around till I get a left right straight and knoc low. Then I adjust my loop.
> 
> 
> 
> Also the bow you just did which one and what draw on the 1 cam. And lb and did you chrono it.


Some bows will never tune to nock level so I don't even bother :wink:

Stiil amazed at every time I do this test I end up with the results I currently get by indexing with the RAM.


----------



## enewman

I just spent 1 hour 11 min on the phone with Mr. Kaufman. I explaned what we are doing and what I think we are looking at. 

Ram tester is finding deflection of a shaft and residual bend. This is run out. .001 will have less then .006. Ram cannot find stiff or week plane

Flo tester is finding a neutral plane and a stiff plane. this is not stiff spine or weak spine. Spine is spine and will be the same. The stiff plane will be 90 degrees from the neutral plane. There should be 4 points that flo. 
On my testing I cannot find 4 points. Only 2 and there 180 from each other. He does not know why so it must be me. I will do some more testing. 
With flo testing you do not know which plane your looking at. You must use another tester to find

So inverted spine tester. This will find the stiff plane or weak plane, but it does have flaws. It will pick up the residual bend in arrow. Must take a little time to make sure what you are looking at. 

Freq tester. This acording to him is the best way to find the stiff plane and weak plane. I agree. 

I said that I see this as neutral plane being the flex with the least amount of resistance. He said yes. For me I would think that this should be at 12/6. He agreed but does not have the testing done with arrows to give me a solid answer. 

All this means is he confirmed that most everything I have been posting is correct. But again. He does not shoot so he can't say 100%. A lot is just termonolgy. 

He may get on archerytalk and look at our post. I hope he does. 

To Mr Kaufman. If I have wrote anything in this post incorrect please correct it.

Now does any of this really matter for what we are doing. If you buy very good arrows and are spine matched. It wont matter. The stiff plane and week plane will be almost non excistance. Arrow will tune easy. If you buy cheeper arrow like me. Then this will be worth doing only if you do not want to spend time knoc tuning. 

Sorry for my miss spelling and grammar. For I'm a working man providing for the lazy and illegals.


----------



## ontarget7

Man, you guys are still racking your brains over this :wink:

All that is needed is the location of the stiffest static reading on the RAM.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Man, you guys are still racking your brains over this :wink:
> 
> All that is needed is the location of the stiffest static reading on the RAM.


Yes we are. I've been waiting on his call for about a week now I'm Only posting because there is no such thing as stiff static on an arrow. The static spine is the same all away around the shaft. The point that you are reading and asume as the stiff static reading is the residual bend in the shaft. 

We all know that you are marking this spot. We all know it works for you and a great many others. But if we are to come on here and help others then we do not need to confuse them anymore then we have. There is no stiffer point in the static spine. Static spine is static spine

Just by good arrows and it won't matter


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Yes we are. I've been waiting on his call for about a week now I'm Only posting because there is no such thing as stiff static on an arrow. The static spine is the same all away around the shaft. The point that you are reading and asume as the stiff static reading is the residual bend in the shaft.
> 
> We all know that you are marking this spot. We all know it works for you and a great many others. But if we are to come on here and help others then we do not need to confuse them anymore then we have. There is no stiffer point in the static spine. Static spine is static spine
> 
> Just by good arrows and it won't matter


It's called the stiffest static reading, stiff plane, residual bend etc. the only one that might be making it difficult is you LOL

For instance, someone buys a RAM and has know clue on what to do. Now if I told them to index to the residual bend, they would say what ! 

Now if you tell them to index to the stiffest static reading, wow !!! Actually quite easy to understand. 

So now we can say index to the residual bend which will be the stiffest static reading you get on a RAM. 

Happy now [emoji2]


----------



## enewman

Haha. By now Shane with our text and phone calls. You know My OCD is kicking my butt. I think your doing this on purpose. 



Now find us something else we can tear apart. I'm thinking draw curve.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Haha. By now Shane with our text and phone calls. You know My OCD is kicking my butt. I think your doing this on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> Now find us something else we can tear apart. I'm thinking draw curve.


LOL ! 

For all those reading this thread, the reason why the tighter tolerance arrows are more forgiving is a direct correlation to the residual bend, which is the stiffest static reading you get on the RAM. The stiffest static reading you get with the RAM, residual bend will carry longer on the tighter tolerance arrows. This is the same reason many find them more forgiving. 

Now take a .006 shaft. The stiffest static reading or residual bend will not carry near as long with a .006 shaft. It will hit the stiffest static reading on the RAM but then loose that reading very fast, so you need to be more precise with your indexing, 10* off and you can be different from the next arrow. 

Just something to think about [emoji2]


----------



## Grunt-N-Gobble

Over 1300 posts and still going around and around!!!

From reading all of these posts, I've come to one conclusion............ The way Shane indexes arrows works and works well. He has actual proven results. Going back and forth on terminology is beating a dead horse at this point. 

I figure whichever way works for a guy isn't necessarily better than another.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I just spent 1 hour 11 min on the phone with Mr. Kaufman. I explaned what we are doing and what I think we are looking at.
> 
> Ram tester is finding deflection of a shaft and residual bend. This is run out. .001 will have less then .006. Ram cannot find stiff or week plane
> 
> Flo tester is finding a neutral plane and a stiff plane. this is not stiff spine or weak spine. Spine is spine and will be the same. The stiff plane will be 90 degrees from the neutral plane. There should be 4 points that flo.
> On my testing I cannot find 4 points. Only 2 and there 180 from each other. He does not know why so it must be me. I will do some more testing.
> With flo testing you do not know which plane your looking at. You must use another tester to find
> 
> So inverted spine tester. This will find the stiff plane or weak plane, but it does have flaws. It will pick up the residual bend in arrow. Must take a little time to make sure what you are looking at.
> 
> Freq tester. This acording to him is the best way to find the stiff plane and weak plane. I agree.
> 
> I said that I see this as neutral plane being the flex with the least amount of resistance. He said yes. For me I would think that this should be at 12/6. He agreed but does not have the testing done with arrows to give me a solid answer.
> 
> All this means is he confirmed that most everything I have been posting is correct. But again. He does not shoot so he can't say 100%. A lot is just termonolgy.
> 
> He may get on archerytalk and look at our post. I hope he does.
> 
> To Mr Kaufman. If I have wrote anything in this post incorrect please correct it.
> 
> Now does any of this really matter for what we are doing. If you buy very good arrows and are spine matched. It wont matter. The stiff plane and week plane will be almost non excistance. Arrow will tune easy. If you buy cheeper arrow like me. Then this will be worth doing only if you do not want to spend time knoc tuning.
> 
> Sorry for my miss spelling and grammar. For I'm a working man providing for the lazy and illegals.


If you go back to thread 1 and start reading you will see this is exactly what myself and grim have been explaining all along. The key is, always has been and always will be the stiff plane once found and indexed the arrows are done. 

I have always said the type of test Shane is doing is optimal, it shows the results in real time and true dynamic spine is being used to reveal any hidden issues and fine tune the shafts. This test is both a frequency test and flow test in practical application. 

The only issue I have with your statement is the RAM can be used because the natural bend in many cases is the stiff plane, especially on cheap arrows. 

When arrows are made and the mandrel is removed the shafts begin to cool if the shaft has a dominate thick side it will cool slower at this point and thus begin to warp the shaft slightly very similar to green wood drying out. So the natural bend and the stiff side can be in the same location on the shaft. Now don't misunderstand and think he said that the RAM test is flawed why is he saying you can use it! 

Yes I did say that, if you test and find the stiff side, rotate the shaft 180 degrees you will not get the same stiff reading because you are looking at the shaft statically not dynamically. The flaw is not that it doesnt work it is that it does not give you a complete and accurate test of all aspects of the shaft at a dynamic spine level, frequency, flow and Shane's method do!

I have compared the Frequency testing and RAM testing and almost 100% of the time the stiff plane is tested the same with both pieces of equipment. The few times that it doesn't seem to match is very likely human error based on the perception of the RAM test because the Frequency test is going to be accurate 100% of the time.

As far as Mr Kaufman stating there are 4 points that an arrow will flow is absolutely correct, an arrow is setup in four quadrants, the stiff plane takes two opposing quadrants and the neutral plane takes two opposing quadrants. The fact is are only really two points you are just reversing the shaft 180 degrees to get the same flow, so there is a stiff plane flow and a neutral plane flow, you can call it two points of flow or 4 doesn't matter. 

You said does any of this matter, Yes if you look at what is going on with arrows and you believe the information about the makeup of an arrow you have no other conclusion to draw other than if you orient the stiff plane to the same orientation you improve any arrow. Some may show the improvements and some may not because of their quality in the beginning but just because you cant perceive the improvements does not negate that they are there!

As Shane has stated in post 1320 the truth is "All that is needed is the location of the stiffest static reading on the RAM". We have been providing this service from day one and will continue to provide free indexing because indexing works!


----------



## swbuckmaster

Amen


----------



## enewman

jerry I never said indexing dosent work.


----------



## Mr-Mike

Interesting stuff. The only thing I can't buy into is 



> When arrows are made and the mandrel is removed the shafts begin to cool if the shaft has a dominate thick side it will cool slower at this point and thus begin to warp the shaft slightly very similar to green wood drying out.


For the thickness variance in question, the mass in question, the high thermal conductivity of metals (even cooling), length of circumference and elasticity of metals, I don't think one can argue this point. Especially in terms that are appreciable in this application with respect to distortion - even then arrows will still 'dial'-out straight. Thermal distortion would be measured in terms of electrical conductance. The area in relation to the spine is substantial. It might matter if the materials were different (al shaft and some other material). And then, there's carbon fiber.

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> jerry I never said indexing dosent work.


I didnt say you stated that indexing doesn't work. If you will look at my statement as an entire thought process rather than taking one sentence out of context you should see clearing what I am trying to say.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Mr-Mike said:


> Interesting stuff. The only thing I can't buy into is
> 
> 
> 
> For the thickness variance in question, the mass in question, the high thermal conductivity of metals (even cooling), length of circumference and elasticity of metals, I don't think one can argue this point. Especially in terms that are appreciable in this application with respect to distortion - even then arrows will still 'dial'-out straight. Thermal distortion would be measured in terms of electrical conductance. The area in relation to the spine is substantial. It might matter if the materials were different (al shaft and some other material). And then, there's carbon fiber.
> 
> Just thinking out loud.


Im just a country boy so Im not really up on thermal distortion. 

All I know is for the last 10 years my pro shop has indexed over a half million shafts and just about 100% of the time the natural bend in the shafts is the same location of the stiff plane and as i stated earlier the few that didn't seem to be the same were likely human error. 

We have tested them statically on a RAM and verified dynamically on a frequency analyzer and proven the stiff side and natural bend exists in the same.


----------



## enewman

Your right I did take it out of context. Truthfully after talking to mr Kaufman. And what I thought we are seeing with the ram tester. He agreed with me. And we talked a little about you and the freq tester. 

I haven't had time to move forward with my testing. 

I did talk to a guy that was in to golf 20 yrs ago that I asked about freq testing. He told me he was doing another test. Funny thing was after he told me what it was I told him that is Flo testing. He just said they just did it. Funny it's been around along time. 

For me I just flo and mark the two spots. Then I just shoot and match the arrows. Got a 50/50 chance.


----------



## Mr-Mike

SouthShoreRat said:


> Im just a country boy so Im not really up on thermal distortion.
> 
> All I know is for the last 10 years my pro shop has indexed over a half million shafts and just about 100% of the time the natural bend in the shafts is the same location of the stiff plane and as i stated earlier the few that didn't seem to be the same were likely human error.
> 
> We have tested them statically on a RAM and verified dynamically on a frequency analyzer and proven the stiff side and natural bend exists in the same.


I don't doubt the observation, just the hypothesis. Your institutional knowledge likely surpasses most here. It certainly surpasses mine. I don't know enough about arrow manufacturing to attempt an explanation. 

That's a lot of indexing - an arrow every 4 minutes, of every day, for 10 years straight


----------



## KenBry

Tool I built to help with Indexing. The dial indicator is a cheap version from Harbor Frieght.
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2775401


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Mr-Mike said:


> I don't doubt the observation, just the hypothesis. Your institutional knowledge likely surpasses most here. It certainly surpasses mine. I don't know enough about arrow manufacturing to attempt an explanation.
> 
> That's a lot of indexing - an arrow every 4 minutes, of every day, for 10 years straight


South Shore is not a one man operation I currently have 5 employees and everyone of them help out with the testing!


----------



## Mr-Mike

SouthShoreRat said:


> South Shore is not a one man operation I currently have 5 employees and everyone of them help out with the testing!


Actually, based on what I have seen, you and your team are awesome and I am looking forward to joining your long list of customers. That post was quite a while ago and wasn't intended to offend. I went to your site to check out custom arrows, I think I may need a little guidance. 

-Mike


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Mr-Mike said:


> Actually, based on what I have seen, you and your team are awesome and I am looking forward to joining your long list of customers. That post was quite a while ago and wasn't intended to offend. I went to your site to check out custom arrows, I think I may need a little guidance.
> 
> -Mike


Mike no problem I do not get offended by any statement. You can read something one way when the other person ment something completely different. Give me a call anytime


----------



## wannaBelkhuntin

Dang I can't believe I just wasted a day of my life reading 54 pages to find the people arguing their points about this, to in the end agree that the original poster is correct in what he is doing all along.


----------



## apt2106

I got involved with this thread in the beginning. I ended up building a RAM type tester and spent hours testing various arrows. What did I learn? I learned the phone number to South Shore Archery. Called Jerry.....asked a few questions....ordered some arrows. What a pleasure he is to talk with and deal with. He has the best prices on arrows, and they come indexed.


----------



## shootahoyt77

Tag for later


----------



## Dixie Boy

When "Batching A Set Of Arrows To Spine", how is this done on the RAM? This is what I do, you put the arrow in the RAM, set the dial to 0, add the weight, then record the weakest & strongest readings. At that point I subtract the weak # from the strong #, which gives me a deviation, then the most consistent deviation #'s are my good batch. Am I doing it wrong? When you load the arrow in the RAM, before adding the weight, do I need to spin the arrow to find the natural bend & then set the dial to 0? Do I need not worry about the weakest # reading & only the strongest? How do you guys "Batch" them with the RAM?


----------



## Hholland

Dixie Boy said:


> When "Batching A Set Of Arrows To Spine", how is this done on the RAM? This is what I do, you put the arrow in the RAM, set the dial to 0, add the weight, then record the weakest & strongest readings. At that point I subtract the weak # from the strong #, which gives me a deviation, then the most consistent deviation #'s are my good batch. Am I doing it wrong? When you load the arrow in the RAM, before adding the weight, do I need to spin the arrow to find the natural bend & then set the dial to 0? Do I need not worry about the weakest # reading & only the strongest? How do you guys "Batch" them with the RAM?




When you are spine matching arrows, you do not need to worry with run out. Set arrow, zero indicator, hang weight, take reading. Then remove weight, rotate arrow, zero indicator, hang weight, take reading. Do this in about three places, then compare or average and that's the spine deflection of that arrow.


----------



## Super 91

Okay, I had a number of requests for the upgraded roller bearings for the RAM QC spine testor, so I made another run if anyone is interested. They are $85.00 shipped to the lower 48 states. I have 16 sets available right now. Just PM me if you are interested. These are the ones that are commented and in use in this thread.


----------



## mietts97

If you have variables in spine in any direction you should buy better arrows. I shoot easton and goldtip and the spine is uniform.


----------



## enewman

mietts97 said:


> If you have variables in spine in any direction you should buy better arrows. I shoot easton and goldtip and the spine is uniform.


There is not that much variance. What most see is not the spine. So for it to have much variance it would have to be a cheep arrow. Or a mess up in the build process in that arrow. And I'm betting that does happen.


----------



## Redwagon97

mietts97 said:


> If you have variables in spine in any direction you should buy better arrows. I shoot easton and goldtip and the spine is uniform.


Easton nor goldtip are perfectly uniform on their spine. They maybe very close, and you may have gotten a really good batch of shafts. Where spine indexing comes into play for me is when I'm shooting broadheads. If your shafts are perfect you should be able to turn you nock to any vane and the broadhead hit in the exact same spot. Most of the time that does not happen.


----------



## Mr-Mike

mietts97 said:


> If you have variables in spine in any direction you should buy better arrows. I shoot easton and goldtip and the spine is uniform.


Spine markings does not a good arrow make. You should always spine your arrows (if you care about spine location). VAP Elite spine markings are all over the place and they are excellent arrows with superb straightness and consistency and strength. Oh, and for what its worth, I did and always will use South Shore for my arrows. It's a real joy to receive such a high quality arrow, exactly how you want them - priceless.


----------



## Bwana

SouthShoreRat said:


> All I know is for the last 10 years my pro shop has indexed over a half million shafts and just about *100% of the time the natural bend in the shafts is the same location of the stiff plane* and as i stated earlier the few that didn't seem to be the same were likely human error.
> 
> *We have tested them statically on a RAM and verified dynamically on a frequency analyzer and proven the stiff side and natural bend exists in the same.*


That's all I have to hear :wink:
I'm glad I bought the RAM tester, and I can see the results.


----------



## enewman

Mr-Mike said:


> Spine markings does not a good arrow make. You should always spine your arrows (if you care about spine location). VAP Elite spine markings are all over the place and they are excellent arrows with superb straightness and consistency and strength. Oh, and for what its worth, I did and always will use South Shore for my arrows. It's a real joy to receive such a high quality arrow, exactly how you want them - priceless.



This is the key. And this has nothing to do with indexing. Excellent arrows with superb straightness and consistency and strength


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> That's all I have to hear :wink:
> I'm glad I bought the RAM tester, and I can see the results.


So I'm guessing your voting for Bernie. Call all we here is how great he is. And if that's all it takes. Haha just giving a hard time. Vote Bernie. That way you can help put my kids through school.


----------



## Bwana

My 4 kids are already through school, and college paid for in full...and I'll still vote for Bernie :wink:


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> My 4 kids are already through school, and college paid for in full...and I'll still vote for Bernie :wink:[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Hahaha. Have a good one.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

mietts97 said:


> If you have variables in spine in any direction you should buy better arrows. I shoot easton and goldtip and the spine is uniform.


I can prove this statement is not accurate


----------



## Mr-Mike

SouthShoreRat said:


> I can prove this statement is not accurate


This should be enough validation for anyone - period! You would be very hard-pressed to find a more knowledgeable subject matter expert when it comes to arrows. South Shore's deep institutional knowledge far outweighs any theories and small sample based observations.


----------



## enewman

Mr-Mike said:


> This should be enough validation for anyone - period! You would be very hard-pressed to find a more knowledgeable subject matter expert when it comes to arrows. South Shore's deep institutional knowledge far outweighs any theories and small sample based observations.


I would agree jerry is very knowledgable. But it should not ever be enough validation for anyone. Learn to test. .


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Mr-Mike said:


> This should be enough validation for anyone - period! You would be very hard-pressed to find a more knowledgeable subject matter expert when it comes to arrows. South Shore's deep institutional knowledge far outweighs any theories and small sample based observations.


Let me clarify, I do not have institutional knowledge of this subject, I am a simply country boy that loves to ask why. I have 12 years of experience testing arrows plus the the knowledge I have gained through the support of experts in the field of physics, archery, golf and other industries with a vast background in the subject matter of how energy is handle by tubes of any kind. 

The physics behind arrow flight is solid and cant be denied. Every carbon tube, wood tube, plastic tube, steel or aluminum tube etc react the exact same way when energy is applied. It does not matter if its an arrow flying down range, a golf club being used to hit a ball, a fishing rod to cast baits and fight fish, etc when energy is applied in any way to any tube a stiff plane comes into play as the dominate attribute (the rudder) and a neutral plane comes into play as a means to disperse the energy that has been applied to that tube. 


.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I would agree jerry is very knowledgable. But it should not ever be enough validation for anyone. Learn to test. .


You are correct


----------



## enewman

Ok going to jump in on this. Yes all tube react the same as long as they are all used the same. And an arrow will react just like a golf club as long as you you grip the arrow on the fletching in and swing the arrow side ways just like a gold club. But that is where it ends. This type of test are a side load test. Arrows are shot. That is a compresson from front to back load. You talk about physics. Find a physics person and have him describe the two loads 

We know from the engineers that there is a stiff plane and a neutral plane. I agree. You know that I do not believe in the ram tester. All its finding run out. Even you just wrote the stiff is in line with the natrual bend. That's the run out. So the high point what ya call stiff will be 180 from natrual bend. 

Now let's look at flo and freq. it's the same test. Flo we use a lazer freq we use a devise that counts pulses. If you look at all flo,freq, and pure machines the shaft is flexing in front of the clamp. This is where the flo is being tested. Arrows don't bend there. 

My hunting buddy has built a flo tester that we can rotate while flex testing. Going to do some testing. But changing tip weight changes location of Flo. I talked about this in this thread back in 2015. This would mean that we are now testing a differnt location on the shaft. 

For a test of any sorts to be valid it has to be 100% or it as failed. If I can or you can take a flo tester and find flo. Change the amount of tip weight. And it changes then the test just failed. It is no longer a valid method. 

We all no we can find something on an shaft and mark it. I now call this mark D.A.M. this mark really means nothing other then a referance mark. Then we tune to that. The D.A.M. is not what makes the arrow fly better it's the tune job you just did. 

Look at this picture. And tell me what it shows you.


----------



## bgilbertson

Sweet grouping!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## TM2/SSMike

Southshore, in your experience do arrows that are cross-weave like the PSE arrows have similar reaction as arrows where the carbon fibers are laid in a straight line? I am just wondering if spine indexing is as critical for them or necessary. I am just trying to learn all I can about this. I am a former machinist and love physics so this topic fascinates me. Also if anyone can point me towards some good information on this topic I would appreciate it. Thank you.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Ok going to jump in on this. Yes all tube react the same as long as they are all used the same


You are trying to apply static testing to a physics result. Call John kaufman and ask him one question.
If you apply energy to a golf club with a golf swing, if you apply energy to a fishing rod by fighting a fish and if you apply energy to an arrow by shooting it from a bow do all three form a stiff and neutral plane?

He will give you this answer, Yes, they do


----------



## SouthShoreRat

TM2/SSMike said:


> Southshore, in your experience do arrows that are cross-weave like the PSE arrows have similar reaction as arrows where the carbon fibers are laid in a straight line? I am just wondering if spine indexing is as critical for them or necessary. I am just trying to learn all I can about this. I am a former machinist and love physics so this topic fascinates me. Also if anyone can point me towards some good information on this topic I would appreciate it. Thank you.


It does not matter how any tube is designed nor the material used the physics is the same, there is always 100% of the time a stiff plane and a neutral plane. Make the tube a solid rod and you no longer have these attributes

I believe indexing is one of the best things we can do short of spine matching


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> You are trying to apply static testing to a physics result. Call John kaufman and ask him one question.
> If you apply energy to a golf club with a golf swing, if you apply energy to a fishing rod by fighting a fish and if you apply energy to an arrow by shooting it from a bow do all three form a stiff and neutral plane?
> 
> He will give you this answer, Yes, they do


I did talk to John about an 1.5 hour. And I said in my post. I do believe in the stiff plane and neutral plane. That was in the first sentence second paragraph. Maybe you need to call John back. Cause he agreed with me. Two different types of loads. 

Just because we are putting energy into something to test it doesn't means it's the correct test for the application. 

I posted a picture please look at it and tell me what you see


----------



## Padgett

I hadn't responded to this thread in a long time, I went back and looked only at the first couple pages back in 2014 and saw that my buddy dshort had posted a bunch and I can still remember back then the discussions we had in the van on the way to tournaments. He was a guy that was totally committed to the thoughts of ram testing and indexing his arrows and he fought tooth and nail to resist my approach. 

Skip ahead:

This winter in january I asked my bow shop if I could take the Hooter Shooter for a while and get it off the shooting range because it was taking up room and they said yes, I took it to Dshort's house and we set it up. At this point he was committed to spine indexing and I truely believe that he saw running his arrows through the hooter shooter as a victory lap of arrows shooting the same hole. About 15 minutes later when he saw that his arrows were only capable of shooting a baseball sized group I think years of mathematical justification came crashing down to earth like a ton of bricks. 

A few minutes later we had his arrows hitting the same hole. The sad thing is that his arrows were fletched and had been used for a while so he had seen his scoring with them on vegas targets for a good month or so and then he saw the scores jump up instantly after the hooter shooter session. 

That first day was a longer day of hooter shooter group tuning, we hadn't used one together before and getting the machine to produce single hole accuracy was a struggle but we got it done. Then about 2 weeks later after we had some brain storming at tournaments all day long we made a huge improvement and now we can group tune a group of bare shafts to the same hole in 15 minutes or less. 

I am a math teacher and also enjoyed my physics classes growing up but at some time or another you have to be able to take a step back and actually find a way to apply those things to real life. My suggestion to anyone really interested in this stuff to spend your time making a draw board that actually fires the bow, a hooter shooter is just a draw board. In fact that is what I primarily used it for at the bow shop, it has the ability to hold onto the bow so the bow doesn't fall off when fired but other than that it is just a draw board.


----------



## enewman

I'm going to say this one more time so maybe it won't be taken out of context. 

I know by testing by the engineers that anything that can flex and oscillate will have a freq. this means there is a stiff plane and a neutral plane. 

So I know arrows have this. I also know we can test this with an arrow. This is why we flo or freq test. But this is where it ends. 

I also know that I can put a D.A.M. On that arrow and tune it. I also know that I have know problem with people marking this point and utilizing it. But I do have a problem when we teach someone the wrong terminology and the wrong way to test.


----------



## enewman

I have posted a picture in post 1358. I've asked jerry to tell me what it means. Now I guess I will ask anyone can you tell me what it means.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Ok going to jump in on this. Yes all tube react the same as long as they are all used the same. And an arrow will react just like a golf club as long as you you grip the arrow on the fletching in and swing the arrow side ways just like a gold club. But that is where it ends. This type of test are a side load test. Arrows are shot. That is a compresson from front to back load. You talk about physics. Find a physics person and have him describe the two loads
> 
> We know from the engineers that there is a stiff plane and a neutral plane. I agree. You know that I do not believe in the ram tester. All its finding run out. Even you just wrote the stiff is in line with the natrual bend. That's the run out. So the high point what ya call stiff will be 180 from natrual bend.
> 
> Now let's look at flo and freq. it's the same test. Flo we use a lazer freq we use a devise that counts pulses. If you look at all flo,freq, and pure machines the shaft is flexing in front of the clamp. This is where the flo is being tested. Arrows don't bend there.
> 
> My hunting buddy has built a flo tester that we can rotate while flex testing. Going to do some testing. But changing tip weight changes location of Flo. I talked about this in this thread back in 2015. This would mean that we are now testing a differnt location on the shaft.
> 
> For a test of any sorts to be valid it has to be 100% or it as failed. If I can or you can take a flo tester and find flo. Change the amount of tip weight. And it changes then the test just failed. It is no longer a valid method.
> 
> We all no we can find something on an shaft and mark it. I now call this mark D.A.M. this mark really means nothing other then a referance mark. Then we tune to that. The D.A.M. is not what makes the arrow fly better it's the tune job you just did.
> 
> Look at this picture. And tell me what it shows you.


Eric, your first paragraph is correct as far as it goes but oscillation is oscillation, weather the initiating factor is from an end or from the side. Once the shaft leaves the string, there is no longer a compression force being applied to the shaft (from the string anyways).
Indexing frequency oscillation is simply a better layer of indexing then side loading with a Ram. Now better is a subjective term, what is better for me is not necessarily better for others.

At this point I think it would be better for people to have a more inclusive understanding of static spine and dynamic spine. Static spine is as what it states, spine in a stationary position but this only represent spine at "One" point on a shaft.
If one was to take a perfect shaft (weight, roundness, deflection), perfect in every way we currently conceive of it. The shaft could be shot in any configuration and it would shoot true.
Now take another rod and weld or glue it to the perfect shaft in a helical manor. Much like a screw or threaded rod but instead of 8-10 turns per inch, just one complete turn for the length of the shaft.
With this shaft, if you were to measure the shaft in the center, the static spine measurement would rotate as the added rod twisted around the shaft(spine position would change).
Dynamic testing takes into account the entire shaft and finds the averages of all of the forces being applied to the shaft. A frequency meter measures oscillation of the entire shaft, is this a true representation of arrow flight, no but it is as close as you or I can test for.
As a side note, if you were to cut the shaft, so that twist in the above shaft was not equal, the spine location could also be changed. If the shaft being tested was 8' in diameter the shift would be noticeable but on a shaft with a diameter of 1/4" I think we would be hard pressed to find a significant shift in spine location to be of concern.

Eric if you have access to a standing drill press, use the press as your shaft clamp and see if you have the same tip weight variations that you describe with your friends D.I.Y. clamp. 

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Grim 

Let's touch just on a small portion of what you stated. Your talking about after the arrow leaves the string. I agree with you. But we are not trying to control the arrow after it leaves the string. We can only control while it's on the string. After that it's on it's own. So that is compresson load not side load. 

Now on we should be teaching about spine. I completely agree. And I can write a post on this. And I know I will be bashed. Cause it will be against all that is tought. 

Just to touch on that. Static spine of that arrow will never change no matter what. That's either testing it at 30 inches 28 inches or 24 inches. You just have to have the correct weight for the Lenths your testing. But once you shoot it. Static spine is no longer needed. Now it's all dynamic. This is where I have a problem with how we are testing. Let's look at something. If we add more weight to the tip. Did we make the arrow weaker. No. It's static spine is the same. Never changes. so what did happen. We changed the dynamic reaction. The arrow will bend more. The is a dynamic reaction. The static spine is still the same. 

So when we test with a freq or flo. What did we do. We tested an arrow with a certain amount of weight. So if we change that tip weight it will change the results. If it didn't then we could add tip weight with no changes to the out come when shooting. But we all know it does. 

Again can we use this type of testing yes. Is it correct it is if all you are worring about is finding a common denominator. We all know that it's not 100%. So it's 80% or 95%. Is this good. Yes and no. It does get you to a good starting point. But as something for a test to give you results you would expect from a test. It failed.

Eric


----------



## TM2/SSMike

Eric, is the pic you posted a chart of your testing results with your friend? The .260 being the stiff plane and the .250 the neutral and the other numbers the variation off of them?


----------



## swbuckmaster

What he posted was run out

Good thing is when your arrow is already bent it tends to want to flex that way any way when shot. It can vary slightly though and thus why shooting and verifying is truly the only test. However I always Ram test mine it makes shooting/ tuning go faster

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

"Let's touch just on a small portion of what you stated. Your talking about after the arrow leaves the string. I agree with you. But we are not trying to control the arrow after it leaves the string. We can only control while it's on the string. After that it's on it's own. So that is compresson load not side load. "

That would be a yes and a no. Once the energy is transferred to the shaft by compression, that shaft tries to expel that energy and the only way to do it is through oscillation, This is one of the reason shafts or beams are also measured with spring load. Compression load testing is applied continuously until the column fails. With arrows, yes we want to know at what point the shafts fails for safety reason but the more important factor for us is in what direction and to what level the shaft oscillates to release that energy. If it is consistent throughout a group of shafts, it only add an additional layer of uniformity. Are there other things we can do or different operation that can be done, yes, we just happen tp be working with the methods available to us as D.I.Y.'ers

I think we are mostly on the same page but it is important to note that the Ram and it's clones, do not find "Spine", they find deflection. Deflection can and will change as you test in different places.
We refer to this point as spine but it not. Spine is a plane that runs through the entire shaft, it is not a "point", so saying the spine doesn't change when changing tip weight. You are correct but we are mixing and matching our terminology. To index dynamically we are looking for similar reactions to index. As long as the same methods are applied evenly across each shaft we can use the information to index.

We as D.I.Y.'ers are never going to be able to compare to the big boys, so we need to except that the things we do may not be 100% accurate. These and all of the other methods will never replace actually shooting the shafts. This is what we want them to do after all. The hope is to make our time spent more valuable and it can be fun.

GRIM


----------



## Mr-Mike

enewman said:


> I would agree jerry is very knowledgable. But it should not ever be enough validation for anyone. Learn to test. .


Good point and good advice. But honestly, you are simplifying (implied) what's required to 'test' sufficiently and extensively, and interpret the results. I will rephrase however. FOR ME, the only assurance I need is Jerry's opinion.


----------



## enewman

Mr-Mike said:


> Good point and good advice. But honestly, you are simplifying (implied) what's required to 'test' sufficiently and extensively, and interpret the results. I will rephrase however. FOR ME, the only assurance I need is Jerry's opinion.


Mr-Mike. I think jerry is a good guy. I build specifics I build and teach efoc arrows. The best thing that happen not to long ago was jerry sales individual arrows. This helps in finding that arrow that has the dynamic reaction I'm looking for. I tell people all the time about buying arrows for testing from jerry. 

I do lots of testing. No where any where close to,jerry. But it dose not take 1000 arrows tested to see what a common is. I have all the tester except a freq. and jerry is the one that talked me out of that

I but heads with jerry. It's like a father son type deal. Jerry is the dad. Haha


----------



## Bwana

I think arguing over terminology is semantics and counter productive, and only confusing members who are interested in better arrow/broadhead flight accuracy. Trying to re-invent the wheel, when the only thing changing is the "perceived" name...isn't changing the fact the Shane/Jerry/Grimwald's system works, still have to shoot to prove/finish the tuning.


----------



## Mr-Mike

enewman said:


> Mr-Mike. I think jerry is a good guy. I build specifics I build and teach efoc arrows. The best thing that happen not to long ago was jerry sales individual arrows. This helps in finding that arrow that has the dynamic reaction I'm looking for. I tell people all the time about buying arrows for testing from jerry.
> 
> I do lots of testing. No where any where close to,jerry. But it dose not take 1000 arrows tested to see what a common is. I have all the tester except a freq. and jerry is the one that talked me out of that
> 
> I but heads with jerry. It's like a father son type deal. Jerry is the dad. Haha


But this wasn't really about you specifically


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> I think arguing over terminology is semantics and counter productive, and only confusing members who are interested in better arrow/broadhead flight accuracy. Trying to re-invent the wheel, when the only thing changing is the "perceived" name...isn't changing the fact the Shane/Jerry/Grimwald's system works, still have to shoot to prove/finish the tuning.



But here s the problem. It's not Shane/jerry/grim's methods. The ram has been around for a very long time. If any method we have talked about would be flo testing and we need to put grim's name on that. Did he come up with no. But he did bring it into archery about 10years ago. 

And it's not as much terminology as its we are testing a method that is not design for arrows. We are makeing a test for golf clubs and using it improper to test arrows. Then we take the results and doing something with it. I've never said we can't use it. But if it was a true way of doing it then it would be 100% across the range of arrows. And it's not. It is a starting point. Again if it was a 100% test then you would never have to nock tune after doing this set up.


----------



## Bwana

*Now I'm arguing semantics:*

I never said they invented the process, but certainly were leaders here on AT with in-depth testing and marketing for sale. I've been here a long time, and fully believe in testing my equipment(and myself)to the fullest...and there weren't many threads pertaining to this in the past. By continuing to beat the drum in a confusing manner, it's only pushing members away from an informative thread...including the valuable posters I've already mentioned.

Many members here probably can't justify the expense of a simple spine tester(RAM), much less the additional cost of freq/flo or others. So purchasing quality shafts from Jerry is a great alternative, they can rest assured they are getting an accurate product without the expense of additional tools...so while the banter may be entertaining to you, it certainly risks Jerry's reputation/product when disagreeing with his methods. 

You appear to be argumentative in tone, and refuse to quit until the other members call "Uncle" and say you're "right". You've spent hours on the phone with them, picking their brains for information/conversation...yet have called each one out in a subtle fashion. All while developing your own "testing" method, which will outshine all in the past...none of which will change nock tuning by shooting for members.Each time one posts with their thoughts you immediately correct them in their statement, claiming to be just a "rebellious son". The thread is for all of us to use and learn, not a soapbox for personal folly and benefit.


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> *Now I'm arguing semantics:*
> 
> I never said they invented the process, but certainly were leaders here on AT with in-depth testing and marketing for sale. I've been here a long time, and fully believe in testing my equipment(and myself)to the fullest...and there weren't many threads pertaining to this in the past. By continuing to beat the drum in a confusing manner, it's only pushing members away from an informative thread...including the valuable posters I've already mentioned.
> 
> Many members here probably can't justify the expense of a simple spine tester(RAM), much less the additional cost of freq/flo or others. So purchasing quality shafts from Jerry is a great alternative, they can rest assured they are getting an accurate product without the expense of additional tools...so while the banter may be entertaining to you, it certainly risks Jerry's reputation/product when disagreeing with his methods.
> 
> You appear to be argumentative in tone, and refuse to quit until the other members call "Uncle" and say you're "right". You've spent hours on the phone with them, picking their brains for information/conversation...yet have called each one out in a subtle fashion. All while developing your own "testing" method, which will outshine all in the past...none of which will change nock tuning by shooting for members.Each time one posts with their thoughts you immediately correct them in their statement, claiming to be just a "rebellious son". The thread is for all of us to use and learn, not a soapbox for personal folly and benefit.


Ok haha. 

If you can afford a bow you can afford to build a ram tester. For half of that a flo tester. Your talking less then 150 bucks. For both. 

And I'm argumentative because if your going teach something have it correct. Just OCD. and there is no testing procedure that will out shine a tester everyone has. It's called a bow. 

Maybe your right on some but my job dosent allow for this type of out come. It's either 100% or things get broke or people dead. 
I also doubt that me arguing or disagreeing with jerry would even put a slight dent in his Business 

And the father son deal was joke lighten up. 

And it is for all of us to learn. But your not learning just agreeing and excepting. I to have no problem excepting if you proved me it's correct. But for the last year I haven't been proved wrong. So get you some testing equipment and prove me wrong. Then I will except.


----------



## Bwana

enewman said:


> Ok haha.
> 
> If you can afford a bow you can afford to build a ram tester. For half of that a flo tester. Your talking less then 150 bucks. For both.
> 
> And I'm argumentative because if your going teach something have it correct. Just OCD. and there is no testing procedure that will out shine a tester everyone has. It's called a bow.
> 
> Maybe your right on some but my job dosent allow for this type of out come. It's either 100% or things get broke or people dead.
> I also doubt that me arguing or disagreeing with jerry would even put a slight dent in his Business
> 
> And the father son deal was joke lighten up.
> 
> And it is for all of us to learn. But your not learning just agreeing and excepting. I to have no problem excepting if you proved me it's correct. But for the last year I haven't been proved wrong. So get you some testing equipment and prove me wrong. Then I will except.


I have 2 degrees in Engineering and 1 in Business, I worked extensively for NASA/military/power plants all over the world...get used to the fact that no one has to prove anything to you, nor is the world's business landscape perfect. 

Harmony is coming to an agreeable compromise of solutions, then the team can move forward in a positive manner...otherwise long and fruitless meetings of chest thumping take place, forcing the world to stand still while we listen to redundant rhetoric of minimal importance to the task :wink:

My father used to say _"a fair compromise is when *both* parties leave the table, a little bit disappointed"._...he was an Industrial Engineer :beer:


----------



## enewman

Bwana. I see what your saying. I'm not that way. I'm very aggressive. I spent 4 years in the military. I worked on c130. Noting but 100% or people could die. I was very aggressive. Do to this I got tech of the month several times airman of the month. Below the zone. All this because I didn't set on my butt and compromise. I showed people I was better then the next. 

After military I went to work for an electrical / Ac company. 1991. By 95 I had my journeyman by 97 I had my master. By 2001 I was in lead man. By 2005 supervised by 2008 i was running the business. 2013 I'm buying All of this was not because I set still and compromised. It's because I proved I was better then the next. So yes I'm very aggressive. I believe you don't move up in this world with out being this way. 

I do not compromise. I have set around lots of tables. I either left in charge or left looking like the dumb ass cause I was proven wrong but I never compromised. Some one was wrong. So I believe if you believe that strong in what you do and I'm wrong prove it. If you can't move over because I'm taking over. 

Now is this the wrong way to look at things. I don't know maybe but It has served me well since the military. Does this hurt feelings yes. 

Now let's look at your 2 engineer degrees. You should see what I'm talking about and what I have shown. I would also think with that you should be able to come up with and design a tester. You come come up with something then we can build it.


----------



## Hholland

This is supposed to be fun, and I believe it to be. We are supposed to be learning and teaching one another. Some on here just seem to jump on a band wagon and not be willing to look at all angles. Jerry does sell good products and has learned to find a common reference point on a given set of shafts and mark them so you can tune your equipment to that point. He did not invent, as he said, but does utilize it. It is also good that he can provide that for people that can not or will not purchase or build their own equipment. I just think it is important not to be teaching people that something is being found that is not. The better term for what is being done should be common place indexing, not spine indexing.


----------



## mx482

If I bought a spine tester, would I be able to accurately detect the spine for an arrow I have already put an insert into? I have some arrows I built and I can strip them down but obviously can't remove the insert. Thanks.


----------



## Bwana

mx482 said:


> If I bought a spine tester, would I be able to accurately detect the spine for an arrow I have already put an insert into? I have some arrows I built and I can strip them down but obviously can't remove the insert. Thanks.


I've done it many times, you'll have to rotate the nock obviously...you may not actually find the "spine" but you'll find where to start shooting it from, and that all the arrows are the same :wink:


----------



## mx482

Bwana said:


> I've done it many times, you'll have to rotate the nock obviously...you may not actually find the "spine" but you'll find where to start shooting it from, and that all the arrows are the same :wink:


Thanks for responding. That wasn't the answer I was expecting. I'm not sure why I wouldn't be able to find the spine on a RAM tester? Not trying to be argumentative just not understanding. Once I find the spine I would turn the nock and fletch accordingly. Does the insert throw all the measurements out the window? Can you offset the arrow when setting in the rollers to eliminate any stiffness caused by insert?


----------



## SouthShoreRat

mx482 said:


> If I bought a spine tester, would I be able to accurately detect the spine for an arrow I have already put an insert into? I have some arrows I built and I can strip them down but obviously can't remove the insert. Thanks.


Absolutely, if you give me a call sometime I will explain a fairly accurate process


----------



## Bwana

mx482 said:


> Thanks for responding. That wasn't the answer I was expecting. I'm not sure why I wouldn't be able to find the spine on a RAM tester? Not trying to be argumentative just not understanding. Once I find the spine I would turn the nock and fletch accordingly. Does the insert throw all the measurements out the window? Can you offset the arrow when setting in the rollers to eliminate any stiffness caused by insert?


I'm sorry, it was tongue in cheek humor...You're in good hands with Jerry, he'll explain how to do it. I have the RAM with the ball bearing upgrade, and works great.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Hholland said:


> This is supposed to be fun, and I believe it to be. We are supposed to be learning and teaching one another. Some on here just seem to jump on a band wagon and not be willing to look at all angles. Jerry does sell good products and has learned to find a common reference point on a given set of shafts and mark them so you can tune your equipment to that point. He did not invent, as he said, but does utilize it. It is also good that he can provide that for people that can not or will not purchase or build their own equipment. I just think it is important not to be teaching people that something is being found that is not. The better term for what is being done should be common place indexing, not spine indexing.


Been doing this over 12 years, it works. Believe me over this 12 year period of time I have looked at tons of anglestuff and everytime I reverted back to what physics dictates


----------



## mx482

Thanks! I will give Jerry a call sometime and he can walk me through it. Thanks for the offer.


----------



## Mr-Mike

mx482 said:


> Thanks! I will give Jerry a call sometime and he can walk me through it. Thanks for the offer.


You should pick up some arrows while you are at it. Or perhaps awesome Vanetecs, tips... whatever...


----------



## GRIMWALD

SouthShoreRat said:


> Absolutely, if you give me a call sometime I will explain a fairly accurate process


Jerry, maybe you should consider setting up a 1-900 number for people who want to get the back room skinny of arrows indexing.
First minute could be free and then the price goes up from there! LOL!!!!!

GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> Jerry, maybe you should consider setting up a 1-900 number for people who want to get the back room skinny of arrows indexing.
> First minute could be free and then the price goes up from there! LOL!!!!!
> 
> GRIM


What would I do with all of that money I cant seem to take a day off now!


----------



## Hholland

Been doing this over 12 years, it works. Believe me over this 12 year period of time I have looked at tons of anglestuff and everytime I reverted back to what physics dictates[/QUOTE]

Yes, however, physics is telling you all you r doing is finding the runout of the shaft, marking it, and utilizing it. This is great and fine, totally agree with this process, just don't agree with saying you have found a "stiff spine" by these methods. If you could find this on any and all shafts, then I would say you found the actual stiff and and neutral planes, which all tubes have, but it can't be done. I have a shaft right now that has zero run out, flos no matter where we test, and makes a bullet hole in paper no matter where I shoot it from my bow.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on terminology, as long as we can always help people to be better archers and be sucsessful, that's all that matters.


----------



## enewman

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_indicator_reading

http://www.emachineshop.com/machine-shop/Full-Indicator-Movement/page615.html


----------



## GRIMWALD

Hholland said:


> Been doing this over 12 years, it works. Believe me over this 12 year period of time I have looked at tons of anglestuff and everytime I reverted back to what physics dictates


"Yes, however, physics is telling you all you r doing is finding the runout of the shaft, marking it, and utilizing it. This is great and fine, totally agree with this process, just don't agree with saying you have found a "stiff spine" by these methods. If you could find this on any and all shafts, then I would say you found the actual stiff and and neutral planes, which all tubes have, but it can't be done. I have a shaft right now that has zero run out, flos no matter where we test, and makes a bullet hole in paper no matter where I shoot it from my bow.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on terminology, as long as we can always help people to be better archers and be sucsessful, that's all that matters.[/QUOTE]"

Terminology is a major hurdle, this one of the reason I post links to information, rather than give my understanding of what I have read and observed.

The following link is part of an article titled "All about spines" it was produced by Dave Tutelman, I think in 2008. I have posted the original mother article and this offshoot article several times but I don't believe most bothered to completely read the entire articles. Never the less I am going to post the link again because one, the information is relevant and two it briefly touches on the reliability of bearing based spine finders.

http://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/FLOphysics.php#outofplane

Jerry has tried to explain several times about his findings and the use of the Ram in conjunction with his frequency meter.
The article above briefly describes, were bearing based spine finders can be used. In that past, the corridor was fairly narrow but with the improvements in shaft construction, that corridor is widening.
The corridor exists, when the run-out or residual bend, is less than the spine value. 
When the spine is greater than the residual bend the Ram is one hundred percent accurate but only when the spine is greater. Jerry can and has confirmed this with his frequency meter, interestingly enough it has also coincided with the natural bend, on the shafts he has mentioned.

Jerry may not be able to accurately describe some of his thoughts but in the discussion we have had. I have found no fault in his understanding, we may not agree on all topics but he does know what his tools are showing him. 


GRIM


----------



## enewman

Ok we keep,trying to compare arrows to golf clubs. So let's look at golf clubs. Golf clubs are not picked by spine. They picked by flex. There are 5 flexes. 
1. Extra stiff
2. Stiff
3. regular
4. Senior
5. Ladies. 

All of that is figured by how far you can hit a ball. Haha

Then they have a flo, freq tester. This is to find spine. This spine is a stiff plane and a nbp plane. This is done to make sure when you swing this club it gets the wobble out of the head so when it makes contact with the ball it is flat and not off to one side. All this is to do, is find the flex of the shaft where the least amount of restriction. This is a side load test. 

Spine for an arrow is NOT THE SAME THING

The word spine is a word that the arrow manufactures coined to be able to put a number with this arrow so we can look at what arrow we need. It is a static number. It is also just a number that is given with a set amount of weight suspended on an arrow that is supported at a set point. This is Deflection. This  number is a static number. So if it bends .300 then that is it. Manufactures call this spine for simplicity. It's not spine. It's deflection. This deflection number (spine) also goes out the window when the arrow is shot. 

Go in and read what grim posted. Then ask your self when have I ever held an arrow so I could swing it at an animal. 

We y'all are pushing something that was design for a golf club. 

If you want to see what the deflection of that shaft is take a ram tester and use it. It will not matter what location that arrow is. You will read the same deflection. This is not done by rotating the arrow with the weight on it. This is done by placing the weight on it. Read the deflection take weight off. Then rotate and do it again. 

The word dynamic keeps getting brought up. This again is being used wrong. Yes when you put the arrow in a vise and pull down on it and let go then it flexes. This is a dynamic reaction. This dynamic reaction is not the same dynamic reaction an arrow has. This again is to different types of dynamic reactions. 

Now I keep hearing that we have talked to all,the physics and the golf club experts. And they say this is true. But that's all I hear. 

How come we never have a physics guy get on here and talk about this. Heck where are the golf club experts. What about the engineers. Find us a machinist. 

Bwana is an engineer x2. But yet I posted a picture and only one person said what it was and it wasn't the engineer. 

All we are doing is finding run out. With this run out we are utilizing it to our advantage. This is why we see it more with a .006 then a .003 even less with a .001. 

Ya want to take archery into the next level. Stop using old golf club technology and figure out away to test what we do. 
Oh wait we have that tester all ready. It's called a bow.


----------



## GRIMWALD

LOL!!!

Eric you are a riot, this is not Golf club technology. The golf industry uses the information for it's own purposes but the engineering and physics was established and proofed more than 100 years ago.
Just as the same engineering principles are used from the construction industry, the automotive industry and virtually everything else in our lives, the information is transferable to other application.

The differences are there but but they are transferable. If you wish to re-write the last 100 years, have at it, I have nothing to sell and certainly nothing to prove. Use the information or not but you can't deign that Jerry build a Superior arrow. If I an not mistaken, he offers a 100% guarantee, there is simply no down side to what he offers. Right, wrong or indifferent, whatever he is doing is working for him and many others. Are bearing based spine finders 100% accurate across the whole shaft spectrum, no but for the quality of shafts that Jerry and some others are using, it works just fine.
Personally, I only use my RAM for certain application because of it's limitations but it is still useful in those respects.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

ok what is a superior arrow. Becarefull how you answer this.

And your right it's not golf club technology. I only referred to it that way because ya are referring to it.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> ok what is a superior arrow. Becarefull how you answer this.
> 
> And your right it's not golf club technology. I only referred to it that way because ya are referring to it.


Arrows which will maintain 2" groups at 100 yards and over. The crossbow section, routinely has threads extolling Jerry for enabling them to reach these goals. I would call these more than adequate.

GRIM


GRIM


----------



## Bwana

Why don't we just utilize the advantages of the technology, which provides consistency and accuracy...instead of arguing terminology and semantics ?

The simple act of rolling a ball across the floor to a child, has a multitude of physics effecting it's path & speed...do we really care ?, no we just want to roll the ball baby or dog. Unless the science of physics itself has changed, unless the effects of gravity have altered on earth, if it's not new unexplored ground or existing science debunked...what have we gained except folly and exercise in debate ???

The average archer wants to increase accuracy on the target line and the field hunting, he wants his arrow to consistent and forgiving...and he wants it to do that with a field point or broadhead. This thread is approaching 70k views from members, all hoping to learn how to be more accurate, not hoping to use the right word on Jeopardy :wink:


----------



## FearNot

It has proven to me to be very impressive to test the spine


----------



## GRIMWALD

Bwana said:


> Why don't we just utilize the advantages of the technology, which provides consistency and accuracy...instead of arguing terminology and semantics ?
> 
> The simple act of rolling a ball across the floor to a child, has a multitude of physics effecting it's path & speed...do we really care ?, no we just want to roll the ball baby or dog. Unless the science of physics itself has changed, unless the effects of gravity have altered on earth, if it's not new unexplored ground or existing science debunked...what have we gained except folly and exercise in debate ???
> 
> The average archer wants to increase accuracy on the target line and the field hunting, he wants his arrow to consistent and forgiving...and he wants it to do that with a field point or broadhead. This thread is approaching 70k views from members, all hoping to learn how to be more accurate, not hoping to use the right word on Jeopardy :wink:


LOL!!!

Normally I would agree with most of what you have written but correct terminology is important. If you were to pick up a dog turd and offer it to your wife and say " Here smell the rose that I just found", her response may not be to your liking.
It is also important for some information to be corrected, I still receive PM's asking what side of the bend is the spine, "The inner or the outer side of the bend". The thread may seem like it is argumentative but I sense no malice from Eric and I have none towards him. 


GRIM


----------



## Mr-Mike

I like the idea of blaming the arrow.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Ok we keep,trying to compare arrows to golf clubs.


Eric, 

I cant understand why you continue to think we or any one is comparing arrows to golf clubs we are not!!

I will say this one more time, ANYTIME ANY TUBE has energy applied to it they will form a stiff plane and a neutral plane 100% of the time. 

Golf clubs are not arrows, arrows are not fishing rods and fishing rods are not golf clubs but the physics about how the tube responds to energy with it is applied is identical.

Golf clubs are swung and when they are the force of the swing are translated into energy applied to the club, thus a stiff plane and neutral plane form to handle that energy. But the club is not shot out of a bow nor is it used to land a fish.

Fishing rods are bent by the weight of the fish and when this happens the energy that is applied causes the rod to form a stiff plane and a neutral plane in order to handle that energy
But the fishing rod was not swung like a golf club nor shot out of a bow. 

An arrow when shot begins to flex and spin because of the energy that is applied it forms a stiff and neutral plane in order to handle the energy of the shot.
But the arrow is not bent like a fishing rod, or is it swung like a golf club.

It does not matter how energy is applied to any tube used in any application when energy is applied in any form a stiff plane and neutral plane forms.

Now, because the there is a stiff plane and a neutral plane that forms in every tube known to man when energy is applied we can use the frequency analyzer to locate the stiff plane in all tubes. We can use a RAM to locate the static stiff point in all tubes. 

It does not matter that golf clubs, fishing rods and arrows have energy applied to them in three different ways the physics behind the stiff plane and neutral plane are identical!

And just to cover the point you made about spine yes it is the same thing If a club manufacturing company decides to build an AZE set of clubs to sell. Every driver in every set will be close on deflection, every wood, in every set will be similar to the next sets deflection, every 1 iron on and on and on. They want consistency from set to set.

Fishing rod manufactures builds a model BBT rod and they say it has a certain level of stiffness they will build every single rod similar in deflection to each other for consistency. 

Just like arrows, manufactures group arrows together by deflection for consistency.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> ok what is a superior arrow. Be careful how you answer this.
> 
> And your right it's not golf club technology. I only referred to it that way because ya are referring to it.


Call me again sometime and I will explain it to you.


----------



## Bwana

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Normally I would agree with most of what you have written but correct terminology is important. *If you were to pick up a dog turd and offer it to your wife and say " Here smell the rose that I just found", her response may not be to your liking.
> *
> GRIM


Coincidentally my wife has called ME a dog turd before :wink:

I'm just hoping the banter doesn't push members away from learning, appreciate your contributions Grim.


----------



## enewman

Jerry. Ya are the ones that keep going back to the golf club. You your self told me to call John. I did. I pretty much agree with what your saying except the ram. 

But if people want to move the archery world. Then termonolgy needs to be fixed. This causes a big mis understanding 

I have Harvey building a up graded form of a flo tester. When done I will call you.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Hholland said:


> Yes, however, physics is telling you all you r doing is finding the runout of the shaft, marking it, and utilizing it. This is great and fine, totally agree with this process, just don't agree with saying you have found a "stiff spine" by these methods. If you could find this on any and all shafts, then I would say you found the actual stiff and and neutral planes, which all tubes have, but it can't be done. I have a shaft right now that has zero run out, flos no matter where we test, and makes a bullet hole in paper no matter where I shoot it from my bow.
> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on terminology, as long as we can always help people to be better archers and be sucsessful, that's all that matters.



You are 100% correct, we will just have to agree to disagree, been doing this too long been relying on too many folks with physics back grounds and various industries that deal with some type of tube. Every single one is in agreement with the physics of how energy is handled by any tube!

Frankly I could care less about terminology, that is not important to the 99.9% of people who just want to see results. The terminology is only only important to 00.1%. 

By the way send me that shaft and if I cant find a stiff and neutral plane I will send you a dozen custom made arrows. There isnt a tube in existance if it can be tested safely on a frequency analyzer that wont show these attributes!


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Bwana said:


> I'm just hoping the banter doesn't push members away from learning, appreciate your contributions Grim.


I am with you!


----------



## Hholland

Ok Jerry first on the shaft I have, you are wanting to change the test instrument for that particular shaft, and the one u propose will find something, but you have stated you can do it with a RAM tester 100% of the time,which I believe you can not. This shaft is too straight.
So let's go the printing of one of your experts you have relied on and frequently bring up. By the way I have read through a lot of his readings entirely, multiple times.
Mr. Tutleman (The physics of FLO)
This is why FLO works, although for arrows I believe the test needs to be modified which I will prove or disprove when finished with our modified FLO tester.
"Since the shaft is a spring, it responds to being deformed by exerting a restoring force to it." There was more, but if anyone wants they can read for themselves in the link grim posted earlier.
Ok, so now why the RAM doesn't work, as I have said numerous times, straight from Mr.Tutleman again.
"Conventional bearing based spine finders are NOT A RELIABLE WAY TO FIND SPINE. They are thrown off by any residual bend in the shaft. If the shaft is very straight and has a lot of spine, then it can give the right answer. But for most shafts, the residual bend or TIR is enough to partially mask a modest spine and the spine finder gives the wrong direction."
This is why we and many others have found that if you compare RAM to FLO findings, they will usually be around 20deg from each other.


----------



## ontarget7

I just mark the stiff plane reading and go 
Seems to work exceptionally well . 

I love it that a few want to change the terminology that has been widely used for years and actually pretty easy to understand. 
I choose to keep it simple with extremely great results. 
There has been quite a few that have purchased a RAM to index their arrows from the info on this thread. With that, I have had quite a few emails, PM's and text saying how easy it actually is to have great results. 

No reason to complicate things 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Hholland said:


> Ok Jerry first on the shaft I have, you are wanting to change the test instrument for that particular shaft, and the one u propose will find something, but you have stated you can do it with a RAM tester 100% of the time,which I believe you can not. This shaft is too straight.
> So let's go the printing of one of your experts you have relied on and frequently bring up. By the way I have read through a lot of his readings entirely, multiple times.
> Mr. Tutleman (The physics of FLO)
> This is why FLO works, although for arrows I believe the test needs to be modified which I will prove or disprove when finished with our modified FLO tester.
> "Since the shaft is a spring, it responds to being deformed by exerting a restoring force to it." There was more, but if anyone wants they can read for themselves in the link grim posted earlier.
> Ok, so now why the RAM doesn't work, as I have said numerous times, straight from Mr.Tutleman again.
> "Conventional bearing based spine finders are NOT A RELIABLE WAY TO FIND SPINE. They are thrown off by any residual bend in the shaft. If the shaft is very straight and has a lot of spine, then it can give the right answer. But for most shafts, the residual bend or TIR is enough to partially mask a modest spine and the spine finder gives the wrong direction."
> This is why we and many others have found that if you compare RAM to FLO findings, they will usually be around 20deg from each other.


I think I remember you now, about a couple of years ago I got a call about indexing because you guys were very interested in the subject you had never heard of indexing before, is that you


----------



## skynight

Hholland said:


> Ok Jerry first on the shaft I have, you are wanting to change the test instrument for that particular shaft, and the one u propose will find something, but you have stated you can do it with a RAM tester 100% of the time,which I believe you can not. This shaft is too straight.
> So let's go the printing of one of your experts you have relied on and frequently bring up. By the way I have read through a lot of his readings entirely, multiple times.
> Mr. Tutleman (The physics of FLO)
> This is why FLO works, although for arrows I believe the test needs to be modified which I will prove or disprove when finished with our modified FLO tester.
> "Since the shaft is a spring, it responds to being deformed by exerting a restoring force to it." There was more, but if anyone wants they can read for themselves in the link grim posted earlier.
> Ok, so now why the RAM doesn't work, as I have said numerous times, straight from Mr.Tutleman again.
> "Conventional bearing based spine finders are NOT A RELIABLE WAY TO FIND SPINE. They are thrown off by any residual bend in the shaft. If the shaft is very straight and has a lot of spine, then it can give the right answer. But for most shafts, the residual bend or TIR is enough to partially mask a modest spine and the spine finder gives the wrong direction."
> This is why we and many others have found that if you compare RAM to FLO findings, they will usually be around 20deg from each other.


The bearing based spine finders I've seen in the golf videos bear zero resemblance to the RAM type device.


----------



## GRIMWALD

skynight said:


> The bearing based spine finders I've seen in the golf videos bear zero resemblance to the RAM type device.


See if this looks familiar

http://www.golfmechanix.com/Items.asp?Pdts=05

The older version used standard analog gauges and resembled the Ram much more closley, the newer models use digital load sensors.
If you have followed this and other spine threads where the use of an inverted flex board was discussed as an alternative indexing method. They change the placement of the load sensor to the middle of the shaft but they operate on the same principle. 

GRIMWALD


----------



## Hholland

ontarget7 said:


> I just mark the stiff plane reading and go
> Seems to work exceptionally well .
> 
> I love it that a few want to change the terminology that has been widely used for years and actually pretty easy to understand.
> I choose to keep it simple with extremely great results.
> There has been quite a few that have purchased a RAM to index their arrows from the info on this thread. With that, I have had quite a few emails, PM's and text saying how easy it actually is to have great results.
> 
> No reason to complicate things
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not complicating anything. You are finding the runout of the arrow or the natural bend, not the stiff plane that tutleman talks about. He states that you can not find this with that type tester but in a pinch can verify a FLO test, but doesn't even recommend it for that. You are marking it, and utilizing it. I understand and agree with that. I'm not trying to change terminology, but trying to get you to use correct terminology.


----------



## Hholland

SouthShoreRat said:


> Hholland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Jerry first on the shaft I have, you are wanting to change the test instrument for that particular shaft, and the one u propose will find something, but you have stated you can do it with a RAM tester 100% of the time,which I believe you can not. This shaft is too straight.
> So let's go the printing of one of your experts you have relied on and frequently bring up. By the way I have read through a lot of his readings entirely, multiple times.
> Mr. Tutleman (The physics of FLO)
> This is why FLO works, although for arrows I believe the test needs to be modified which I will prove or disprove when finished with our modified FLO tester.
> "Since the shaft is a spring, it responds to being deformed by exerting a restoring force to it." There was more, but if anyone wants they can read for themselves in the link grim posted earlier.
> Ok, so now why the RAM doesn't work, as I have said numerous times, straight from Mr.Tutleman again.
> "Conventional bearing based spine finders are NOT A RELIABLE WAY TO FIND SPINE. They are thrown off by any residual bend in the shaft. If the shaft is very straight and has a lot of spine, then it can give the right answer. But for most shafts, the residual bend or TIR is enough to partially mask a modest spine and the spine finder gives the wrong direction."
> This is why we and many others have found that if you compare RAM to FLO findings, they will usually be around 20deg from each other.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I remember you now, about a couple of years ago I got a call about indexing because you guys were very interested in the subject you had never heard of indexing before, is that you
Click to expand...

Yes it is, have built numerous testers and doing lots of testing. Still don't believe the ram works for finding stiff spine, only runout.


----------



## ontarget7

Hholland said:


> I am not complicating anything. You are finding the runout of the arrow or the natural bend, not the stiff plane that tutleman talks about. He states that you can not find this with that type tester but in a pinch can verify a FLO test, but doesn't even recommend it for that. You are marking it, and utilizing it. I understand and agree with that. I'm not trying to change terminology, but trying to get you to use correct terminology.


Ok, so in your interpretation you would lead one to mark the runout and the runout is always the highest point in rotation in the shafts ?


----------



## ontarget7

Now, if I am only finding runout and not a particular plane, how can I consistently take 12 bareshafts and get perfect entry at 20 yards from one to another ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hholland

Ok, so in your interpretation you would lead one to mark the runout and the runout is always the highest point in rotation in the shafts ?[/QUOTE]
You are the one that is marking the run out, and yes the high point is always the runout if 180 from it is the low point. I believe in FLO and frequency not Ram.


----------



## Hholland

Shane,
It is because you are using datorch arrows that are very good arrows. Not sure you would have to index them at all. I have a black eagle right now that no matter where I turn it, it makes a perfect entry. I never said you couldn't use that as a reference point to tune to as long as all were set the same or runout up.
If you go look at post 1358 it has a pic of what runout looks like not stiff plane.


----------



## ontarget7

Hholland said:


> Ok, so in your interpretation you would lead one to mark the runout and the runout is always the highest point in rotation in the shafts ?


You are the one that is marking the run out, and yes the high point is always the runout if 180 from it is the low point. I believe in FLO and frequency not Ram.[/QUOTE]

So, it is more important to find runout ?
If this is true the stiff plane does not matter since I can take 12 bareshafts indexed to only runout and have perfect entry at 20 yards ?


----------



## ontarget7

Hholland said:


> Shane,
> It is because you are using datorch arrows that are very good arrows. Not sure you would have to index them at all. I have a black eagle right now that no matter where I turn it, it makes a perfect entry. I never said you couldn't use that as a reference point to tune to as long as all were set the same or runout up.
> If you go look at post 1358 it has a pic of what runout looks like not stiff plane.


I have access to many arrows on hand and everybody plays that card when this is discussed. 

I can do the same with shafts that have a wider range of tolerances as well.


----------



## ontarget7

I will also add, it is not true about not indexing them with the same results. I can turn a nock and walk one arrow right out of the other 11 that have perfect entry. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hholland

I've not got to use those yet, so that's interesting that you can move those good shafts around like that too, good to know. 
Also I know you can on a lesser shaft, we do it all the time, that's why I said the other day it should be called "common place indexing" not spine indexing as you have only found a common place and tuned to it, not really found stiff plane.


----------



## skynight

Hholland said:


> Yes it is, have built numerous testers and doing lots of testing. Still don't believe the ram works for finding stiff spine, only runout.


Here's my question for you and others making this argument: Why does the runout change value when the weight is applied? If only runout is being found, the weight is irrelevant to the process. But the "runout" does indeed change when the arrow is deflected.


----------



## GRIMWALD

This is why the Ram is considered unreliable. If you place the shaft in a Ram with no weight added for deflection and you read zero run-out or residual bend. There is a better than average chance that you are finding a spine variable. If there is no run out it must be spine, simple deductive reasoning. The issue comes when you start to use shafts that are qualified in the + or - .006. . This gives you a range of 0-.012 straightness, here is where you start to see the run-out being larger than the spine. Deductive reasoning dictates you are finding run-out and not spine.
It is also important to note that the spine can still occur within the natural bend, as long as the spine is still greater than the run-out.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

If you are only finding runout in a shaft and you can stay that consistent when testing on the RAM then runout is more important than any given plane to gain consistency when indexing. From what you have said, the stiff plane varies from runout so how do I get these consistent results. 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

skynight said:


> Here's my question for you and others making this argument: Why does the runout change value when the weight is applied? If only runout is being found, the weight is irrelevant to the process. But the "runout" does indeed change when the arrow is deflected.


Adding the weight is an attempt to short circuit the residual bend or run-out but to do it properly you would need to compare measurement from two different weights at specific points and record the difference in each point. The differences would represent the spine values minus the run-out.


GRIM


----------



## Bwana

ontarget7 said:


> I just mark the stiff plane reading and go
> Seems to work exceptionally well .
> 
> I love it that a few want to change the terminology that has been widely used for years and actually pretty easy to understand.
> I choose to keep it simple with extremely great results.
> There has been quite a few that have purchased a RAM to index their arrows from the info on this thread. With that, I have had quite a few emails, PM's and text saying how easy it actually is to have great results.
> 
> No reason to complicate things
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, and I bought the RAM & have excellent results...thank you for your input Shane


----------



## skynight

GRIMWALD said:


> This is why the Ram is considered unreliable. If you place the shaft in a Ram with no weight added for deflection and you read zero run-out or residual bend. There is a better than average chance that you are finding a spine variable. If there is no run out it must be spine, simple deductive reasoning. The issue comes when you start to use shafts that are qualified in the + or - .006. . This gives you a range of 0-.012 straightness, here is where you start to see the run-out being larger than the spine. Deductive reasoning dictates you are finding run-out and not spine.
> It is also important to note that the spine can still occur within the natural bend, as long as the spine is still greater than the run-out.
> 
> GRIM


I have never seen an arrow vary around the shaft less when deflected with the weight than when not deflected. I buy only .001 arrows and only do my own shafts. 
I can't see spending $300 to test $50 arrows.


----------



## GRIMWALD

skynight said:


> I have never seen an arrow vary around the shaft less when deflected with the weight than when not deflected. I buy only .001 arrows and only do my own shafts.
> I can't see spending $300 to test $50 arrows.


I agree whole heatedly, this is why I went looking for a better testing method. I have in the range of 450-500 arrows for various bows. All of which are several years old and are no where near the quailty that is being produced today. Most of the shafts are A/C/C but they still are not as good as the premium shafts being produced
Flo is not really a stand alone tool, yes it does what it is intended to do and it does it cheaply but it doesn't give a number value for you to compare to other shafts. I use it as a fine tuning tool only.


GRIM


----------



## skynight

GRIMWALD said:


> I agree whole heatedly, this is why I went looking for a better testing method. I have in the range of 450-500 arrows for various bows. All of which are several years old and are no where near the quailty that is being produced today. Most of the shafts are A/C/C but they still are not as good as the premium shafts being produced
> Flo is not really a stand alone tool, yes it does what it is intended to do and it does it cheaply but it doesn't give a number value for you to compare to other shafts. I use it as a fine tuning tool only.
> 
> 
> GRIM


This thread reminded me that I intended try some other things. Today I bought these. I intend to chuck the arrow up then put the chuck in a pipe vise. Don't know if the laser will have enough weight to it but going for an attempt at FLO.


----------



## Hholland

ontarget7 said:


> If you are only finding runout in a shaft and you can stay that consistent when testing on the RAM then runout is more important than any given plane to gain consistency when indexing. From what you have said, the stiff plane varies from runout so how do I get these consistent results.
> 
> Sorry, I'm just not seeing it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Grimm touched on part of it above. In most cases the run out can over come the subtle stiff plane making it the most usable. The weight being applied in most cases amplifies the residual bend. The one thing that everyone needs to remember, and this is fact, even tutleman states this, if you find a true stiff plane, then 180 from it has to be just a stiff, but it's not. You see and I'm just making an example here, 0=.330, 90=.320, 180=.310, 270=.320. That is run out, nothing more.


----------



## ontarget7

So now the issue only comes into play when you have .006 shafts or greater ? 
Then FLO does not put a number too a shaft so to batch arrows you would need a RAM, or to even get a reading of spine in general ? 

So this unreliable tool only puts a number to the shaft ? 

Again, I ask.... Why can I take a dozen arrows, index them according to the stiffest reading on the RAM and put all 12 bareshafts down range at 20 yards having the same entry into the target as fletched. Nine times out of ten, the ones on occasion that don't have the same entry are usually due to their spine variance being way off than the rest of them. This is the reason you would batch your arrows on ones that have a .006 rating. You will see a wider swing for spine variance




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

Bwana said:


> Yes, and I bought the RAM & have excellent results...thank you for your input Shane


You are welcome !! Glad you have seen excellent results. 

I definitely have as well and my shooting has never been better since running all my arrows through the RAM


----------



## enewman

It works because you putting that residue bend in a place that allows that arrow to react the same. This is more important on .006 then .001. Most of the time my .001 have very little run out if any. This is with no weight or weight. So with them I flo test. 

The only purpose to indexing is to get arrows to have the same dynamic reaction when shot. Indexing with tools is a good starting point. But it's not 100%. So it failed. But even in a failed state we can still use it. We just have to fix the one that failed. 

Most people will never know any of this. Fletchings do so much. I've seen fletchings take out a 5 inch tear on a bare shaft at 10 yards. Indexing is for people that strive to shoot a same hole at 20 yards. Very few can do this. Most people are happy with a 2 inch group at 20. So indexing means absolutely nothing even with a .006. 

When I tune I look for a specific tear I want to start out with. High tear. With.001. This is not always with the high point up. 

This is also part that I build efoc as you know. At this time I have a 340 spine with 340 gn up front. Flying level at 20 yards.


----------



## ontarget7

The residual bend / runout is also the stiffest reading on the RAM, correct ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> The residual bend is also the stiffest reading on the RAM, correct ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes sir!


----------



## ontarget7

I would also completely disagree with indexing meaning nothing with a fletched shaft at a .006 rating, due to the fletchings make all the corrections. 

With all the crappy weather I have only been able to shoot 15 arrows out to 100 yards with the new bow and out of the 15 only 1 arrow has missed the 10 ring at 100 yards. After marking that arrow and then testing it again it is the same arrow that had a swing of .003+. It was the odd arrow out of the dozen from my original testing. Coincidence you might ask, I don't think so. 

I can't even count how many customers I have setup with .003-.006 arrows and when they finally make the jump to .001 arrows they all seem to notice a difference. 
Never forget this one customer that came back after jumping to .001 arrows and said he would like to go back to the .006. I asked him why ? He said, I am breaking to many shafts now on the backend and would rather not shoot as tight of groups. 

I will never forget that



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hholland

No you are not understanding and trying to manipulate what I am saying. The RAM testers do have their place and are a great tool, for what they were designed, matching spines, not finding a stiff spine. I also stated that it works because you are finding a common reference point on the shaft and then tuning the bow to them. If the ram works, then take several shafts of the same spine, but different straightness, mark them and see if they all shoot identical


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Yes sir!


So, this would be a stiff plane reading on the shaft when using the RAM, correct ?


----------



## ontarget7

Hholland said:


> No you are not understanding and trying to manipulate what I am saying. The RAM testers do have their place and are a great tool, for what they were designed, matching spines, not finding a stiff spine. I also stated that it works because you are finding a common reference point on the shaft and then tuning the bow to them. If the ram works, then take several shafts of the same spine, but different straightness, mark them and see if they all shoot identical


This is where batching your arrows comes in and if a .006 shaft fell within the same spine variance of the .001 shafts, yes the results will be the same. You do have to be pickier on how you index with the .006 shafts, since the stiff plane reading, residual bend or runout LOL will carry that same plane for much less area around the circumference of the shaft vs the .001 shafts.


----------



## Hholland

The other thing you are forgetting is that I am not the only one that says the ram is not good for that purpose. Dave tutleman and John Kaufman both state that bearing based spine finders are not reliable for finding the stiff plane and the nbp.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> So, this would be a stiff plane reading on the shaft when using the RAM, correct ?


Yes


----------



## ontarget7

Tutleman has never tested arrows and knows nothing on how they react when shot from a bow. 
Enewman is correct when he states why do some keep relating golf clubs to arrow testing. The force applied to the swing of a golf club is completely different and why they strive for that particular testing and end results. If the carbon was not the same 180* from one another during the swing of a golf club you would have way to much oscillation of the shaft that leads to inconsistencies in your golf swing. This is why they have the Flo test 

I'm not even a golfer and can relate to the theory and what they are trying to achieve. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Yes


So why do a handful of guys get their panties in a bundle when you say you index the stiff plane


----------



## mx482

ontarget7 said:


> If you are only finding runout in a shaft and you can stay that consistent when testing on the RAM then runout is more important than any given plane to gain consistency when indexing. From what you have said, the stiff plane varies from runout so how do I get these consistent results.
> 
> Sorry, I'm just not seeing it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can someone explain what is meant by runout? I believe it has to do with straightness of the shaft but the way it is used in sentences makes me question my understanding.


----------



## ontarget7

Straightness runout of .001, .003,.006 etc 

Same thing when guys refer to the residual bend of the shaft. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mx482

thanks!


----------



## GuntherChaconne

Interesting thread sirs. And a long one. 

I am building a set of v1 vaps for field. I indexed them with a ram spine tester and have them all weighed within 0.4 grains of each other. I'm very interested to see if they make a difference out in the cheap seats.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> So why do a handful of guys get their panties in a bundle when you say you index the stiff plane


Because they do not understand that the static stiff point aka natural bend is the exact same point on shafts when shot form the stiff plane. It is the only aspect of static testing that comes into play with dynamic spine when an arrow is shot. 

In other words the stiff point statically tested is the dynamic stiff plane during flight. 

One day they hopefully they will grasp that ANY TUBE reacts the exact same way dynamically, they all form a stiff plane and neutral plane. All of the static testing to identify the deflection of a shaft is a flawed test. We could test a shaft at 1 degree increments 360 degrees around the shaft and the only one that will come into play dynamically is the statically tested stiff point. 

You stated Tuttleman has never tested arrows, that is likely very true but it absolutely doesnt matter because again the dynamic effect of applying energy to a golf club, a fishing rod or an arrow is the exact same. It does not matter how the energy is applied they all:::::


Form an identical dynamic stiff plane and dynamic neutral plane. We can use this knowledge to know how to index an arrow, a golf club builder can use the same dynamic knowledge to know how to orient a club shaft and the rod builder can use this same dynamic knowledge to orient the rod for best performance

I absolutely agree these are three different items but I must stress again it does not matter they all react the exact same way dynamically all have a stiff plane and a neutral plane when energy is applied.

So lets forget the clubs, forget the rods and look at an arrow, find the stiff point or natural bend and index it to 1200, dynamically this arrow will react the very similar to all of the arrows in that group.

I want to comment on a point posed by Hholland. You cant test a .001 and index it, a .003 and index it and a .006 and index it and expect them to perform the same way. This would be no different then trying to group tune a 300, 340, 400 and 500 shaft out of the same bow. 

Testing is ment to take a set of similar shafts and tighten them up within the group of similar shafts.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> why do some keep relating golf clubs to arrow testing. The force applied to the swing of a golf club is completely different and why they strive for that particular testing and end results. If the carbon was not the same 180* from one another during the swing of a golf club you would have way to much oscillation of the shaft that leads to inconsistencies in your golf swing. This is why they have the Flo test
> 
> I'm not even a golfer and can relate to the theory and what they are trying to achieve.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again the reason to refer to clubs or fishing rods is to show that tubes are tubes, there is nothing new in archery that hasnt been done in the golf and fishing rod industry from many many years. 

The clubs, the rods and the arrows all have different applications but they are all tubes and all tubes respond dynamically by forming a stiff and neutral plane. to put it another way they are being used by me to show even though they are different the physics behind them dynamically is identical


----------



## enewman

Jerry. 

If we can't index the same spine arrow. That the only difference is the amount of run out. Then indexing by a tool just failed. 

In Your Discreption . We are marking the stiff plane. Then is should not make a difference.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Jerry.
> 
> If we can't index the same spine arrow. That the only difference is the amount of run out. Then indexing by a tool just failed.
> 
> In Your Discreption . We are marking the stiff plane. Then is should not make a difference.


You are kidding, right! Trying to fit .001s, .003s and .006 shaft in the same group has to be a joke. 

The straightness is not the only difference. 

This discussion has gone on way too long, I have explained facts that are accurate and can be verified. I'm am 100% willing to talk with you and your friend on the phone any evening you wish to call. 
I think honestly of you guys will allow an hour or so I can convince you the things I have stated for the last few years are accurate. All I ask is you call with an open mind and willing to listen


----------



## ontarget7

I definitely know what works and how it can be very repeatable so for me personally, I'm rolling with business as usual when indexing arrows. 

It's rather easy to be honest. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> I definitely know what works and how it can be very repeatable so for me personally, I'm rolling with business as usual when indexing arrows.
> 
> It's rather easy to be honest.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is what I do and will continue to do, if it didn't work my customers would let me know and your customers would let you know. :thumbs_up


----------



## Bwana

SouthShoreRat said:


> Because they do not understand that the static stiff point aka natural bend is the exact same point on shafts when shot form the stiff plane. It is the only aspect of static testing that comes into play with dynamic spine when an arrow is shot.
> 
> In other words the stiff point statically tested is the dynamic stiff plane during flight.
> 
> One day they hopefully they will grasp that ANY TUBE reacts the exact same way dynamically, they all form a stiff plane and neutral plane. All of the static testing to identify the deflection of a shaft is a flawed test. We could test a shaft at 1 degree increments 360 degrees around the shaft and the only one that will come into play dynamically is the statically tested stiff point.
> 
> You stated Tuttleman has never tested arrows, that is likely very true but it absolutely doesnt matter because again the dynamic effect of applying energy to a golf club, a fishing rod or an arrow is the exact same. It does not matter how the energy is applied they all:::::
> 
> 
> Form an identical dynamic stiff plane and dynamic neutral plane. We can use this knowledge to know how to index an arrow, a golf club builder can use the same dynamic knowledge to know how to orient a club shaft and the rod builder can use this same dynamic knowledge to orient the rod for best performance
> 
> I absolutely agree these are three different items but I must stress again it does not matter they all react the exact same way dynamically all have a stiff plane and a neutral plane when energy is applied.
> 
> So lets forget the clubs, forget the rods and look at an arrow, find the stiff point or natural bend and index it to 1200, dynamically this arrow will react the very similar to all of the arrows in that group.
> 
> I want to comment on a point posed by Hholland. You cant test a .001 and index it, a .003 and index it and a .006 and index it and expect them to perform the same way. This would be no different then trying to group tune a 300, 340, 400 and 500 shaft out of the same bow.
> 
> Testing is ment to take a set of similar shafts and tighten them up within the group of similar shafts.





ontarget7 said:


> I definitely know what works and how it can be very repeatable so for me personally, I'm rolling with business as usual when indexing arrows.
> 
> It's rather easy to be honest.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you gentlemen, I'm moving on with shooting since my indexing is done and works great for me & 3 buddies :thumbs_up


----------



## ontarget7

Bwana said:


> Thank you gentlemen, I'm moving on with shooting since my indexing is done and works great for me & 3 buddies :thumbs_up


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> You are kidding, right! Trying to fit .001s, .003s and .006 shaft in the same group has to be a joke.
> 
> The straightness is not the only difference.
> 
> This discussion has gone on way too long, I have explained facts that are accurate and can be verified. I'm am 100% willing to talk with you and your friend on the phone any evening you wish to call.
> I think honestly of you guys will allow an hour or so I can convince you the things I have stated for the last few years are accurate. All I ask is you call with an open mind and willing to listen


Jerry. I know it won't work. I only made that comment due to you. Your saying the ram is finding the stiff plane. On a .001 through .006. If so they would all react the same as long as static spine was the same. If this was a valid test or set up. Then this would work. It dosent.


----------



## Boubou

ontarget7 said:


> We have talked about this before and how critical it is for overall accuracy. Some feel the you need to shoot each arrow and turn nocks accordingly and that's fine but how do you no you are doing your part when going about it this way. Most know I use the RAM spine tester and for good reason. I find them to be very accurate and really no need to deviate from them. This was bareshafts shot by myself at 20 yards with zero nock turning after original indexing with the RAM Spine Tester.
> 
> Just figured I would share some results that in my opinion are critical to your down range accuracy.
> If you are serious about gaining accuracy they are well worth the investment.


I see 59 pages of what appears to be mental masturbation, honestly I did not read everything but it appears that there hasn't been anything significant since that first post.


----------



## enewman

Mental masturbation. Haha I'm going to use that.


----------



## ontarget7

Boubou said:


> I see 59 pages of what appears to be mental masturbation, honestly I did not read everything but it appears that there hasn't been anything significant since that first post.


Some how I get these same results all the time


----------



## knarrly

Has anyone taken a tester too the victory arrows that have their spine marked (spline aligned) and seen if they are marked right? Have liked the victory's that i shoot and the NVX23's that i just started shooting are grouping great, i fletched them using the marked spine on the arrows but be nice too see if they are marking them right just out of curiousity.

Very nice feature for those of us without a tester, if it is being done right.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

knarrly said:


> Has anyone taken a tester too the victory arrows that have their spine marked (spline aligned) and seen if they are marked right? Have liked the victory's that i shoot and the NVX23's that i just started shooting are grouping great, i fletched them using the marked spine on the arrows but be nice too see if they are marking them right just out of curiousity.
> 
> Very nice feature for those of us without a tester, if it is being done right.


The average that they get correct is about 80%


----------



## Mr-Mike

SouthShoreRat said:


> The average that they get correct is about 80%


For my set of VAP Elites it's more like each arrow is off the mark by about 20% 

knarrly - Bottom line, do not rely on the mark. Awesome arrows though!


----------



## ontarget7

Not very consistent at all from the ones I have tested


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

" Mental masturbation", while a little more abrupt than what most would use to describe what is being done here. It is probably true but it does serve several purposes. 
The first being it allows others to realize that there are a number of different methods to achieve their indexing goals.
More importantly, it helps some of the current experts to convey their knowledge to others who are willing to learn.
Jerry has been indexing from the get-go but even his methods have evolved, even over the last 4 years, I have seen a marked increase in his ability to convey his thoughts coherently.
The upside is that Jerry is more confident in the methods he has chosen to employ and since he doesn't charge for simple indexing, there is no downside to having him build arrows for us.
Even ontarget7 has benefited from these discussion. Weather he is trying to defy the laws of physics and is totally bass akwards, what he does works for him (and others). So Shane actually has gained more confidence and should continue as is until it doesn't.
I have said it before, if not here then in other threads. Weather it is good, bad or indifferent, the Ram spine finder is the current industry standard and at this time has top dog status.
I personally see some of the big guns moving to other testing methods but until they become proven, the Ram is what we have.

Some of the more complex question, some my find annoying but they do help all of us in the long run( more power to you enewman). lol!!!! 

So it may be mental masturbation to some, be grateful, some of these members may be responsible for actually advancing the arrow industry.

GRIM


----------



## Boubou

GRIMWALD said:


> " Mental masturbation", while a little more abrupt than what most would use to describe what is being done here. It is probably true but it does serve several purposes.
> The first being it allows others to realize that there are a number of different methods to achieve their indexing goals.
> More importantly, it helps some of the current experts to convey their knowledge to others who are willing to learn.
> Jerry has been indexing from the get-go but even his methods have evolved, even over the last 4 years, I have seen a marked increase in his ability to convey his thoughts coherently.
> The upside is that Jerry is more confident in the methods he has chosen to employ and since he doesn't charge for simple indexing, there is no downside to having him build arrows for us.
> Even ontarget7 has benefited from these discussion. Weather he is trying to defy the laws of physics and is totally bass akwards, what he does works for him (and others). So Shane actually has gained more confidence and should continue as is until it doesn't.
> I have said it before, if not here then in other threads. Weather it is good, bad or indifferent, the Ram spine finder is the current industry standard and at this time has top dog status.
> I personally see some of the big guns moving to other testing methods but until they become proven, the Ram is what we have.
> 
> Some of the more complex question, some my find annoying but they do help all of us in the long run( more power to you enewman). lol!!!!
> 
> So it may be mental masturbation to some, be grateful, some of these members may be responsible for actually advancing the arrow industry.
> 
> GRIM


For what its worth, my next arrows will be ordered indexed from Jerry.
The choice is very limited here in Quebec/Canada, the shops tell you "I will order them from the distributor" which means forget about it, you'll never get them. Might as well order them from Jerry.
As for the rest well i only care about the results on the target, so.....


----------



## Mr-Mike

Boubou said:


> For what its worth, my next arrows will be ordered indexed from Jerry.
> The choice is very limited here in Quebec/Canada, the shops tell you "I will order them from the distributor" which means forget about it, you'll never get them. Might as well order them from Jerry.
> As for the rest well i only care about the results on the target, so.....


Logistics limitations or not, going with Jerry is a no-brainer. His are arrows are exceptional. You will be impressed, and you'll wonder why anyone would bother doing their own. Good move!


----------



## ontarget7

Mr-Mike said:


> Logistics limitations or not, going with Jerry is a no-brainer. His are arrows are exceptional. You will be impressed, and you'll wonder why anyone would bother doing their own. Good move!


Definitely not a bother to do my own. Wouldn't do it any other way 

Jerry does a great job and have recommended him a lot over the years.


----------



## Mr-Mike

ontarget7 said:


> Definitely not a bother to do my own. Wouldn't do it any other way
> 
> Jerry does a great job and have recommended him a lot over the years.


aah right. There is the enjoyment factor. I get that. My pleasure is derived from having a perfect arrow  Anyway, good for you!


----------



## ontarget7

Mr-Mike said:


> aah right. There is the enjoyment factor. I get that. My pleasure is derived from having a perfect arrow  Anyway, good for you!


So let me ask you, what makes Jerry's arrows better than anybody else's that index to a RAM ?

Think, long and hard since I have seen a whole lot of Jerry's arrows sent from my customers over the years


----------



## skynight

Mr-Mike said:


> aah right. There is the enjoyment factor. I get that. My pleasure is derived from having a perfect arrow  Anyway, good for you!


People enjoy building arrows? I can't stand it. I do it for the same reason I butcher my own game. I want to know what went in the sausage.


----------



## enewman

I know how he makes a great arrow. He buys good shafts. He puts on a roller to make sure there is no wobble. If so cuts the ends a cordially. Then he squares both ends. Find the D.A.M mark. That's mine. Hehe. Then he takes his time to fletch and make sure there as perfect as possible. Then he weighs the inserts. sanding to make sure all 12 weight the exact same. Then glues them in. Makes sure ther square. Then weights the nocks and sands if needed. Arrow done. 


Oh wait. That's how I build arrows.

That's all after I have tuned a test arrow to get the length I need. I guess I should change my count from 12 to 11.


----------



## Mr-Mike

ontarget7 said:


> So let me ask you, what makes Jerry's arrows better than anybody else's that index to a RAM ?
> 
> Think, long and hard since I have seen a whole lot of Jerry's arrows sent from my customers over the years


Beautiful, impeccably clean fletchings. Truly precise and consistent weight and measurements. Overall exceptional uniformity. Second to no one experience. Before you respond, keep in mind the majority of those in the 'know' have experienced his work also.

Question for you. Why did you put words in my mouth? I mean you did quote me after all. 


Anyway, I will say this with absolute certainty. He does a far better job than I EVER could.


----------



## ontarget7

Mr-Mike said:


> Beautiful, impeccably clean fletchings. Truly precise and consistent weight and measurements. Overall exceptional uniformity. Second to no one experience. Before you respond, keep in mind the majority of those in the 'know' have experienced his work also.
> 
> Question for you. Why did you put words in my mouth? I mean you did quote me after all.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I will say this with absolute certainty. He does a far better job than I EVER could.


I am just pointing out the fact for those that do use the RAM. You can have exceptional results for the DIY guys without purchasing from someone else. 

You summed it up best in your last words.
He does a better job than you could personally 


That's just coming from someone, not in the know


----------



## Bwana

enewman said:


> I know how he makes a great arrow. He buys good shafts. He puts on a roller to make sure there is no wobble. If so cuts the ends a cordially. Then he squares both ends. Find the D.A.M mark. That's mine. Hehe. Then he takes his time to fletch and make sure there as perfect as possible. Then he weighs the inserts. sanding to make sure all 12 weight the exact same. Then glues them in. Makes sure ther square. Then weights the nocks and sands if needed. Arrow done.
> 
> 
> Oh wait. That's how I build arrows.
> 
> That's all after I have tuned a test arrow to get the length I need. I guess I should change my count from 12 to 11.


Sanding inserts and nocks to exact weights ?, that may be an overkill but have at it :wink:

I've built my own arrows for many many years, because availability or options weren't present in my area. I use the RAM and build arrows to fit my needs for a number of bows and spine differences, I probably shoot 10 different shaft configurations. 

For those not have the space, tools, or know-how buying them pre-made from Jerry is a great option that wasn't available in past years. To have a quality set of shafts and no strange flyers in the group, while being able to tune your bow to "perfection"...only leads to confidence in the field or target setting. For me watching my field points & fixed broadheads group at 60 yards, is a thing of beauty and true marriage of bow/archer.


----------



## ontarget7

Bwana said:


> Sanding inserts and nocks to exact weights ?, that may be an overkill but have at it :wink:
> 
> I've built my own arrows for many many years, because availability or options weren't present in my area. I use the RAM and build arrows to fit my needs for a number of bows and spine differences, I probably shoot 10 different shaft configurations.
> 
> For those not have the space, tools, or know-how buying them pre-made from Jerry is a great option that wasn't available in past years. To have a quality set of shafts and no strange flyers in the group, while being able to tune your bow to "perfection"...only leads to confidence in the field or target setting. For me watching my field points & fixed broadheads group at 60 yards, is a thing of beauty and true marriage of bow/archer.


Agreed ^^^^


----------



## enewman

Actually jerry talked to me about making sure all things match. He did Thai about 2 years ago. Is it needed no. But it's just taking the time to get it to perfection


----------



## Mr-Mike

ontarget7 said:


> I am just pointing out the fact for those that do use the RAM. You can have exceptional results for the DIY guys without purchasing from someone else.
> 
> You summed it up best in your last words.
> He does a better job than you could personally
> 
> 
> That's just coming from someone, not in the know


Point out your opinion (not fact) all you want but do so with out misquoting others in an attempt to enhance the impact of an otherwise weak comment.


----------



## Bwana

enewman said:


> He did Thai about 2 years ago.


Cuisine or MMA ? :wink:


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> Cuisine or MMA ? :wink:


Haha. Took me a minute on that one. Don't have my glasses on. But now I'm hungry thanks.


----------



## ontarget7

Mr-Mike said:


> Point out your opinion (not fact) all you want but do so with out misquoting others in an attempt to enhance the impact of an otherwise weak comment.


So please let me know what is not fact, I'm all ears ? 

You stated that you wonder why anyone would attempt to do the arrow build process yourself after getting your arrows back from Jerry. 

Now I am stating it is based by your own opinion and your own words, that you can't do it better or equal to that. 

This is all fine and dandy but you implied it can't be equal. I'm simply saying it can and is rather easy for the DIY crew. 

So please point out where I misquoted you and if doing so, I apologies.


----------



## Mr-Mike

Pretty sure that apology is NOT sincere since it is quite obvious you paraphrased.

So here we go again. Someone who feels he has to prove something and is apparently threatened by those who may know more or could be better. 

Look dude, I did say I get that you want to make your own and I complimented you on that. Why are you still whining? 

Here's the answer to your latest question:

Let’s just omit the part of your question (the one you are so concerned about) that you FABRICATED and see what we have.

“______________” Hmmm. There’s nothing there! That’s pretty weak. 

I said pleasure is derived from having a perfect arrow - no mention of anyone. You too implied you put a lot of effort into getting yours right and you obviously take great pride in that - so in reality we agree. 

So getting back to that question of yours. To try to create a little of legitimacy let’s back up to my comment that preceded my statement where I said Jerry makes exceptional arrows – we can leverage some of that comment to complete your question (at least it will remain 'my' words and not yours).

Now we have:
“What makes Jerry’s arrows exceptional?” Ok, that works and is an improvement. However, many already recognize that Jerry makes excellent arrows, therefore your question is missing the impact you hoped to achieve. I.e. weak.


----------



## ontarget7

It was sincere, so I'm done

I don't have to prove anything. All I do is share info that works. 

Sorry I bothered you and keep ordering from Jerry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

Mr-Mike. 

I think we are all going a little to far. What we need to understand. Jerry puts together an arrow. He takes time to do this. Shane does the same. So do I. We all d a good job. What happens on these post. We come on here and give our opinion. 

Then some one else comes on and say ya have no clue. Bob is the best and that's all I need to know. That puts every one on the defensive. Then the arguing starts. My back ground shows me with the ram it's run out. Shane's says it shows him it's the stiff plane and the neutral plane and the weak plane. Jerry says it's the stiff plane. 

What I now for sure using the Machinist hand book it's run out. If we read tutelman and only parts that he talks about spine testers and flo nothing else. He calls the run out residue bend. It's all the same. 

Now jerry has a freq tester. This allows him to take it to the next step. I have a flo tester. What I can say is that the flow is almost always with the run out in .006. This is because the run out is stronger then the plane. So it takes over. In .001. I have had the flo with the run out. If I can even find it on the .001. I've had it less then 10degree. And up,to,around 20 degrees off. 

This is where I have my problem with this. Some say we are finding the plane with the ram. No we are not. We are finding run out. Now with other testers we find that this plane sometimes coincides with this run out. So we are saying we can find the planes with the ram. Yes I know this is is a play on words. 

Now all of this is to get us to a starting point. So hopefully we doint have to do as much tuning. 

Now here is my second problem. We are not teaching what is really happening with the arrow. The dynamics of an arrow when shot are not even close to any of these types of test. So they are not 100%. Again for what I do for a living. If it's not 100% it failed. 

Eric


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Wow now I am the topic of discussion..

There are plenty of home archery that do exceptional work every bit as good as we do. There are 2 maybe 3 online shops that do as good of work as we do. So as for our arrows being THE best.

I would say we are as good as humanly possible to be we built just like many of you are capable to do. I have seen some exceptional work many of you have done that ranks right at the top!


----------



## bplayer405

I've followed this post since it started because I was wanting to learn about better arrow flight and accuracy. Learned a lot about it. There's obviously different methods and means of achieving the same or similar result. I don't have a ram or flo tester so I tried turning nocks and shooting through paper. I can attest to the improvement I've seen. In the original post the question was asked about how someone knows if their doing their part testing this way, results is my answer. My groups have tightened up dramatically. I now shoot 3" groups at 50 yds with my hunting rig, when they were 6" or larger before. 

Has anyone taken a dozen arrows tuned by only shooting and turning nocks and tested them by a ram or flo to see if the index would be the same?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

Some arguing is not bad. Now some people are to passive. They just stop. Some use it as a push. I use it as a push. I go out and do all kinds of test to prove them wrong. In this process it improves my tuning and my testing. If there right then I proved it and I'm still better for it. If there wrong then I proved that and again I'm better for it. 

Example Shane says at 19 to 20% foc he has bad flight. Or not the flight he expects to get from an arrow. I went out to prove him wrong. I now have an arrow at 28.5% flying level at 20 yards. Not nock high as he clams. But in this process to prove him wrong. He has help me get an arrow and my tune better then it has ever been. And I have changed the way I tune. It's not his way but away for to tune a efoc arrow. 

So aruguing is not bad. You just have to take advantage of it.


----------



## Bwana

enewman said:


> So aruguing is not bad. You just have to take advantage of it.


Just to clarify the "terminology": *arguing* is bad, intelligent *debate* is not :wink:


----------



## enewman

bplayer405 said:


> I've followed this post since it started because I was wanting to learn about better arrow flight and accuracy. Learned a lot about it. There's obviously different methods and means of achieving the same or similar result. I don't have a ram or flo tester so I tried turning nocks and shooting through paper. I can attest to the improvement I've seen. In the original post the question was asked about how someone knows if their doing their part testing this way, results is my answer. My groups have tightened up dramatically. I now shoot 3" groups at 50 yds with my hunting rig, when they were 6" or larger before.
> 
> Has anyone taken a dozen arrows tuned by only shooting and turning nocks and tested them by a ram or flo to see if the index would be the same?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Yes I have. Some are spot on. And some are not. No matter what the way you are doing it is the best way for indexing. What we are not talking about is how arrows are made. Arrows are not perfect. So even if we find what ever with the ram or freq doesn't mean the arrow when shot is going to,have the dynamic reaction that coincides with how we are testing. This is the flaw with the testers. They do not test the arrow in the dynamic fashion an arrow has when being shot. And the dynamic reaction of an arrow while being shot is effected by everything.


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> Just to clarify the "terminology": *arguing* is bad, intelligent *debate* is not :wink:


You are correct.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Some aruguing is not bad. Now some people are to passive. They just stop. Some use it as a push. I use it as a push. I go out and do all kinds of test to prove them wrong. In this process it improves my tuning and my testing. If there right then I proved it and I'm still better for it. If there wrong then I proved that and again I'm better for it.
> 
> Example Shane says at 19 to 20% foc he has bad flight. Or not the flight he expects to get from an arrow. I went out to prove him wrong. I now have an arrow at 28.5% flying level at 20 yards. Not nock high as he clams. But in this process to prove him wrong. He has help me get an arrow and my tune better then it has ever been. And I have changed the way I tune. It's not his way but away for to tune a efoc arrow.
> 
> So aruguing is not bad. You just have to take advantage of it.


Just to clarify its not that you can't get over the 20% FOC to tune good. Just don't like the cam settings for synch to get the results I am looking for on certain system.

As you have told me that you experienced the tail high as well, so what did you do differently ? Assuming just cutting arrows little by little till it cleaned it up ?

Good Job [emoji1363]


----------



## Mr-Mike

Typically 'run out' is without loading - i.e. mill spindle, collet, lathe chuck. Using a dial indicator for example to see how much off center a holder can maintain material at a given distance from the holding point. Deflection is with loading - i.e. when the tool bit, end mill, cutter is engaging the work piece, how much does the workpiece move out alignment (a good measure of rigidity in a machine). I do a fair amount of my own machining

Jerry! You could have thrown me a bone or something. Heck, I am a customer and I was promoting you yet gave cred to the guys that are marginalizing you and don't by custom arrows... You left me high and dry  

LOL <humor intended>.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Just to clarify its not that you can't get over the 20% FOC to tune good. Just don't like the cam settings for synch to get the results I am looking for on certain system.
> 
> "As you have told me that you experienced the tail high as well, so what did you do differently ? Assuming just cutting arrows little by little till it cleaned it up ?"
> 
> Yes cutting was one way for new arrows. I did this one with a precut arrow. I did it all by changing the amount of force being applied to the nock end from top and bottom force. All in the location of the burger hole. Just controlling the dynamic reaction. Cams are in sync
> 
> Even better I did it with an arrow that is according to ontarget program around .065 to weak. It's great at 20 yards. Even with a Zwickey delta broadhead I need to back out. It may fail once I get to the 50. plus yards I don't know yet.
> 
> 
> This was with a duel cam bow. I need to get a Hoyt and see if it all works the same.
> 
> I do need to stop listening to you. My arrow now weights 575 gn getting to the 28.5%. Haha.


----------



## ontarget7

Curious on the longer range. I seemed to still get that tail high showing up down range. For instance, I could clean it up momentarily you might say but it eventually shows itself when dropping back. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Curious on the longer range. I seemed to still get that tail high showing up down range. For instance, I could clean it up momentarily you might say but it eventually shows itself when dropping back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hopefully it will not be to windy and I can back up and see. I have thought about it though. That it may be level at 20 since that's where I tuned it to so far.


----------



## ontarget7

In regards to indexing

When I have tested arrows for spine consistency and you get literally no movement on the needle to index a particular way, I do find the need to nock tune more with those vs shafts that have tight tolerances but still have a noticeable reading when testing spine variances. 

Now, this leads me to believe it is more than just indexing to the run out and indeed may be proof there is a stiff plane reading. 

Just something to chew on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> Some arguing is not bad. Now some people are to passive. They just stop. Some use it as a push. I use it as a push. I go out and do all kinds of test to prove them wrong. In this process it improves my tuning and my testing. If there right then I proved it and I'm still better for it. If there wrong then I proved that and again I'm better for it.
> 
> Example Shane says at 19 to 20% foc he has bad flight. Or not the flight he expects to get from an arrow. I went out to prove him wrong. I now have an arrow at 28.5% flying level at 20 yards. Not nock high as he clams. But in this process to prove him wrong. He has help me get an arrow and my tune better then it has ever been. And I have changed the way I tune. It's not his way but away for to tune a efoc arrow.
> 
> So aruguing is not bad. You just have to take advantage of it.


 I believe Shane would be correct. Super high foc makes for terrible tail wagging flight in windy conditions at distance. 
If you attach a broadhead and hit a deer at a distance where the arrow tail wag is at its highest peak you get less penetration. There is a point of diminishing returns. Arrows in 12 to maybe 16 percent foc seem to fall right in the sweet spot. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> In regards to indexing
> 
> When I have tested arrows for spine consistency and you get literally no movement on the needle to index a particular way, I do find the need to nock tune more with those vs shafts that have tight tolerances but still have a noticeable reading when testing spine variances.
> 
> Now, this leads me to believe it is more than just indexing to the run out and indeed may be proof there is a stiff plane reading.
> 
> Just something to chew on
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


On the arrows I see no run out. I'm going to see if Harvey will bring over a 1/10 indicator.


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> I believe Shane would be correct. Super high foc makes for terrible tail wagging flight in windy conditions at distance. If you attach a broadhead and hit a deer at a distance where the arrow tail wag is at its highest peak you get less penetration
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


That is completly wrong from the 1000's of hours tested and over 5700 animals killed. The higher the foc. The less the arrow will whip on impact. So you have better penetration. This has been proven countless of times. That whip was coined impact paradox. Even though that's not what paradox is. It was for people to understand. Again one of the termonolgy' sin archery that really needs to be changed.


----------



## enewman

Let's talk about the weight just a bit this get off. This is wrong post for this. 

When you put more weight up,front of an arrow what have you done. Do to the archery world we say it makes the arrow weaker. This is incorrect. Static spine never changes. What it does do is change the dynamic reaction. It causes the arrow to bend more. More force to get the tip to move. So nock move's further before arrow starts to move. Now opposite happens on impact. When the arrow makes impact with a heavy tip there is not enough force on the nock end to cause the arrow to bend. So it has less bend so better penetration. If you have less penetration with a high foc then It's tuning.


----------



## swbuckmaster

enewman said:


> That is completly wrong from the 1000's of hours tested and over 5700 animals killed. The higher the foc. The less the arrow will whip on impact. So you have better penetration. This has been proven countless of times.


The only way you get less whip on impact with a higher point weight is stepping up the spine stiffness. You simply cannot attach a heavy point to a noodle arrow. 



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

Tail high reaction would equate to less energy transfer even with a high FOC. From my testing there does seem to be a point that you can have to much. Now, I am only referring to a perfect tune, clean flight at any given distance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> The only way you get less whip on impact with a higher point weight is stepping up the spine stiffness. You simply cannot attach a heavy point to a noodle arrow.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Yes you can not just add weight. I would assume most know that. You still have to have the correct spine for the tip and tune. But you also have to now that adding tip,weight moves the front node closer to the tip. This means the flex point is also closer to the tip. This makes the back half of arrow recover faster. Again this is the dynamic reaction of an arrow. 

Building efoc arrows is a game changer. Tuning is different to a small degree. Spine picking is also not the same. Programs are done by calculations. They cannot show you the dynamics that is happening.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Tail high reaction would equate to less energy transfer even with a high FOC. From my testing there does seem to be a point that you can have to much. Now, I am only referring to a perfect tune, clean flight at any given distance.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And this is what I'm testing. I very well find that with this amount of foc I may be limited to the distance I can shoot. Not from the weight but by the flight if your correct.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

bplayer405 said:


> Has anyone taken a dozen arrows tuned by only shooting and turning nocks and tested them by a ram or flo to see if the index would be the same?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


There is no better way to tune arrows then on the bow they will be shot from. If you do this you can use a RAM to get you in the ball park but it is not needed.


----------



## ontarget7

bplayer405 said:


> Has anyone taken a dozen arrows tuned by only shooting and turning nocks and tested them by a ram or flo to see if the index would be the same?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Yes sir, I have many times and this can get very in depth and the reason why I choose the settings I do. 

For instance, if you took one arrow and tuned to it, not knowing the stiff plane reading and where it was located. Say it happened to be stiff plane to the 3 or 9 o'clock position. This would more than likely require more pre lean in the top cam, a centershot off the normal range or possibly cause one to shim and swap spacers to get it to tune with bareshafts. 

Now take that same arrow and without knowing it, the stiff plane is at 12 o'clock. This will more than likely keep centershot within reason, pre lean within reason and less the need for swapping cam spacers. 

After you learn a happy medium for tune setting with a particular bow or bows, to get clean bareshaft results, you can actually begin to determine where the stiff plane reading on the arrow is just by the settings it's taking to tune. 

I have been bareshaft tuning for quite some time and have tested this myself by grabbing a dozen shafts and nock tuning them. First I start with the tune settings I know already work with the particular bow in question. Then I take a bareshaft and test it out, making only small tweaks to the tune and turning the nock in the process to see how it reacts. While doing this, always keep in mind where nock height, centershot and pre lean are at. Once I have clean flight with bareshaft on that arrow, I go to the next and turn nocks until all fly the same. 

After all this, I then take that same bunch of shafts and test them on the RAM. 95% of the time I have done this the stiff plane is usually in the 12 o'clock position. 

So in my case, I would say yes, you can be very accurate with determining the stiff plane just by where the tune settings end up.


----------



## GRIMWALD

bplayer405 said:


> I've followed this post since it started because I was wanting to learn about better arrow flight and accuracy. Learned a lot about it. There's obviously different methods and means of achieving the same or similar result. I don't have a ram or flo tester so I tried turning nocks and shooting through paper. I can attest to the improvement I've seen. In the original post the question was asked about how someone knows if their doing their part testing this way, results is my answer. My groups have tightened up dramatically. I now shoot 3" groups at 50 yds with my hunting rig, when they were 6" or larger before.
> 
> Has anyone taken a dozen arrows tuned by only shooting and turning nocks and tested them by a ram or flo to see if the index would be the same?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I have done extensive test with all three devices, my preference is for F.L.O.(this doesn't mean it should be yours). I have never been able to get better than an 80% success rate with my Ram clone. The other guys seem to be getting far better results.
This question also brings up another point of contention, it is a fairly hot and in my opinion undecided point so with the original poster's (ontarget7) indulgence. I will put the point forth, because it does have some bearing on all of our results.
The issue is spine orientation, I am pretty sure, most put their cock vane over the spine designation and the cock vane is positioned vertical, parallel with the string.
I have taken a different route, I index the neutral plane. Now, technically, by indexing the neutral plane I am still indexing the spine. There are reason for my choice, they are just my opinion and only my opinion. 
I also don't just assume all that bows shoot the same with the spine in the vertical position. From testing, my bow shoots best, with the neutral plane vertical. I am however, not stead fast in predetermining this position for all bows. 
Once all of my shaft testing is done, I will take a random arrow and shoot it through which ever bow I have built the arrows for. This is essentially the only time I nock tune a bare shaft arrow. Wherever that particular bow shoots that particular arrow, is were I align the rest of the shafts. This sometimes equates to the spine being in other places than vertical.
From a purely manufacturing standpoint, this method isn't feasible but it is still a point of contention with us DIY'ers.


GRIM

Dang Shane beat me to it !!!! LOL!!!!


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> I have done extensive test with all three devices, my preference is for F.L.O.(this doesn't mean it should be yours). I have never been able to get better than an 80% success rate with my Ram clone. The other guys seem to be getting far better results.
> This question also brings up another point of contention, it is a fairly hot and in my opinion undecided point so with the original poster's (ontarget7) indulgence. I will put the point forth, because it does have some bearing on all of our results.
> The issue is spine orientation, I am pretty sure, most put their cock vane over the spine designation and the cock vane is positioned vertical, parallel with the string.
> I have taken a different route, I index the neutral plane. Now, technically, by indexing the neutral plane I am still indexing the spine. There are reason for my choice, they are just my opinion and only my opinion.
> I also don't just assume all that bows shoot the same with the spine in the vertical position. From testing, my bow shoots best, with the neutral plane vertical. I am however, not stead fast in predetermining this position for all bows.
> Once all of my shaft testing is done, I will take a random arrow and shoot it through which ever bow I have built the arrows for. This is essentially the only time I nock tune a bare shaft arrow. Wherever that particular bow shoots that particular arrow, is were I align the rest of the shafts. This sometimes equates to the spine being in other places than vertical.
> From a purely manufacturing standpoint, this method isn't feasible but it is still a point of contention with us DIY'ers.
> 
> 
> GRIM
> 
> Dang Shane beat me to it !!!! LOL!!!!


Your finding on the neutral plane I have only preferred when I have issues with a Whisker Biscuit style rest. These seem to do better when stiff plane is 3 or 9 o'clock, which would be more 12 o'clock for your neutral plane. 

90% of the time with other rest I find the 12 o'clock position to provide the happy medium range you might say for tune settings. Now with Hoyts cam 1/2 system the past couple years I have found when tuning and if the bow has a tendency to tune bottom cam hitting first the stiff plane down does help with getting more cam rotation in the top cam so they at least hit at the same time.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Your finding on the neutral plane I have only preferred when I have issues with a Whisker Biscuit style rest. These seem to do better when stiff plane is 3 or 9 o'clock, which would be more 12 o'clock for your neutral plane.
> 
> 90% of the time with other rest I find the 12 o'clock position to provide the happy medium range you might say for tune settings. Now with Hoyts cam 1/2 system the past couple years I have found when tuning and if the bow has a tendency to tune bottom cam hitting first the stiff plane down does help with getting more cam rotation in the top cam so they at least hit at the same time.


See this comes from having exposure to a larger range of equipment, I have, "Maybe" tuned 6-8 different styles of bows and none, are more current than 5-6 years old.
I will still test each bow individually because I simply have to. 
I have to drive an hour an a half to the nearest archery shop and they will only have 3 different bowsand a hand full of blank shafts. If I am early enough in the season, I may even have a decent supply of broadheads to choose from. 
Thank goodness for the internet now!!!!


GRIM 

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Shane. Let's look at your last statement. You said your placing stiff plane down on Hoyt's. The stiff plane is 180 through the arrow. If it's a 12:00 then it's at 6:00. It's the same point. 

Jerry has that picture he post. I'll see if I can find it. It is the way stiff and neutral plane is in a shaft.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Shane. Let's look at your last statement. You said your placing stiff plane down on Hoyt's. The stiff plane is 180 through the arrow. If it's a 12:00 then it's at 6:00. It's the same point.
> 
> Jerry has that picture he post. I'll see if I can find it. It is the way stiff and neutral plane is in a shaft.


This is why I don't believe in the 180* stiff to stiff thing on arrows [emoji6]

Just to clarify, it's not all Hoyts, just the past couple years when you get some that want the bottom to hit first. 

Not the same point and can definitely get a different reaction


----------



## ontarget7

ontarget7 said:


> This is why I don't believe in the 180* stiff to stiff thing on arrows [emoji6]
> 
> Just to clarify, it's not all Hoyts, just the past couple years when you get some that want the bottom to hit first.
> 
> Not the same point and can definitely get a different reaction


When I test and how I test, wrong or right technically speaking aside, but very repeatable. I only have one stiff plane reading on the RAM


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> When I test and how I test, wrong or right technically speaking aside, but very repeatable. I only have one stiff plane reading on the RAM


I don't disagree on how you tune. I'm completly with you. But. This is part of my problem with what we keep,saying. If we are truly finding the stiff plane. And the stiff plane is doing what we think it is doing. Then it would shoot the same at 12 or 6. This are the things we need to work out.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> I don't disagree on how you tune. I'm completly with you. But. This is part of my problem with what we keep,saying. If we are truly finding the stiff plane. And the stiff plane is doing what we think it is doing. Then it would shoot the same at 12 or 6. This are the things we need to work out.


I will let you guys work all that out. The only thing that's important for me is perfect flight, since in that quest, you find the most forgiveness. 

It's a lot easier to explain the readings on a RAM weak, neutral, stiff etc. 

The readings on the RAM where it peaks at the most clockwise direction of the needle is the stiff plane.

The weak plane would be the needle to reach its farthest point in a counterclockwise direction. 

The two neutral points will have the same readings twice and generally are 180* from one to another on the RAM. 

Whether this is technically speaking wrong or right, does not concern me. 
It relates to others when discussing it very easy and the best part, I find it very repeatable. 

Until we have another device that is better and can be easily comprehended to the masses, I'm rolling with what we got. 

I don't want to get to the point you have to have a masters degree to comprehend it. Always want to keep things as easy as possible.


----------



## GRIMWALD

I think I may have found a way to describe what some are seeing with their Ram spine finders and maybe, even with Jerry's frequency meter.

If you were to take a cross section of an asymmetrical shaft, it would look like an ellipse. If the spine was horizontal, the neutral plane was vertical. this would give clear and uniform measurements 180 degrees apart from each plane.

Now if in that cross section, we added a seam or overlap. A bulge on the inside would be clearly in evidence and a common thought would suggest that this would indicate a clear spine and to a degree it does but the true spine is still horizontal. A Ram spine finder will certainly indicate this, especially if the added spine is greater than the true spine. 
The issue comes because, this added spine is not the only factor in determining true spine. What happens is when you add the seam or spine. The neutral plane shifts to a "neutral point between the two spines. 
Just for reference sake. The neutral plane shifts from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock position, to 10 o'clock and 4 o'clock (A neutral position between the two spines). By doing this, because the spine will "always" be at 90 degrees to the neutral plane. The true dynamic spine will also shift from the 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock position, to a more or less, the 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock position. This puts the true spine almost directly in the same plane as the added spine.
I hope this makes sense and more importantly better describes what many of you are describing with your Ram testing.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Shane 

I don't doubt you. You are proving part of my posting. 

We know from testing that there is a stiff plane and a neutral plane in shafts. We know from this it runs 180 across. Jerry post a picture of this all the time. It is a good example. But. If you can set an arrow at 12 and turn it 180 degree and have a different reaction. And I think you are doing just that. Then this proves even if we are finding The stiff plane or neutral plane. The dynamic reaction of an shaft being shot does not correlate with the dynamic test to find the stiff / neutral plane. 

What your seeing and proving is that even finding this point Dose not work on an arrow. The reason is because these test do not represent how an arrow reacts dynamiclly when being shot. 

When You use the ram you are finding a point on the shafts and making them match so they have all the same reaction when shot. Is this perfect. no we will never be able to see this. 

But what you are doing is proving my whole point I've been trying to teach. We are not finding a stiff plane with the ram. But we are finding a point we can take advantage of. It also,shows that these two planes while they work for golf clubs does not work for arrows.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> I will let you guys work all that out. The only thing that's important for me is perfect flight, since in that quest, you find the most forgiveness.
> 
> It's a lot easier to explain the readings on a RAM weak, neutral, stiff etc.
> 
> The readings on the RAM where it peaks at the most clockwise direction of the needle is the stiff plane.
> 
> The weak plane would be the needle to reach its farthest point in a counterclockwise direction.
> 
> The two neutral points will have the same readings twice and generally are 180* from one to another on the RAM.
> 
> Whether this is technically speaking wrong or right, does not concern me.
> It relates to others when discussing it very easy and the best part, I find it very repeatable.
> 
> Until we have another device that is better and can be easily comprehended to the masses, I'm rolling with what we got.
> 
> I don't want to get to the point you have to have a masters degree to comprehend it. Always want to keep things as easy as possible.


Your first 5 lines is what run out is. Nothing more. 

And yes you can keep using this for building that perfect flight. But you see saying what your finding makes it easy to understand. For me it's difficult because the termonolgy is 100% incorrect. The only way to see these planes is with a flo or freq tester. The ram cannot find this. 

If we are going to teach then we need to teach correctly. Not teach it because it's easy to understand.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Your first 5 lines is what run out is. Nothing more.
> 
> And yes you can keep using this for building that perfect flight. But you see saying what your finding makes it easy to understand. For me it's difficult because the termonolgy is 100% incorrect. The only way to see these planes is with a flo or freq tester. The ram cannot find this.
> 
> If we are going to teach then we need to teach correctly. Not teach it because it's easy to understand.


I'm aware that this is runout. 

So now please index runout. What I will now get is guys asking how to index runout. Well you index it to the stiffest reading you get on the RAM [emoji848]


For what it's worth, there is a whole lot of people that find it easy. Have yet to have one that gets confused


----------



## ontarget7

This brings back the question. If the stiff plane reading/runout are that consistent for results and this has no correlation to the actual stiff plane that is 180* from one another, that may very from shaft to shaft on location, why does it not show up in inconsistencies when tuning with a bareshaft ? Does this mean the actual stiff plane means nothing and has no benefit ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> I'm aware that this is runout.
> 
> So now please index runout. What I will now get is guys asking how to index runout. Well you index it to the stiffest reading you get on the RAM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, there is a whole lot of people that find it easy. Have yet to have one that gets confused


Ok. I see this. Then since there is really only a few of us on here talking About it. Then let's see if we can all get on same page and call it the same. 

But I think we need to leave out plane or spine. Just my opinion.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> This brings back the question. If the stiff plane reading/runout are that consistent for results and this has no correlation to the actual stiff plane that is 180* from one another, that may very from shaft to shaft on location, why does it not show up in inconsistencies when tuning with a bareshaft ? Does this mean the actual stiff plane means nothing and has no benefit ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It certainly has meaning, it is part of the shaft and all of the forces of the shaft need to be taken into consideration and it may show up in bare shaft tuning but we attribute it to something else if we aren't looking for it.
This is why I test for the neutral plane, is it more accurate, don't know. The only mitigating factor that most need to be worried about, is the final result. If you are getting the results you need, then simply continue to do as is, until they don't. 
The biggest elephant in the room, is as enewman points out, half learning something just because it is easier can bite you latter on.
Measuring something accurately but wrong, is still wrong, even when that information coincides with what you are actually looking for, 80-90% of the time.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

I'm referring to no meaning in relation to indexing. If this change and has no correlation to runout, changing in location it would show up in a bareshaft. So for instance, I index all shafts to runout  and perfect results. Well with the same results the actual true stiff plane varies on each shaft but you still end up with perfect results ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> I'm referring to no meaning in relation to indexing. If this change and has no correlation to runout, changing in location it would show up in a bareshaft. So for instance, I index all shafts to runout  and perfect results. Well with the same results the actual true stiff plane varies on each shaft but you still end up with perfect results ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I believe it's that run out our runs the stiff and neutral plane. And the two planes may mean nothing for what we need. But not sure that is correct way to say it.


----------



## enewman

Shane. Still got a little tuning. But here is the 28.5% at 40 yards


----------



## enewman

Here at 50


----------



## ontarget7

Very nice ! 
That is fletched thou
Now take a bareshaft and shoot 20 yards 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## texasagg92

Can anyone quantify the benefit of indexing the arrow vs grouping? For example is it 0.5" at 50 yards or 4"?

I'm already drinking the kool aid and will be getting my next order of arrows from Jerry already indexed (his prices were cheaper than what I could find on ebay). But I am curious with all of the testing mentioned what is the correlation to grouping vs indexing.


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> I'm referring to no meaning in relation to indexing. If this change and has no correlation to runout, changing in location it would show up in a bareshaft. So for instance, I index all shafts to runout  and perfect results. Well with the same results the actual true stiff plane varies on each shaft but you still end up with perfect results ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


See that again falls into the yes and no. Yes it matters but we may not be able to accurately perceive the benefits.
If our shafts were 3' feet in diameter, there would be a definite description. When dealing with a shaft that is only 1/4" in diameter, it is much harder to perceive of the difference when the two spine are only separated by a 1/16" of an inch. 
Jerry's frequency meter may be able to tell the difference but it may only be a few cycles per minute, from one to the other.

This is why I am not convinced that a frequency meter is for home use. I don't like the Ram and it's clones but Jerry proves on a daily basis, that the Ram can be used for the vast majority of archers.
Until other methods are developed that is. LOL!!!!!!

GRIM


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Very nice !
> That is fletched thou
> Now take a bareshaft and shoot 20 yards
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Still need a little tuning. But may be me also.


----------



## GRIMWALD

texasagg92 said:


> Can anyone quantify the benefit of indexing the arrow vs grouping? For example is it 0.5" at 50 yards or 4"?
> 
> I'm already drinking the kool aid and will be getting my next order of arrows from Jerry already indexed (his prices were cheaper than what I could find on ebay). But I am curious with all of the testing mentioned what is the correlation to grouping vs indexing.


It is probably more quantifiable as a time saver as opposed to accuracy. 
If you were to hang out in the crossbow section, they routinely thank Jerry for his arrows when they can shoot 2"groups out past 100 yards repeatedly. Not only from session to session but from day to day.

GRIM


----------



## skynight

texasagg92 said:


> Can anyone quantify the benefit of indexing the arrow vs grouping? For example is it 0.5" at 50 yards or 4"?
> 
> I'm already drinking the kool aid and will be getting my next order of arrows from Jerry already indexed (his prices were cheaper than what I could find on ebay). But I am curious with all of the testing mentioned what is the correlation to grouping vs indexing.


I've taken a dozen bare shafts from 1/2" group to one hole at 20 yards nock turning using a hooter shooter.
I only have 11 yards at home. Taking the HS to the range is an enormous PIA. What I do now is build the shaft on OT2, index on the RAM and shoot through paper with the HS to check for identical tears. Then I fletch them up.


----------



## Etheis

GRIMWALD said:


> See that again falls into the yes and no. Yes it matters but we may not be able to accurately perceive the benefits.
> If our shafts were 3' feet in diameter, there would be a definite description. When dealing with a shaft that is only 1/4" in diameter, it is much harder to perceive of the difference when the two spine are only separated by a 1/16" of an inch.
> Jerry's frequency meter may be able to tell the difference but it may only be a few cycles per minute, from one to the other.
> 
> This is why I am not convinced that a frequency meter is for home use. I don't like the Ram and it's clones but Jerry proves on a daily basis, that the Ram can be used for the vast majority of archers.
> Until other methods are developed that is. LOL!!!!!!
> 
> GRIM


A frequency meter once used is quite the simple machine. I bought mine to use at the shop, but mostly use it for home use since the vast majority of archers don't know the benefits or have even heard of indexing or even turning nocks to group tune


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Still need a little tuning. But may be me also.


Nice 

Now do the same arrow at 6 feet bareshaft


----------



## enewman

Ok 6 ft. Little high. So this may be where we were talking bout how I tuned at 20 yards.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Ok 6 ft. Little high. So this may be where we were talking bout how I tuned at 20 yards.



Yep, I have seen the same thing, aside from lateral, I just wanted to see the vertical. 

This is the part that can be a pain to get a perfect balance when going to the EFOC. Now grant it, might not matter to a hill of beans to some. I'm just anal on perfect flight/tune. 
It seems when I work it out up close with a bareshaft it will worsen it at 20 yards and vise versa. Then depending on what cams, the cam synch seems to be compromised either to much rotation on top or bottom. 

Good job thou, at 28%


----------



## enewman

Ok so should I worry at 6 ft. 

I will start over at six and work back again.


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Ok so should I worry at 6 ft.
> 
> I will start over at six and work back again.


I'm sure your Broadheads fly great so I wouldn't sweat it. 

Just something about that tail high effect when you go to EFOC


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> I'm sure your Broadheads fly great so I wouldn't sweat it.
> 
> Just something about that tail high effect when you go to EFOC


At 20. But today was first with this much foc at longer distance. Not going to make 100 yards with this arrow


----------



## mietts97

Buy good arrows and you wont need to spine index.... A weak spine in any part is the mark of a poorly made arrow.


----------



## ontarget7

Depending on your ability you will definitely see a difference in indexing even good arrows


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

Etheis said:


> A frequency meter once used is quite the simple machine. I bought mine to use at the shop, but mostly use it for home use since the vast majority of archers don't know the benefits or have even heard of indexing or even turning nocks to group tune


Etheis, 
I hesitate to broach this subject, I usually pester Jerry with these little brain teasers but I have already asked so many of Jerry, I think he is ready to tell me to buy my own frequency meter.
It is a little off topic but Jerry and enewman mentioned it(sort of), so it sparked a memory of a topic I had mentioned to Jerry a few years ago but never pursued.

In the golf industry they make shaft parings by a term of "feel", the idea is to keep all of the shafts in a set so as to have the same feel. They do this by maintaining a certain frequency range from the longest driver, to the shortest wedge.
I am curious if you could take a shaft. Like a fat boy shaft, at a specific frequency and another shaft from the other spectrum, like a micro shaft. If you were to alter the lengths of one or both shafts, to a similar frequency, would they also shoot in a similar fashion.
I don't know if it is even possible but it is conceivable, that buy altering the lengths of the shafts, you could increase or decrease the spine value (aka frequency) enough that we could shoot the different arrows, in the same shooting session. Depending on the wind or weather and perhaps even at different distances a particular shaft style may perform better during a target match or more likely during a 3D match. 
If it is possible, it could be done with a lot of trial and error but aligning them with a frequency meter, would be considerably less time consuming. 

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Grim are you talking about matching by freq. in other words say one read 250 and another read 255. Trim the one till it reads 250


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Grim are you talking about matching by freq. in other words say one read 250 and another read 255. Trim the one till it reads 250


Essentially yes but I am not sure just cutting would be enough, At some point FOC may come into play so tip weight may be a deciding factor.

GRIM


----------



## skynight

GRIMWALD said:


> Etheis,
> I hesitate to broach this subject, I usually pester Jerry with these little brain teasers but I have already asked so many of Jerry, I think he is ready to tell me to buy my own frequency meter.
> It is a little off topic but Jerry and enewman mentioned it(sort of), so it sparked a memory of a topic I had mentioned to Jerry a few years ago but never pursued.
> 
> In the golf industry they make shaft parings by a term of "feel", the idea is to keep all of the shafts in a set so as to have the same feel. They do this by maintaining a certain frequency range from the longest driver, to the shortest wedge.
> I am curious if you could take a shaft. Like a fat boy shaft, at a specific frequency and another shaft from the other spectrum, like a micro shaft. If you were to alter the lengths of one or both shafts, to a similar frequency, would they also shoot in a similar fashion.
> I don't know if it is even possible but it is conceivable, that buy altering the lengths of the shafts, you could increase or decrease the spine value (aka frequency) enough that we could shoot the different arrows, in the same shooting session. Depending on the wind or weather and perhaps even at different distances a particular shaft style may perform better during a target match or more likely during a 3D match.
> If it is possible, it could be done with a lot of trial and error but aligning them with a frequency meter, would be considerably less time consuming.
> 
> GRIM


I doubt this is possible. The tune will change just from the diameter of the arrow, and then there is arrow weight as well.


----------



## GRIMWALD

skynight said:


> I doubt this is possible. The tune will change just from the diameter of the arrow, and then there is arrow weight as well.


Normally I would agree but as the golf industry puts it, if the arrows have the same "feel" will they react to the bow in a similar manor?


GRIM

More importantly would anyone really desire this? LOL!!!!!!


----------



## enewman

Harvey and I have been talking about this for awhile. But we where talking about shoot and cut and match. But I think that is talking it pretty far. Fletching do a lot. And I know I can't shoot good enough to,tell if 1/4 inch would make a difference


----------



## GRIMWALD

skynight said:


> I doubt this is possible. The tune will change just from the diameter of the arrow, and then there is arrow weight as well.


You are correct, after sleeping on the question, I remembered why I didn't pursue it the first time.
While it is possible to maintain similar trajectory, similar is not the same as exact. Especially when there are easier ways of using different arrows with the same bow. 
For instance, with today's sights, swapping out to a second sight housing and a few practice shots to confirm accuracy, will be much easier to accomplish. 

Hopefully BouBou has moved on or he may tell me I need a timeout in the "Mental masturbation corner". LOL!!!!

GRIM


----------



## Boubou

GRIMWALD said:


> You are correct, after sleeping on the question, I remembered why I didn't pursue it the first time.
> While it is possible to maintain similar trajectory, similar is not the same as exact. Especially when there are easier ways of using different arrows with the same bow.
> For instance, with today's sights, swapping out to a second sight housing and a few practice shots to confirm accuracy, will be much easier to accomplish.
> 
> Hopefully BouBou has moved on or he may tell me I need a timeout in the "Mental masturbation corner". LOL!!!!
> 
> GRIM


I am watching you!!!!!!!!!
How about a 2 sight tape sight?


----------



## enewman

Grim I see now what your doing. Little slow. 

Yes you can do what your saying. I have tuned to one arrow say 550 gn with 250 gn tip. Then a 450 gn arrow with a 125 gn. You have to tune the arrow to the bow. Is it worth no. Lots of work. But for short shots 30 yards or less. It can be done just a little work. 

I change arrow weight by what animal I'm hunting. Or by distance. If I'm going goat/sheep hunting I don't need a lot of weight plus we shoot long distance when hunting in the hill country. So I just retune.


----------



## enewman

Boubou said:


> I am watching you!!!!!!!!!
> How about a 2 sight tape sight?


Yes dosent hha have a sight this year you just replace the indicator for what ever arrow your shooting


----------



## GRIMWALD

Boubou said:


> I am watching you!!!!!!!!!
> How about a 2 sight tape sight?


I think that qualifies as "BUSTED"

LOL!!!


GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> Yes dosent hha have a sight this year you just replace the indicator for what ever arrow your shooting


Just replace the round wheel. The sight comes with 2 wheels for sight tapes. Awesome sight, I have two of them [emoji1360]

HHA Optimizer Lite King Pin TE


----------



## Etheis

GRIMWALD said:


> Etheis,
> I hesitate to broach this subject, I usually pester Jerry with these little brain teasers but I have already asked so many of Jerry, I think he is ready to tell me to buy my own frequency meter.
> It is a little off topic but Jerry and enewman mentioned it(sort of), so it sparked a memory of a topic I had mentioned to Jerry a few years ago but never pursued.
> 
> In the golf industry they make shaft parings by a term of "feel", the idea is to keep all of the shafts in a set so as to have the same feel. They do this by maintaining a certain frequency range from the longest driver, to the shortest wedge.
> I am curious if you could take a shaft. Like a fat boy shaft, at a specific frequency and another shaft from the other spectrum, like a micro shaft. If you were to alter the lengths of one or both shafts, to a similar frequency, would they also shoot in a similar fashion.
> I don't know if it is even possible but it is conceivable, that buy altering the lengths of the shafts, you could increase or decrease the spine value (aka frequency) enough that we could shoot the different arrows, in the same shooting session. Depending on the wind or weather and perhaps even at different distances a particular shaft style may perform better during a target match or more likely during a 3D match.
> If it is possible, it could be done with a lot of trial and error but aligning them with a frequency meter, would be considerably less time consuming.
> 
> GRIM


Wow, sorry GRIM I didn't get back sooner looks like your question has been answered by the other experts in the thread. But yes you can defientitely match frequency values of arrows of a different diameters by cutting and manipulation. Now tip weight comes in to play I always cut my shafts and int stall insert and sometimes the tip, but the only thing that really changes is the value like stated. So yes you could easily match values I would assume. I've never really tested it, but in theory it can work. Guess I will give it a go. I need a different test weight to do bigger series shafts, but I can do micro all the way to standard diameter shafts with my test weight now.

I've also had the thought of getting the pneumatic clamp, so it may be time to give MR. Kaufman a call.
On another note, don't hesitate to PM me in regards to any questions you may have regarding the freq and I will do my best to help.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Etheis said:


> Wow, sorry GRIM I didn't get back sooner looks like your question has been answered by the other experts in the thread. But yes you can defientitely match frequency values of arrows of a different diameters by cutting and manipulation. Now tip weight comes in to play I always cut my shafts and int stall insert and sometimes the tip, but the only thing that really changes is the value like stated. So yes you could easily match values I would assume. I've never really tested it, but in theory it can work. Guess I will give it a go. I need a different test weight to do bigger series shafts, but I can do micro all the way to standard diameter shafts with my test weight now.
> 
> I've also had the thought of getting the pneumatic clamp, so it may be time to give MR. Kaufman a call.
> On another note, don't hesitate to PM me in regards to any questions you may have regarding the freq and I will do my best to help.


Thank you for the kind offer, it is appreciated. 
All of the recent arrow talk, has started an itch to start building again but it will have to wait until later this year. I have been invited to go panning for Gold this summer and I think I am going to accept.

If you do decide to upgrade your clamp. When Jerry bought his, he purchased two of them, I think he sold the second one but it might be beneficial to know which one he sold and which one he kept and why.

GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> Thank you for the kind offer, it is appreciated.
> All of the recent arrow talk, has started an itch to start building again but it will have to wait until later this year. I have been invited to go panning for Gold this summer and I think I am going to accept.
> 
> If you do decide to upgrade your clamp. When Jerry bought his, he purchased two of them, I think he sold the second one but it might be beneficial to know which one he sold and which one he kept and why.
> 
> GRIM


When I had the frequency analyzers made they were both frequency analyzers and pneumatic clamps are identical. 

I sold one to a friend on crossbow nation. 

In reference to the discussion on frequency matching fat and standard shafts to each other. Yes it can be done but there is no reason to do that, you still have to many differences in shaft diameter and bow setup, IMO it would be a waste of time and buys you nothing

Also there is no reason to frequency match arrows by finding a target frequency then cutting the other arrows to make them match frequency. 

On a side not about frequency matching, the neutral plane of the arrows is where the matching should be done. I had stated working on what would be a good high and low variance to use as a guideline for frequency matching. 

Some have said the frequency that is obtained is not the same using a frequency analyzer as an arrow that is in dynamic flight. This is correct but again we need to remember carbon tubes have a stiff and neutral plane that when energy is applied will react the same on the analyzer that it does in flight so we can read them very accurately using a frequency meter. A tight frequency match will result in a tight frequency match during dynamic flight.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> When I had the frequency analyzers made they were both frequency analyzers and pneumatic clamps are identical.
> 
> I sold one to a friend on crossbow nation.
> 
> In reference to the discussion on frequency matching fat and standard shafts to each other. Yes it can be done but there is no reason to do that, you still have to many differences in shaft diameter and bow setup, IMO it would be a waste of time and buys you nothing
> 
> Also there is no reason to frequency match arrows by finding a target frequency then cutting the other arrows to make them match frequency.
> 
> On a side not about frequency matching, the neutral plane of the arrows is where the matching should be done. I had stated working on what would be a good high and low variance to use as a guideline for frequency matching.
> 
> Some have said the frequency that is obtained is not the same using a frequency analyzer as an arrow that is in dynamic flight. This is correct but again we need to remember carbon tubes have a stiff and neutral plane that when energy is applied will react the same on the analyzer that it does in flight so we can read them very accurately using a frequency meter. A tight frequency match will result in a tight frequency match during dynamic flight.



Got a question. How do you see that the arrow will react the same on the analyzer as it does it flight.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Got a question. How do you see that the arrow will react the same on the analyzer as it does it flight.


Eric, 

When an arrow is placed on a frequency analyzer and forced into motion a stiff and neutral plane forms dynamically. When an arrow is shot from a bow the same stiff plane and neutral plane form dynamically. 

if you understand how the physics of how energy is handle dynamically by tubes, any tubes carbon, aluminum, fiberglass etc you understand that any time, every time energy is applied to any tube the tube handles that energy the exact same way 100% of the time. 

It does not matter if its a golf club, a fishing rod or an arrow. When energy is applied, does not matter if its a swing with the club, a cast with the rod or an arrow shot from a bow, all tubes form a stiff plane and neutral plane dynamically and the energy is expelled along the neutral plane on all tubes absolutely 100% the same exact way.

This is not my opinion, it is absolutely the truth and factual way energy is handled by any tube any time energy is applied in any form!

It does not matter if the golf club only flexes, the rod bends or the arrow oscillates the same stiff and neutral plane forms in all of these and energy is handled the same way in all of these every time!

I have been saying the exact same thing for the last 2 years

Eric, the word react is being looked at by you from a static point of view, I am looking at the word react from the dynamic handling of energy point of view.


----------



## enewman

Jerry 

I agree. And completely understand the stiff plane and neutral plane. Just thinking out loud here. We test by taking the tip and pull down and then release. This causes the arrow to flex up and down. If the count is say 250cps in one place and 255cps. 90 degree then yes we have found this stiff plane and neutral plane. 

Now when an arrow is shot. The arrow depending on the dynamics of the arrow is going to bend a certain amount. Hopefully it bends up. This is what we are trying to accomplished. To get the arrow to bend up and in the same direction. Say 12:00. If we don't have this we could be flexing at 11:00 12:00 or 13:00. But it's always going to go up. I would also say if we are not in the correct plane and I don't know which one is better the arrow could wobble from start to this max bend. 

Now the oscillation of the arrow is not going to start until the arrow is off the string. Or it should not. Now we are going to start to rotate. I believe do to this rotation it causes the arrow to flex like a (S). This now gives the arrow another flex point. It will now have a second harmonics. This is what the freq tester cannot test. 

Going to stop,here. Still just thinking.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Taking this a step further, it does not matter that golf manufactures align the stiff side to a certain orientation to handle the swing, the stiff and neutral planes are there handling the energy applied to the golf club tube is handled just like an arrow and a fishing rod does. 

It does not matter that the rod manufacture is orienting the rod so it has a strong back bone to handle fighting fish the energy applied to the fishing rod tube is handled just like the golf club and arrow. 

And last it does not matter that the archer is orienting the stiff plane to 12 and 6, placing the neutral plane to 9 and 3 to add consistency to arrow flight the stiff and neutral planes are handling the energy the exact same way as the golf club and the fishing rod.

Every time energy is applied to any tube in any form that tube form a stiff and neutral plane to handle the energy. We as golfer, fisherman or archers use the tubes in 3 completely different ways but the handling of the energy is exactly the same every time.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Jerry
> 
> I agree. And completely understand the stiff plane and neutral plane. Just thinking out loud here. We test by taking the tip and pull down and then release. This causes the arrow to flex up and down. If the count is say 250cps in one place and 255cps. 90 degree then yes we have found this stiff plane and neutral plane.
> 
> Now when an arrow is shot. The arrow depending on the dynamics of the arrow is going to bend a certain amount. Hopefully it bends up. This is what we are trying to accomplished. To get the arrow to bend up and in the same direction. Say 12:00. If we don't have this we could be flexing at 11:00 12:00 or 13:00. But it's always going to go up. I would also say if we are not in the correct plane and I don't know which one is better the arrow could wobble from start to this max bend.
> 
> Now the oscillation of the arrow is not going to start until the arrow is off the string. Or it should not. Now we are going to start to rotate. I believe do to this rotation it causes the arrow to flex like a (S). This now gives the arrow another flex point. It will now have a second harmonics. This is what the freq tester cannot test.
> 
> Going to stop,here. Still just thinking.


If we could force an arrow to oscillate like the string on a violin rather than how it oscillates through the air. It would not matter because the physics of dynamic energy transference is still the same. The stiff and neutral plane will always hand the energy the exact same way. The vehicle (golf club, fishing rod or arrow) are all different, the application of energy is different in all three but the handling of that energy is 100% of the time handled the exact same way dynamically


----------



## enewman

From all the reading the golf club is set up so the flo is with the swing. That is what keeps the head from a wobble when swung. 
So let's think about that. If flo can show the plane. But we don't know which one. This is why we need the freq tester. But if flo is what they look for and then flo is what we look for. Then why do we need to worry which plane it is. As long as we line up flo


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> From all the reading the golf club is set up so the flo is with the swing. That is what keeps the head from a wobble when swung.
> So let's think about that. If flo can show the plane. But we don't know which one. This is why we need the freq tester. But if flo is what they look for and then flo is what we look for. Then why do we need to worry which plane it is. As long as we line up flo


Realistically we don't "know" because not a lot of people are familiar with the methods being discussed. Ten years ago, I chose to align with the neutral plane because it is the most stable plane.
If you align with the stiff plane and because of rotation or some other outside force the shaft is forced out of flat line oscillation, it will seek the neutral plane. If the same were to happen to the neutral plane, it again will seek the neutral plane. Which it is already in or at least around it.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Realistically we don't "know" because not a lot of people are familiar with the methods being discussed. Ten years ago, I chose to align with the neutral plane because it is the most stable plane.
> If you align with the stiff plane and because of rotation or some other outside force the shaft is forced out of flat line oscillation, it will seek the neutral plane. If the same were to happen to the neutral plane, it again will seek the neutral plane. Which it is already in or at least around it.
> 
> GRIM


Going to play with this more. Just got to,get Harvey to finish the flo tester.


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> stiff and neutral plane will always hand the energy the exact same way.


Please explain this in relation to an arrow being shot out of a bow ? 

You are saying that the stiff and neutral plane will react the exact same way upon the release of the arrow ? 

This is saying that indexing to either would not matter and change bareshaft flight ?

Maybe I completely misunderstood so wanting to clarify


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Realistically we don't "know" because not a lot of people are familiar with the methods being discussed. Ten years ago, I chose to align with the neutral plane because it is the most stable plane.
> If you align with the stiff plane and because of rotation or some other outside force the shaft is forced out of flat line oscillation, it will seek the neutral plane. If the same were to happen to the neutral plane, it again will seek the neutral plane. Which it is already in or at least around it.
> 
> GRIM


Would you please explain this more ? Just not seeing it with bareshaft results. In other words, I don't see the bareshaft fighting anything when indexing stiff plane up


----------



## enewman

Shane

If you set up say 6 arrows stiff reading at 12:00 and tune the bow. Then you set this stiff reading say 9:00. Will they all still fly the same or do you have to retune. What I'm looking for is. Well they all still group no matter where you set the stiff reading.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> From all the reading the golf club is set up so the flo is with the swing. That is what keeps the head from a wobble when swung.
> So let's think about that. If flo can show the plane. But we don't know which one. This is why we need the freq tester. But if flo is what they look for and then flo is what we look for. Then why do we need to worry which plane it is. As long as we line up flo


No, because FLO is a static test you are using. If you could guarantee 100% of the time the FLO was the stiff plane, yes or if you could guarantee the FLO was the neutral plane yes but you cant it can be either. You cant take an inconsistent static test and add consistency to a dynamic transference of energy.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> No, because FLO is a static test you are using. If you could guarantee 100% of the time the FLO was the stiff plane, yes or if you could guarantee the FLO was the neutral plane yes but you cant it can be either. You cant take an inconsistent static test and add consistency to a dynamic transference of energy.


Ok you just confused me. You have always said flo was a dynamic test.

Let me get this your now saying you can't take an inconsistent static test and add consistency to a dynamic transfer of energy. 

from your statement then the ram, flo, and freq are inconsistent. So what are we doing them


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Would you please explain this more ? Just not seeing it with bareshaft results. In other words, I don't see the bareshaft fighting anything when indexing stiff plane up


The thing about indexing either of the planes, if you index one you automatically index the other. They will always be at 90 degrees to each other. In your case, your indexing mark is vertical, weather you have identified the true spine or not is irrelevant. Good result are good results, Jerry also indexes vertical and again obtains great results. 
I chose a different path but since one is dependent on the other, it amounts to the same thing. We just approach the end result differently. 
I probably should say not finding the true spine is irrelevant because it is, I know what you are doing and how you are doing it. Is your understanding of spine and neutral plane the same as mine, maybe but what ever you are doing is working. So even if you are re-writing the principles of physic or I don't actually comprehend what you are describing. What does it matter. If it is repeatable, repeat it.
Just be open minded and honest, our understanding of the things around us are always being changed and modified. 

GRIM 

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Then why can you get different result 180* from one to the other ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Then why can you get different result 180* from one to the other ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Different result how, in measuring with the Ram or in bare shaft flight?


GRIM


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Then why can you get different result 180* from one to the other ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your getting different results because the set up that everyone clams we are finding dosent work when the arrow is shot. Jerry keeps saying that no matter what the energy puts us in the stiff neutral lane. If it did then you would not see a defference. 

You are proving what I've been saying for along time The test we are using is fine for finding a starting point. And a place to tune. 

But that is it. An arrows dynamic reaction is not the same as the reaction we get with a flo or freq tester


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Please explain this in relation to an arrow being shot out of a bow ?
> 
> You are saying that the stiff and neutral plane will react the exact same way upon the release of the arrow ?
> 
> This is saying that indexing to either would not matter and change bareshaft flight ?
> 
> Maybe I completely misunderstood so wanting to clarify


No sir that is not what i am saying.

When we watch an arrow in flight, a golf club being swung or a fishing rod being bent fighting a fish we are seeing 3 different static results of 1 dynamic processing of energy.

The stiff plane in an arrow, the stiff plane in a golf and the stiff plane in a fishing rod all three react dynamically in the same way and that reaction is: 

A. The dynamic dominant stiff plane acts as a north and south pole forcing the energy applied to flow toward the middle of a tube
B. The dynamic neutral plane accepts and release the energy out along its plane

When this process happens within an arrow the arrow (tube) begins to flex and oscillate. 

The stiff plane has its job and the neutral plane has its job


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Different result how, in measuring with the Ram or in bare shaft flight?
> 
> 
> GRIM


Bareshaft flight


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> Then why can you get different result 180* from one to the other ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is easy, if we had a perfect arrow it would be the same but we don't. The natural bend or run out as eric refers to it is in one plane, if we reverse that it will change the end results. physical material can and will interfere with a dynamic action. if the physical material aka arrow was perfect then it would not matter you can the arrow 180 degrees away from the natural bend and it would tune the exact same way.


----------



## enewman

Is this not a prime example why people should buy the best arrows possible. Or at least stay away from .006


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> That is easy, if we had a perfect arrow it would be the same but we don't. The natural bend or run out as eric refers to it is in one plane, if we reverse that it will change the end results. physical material can and will interfere with a dynamic action. if the physical material aka arrow was perfect then it would not matter you can the arrow 180 degrees away from the natural bend and it would tune the exact same way.


Agreed ^^^^


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Bareshaft flight


You may simply not be located directly inline with the true spine, if you turn the nock either left or right a little you may find the when you rotate 180 degrees they will then be similar.
It is important to note that if you have either the true spine or the neutral plane vertical, by making just a quarter turn, the opposite plane is now vertical. 

GRIM


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> That is easy, if we had a perfect arrow it would be the same but we don't. The natural bend or run out as eric refers to it is in one plane, if we reverse that it will change the end results. physical material can and will interfere with a dynamic action. if the physical material aka arrow was perfect then it would not matter you can the arrow 180 degrees away from the natural bend and it would tune the exact same way.


I have a theory. When you test and compare run out to the freq tester is it some times or always in line with the stiff plane shown by the freq tester


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Your getting different results because the set up that everyone clams we are finding dosent work when the arrow is shot. Jerry keeps saying that no matter what the energy puts us in the stiff neutral lane. If it did then you would not see a defference.
> 
> You are proving what I've been saying for along time The test we are using is fine for finding a starting point. And a place to tune.
> 
> But that is it. An arrows dynamic reaction is not the same as the reaction we get with a flo or freq tester


The way the stiff plane reacts and the neutral plane reacts is always 100% of the time the same. The difference is the arrows composition. 

Lets apply your terminology and look at the run out. Lets call the static stiff point 0 we cant expect an arrow to perform the same shot with 0 at 1200 and then shot again with the opposite side of the stiff plane 180 at 1200 because the material arrow shaft is not perfect it has a positive run out at 0 and a negative run out at 180 degrees


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> I have a theory. When you test and compare run out to the freq tester is it some times or always in line with the stiff plane shown by the freq tester


you cant test run out with a frequency analyzer, the straightness or crookedness aka run out does not effect the dynamic effect of frequency. if you had a 200 spine arrow that was exactly 200 and absolutely straight and a 200 spine arrow with run out they would both have the same frequency.

This is why I have been saying do not confuse static testing with dynamic testing.

But i can tell you this the stiff plane, natural bend, residual bend or runout what ever you want to call it always in my testing has been the highest frequency


----------



## GRIMWALD

"want to call it always in my testing has been the highest frequency"

This is why the frequency meter is more reliable than bearing based spine finders, it's readings are not reliant on the shaft construction.
This is also why I only use FLO to fine tune the planes, it "WILL NOT" identify which ever plane I have found.


GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> "want to call it always in my testing has been the highest frequency"
> 
> This is why the frequency meter is more reliable than bearing based spine finders, it's readings are not reliant on the shaft construction.
> 
> GRIM


Bingo

The frequency analyzer will show you were the stiff plane is and the neutral plane is and there accurate frequencies but FLO is just like a needle valve pointing you to the precise location of dead center of the neutral plane or stiff plane which ever you prefer to use.


----------



## GRIMWALD

SouthShoreRat said:


> Bingo
> 
> The frequency analyzer will show you were the stiff plane is and the neutral plane is and there accurate frequencies but FLO is just like a needle valve pointing you to the precise location of dead center of the neutral plane or stiff plane which ever you prefer to use.


This correlates directly with my description of the asymmetrical shaft several pages above. Depending on the accuracy of the meter being used, there will be a variance of degrees to either side of the shafts true spine that it will read the with same frequency. This is why the natural bend or run-out or residual bend can read as the spine and still be accurate. If Jerry were to add a FLO laser into the mix, he would be able to tell exactly were the true spine is. The only obstacles are time and is there really a need for this amount of accuracy. For some maybe, for most no.

GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

The frequency analyzer is not going to give 360 different readings as you rotate and test an arrow at each degree on the shaft. It's going to give you only 2 different frequency readings. The opposing stiff frequency which will likely be the same frequency and the opposing neutral frequency which will likely be the same. Remember I have said many times dynamically an arrow is divided into 4 quadrants. 
Those of you just starting to look at frequency remember this, you can only test an arrow one or two times then it must rest for a time or you will fatigue the arrow and begin to get inaccurate readings.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

The reason I stated it's likely to be the same reading is even one test can effect a second test 180 degrees out a couple of tenths of a cycle due to heat build up


----------



## SouthShoreRat

I have posted this drawing up a number of times before but I believe this would be a good time to post it up again. 

The stiff plane, if oriented 12 and 6 would place the neutral plane @ 3 and 9. As energy is applied to the shaft that energy is directed toward the center of the shafts and out along the neutral plane. 


Here is the drawing modified to show a bit more clearly how frequency testing works. If some of you folks will remember I have said many times we have to forget the static variances we see when we statically test any tube. This is why, dynamically all of those deflection readings are non existent. 

Shane this is why indexing works to help with nock travel, the stiff plane resists it at a higher level then the neutral plane would 

Eric this is why the natural bend or run out as you call does not matter with respect to dynamic spine. 

However if run out or natural bend is too much it can interfere with the consistent flight of an arrow


----------



## enewman

Ok. A FREQ TESTER WILL NOT NOR CAN IT FIND THE RUN OUT ON A SHAFT. we all no this jerry. So stop trying to write things like this trying to prove that I'm confused. I'm trying to be nice trying to follow bwana advice here. But your making this difficult. 

I also ask please stop ignoring Some of my post that I ask a specific question about. When you do this it makes it look like you either don't know which is okay. This is why we are on here. To learn. Or it's because I'm right and you have gone to far into this and you can't turn around. 

In post 1568. You stated that flo was a static test. If it was a static test then freq also would be a static test. They are both use the same test set up. One uses a lazer to get the out come. One uses a count per sec reader. So make up your mind is it a dynamic or static. 

Let me answer for you, there dynamic. Why is it dynamic because we are applying energy to The shaft to get an out come. 

I like using the flo tester. That way I can put my D.A.M. on it and I have a starting point. But in all reality it means nothing. If you use a great arrow this mark is a waist of time and is a gimmick to make sales. People love gimmicks. You have have done a good job selling this gimmick. It gives people this warm fuzzy feeling. Hey look I now can shoot better. Haha. Wish it was true. 

But most of us can't afford them great arrows to hunt with. So we look for things to help us get the best flight we can out of the less expensive arrows. How do we know if our arrows or better or not. Easy shoot a bare shaft. Rotate the nock. If you get a change then it is the lesser of the two. Does this matter no. How do we fix. Easy we take a ram tester find the run out and set the D.A.M on the lest amount of indicator reading. As Shane said this is prolly easier to say the stiff reading. we set all the arrows to this and shoot. If any are out we turn the nock and fix. If we don't have a ram just shoot and tune. Or we can just buy them pre marked and hope you didn't miss the mark. But even if you did miss are we going to know. I doubt it. Most people cannot shoot that well and the ones that can don't buy there arrows made for them. They build them there selfs.


----------



## enewman

Jerry thanks for posting the pictures. I see you have made comments again with my name telling me something. Haha what your saying is what I have been saying the whole time. Keep it up. You are proving my point more and more. 

And your freq picture showing that the freq will be the same across from each other. No crap if it wasn't. Then all of this would be as useless as tits on a boar hog.


----------



## swbuckmaster

What i've got out of a
160 pages is:

1. Enewman has a huge ego problem. 

2. Flow testing or frequency testing will fatague your arrows.

3. Finding the run out or stiff side can tighten your groups.

5. Best way to tune or test arrows is by shooting them.

6. Enewman has an ego problem

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> What i've got out of a
> 160 pages is:
> 
> 1. Enewman has a huge ego problem.
> 
> 2. Flow testing or frequency testing will fatague your arrows.
> 
> 3. Finding the run out or stiff side can tighten your groups.
> 
> 5. Best way to tune or test arrows is by shooting them.
> 
> 6. Enewman has an ego problem
> G
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Haha yep. It has always been that way. This is way I'm at where I'm at in life. I don't set on my ass. My ego got me places in the military and in civilian life. I do not deny. But in the 160 pages you read. I've been teaching your number 3 and 5. So looks like your agreeing with my ego. Your welcome. Not sure what happen to 4. 

People do not get places in this world with out being aggressive.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Jerry thanks for posting the pictures. I see you have made comments again with my name telling me something. Haha what your saying is what I have been saying the whole time. Keep it up. You are proving my point more and more.
> 
> And your freq picture showing that the freq will be the same across from each other. No crap if it wasn't. Then all of this would be as useless as tits on a boar hog.


I have stayed nice since day one first because I'm a man that respects others. I have over looked your rants, i have overlooked you calling me a liar and a fraud. I may not agree with some opinions but I respect the person and their opinions. For the last two years since the first call you made to me telling me you would like me to explain arrow testing because you didn't know anything about it until today I have only presented the truth, the facts about testing statically and dynamically that were taught to me by people with the scientific knowledge of the subject. 
How about we just forget about the offer I made for you to call.

You have a nice day


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> I have stayed nice since day one first because I'm a man that respects others. I have over looked your rants, i have overlooked you calling me a liar and a fraud. I may not agree with some opinions but I respect the person and their opinions. For the last two years since the first call you made to me telling me you would like me to explain arrow testing because you didn't know anything about it until today I have only presented the truth, the facts about testing statically and dynamically that were taught to me by people with the scientific knowledge of the subject.
> How about we just forget about the offer I made for you to call.
> 
> You have a nice day


Jerry I have no reason to call you. Just keep up the good work. You keep proving what I'm showing. i see you still have not answered my questions.


----------



## andreaslundin

I have read all 64 pages and even though I preferred the first 30 before the bickering started I did enjoy it. Currently I do not index my arrows but I have found sometimes I have a few arrows which won't broadhead tune well. I do shoot these out to 60-70 m. I have also had brilliant arrows which I could shoot bareshaft and fletched out to 40 m. Alas this was not consistent so found this thread looking for information on indexing my next arrows which will be from a small Australian supplier rather than one of the major companies. If they don't stack up to my standards I will look at some Black eagle but they are roughly double the price due to the Australian dollar and shipping costs.

After reading this I think I will either buy a RAM or try to build one myself. I also found the information about the Hoyt bows liking the stiff side down as I shoot a number 2 cam z5 cam and found it to like bottom cam to hit first. Will play around. So thank you for the people who contributed to this thread.


----------



## OCHO505

So I have a question Jerry.... Do you find certain brands of arrows consistently test better tolerances with straightness and with spine? I guess the reason I ask is if its good to index, is it not even better to index arrows that are more consistent? So if this is the case (guessing it is) can you name what you would call the top 5 hunting arrow make and model and same with top 5 3D arrows.

I am looking more into this and have a few I have found but would like to hear from you since you work with sooo many different ones.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> I have posted this drawing up a number of times before but I believe this would be a good time to post it up again.
> 
> The stiff plane, if oriented 12 and 6 would place the neutral plane @ 3 and 9. As energy is applied to the shaft that energy is directed toward the center of the shafts and out along the neutral plane.
> 
> 
> Here is the drawing modified to show a bit more clearly how frequency testing works. If some of you folks will remember I have said many times we have to forget the static variances we see when we statically test any tube. This is why, dynamically all of those deflection readings are non existent.
> 
> Shane this is why indexing works to help with nock travel, the stiff plane resists it at a higher level then the neutral plane would
> 
> Eric this is why the natural bend or run out as you call does not matter with respect to dynamic spine.
> 
> However if run out or natural bend is too much it can interfere with the consistent flight of an arrow


I can completely relate to your findings ! Even thou I don't have all the equipment at my disposal, I have tested a whole lot of bareshaft flight over the years and it makes perfect sense, from the results I get. 

I see how the amount of runout when indexed could play a role at determining how a certain cam system would be synched for clean vertical nock travel. Whether the arc, you might say, is up or down the proper cam synch from one way to another would compensate for the slight change in reaction from one to another, to get clean vertical nock travel.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

andreaslundin said:


> I have read all 64 pages and even though I preferred the first 30 before the bickering started I did enjoy it. Currently I do not index my arrows but I have found sometimes I have a few arrows which won't broadhead tune well. I do shoot these out to 60-70 m. I have also had brilliant arrows which I could shoot bareshaft and fletched out to 40 m. Alas this was not consistent so found this thread looking for information on indexing my next arrows which will be from a small Australian supplier rather than one of the major companies. If they don't stack up to my standards I will look at some Black eagle but they are roughly double the price due to the Australian dollar and shipping costs.
> 
> After reading this I think I will either buy a RAM or try to build one myself. I also found the information about the Hoyt bows liking the stiff side down as I shoot a number 2 cam z5 cam and found it to like bottom cam to hit first. Will play around. So thank you for the people who contributed to this thread.


There are a lot of do it your self ideas on you tube. If you need any info feel free to PM me and I will answer any questions you have.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> I can completely relate to your findings ! Even thou I don't have all the equipment at my disposal, I have tested a whole lot of bareshaft flight over the years and it makes perfect sense, from the results I get.
> 
> I see how the amount of runout when indexed could play a role at determining how a certain cam system would be synched for clean vertical nock travel. Whether the arc, you might say, is up or down the proper cam synch from one way to another would compensate for the slight change in reaction from one to another, to get clean vertical nock travel.


Would you like for me to send you the frequency analyzer to use for a while. I no longer need it for what we are doing now, it has verified everything I have been taught. Down the road there may be some testing to do but not now.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

OCHO505 said:


> So I have a question Jerry.... Do you find certain brands of arrows consistently test better tolerances with straightness and with spine? I guess the reason I ask is if its good to index, is it not even better to index arrows that are more consistent? So if this is the case (guessing it is) can you name what you would call the top 5 hunting arrow make and model and same with top 5 3D arrows.
> 
> I am looking more into this and have a few I have found but would like to hear from you since you work with sooo many different ones.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Yes we find arrows like easton aluminum carbon shafts, fmjs, accs etc are very consistent. Most other easton arrows fall in the norm with most carbon arrows on the market. 

Sometimes you may get a set of carbon arrows that test great and sometimes the same companies arrows have wider variances. 

Some of the best all carbon are carbon express, carbon tech and black eagle 

The key is the indexing of course. Anytime you have any questions call or PM me and I would be happy to help you in any way i can.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> You keep proving what I'm showing.


 i see you still have not answered my questions.[/QUOTE]

You are a very funny guy



enewman said:


> I see you still have not answered my questions.


I figure since you are rewriting physics and and the dynamics of arrow flight you should be able to answer those questions for us. 

I will wait for your book to come out, heck I may even get you to sign it for me.


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Would you like for me to send you the frequency analyzer to use for a while. I no longer need it for what we are doing now, it has verified everything I have been taught. Down the road there may be some testing to do but not now.


I appreciate the offer ! 

Think I am on the same page due to the results I already get. To be honest, I don't even know how I could improve from my bareshaft results. I just think it would be wasted time at this point and less time actually sending arrows down range. 

Thanks


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> I appreciate the offer !
> 
> Think I am on the same page due to the results I already get. To be honest, I don't even know how I could improve from my bareshaft results. I just think it would be wasted time at this point and less time actually sending arrows down range.
> 
> Thanks


Your process is the best way to test, I just thought it would allow you to see how it works. If you ever change your mind let me know


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Your process is the best way to test, I just thought it would allow you to see how it works. If you ever change your mind let me know


When I get some time, I might take you up on that 

Thanks !!!


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> i see you still have not answered my questions.


You are a very funny guy



I figure since you are rewriting physics and and the dynamics of arrow flight you should be able to answer those questions for us. 

I will wait for your book to come out, heck I may even get you to sign it for me.[/QUOTE]

I see you haven't answered my question. Post 1568. You wrote a flo is a static tester. It's not. There I answered it for you. 

And I'm trying to change physics. Now that one is funny. You do know there are more then one rule in physics.

But I well send you a copy of my new book when done. And yes I will sign it


----------



## Bwana

enewman said:


> Haha yep. It has always been that way. This is way I'm at where I'm at in life. I don't set on my ass. My ego got me places in the military and in civilian life. I do not deny. But in the 160 pages you read. I've been teaching your number 3 and 5. So looks like your agreeing with my ego. Your welcome. Not sure what happen to 4.
> 
> People do not get places in this world with out being aggressive.


I don't see how you survived the hierarchy of the military ???, rank dictates forward thinking & team play towards a common goal is the theme.

You appear to revel in your "definitions" of ego and aggressive nature, but quite honestly you need to learn diplomacy. The world isn't black & white, the sharing of information leads to gains by all. Your continued manner of insolence and indignity, much less the insulting of other contributing members is childish. I hope you are a multi-millionaire because you'll never be able to for someone else, partners are definitely out of the question for you.

There's nothing wrong with free thinking, going out of the box...but to trample over other people while doing so is ridiculous. You had many valuable posters that could have helped your "cause", instead you burned those bridges...when pride over rules integrity, the true nature of the person is revealed. 

When you have a "Lone Ranger" that goes rogue, it forces the whole team backwards...in this case you've ruined a valuable thread of information.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Let's see, you clamp an arrow, you add a weight/laser to the end and you force the arrow to flex then rotate it until ithe flo's. It's a static test to identify the neutral plane or the stiff plane. 

Just like the frequency analyzer it also uses a static test the only difference is the frequency numbers it produces equates to the frequency numbers during dynamic flight 

We can't control the flexing of a shaft and call it dynamic

In other words the frequency numbers produced by a frequency analyzer are dynamic, the test to provide the numbers is static


----------



## rgo23

good info for a new shooter like myself


----------



## enewman

Bwana said:


> I don't see how you survived the hierarchy of the military ???, rank dictates forward thinking & team play towards a common goal is the theme.
> 
> You appear to revel in your "definitions" of ego and aggressive nature, but quite honestly you need to learn diplomacy. The world isn't black & white, the sharing of information leads to gains by all. Your continued manner of insolence and indignity, much less the insulting of other contributing members is childish. I hope you are a multi-millionaire because you'll never be able to for someone else, partners are definitely out of the question for you.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with free thinking, going out of the box...but to trample over other people while doing so is ridiculous. You had many valuable posters that could have helped your "cause", instead you burned those bridges...when pride over rules integrity, the true nature of the person is revealed.
> 
> When you have a "Lone Ranger" that goes rogue, it forces the whole team backwards...in this case you've ruined a valuable thread of information.


Haha ok. Not quite multi but close. What I did in the military did not require didn't require team work for my section. Only team work as a hole. So my job was electro environmentalist No team work on that part only the smart prevailed.


----------



## enewman

Here read this 

https://archerycoachesguildblog2.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/tl_app4.pdf


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> Let's see, you clamp an arrow, you add a weight/laser to the end and you force the arrow to flex then rotate it until ithe flo's. It's a static test to identify the neutral plane or the stiff plane.
> 
> Just like the frequency analyzer it also uses a static test the only difference is the frequency numbers it produces equates to the frequency numbers during dynamic flight
> 
> We can't control the flexing of a shaft and call it dynamic
> 
> In other words the frequency numbers produced by a frequency analyzer are dynamic, the test to provide the numbers is static


Dynamic. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic:
the dynamic president of the firm.
2.
Physics.
of or relating to force or power.
of or relating to force related to motion.
3.
pertaining to the science of dynamics.

So now your saying flexing the arrow and letting it go is not an dynamic reaction. And that the reading you get is static. 

That would mean. That once I clamp the arrow in. Set the weight on it. Turn on the cps equipment with out touching the arrow. I'm going to get a reading. If this is correct. That would be a static reading. Then you are correct. But I can tell you if this is what and how you set up to find this static reading. Then why are we wasting our time. The answer is zero.

Jerry you have been saying that flo and freq is a dynamic test. This is why you keep telling me where my problem is that I'm looking at is statically. Now your saying its a static test.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

enewman said:


> Dynamic. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic:
> the dynamic president of the firm.
> 2.
> Physics.
> of or relating to force or power.
> of or relating to force related to motion.
> 3.
> pertaining to the science of dynamics.
> 
> So now your saying flexing the arrow and letting it go is not an dynamic reaction. And that the reading you get is static.
> 
> That would mean. That once I clamp the arrow in. Set the weight on it. Turn on the cps equipment with out touching the arrow. I'm going to get a reading. If this is correct. That would be a static reading. Then you are correct. But I can tell you if this is what and how you set up to find this static reading. Then why are we wasting our time. The answer is zero.


Nope not what I said, have a great day, good luck


----------



## enewman

Then Jerry maybe I am confused but here is what you have posted twice now 


"No, because FLO is a static test you are using. If you could guarantee 100% of the time the FLO was the stiff plane, yes or if you could guarantee the FLO was the neutral plane yes but you cant it can be either. You cant take an inconsistent static test and add consistency to a dynamic transference of energy."


"Let's see, you clamp an arrow, you add a weight/laser to the end and you force the arrow to flex then rotate it until ithe flo's. It's a static test to identify the neutral plane or the stiff plane. 

Just like the frequency analyzer it also uses a static test the only difference is the frequency numbers it produces equates to the frequency numbers during dynamic flight 

We can't control the flexing of a shaft and call it dynamic

In other words the frequency numbers produced by a frequency analyzer are dynamic, the test to provide the numbers is static"



We can't have both. It's either static or dynamic.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

regrettably you are confused 
It would help you I think to not pull paragraphs out of context.


----------



## Super 91

By the way, I still have some of the RAM upgrade roller bear sets if anyone has any interest. PM for details etc.


----------



## enewman

SouthShoreRat said:


> regrettably you are confused
> It would help you I think to not pull paragraphs out of context.



I didn't that is the complete post you wrote. You are the one that post incomplete post And I'm not confused I was being a smart ass when I wrote that. 


Ok this has been fun. Go to post 1610. Read it.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Bwana said:


> I don't see how you survived the hierarchy of the military ???, rank dictates forward thinking & team play towards a common goal is the theme.
> 
> You appear to revel in your "definitions" of ego and aggressive nature, but quite honestly you need to learn diplomacy. The world isn't black & white, the sharing of information leads to gains by all. Your continued manner of insolence and indignity, much less the insulting of other contributing members is childish. I hope you are a multi-millionaire because you'll never be able to for someone else, partners are definitely out of the question for you.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with free thinking, going out of the box...but to trample over other people while doing so is ridiculous. You had many valuable posters that could have helped your "cause", instead you burned those bridges...when pride over rules integrity, the true nature of the person is revealed.
> 
> When you have a "Lone Ranger" that goes rogue, it forces the whole team backwards...in this case you've ruined a valuable thread of information.


Thank you


----------



## Bwana

SouthShoreRat said:


> Thank you


My pleasure Jerry, that's what I'm here for...thus my user name :wink:

*bwa·na

noun...Swahili word from East Africa, meaning Sir or gentleman.*


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Here read this
> 
> https://archerycoachesguildblog2.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/tl_app4.pdf


Eric, I am surprised that you have access to the Archery Coaches Guild libraries. The information is available from other sources and I am familiar with the the PDF but if you are trying to make a point. The point should be structured so that a larger cross section will not only read the information but also understand it.
I would think only a small handful would even see the similarities being discussed and Jerry's style of meter being used. 
Their tester may arguably be more accurate by using several different styles of vibration generators for a longer test sample but the longer the vibration exists, the greater the chance of the frequencies changing due to material fatigue.
Irregardless, the clamp they use, actually generates the vibration, as opposed to Jerry's stationary clamp. Their laser frequency meter requires a reflective strip, Jerry's does not, the differences are minimal in my opinion. 
So I think your your point is still being lost. I don't agree completely with Jerry's assessment concerning static and dynamic testing, but his points are valid and he is entitled to his opinion especially since he has a degree of experience we don't have.
As for videoing the operation, this is good for prolonged modeling but Jerry really has no need for modeling because he is just testing and indexing.


GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

GRIMWALD said:


> Their tester may arguably be more accurate by using several different styles of vibration generators for a longer test sample but the longer the vibration exists, the greater the chance of the frequencies changing due to material fatigue.


Exactly!



GRIMWALD said:


> Irregardless, the clamp they use, actually generates the vibration, as opposed to Jerry's stationary clamp. Their laser frequency meter requires a reflective strip, Jerry's does not, the differences are minimal in my opinion.


The cost of the equipment alone prohibits anyone except manufactures from using these types of testers. 



GRIMWALD said:


> I don't agree completely with Jerry's assessment concerning static and dynamic testing, but his points are valid and he is entitled to his opinion especially since he has a degree of experience we don't have.


Grim my friend I am willing to bet you if you have time sometime to call with a couple of hours time for us to talk I can explain the assessments but they are not mine, they are from folks with credentials far above my pay grade


----------



## GRIMWALD

SouthShoreRat said:


> Exactly!
> 
> 
> The cost of the equipment alone prohibits anyone except manufactures from using these types of testers.
> 
> 
> 
> Grim my friend I am willing to bet you if you have time sometime to call with a couple of hours time for us to talk I can explain the assessments but they are not mine, they are from folks with credentials far above my pay grade


LOL!!!
People are going to think either you are one lonely dude or that you have nothing to do all day but talk to us.
I do understand the arguments behind their assessments and most revolve around the clamp being having dampening effect to the results and there are also counter claims of the in-flight forces having similar dampening effects (friction, cross wind, and even gravity). I take a more modulated approach and except both positions but I do lean more in the direction that your proposed.

GRIM


----------



## kc hay seed

when looking for the stiff side only could you look inside the shaft and find the seam or the overlap,would this not be the stiff side of the shaft?? just asking,i have a spine tester!!


----------



## enewman

Grim. 

You got to stop coming on here and makeing a valid point. Haha. 

Thanks. 

Eric.


----------



## GRIMWALD

Did we just lose a number of comments?

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

kc hay seed said:


> when looking for the stiff side only could you look inside the shaft and find the seam or the overlap,would this not be the stiff side of the shaft?? just asking,i have a spine tester!!


Some have made use of this method but it is inconsistent at best because these malformation, are only part of what makes up spine.
Some swear by it, other condemn it outright.

GRIM


----------



## Bwana

GRIMWALD said:


> Did we just lose a number of comments?
> 
> GRIM


Grim I don't think so, but could recommend a bunch worthy of deleting :wink:


----------



## GRIMWALD

Bwana said:


> Grim I don't think so, but could recommend a bunch worthy of deleting :wink:


LOL!!!
Well then I made a comment in response to enwman that must have been in a different thread or it is bedtime for me.
LOL!!


----------



## SAVIOUR68

:mracoustic:I love reading this thread with my morning coffee


----------



## SouthShoreRat

SAVIOUR68 said:


> :mracoustic:I love reading this thread with my morning coffee



Does half of the cup end up on the wall in front of you? :wink:


----------



## SAVIOUR68

:embara:How did you know Jerry


----------



## ontarget7

Glad you guys have enjoyed the thread ! 
I know a lot of guys have benefited and I apologies for having to sift through half the stuff 

Thanks [emoji1360]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

Ok here's some more sifting. 



Grim. Very interesting on the jl park. I know evans told me that the freq tester from John is set up to read around 250 cps. I don't know if that means you move the weight around or change weights to get here. 

Now cps equals Hz. I see it as two different types of testers. Back in the electronics classes. I don't remember talking a lot about it. But. With the John tester we are not truly looking at the freq of the arrow it's self. True freq of a shaft would not change as you turn the arrow. I also see where the averge freq was around 78Hz. Now the post you made about could you trim the arrow to match. With the tester jerry is using. No. It's not looking at the freq of the shaft. It's counting pulses. But with the tester the jl park are using then yes. You could match the freq of the shafts. So if you had one at 78 Hz and one at 80Hz. Then yes you could trim the 78Hz arrow to match the 80Hz arrow. 

I also read the mechanics of arrows from them. Looks like most people are wrong on what the arrow does as its shot.

I noticed in all there testing indexing was never brought up.


----------



## mx482

I am just learning this stuff and actually conducted a few experiments before finding the thread.

Over the years I heard about floating your shafts in the bathtub to find the heavy side. I told myself the next time I had raw shafts I would do just that.
What I found was that they do in fact roll. You have to make the water slippery (add a little soap to break the tension) and avoid the bubbles (bubbles interfere with the rolling).
I put a nock on each end of the shaft and oriented them 90 from each other. When I got the reading I then marked the shaft.

Then I took the shafts down to my EZ Press to see if heavy equated to stiff. Here is the video that inspired me. https://youtu.be/lH3CdQtiCv0
What I found was very confusing and frustrating. I could get the shaft to flex obviously but it only flexed one way initially regardless of how it was oriented. ( put a field point on each end and a piece of leather between the arms of the EZ-Press) It didn't relate to the heavy side for sure.
Got in a big scrape on another forum for my statements that heavy doesn't equal stiff.

So when I found this thread it was a Godsend (other than the chest bumping). Wow, it appeared my theories were correct (heavy doesn't necessarily equal stiff). Now I'm by no means knowledgeable on the subject but have learned enough to know I need a RAM spine tester. All the talk about FLO leaves me scratching my head as I don't know what this is. I tried to go through all 66 pages of this monstrosity and I somehow missed the part where someone explains what the heck that really is and is there a machine that you use for it. So I'll continue to monitor and learn. Found some nice videos on spine testing https://youtu.be/YWxftRMTqws. Thanks guys for the information. 








Here is the thread I started on another forum that began my journey.

I took the uncut shafts and floated them in the bathtub in about 6 inches of water. I put a nock on each end to insure they would be airtight and float and also oriented them at 90 degrees to each other so there wouldn't be a nock effect that would give an advantage of weight. At first I couldn't see any rotation at all no matter how I spun or positioned the shaft in the water. Then I remembered that you need to add some soap to the water to break the surface tension and make the water a little more slippery. So I added some body wash to the water and agitated it. Now the shafts slowly turned to a particular orientation in the water indicating the heavy side of the shaft. The results were repeatable for a shaft - each time a shaft was rotated it rotated back to the same side as before. I marked the heavy side of the shaft with a marker. Note, make sure you move bubbles away from shaft as the bubbles will affect the arrow shaft's ability to rotate.

















So now that that was done, I wanted to put the shafts in my bow press and slowly press the arrow to see if the marked side (heaviest) of the shaft corresponds to the stiffest side. So I put an unglued insert into each side of the shaft and positioned the shaft equally in the press and slowly pressed against a small block of wood.












The arrow bowed but only bowed in one direction no matter how I rotated the shaft. Strange. 










After playing with this for awhile I then decided to put a field point on both ends of the shaft so the shaft meets the press at a very small point and eliminate any other effects. I put a small piece of leather between field point and press to protect the finish on my press.



Now when I pressed the arrow, the arrow flexed differently. If the arrow flexed downward, I relaxed the press, rotated the shaft 90 degress and pressed again, the arrow now flexed 90 degrees to the original pressing as expected. Great. The goofy part of all this was, I could get the arrow to flex two ways but never 180 degrees from each other. In other words, if the arrow flexed down, I could never get it to flex up regardless of how it was oriented in the press.

I should mention that I'm using Carbon Express Maxima Hunter 250's. They supposedly are dual spine. Is that what is causing this? 

After playing with this for a length of time, I finally gave up and just glued in my inserts like I always do. 

Note, there was no obvious correlation between the bathtub test and the way the shaft was flexing in the press. I'm assuming that the bathtub test was concocted as a way to test spine without need of further tools or testing. 

[I later read in a post by GRIM on yet another forum that this is a throwback to the old wooden shafts and is more relevant to traditional archery]


----------



## ontarget7

The flexing part will very from manufacture to manufacture and why it's not my preferred method to test stiff plane reading. Most the time it will not match that reading on the RAM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

I looked hard at compression testing. Designed a tester with an air ram so that the test would be instant. Trying to put the load onto arrow like being shot. 

To get a air ram that would have the force to do this was more money I was welling to spend just to see if it was a valid test. 

doing the test the same way you did I could get difference between a ram and compression. So I just stayed with the ram.

The problem I see with all these test. If they where finding what we think then they would all match. They don't. So which test is correct. ???? I guess we could say all of them. People do all they different methods and it works for them.


----------



## mx482

Just a thought. The compression test has to be conducted in such a way that no influence is given to flexing the shaft a particular way. I don't think just eyeballing a point at which to put your arrows in the press is providing a fair test. Think about it. You can induce a bend by angling the arrow in the press. From everything I've read so far and from all the results presented, I'm comfortable now purchasing a RAM tester.


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> Just a thought. The compression test has to be conducted in such a way that no influence is given to flexing the shaft a particular way. I don't think just eyeballing a point at which to put your arrows in the press is providing a fair test. Think about it. You can induce a bend by angling the arrow in the press. From everything I've read so far and from all the results presented, I'm comfortable now purchasing a RAM tester.


You are correct. If arrow is off by just a touch it will change the reaction. We tested on a lathe with centers set up. Don't remember run out was.


----------



## mx482

You would think that arrow manufacturers would be more proactive in:

Providing knowledge about the shaft's spine.
Providing information regarding what to do with the information. Wouldn't an arrow manufacture want you to utilize this knowledge so you can shoot more accurately and come back for more shafts?
Providing information about how their shaft is made with regard to the spine. (I don't count all the fluff advertising, "our shaft has consistent spine", "dual spine", etc.)


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> You would think that arrow manufacturers would be more proactive in:
> 
> Providing knowledge about the shaft's spine.
> Providing information regarding what to do with the information. Wouldn't an arrow manufacture want you to utilize this knowledge so you can shoot more accurately and come back for more shafts?
> Providing information about how their shaft is made with regard to the spine. (I don't count all the fluff advertising, "our shaft has consistent spine", "dual spine", etc.)


I emails black eagle. Easton and gold tip. One did not respond. Two said it made no difference. I think it depends on who you talk to.


----------



## mx482

Right...

They know it makes a difference. They just don't want to open that can of worms - just sell shafts


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> Right...
> 
> They know it makes a difference. They just don't want to open that can of worms - just sell shafts


Haha. I think so to.


----------



## ontarget7

We have plenty of info to index and fletch with perfect results. I don't see anything wrong with the product we get. Yes, they need to hold to their rated tolerances but from there, it's up to the customer if they want to take it to the next level. 
There is no difference in long range rifle shooting. You don't buy a gun then manufacturer goes through this whole process of how you can change your gun and ammo to get better results. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mx482

I agree ontarget7 to a point. It's no different than a bow company supplying a booklet indicating their bow centershot is best set at 13/16ths. You want the customer to have a satisfactory experience if they choose. Providing spine information is no different.


----------



## ontarget7

mx482 said:


> I agree ontarget7 to a point. It's no different than a bow company supplying a booklet indicating their bow centershot is best set at 13/16ths. You want the customer to have a satisfactory experience if they choose. Providing spine information is no different.


Way more variables than you think. For what it's worth, their is not a single company that bareshaft tunes to test their results. 

Now if the consumer wants to take it to the next level IMO that is not on the manufacturer to give this information. If it was we would all pay way more for everything 

There is something to be said about hard work and trial and error, nowadays it is hard to find. We have become a society that complains about everything and wants all information at our disposal so we don't have to do any leg work


----------



## mx482

I'm just looking at it from a business stand point. I sell widget A. I want a customer to know how to use it properly (care, cleaning, maintenance, repair) etc. If I work for widget A company, why wouldn't I at least entertain the idea of doing some of this testing.

Again, I understand your point and it is a valid one. We are a society of "I want everything handed to me." But *providing* that information is fairly easy to do. What the customer does with it...well that is up to them.

It may not be practical, but if I was making and selling shafts, I would do it. Might even attract more high-end conscientious shooters like you and me to buy them.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

SAVIOUR68 said:


> :embara:How did you know Jerry


I do the same thing, 3 times a day. @ 630a, noon and evening.


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Ok here's some more sifting.
> 
> 
> 
> Grim. Very interesting on the jl park. I know evans told me that the freq tester from John is set up to read around 250 cps. I don't know if that means you move the weight around or change weights to get here.
> 
> Now cps equals Hz. I see it as two different types of testers. Back in the electronics classes. I don't remember talking a lot about it. But. With the John tester we are not truly looking at the freq of the arrow it's self. True freq of a shaft would not change as you turn the arrow. I also see where the averge freq was around 78Hz. Now the post you made about could you trim the arrow to match. With the tester jerry is using. No. It's not looking at the freq of the shaft. It's counting pulses. But with the tester the jl park are using then yes. You could match the freq of the shafts. So if you had one at 78 Hz and one at 80Hz. Then yes you could trim the 78Hz arrow to match the 80Hz arrow.
> 
> I also read the mechanics of arrows from them. Looks like most people are wrong on what the arrow does as its shot.
> 
> I noticed in all there testing indexing was never brought up.


One small correction, I don't recall an Evans but John's meter reads in "cpm" (cycle per minute) not cps (cycles per second).
John's meter, measures the time it takes to complete a certain number of cycles (I think 6 or 7). Then an on-board chip, converts that number, to cpm's.
The title "Mechanics of Arrows", sounds familiar but I am drawing a blank on it 's content. I will try to do a search for the article later and review it. 
There are several articles on this topic, all with similar titles. LOL!!!

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Spine' is a term that frequently comes up in archery. What confuses the issue that the term spine is used to mean different things in different contexts. I attempt here to clarify the different meanings.
Try bending a sheet of paper - it's easy. Roll the paper into a tube and try bending it again - it's a lot harder. How easy it is to bend a sheet of paper or an arrow shaft depends on its stiffness. The accepted (Easton derived) standard for the stiffness of an arrow shaft is its static spine. The shaft is supported at two points a specified distance apart and a specified weight hung at the mid point. The amount the mid point of the shaft drops from the horizontal determines the shaft spine. The lower the stiffness of the shaft the more it sags and the larger the measured deflection. Given the support spacing and the weight hung the static spine depends on the elasticity of the shaft material(s) and the materials' geometries. In the case of multi-layer arrow shafts (carbon/aluminium) the stiffness also depends on the bonding between the different layers. The geometrical factor is the inside diameter and thickness of each material layer. You can find in any engineering handbook a 'beam' formula which in theory would allow you to calculate the static spine for an arrow shaft from the material and geometrical properties. With arrows having a non uniform cross section (barreled shape) you can still have a measured static spine, though in this case you have to define where the arrow supports are with respect to the varying shaft geometry. The spine of an arrow shaft (excluding external factors like temperature) never changes unless the arrow material properties change (e.g. aluminium arrows stiffen over time with use as the crystalline structure alters) or the shaft construction changes (cracks, debonding).


When an arrow is being shot then the term dynamic spine is often used. Spine in this context has nothing to do with static spine i.e. stiffness. What is being talked about is how much the arrow bends. How much the arrow bends depends on many factors (shaft stiffness and length; pile, fletching and nock weights, string force and bracing height etc.etc.etc.). So if say you see the expression "increasing pile weight reduces spine" what is meant is that increasing the pile weight will result in the arrow bending more (the actual 'spine' of the arrow shaft of course remains exactly the same). The tems 'Weak' (bends more) and 'Stiff' (bends less) are often used as an alternative to dynamic spine. So the expression 'Adding fletchings increases arrow stiffness' has nothing to do with arrow stiffness, it means that adding fletchings will reduce the amount the arrow bends when shooting it. Confusing innit! Unlike the static spine case there is no simple equation to describe the bending of an arrow while being shot. One of the assumptions in deriving the 'beam' equation mentioned above is that there are no compressive or tensile (stretch) loads on the arrow. When an arrow is being shot you have the string force acting up the arrow's backside creating a compressive load in the shaft so the simple beam formula goes out the window. There are a number of number crunching approaches to modelling this sort of situation. The usual approach is to break the arrow shaft down into lots of small lengths (finite elements) and work out what happens with each small section in relation to the sections eitherside and build up a composite picture from the bits. Finite element analysis as it is termed is as much an art form as a science.


Joe tapley. Writings.


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> One small correction, I don't recall an Evans but John's meter reads in "cpm" (cycle per minute) not cps (cycles per second).
> John's meter, measures the time it takes to complete a certain number of cycles (I think 6 or 7). Then an on-board chip, converts that number, to cpm's.
> The title "Mechanics of Arrows", sounds familiar but I am drawing a blank on it 's content. I will try to do a search for the article later and review it.
> There are several articles on this topic, all with similar titles. LOL!!!
> 
> GRIM


Yes johns is cpm. When I looked at building one I was looking at a cps switch. Evan is member that has a freq tester. Sorry on the confusion


----------



## Etheis

enewman said:


> Yes johns is cpm. When I looked at building one I was looking at a cps switch. Evan is member that has a freq tester. Sorry on the confusion


Yep cycles per minute. And John says he likes to have the frequency in between certain numbers to insure accuracy


----------



## skynight

mx482 said:


> I am just learning this stuff and actually conducted a few experiments before finding the thread.
> 
> Over the years I heard about floating your shafts in the bathtub to find the heavy side. I told myself the next time I had raw shafts I would do just that.
> What I found was that they do in fact roll. You have to make the water slippery (add a little soap to break the tension) and avoid the bubbles (bubbles interfere with the rolling).
> I put a nock on each end of the shaft and oriented them 90 from each other. When I got the reading I then marked the shaft.
> 
> Then I took the shafts down to my EZ Press to see if heavy equated to stiff. Here is the video that inspired me. https://youtu.be/lH3CdQtiCv0
> What I found was very confusing and frustrating. I could get the shaft to flex obviously but it only flexed one way initially regardless of how it was oriented. ( put a field point on each end and a piece of leather between the arms of the EZ-Press) It didn't relate to the heavy side for sure.
> Got in a big scrape on another forum for my statements that heavy doesn't equal stiff.
> 
> So when I found this thread it was a Godsend (other than the chest bumping). Wow, it appeared my theories were correct (heavy doesn't necessarily equal stiff). Now I'm by no means knowledgeable on the subject but have learned enough to know I need a RAM spine tester. All the talk about FLO leaves me scratching my head as I don't know what this is. I tried to go through all 66 pages of this monstrosity and I somehow missed the part where someone explains what the heck that really is and is there a machine that you use for it. So I'll continue to monitor and learn. Found some nice videos on spine testing https://youtu.be/YWxftRMTqws. Thanks guys for the information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thread I started on another forum that began my journey.
> 
> I took the uncut shafts and floated them in the bathtub in about 6 inches of water. I put a nock on each end to insure they would be airtight and float and also oriented them at 90 degrees to each other so there wouldn't be a nock effect that would give an advantage of weight. At first I couldn't see any rotation at all no matter how I spun or positioned the shaft in the water. Then I remembered that you need to add some soap to the water to break the surface tension and make the water a little more slippery. So I added some body wash to the water and agitated it. Now the shafts slowly turned to a particular orientation in the water indicating the heavy side of the shaft. The results were repeatable for a shaft - each time a shaft was rotated it rotated back to the same side as before. I marked the heavy side of the shaft with a marker. Note, make sure you move bubbles away from shaft as the bubbles will affect the arrow shaft's ability to rotate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now that that was done, I wanted to put the shafts in my bow press and slowly press the arrow to see if the marked side (heaviest) of the shaft corresponds to the stiffest side. So I put an unglued insert into each side of the shaft and positioned the shaft equally in the press and slowly pressed against a small block of wood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arrow bowed but only bowed in one direction no matter how I rotated the shaft. Strange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After playing with this for awhile I then decided to put a field point on both ends of the shaft so the shaft meets the press at a very small point and eliminate any other effects. I put a small piece of leather between field point and press to protect the finish on my press.
> 
> 
> 
> Now when I pressed the arrow, the arrow flexed differently. If the arrow flexed downward, I relaxed the press, rotated the shaft 90 degress and pressed again, the arrow now flexed 90 degrees to the original pressing as expected. Great. The goofy part of all this was, I could get the arrow to flex two ways but never 180 degrees from each other. In other words, if the arrow flexed down, I could never get it to flex up regardless of how it was oriented in the press.
> 
> I should mention that I'm using Carbon Express Maxima Hunter 250's. They supposedly are dual spine. Is that what is causing this?
> 
> After playing with this for a length of time, I finally gave up and just glued in my inserts like I always do.
> 
> Note, there was no obvious correlation between the bathtub test and the way the shaft was flexing in the press. I'm assuming that the bathtub test was concocted as a way to test spine without need of further tools or testing.
> 
> [I later read in a post by GRIM on yet another forum that this is a throwback to the old wooden shafts and is more relevant to traditional archery]


If you want to see a FLO test google "FLO golf shaft " and you'll see a few videos. I've decided to try it myself and ordered the stuff I posted on post 1431. I haven't received it yet. My plan is to first RAM index the shafts. Then put the shaft in the drill chuck and the chuck in a pipe vise. With the insert installed I'll screw in the laser. My goal will be to flex the shaft and release it and index the point where the laser only reacts vertically, without going into an oval pattern. My dilemma is how to bend and cleanly release the shaft.
I'm going to then shoot the shafts from my hooter shooter and see what these two (different?) marks produce when shot through paper.


----------



## enewman

You will learn to release it. What I do sometimes is I make a loop with string and just use my release.


----------



## skynight

enewman said:


> You will learn to release it. What I do sometimes is I make a loop with string and just use my release.


Yes I've considered doing the same. How much bend do you start with?


----------



## enewman

Around two or so inches. I play with that. Some times more or less just to see all the reaction. I also don't use much weight. Most of time just the lazer. Not sure what it weights. I'll check tonight.


----------



## mx482

skynight said:


> If you want to see a FLO test google "FLO golf shaft " and you'll see a few videos. I've decided to try it myself and ordered the stuff I posted on post 1431. I haven't received it yet. My plan is to first RAM index the shafts. Then put the shaft in the drill chuck and the chuck in a pipe vise. With the insert installed I'll screw in the laser. My goal will be to flex the shaft and release it and index the point where the laser only reacts vertically, without going into an oval pattern. My dilemma is how to bend and cleanly release the shaft.
> I'm going to then shoot the shafts from my hooter shooter and see what these two (different?) marks produce when shot through paper.


Interesting. Thanks.


----------



## BlindBuck

Great thread to read and digest.

Can someone on this thread provide me a contact for an individual(s) who owns a "frequency" tester that measures in "Hz". I'm almost certain that device will have a fundamental flaw in accuracy unless the frequency reference is being driven by a master oscillator that receives it's timing source from GPS.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

BlindBuck said:


> Great thread to read and digest.
> 
> Can someone on this thread provide me a contact for an individual(s) who owns a "frequency" tester that measures in "Hz". I'm almost certain that device will have a fundamental flaw in accuracy unless the frequency reference is being driven by a master oscillator that receives it's timing source from GPS.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


Are you talking about a device like this


----------



## BlindBuck

Sure that is more antiquated than I expected to see but if setups like that are being used that is who I want to talk with.

I believe on one of these posts I read a comment from Jerry saying after a period of time he gets inconsistent readings and he has to retest or restart the procedure again for his device. I believe he referenced his opinion on the issue as being the arrow. I believe it is not the arrow causing that particular problem but the quality of the reference oscillator that is used in his device. Even high stability osciallators (robidium) drift over a period of time.

I'm not shooting down any methods being used by anyone as this is all fascinating to me. I'm just particularly interested in the frequency method and what is being used to deem the readings accurate to within a few Hz.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

I don't make use of frequency meters for my purposes but if your looking for a device that compares the master oscillator/clock against a GPS clock/ atomic clock. I think that would put the device price range far out of our price range. It would definitely increase the accuracy, weather we need that level of accuracy, probably not.

GRIM


----------



## enewman

BlindBuck said:


> Sure that is more antiquated than I expected to see but if setups like that are being used that is who I want to talk with.
> 
> I believe on one of these posts I read a comment from Jerry saying after a period of time he gets inconsistent readings and he has to retest or restart the procedure again for his device. I believe he referenced his opinion on the issue as being the arrow. I believe it is not the arrow causing that particular problem but the quality of the reference oscillator that is used in his device. Even high stability osciallators (robidium) drift over a period of time.
> 
> I'm not shooting down any methods being used by anyone as this is all fascinating to me. I'm just particularly interested in the frequency method and what is being used to deem the readings accurate to within a few Hz.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


This is what jerry is using.


----------



## BlindBuck

GRIMWALD said:


> I don't make use of frequency meters for my purposes but if your looking for a device that compares the master oscillator/clock against a GPS clock/ atomic clock. I think that would put the device price range far out of our price range. It would definitely increase the accuracy, weather we need that level of accuracy, probably not.
> 
> GRIM


Yes understood. I have GPS master reference oscillators at my disposal that can provide that level of accuracy and frequency measurement devices that except that external reference for measuring. What I'm really looking for is a person who has a frequency tester to talk with. I definitely understand the cost factor for equipment and that it is not economical for any consumer/individual unless they hit the Powerball.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

BlindBuck said:


> Yes understood. I have GPS master reference oscillators at my disposal that can provide that level of accuracy and frequency measurement devices that except that external reference for measuring. What I'm really looking for is a person who has a frequency tester to talk with. I definitely understand the cost factor for equipment and that it is not economical for any consumer/individual unless they hit the Powerball.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


Holy crap that's expensive.


----------



## enewman

It's more then just a few Hz. The tester was redesigned so after you get your reading you have to push a button to get the 1/10 reading.


----------



## GRIMWALD

BlindBuck said:


> Yes understood. I have GPS master reference oscillators at my disposal that can provide that level of accuracy and frequency measurement devices that except that external reference for measuring. What I'm really looking for is a person who has a frequency tester to talk with. I definitely understand the cost factor for equipment and that it is not economical for any consumer/individual unless they hit the Powerball.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


As enewman posted John Kaufman designed the meter that Jerry uses
http://csfa.com/

There was also a thread titled "Spine indexing vs. compression testing" (or some such variant) in which one of the AT members, actually built his own frequency meter. 
I believe his forum name is Straddleridge, I don't know if he is still active but he may be on a similar knowledge level, for you to converse with him concerning the device. 

GRIM


----------



## BlindBuck

enewman said:


> Holy crap that's expensive.


I don't want to give the wrong impression it isn't millions. Just surely isn't anywhere near affordable for consumers. $5K-$10K for types of master reference oscillators I have available and two pieces of test equipment in the tens of thousands to measure frequency down to the hundredths of a Hz. I've basically devoted the last eighteen years of my life to frequency related electronics in one way or another. Which is why this intrigues me so much. I never thought about my frequency knowledge crossing over into archery prior to reading this thread.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthShoreRat

BlindBuck said:


> Yes understood. I have GPS master reference oscillators at my disposal that can provide that level of accuracy and frequency measurement devices that except that external reference for measuring. What I'm really looking for is a person who has a frequency tester to talk with. I definitely understand the cost factor for equipment and that it is not economical for any consumer/individual unless they hit the Powerball.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


The representation of what I am using is not 100% correct. My clamping system is pneumatic and I have the frequency machine only, I saw no reason to put time into the torque measuring jig for what we are doing in our shop.

Let me touch on the statement I made about the CPM changing if the test is run too much. To use the Frequency Analyzer there must be a weight attached to the end of the shaft, then the shaft is clamped in the pneumatic clamp and the arrow is pulled down to a set point and released. It oscillates breaking a timed beam which results in the cycles per minute calculation of the shaft inf four locations around the shafts. These cycles per minute readings can be mathematically converted to equate to spine deflection

This type of test gives us two things, the general location of the stiff and neutral plane and if we want to spine match arrows it takes the problem of natural bend out of the equation that we have when using a RAM type tester.

With this said my statement that if you test the arrows back to back in the same plane more than one or two tests was based on verified facts! 

Friction builds up from repeated testing causing the carbon of the shaft to begin to fatigue which weakens the shaft (temporarily) thus producing a lower number then originally obtained on the first and second test. If shafts are left to rest the heat build up subsides allowing the shafts to be tested again. 

The Frequency Analyzer IMO has been priceless in showing us that a stiff and neutral plane exists during the dynamic flight of an arrow. And it will provide a very accurate way to determine the actual spine deflection of shafts unlike a RAM that has to deal with the inconsistent reading due to the natural bend of shafts as well as imperfections in the shafts 

There are only two applications that I would consider to use the frequency analyzer which are the identification of the stiff and neutral planes and to match arrow spine at a much higher level then you can achieve on a RAM type spine deflection tester.

IMO if we move away from a process that shows us how to index arrows we will loose a level of consistency that has been solidly proven time and time again over the last dozen years by builders like my shop, reezen11, steve's archery arrows as well as a few other unique custom builders and tuners like Shane that rely on indexing and the positive results he sees time and time again.


----------



## Etheis

My freq tester. Looking to upgrade to the pneumatic clamp.


----------



## BlindBuck

GRIMWALD said:


> As enewman posted John Kaufman designed the meter that Jerry uses
> http://csfa.com/
> 
> There was also a thread titled "Spine indexing vs. compression testing" (or some such variant) in which one of the AT members, actually built his own frequency meter.
> I believe his forum name is Straddleridge, I don't know if he is still active but he may be on a similar knowledge level, for you to converse with him concerning the device.
> 
> GRIM





enewman said:


> It's more then just a few Hz. The tester was redesigned so after you get your reading you have to push a button to get the 1/10 reading.


Thank you for the information guys!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

BlindBuck said:


> I don't want to give the wrong impression it isn't millions. Just surely isn't anywhere near affordable for consumers. $5K-$10K for types of master reference oscillators I have available and two pieces of test equipment in the tens of thousands to measure frequency down to the hundredths of a Hz. I've basically devoted the last eighteen years of my life to frequency related electronics in one way or another. Which is why this intrigues me so much. I never thought about my frequency knowledge crossing over into archery prior to reading this thread.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


Got a few questions. When we use this freq tester. We have the arrow clamped. The arrow has a weight on the opposite end. The arrow is pulled down and released or a form of that so it flexes up and down. The arrow is only flexing a few inches in front of the clamp. 

What are we reading and are we seeing any thing but that point that the flex is at. 

Now I had Etheis on his tester set a board and move the flex point toward center of arrow. The highest reading was still in line just a faster reading of course. 

For me I see somthing that is counting how many times the arrow swings back and forth in a time frame

Hz of the shaft is what the freq is through out the shaft from tip to tip. Vibration. I know cpm is same as Hz but I still see a flaw in what we are seeing. Or where on the shaft we are seeing it.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

Etheis said:


> View attachment 4227970
> 
> 
> My freq tester. Looking to upgrade to the pneumatic clamp.


I chose the foot activated valve which works great but if I were to build a new one it would likely be a hand activated valve


----------



## enewman

changed my mind


----------



## enewman

Jerry how does the freq tester spine match. Or you talking about matching the cpm number on the shafts


----------



## BlindBuck

enewman said:


> Got a few questions. When we use this freq tester. We have the arrow clamped. The arrow has a weight on the opposite end. The arrow is pulled down and released or a form of that so it flexes up and down. The arrow is only flexing a few inches in front of the clamp.
> 
> What are we reading and are we seeing any thing but that point that the flex is at.
> 
> Now I had Etheis on his tester set a board and move the flex point toward center of arrow. The highest reading was still in line just a faster reading of course.
> 
> For me I see somthing that is counting how many times the arrow swings back and forth in a time frame
> 
> Hz of the shaft is what the freq is through out the shaft from tip to tip. Vibration. I know cpm is same as Hz but I still see a flaw in what we are seeing. Or where on the shaft we are seeing it.


You are reading a period/cycle or frequency. Yes, CPM is the same as Hz just one is cycles per minute the other is cycles per second.

Have you experimented with different weights? If you take measurements with weight A and then with weight B in a perfect world you should have results that mirror one another similar to the clamp test you did.

I would have to see actual test results and think about the theory and the equipment. However my initial impression is you are not seeing how the shaft truly resonates. You ALL do seem to be finding a more consistent point on the arrow shaft though. 



SouthShoreRat said:


> The representation of what I am using is not 100% correct. My clamping system is pneumatic and I have the frequency machine only, I saw no reason to put time into the torque measuring jig for what we are doing in our shop.
> 
> Let me touch on the statement I made about the CPM changing if the test is run too much. To use the Frequency Analyzer there must be a weight attached to the end of the shaft, then the shaft is clamped in the pneumatic clamp and the arrow is pulled down to a set point and released. It oscillates breaking a timed beam which results in the cycles per minute calculation of the shaft inf four locations around the shafts. These cycles per minute readings can be mathematically converted to equate to spine deflection
> 
> This type of test gives us two things, the general location of the stiff and neutral plane and if we want to spine match arrows it takes the problem of natural bend out of the equation that we have when using a RAM type tester.
> 
> With this said my statement that if you test the arrows back to back in the same plane more than one or two tests was based on verified facts!
> 
> Friction builds up from repeated testing causing the carbon of the shaft to begin to fatigue which weakens the shaft (temporarily) thus producing a lower number then originally obtained on the first and second test. If shafts are left to rest the heat build up subsides allowing the shafts to be tested again.
> 
> The Frequency Analyzer IMO has been priceless in showing us that a stiff and neutral plane exists during the dynamic flight of an arrow. And it will provide a very accurate way to determine the actual spine deflection of shafts unlike a RAM that has to deal with the inconsistent reading due to the natural bend of shafts as well as imperfections in the shafts
> 
> There are only two applications that I would consider to use the frequency analyzer which are the identification of the stiff and neutral planes and to match arrow spine at a much higher level then you can achieve on a RAM type spine deflection tester.
> 
> IMO if we move away from a process that shows us how to index arrows we will loose a level of consistency that has been solidly proven time and time again over the last dozen years by builders like my shop, reezen11, steve's archery arrows as well as a few other unique custom builders and tuners like Shane that rely on indexing and the positive results he sees time and time again.


Jerry thank you very much for the clarification you have provided. That greatly helps me better understand your process and your statement about CPMs changing.

I truly believe everyone who is contributing to this thread and applying their knowledge and results are on to something great.

I have sent an email to the products designer asking a few questions about the circuit and oscillator he is using. I believe that unit could become even more accurate. The problem becomes will the cost to do so be worth it as Grim pointed out earlier.

Does anyone have a video using the tester from start to finish?



Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## Onipa'a Alu

shooting is damn good!


----------



## enewman

Blind buck 

Could I use something like this. 
http://info.bannerengineering.com/cs/groups/public/documents/literature/178061.pdf


----------



## GRIMWALD

BlindBuck said:


> You are reading a period/cycle or frequency. Yes, CPM is the same as Hz just one is cycles per minute the other is cycles per second.
> 
> Have you experimented with different weights? If you take measurements with weight A and then with weight B in a perfect world you should have results that mirror one another similar to the clamp test you did.
> 
> I would have to see actual test results and think about the theory and the equipment. However my initial impression is you are not seeing how the shaft truly resonates. You ALL do seem to be finding a more consistent point on the arrow shaft though.
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry thank you very much for the clarification you have provided. That greatly helps me better understand your process and your statement about CPMs changing.
> 
> I truly believe everyone who is contributing to this thread and applying their knowledge and results are on to something great.
> 
> I have sent an email to the products designer asking a few questions about the circuit and oscillator he is using. I believe that unit could become even more accurate. The problem becomes will the cost to do so be worth it as Grim pointed out earlier.
> 
> Does anyone have a video using the tester from start to finish?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


I am not aware of any depicting arrow shafts, there are many for golf shafts but I would hazard to guess that Jerry has had his for the longest period of time.
I recently found an advertisement from Easton mentioning frequency aligning as part of their indexing method for some of their high end shafts.
Additionally another forum member made contact with a company called SST Puring, who makes testing equipment for the golf industry, apparently they are currently in production for a similar device for arrow shafts.
Their device doesn't incorporate a frequency meter but a company named Cool Club is utilizing a similar device and it does include a frequency meter. Hopefully, the arrow world will also benefit from the current technology. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVOPb3E9T5I

GRIM


----------



## enewman

Grim 

The pure is just a fancy flo tester. So why do we need any more then just flo. And why do we need to know what that flo is. If that is where. The shaft flowed then does which plane really matter


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Grim
> 
> The pure is just a fancy flo tester. So why do we need any more then just flo. And why do we need to know what that flo is. If that is where. The shaft flowed then does which plane really matter


LOL!!!
All good questions, fortunately I am old enough that those decision will be decided by you and others like you. 
As I have said before, I am not selling anything nor do I have anything to gain, I made my choices many years ago and I will continue to use them as I see fit. 
The future is yours my friend, I am now just along for the scenic ride.

GRIM


----------



## SouthShoreRat

BlindBuck said:


> Sure that is more antiquated than I expected to see but if setups like that are being used that is who I want to talk with.
> 
> I believe on one of these posts I read a comment from Jerry saying after a period of time he gets inconsistent readings and he has to retest or restart the procedure again for his device. I believe he referenced his opinion on the issue as being the arrow. I believe it is not the arrow causing that particular problem but the quality of the reference oscillator that is used in his device. Even high stability osciallators (robidium) drift over a period of time.
> 
> I'm not shooting down any methods being used by anyone as this is all fascinating to me. I'm just particularly interested in the frequency method and what is being used to deem the readings accurate to within a few Hz.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


IMO we should take care to not loose the original idea of testing arrows, the way dynamic spine works on tubes and the proven results from 1000s of customers from shops like mine, tuners like Shane. 

If we move to a frequency test using a oscillator that applies or inputs a frequency on a shaft and then record the results of the reaction 360 degrees around the shaft we have taken some important aspect out of the equation.

Indexing!!! and matched spine deflection aka frequency along the neutral plane

It has already been proven for years that tubes develop a stiff and neutral plane dynamically when energy is applied. 

And it is well accepted that arrow tubes flex as they fly along the neutral plane. 

IMO to simply test frequency 360 degrees around the arrow tube gives us nothing. 

IMO there are only 4 critical criteria needed to build extremely consistent arrows, the location of the stiff plane so we can know where to position the neutral plane and the frequency of the neutral plane IF we want to match the frequency aka spine deflection. # 3 would be straightness and #4 would be weight matching from shaft to shaft

To put it another way adding a frequency to a shaft to get a base frequency 360 degrees around the tube, then adjusting the length of the remaining shafts/tubes in a given group to match that frequency will give a set of unmatched arrows with the same frequency! 

We must keep the way an arrow uses the stiff and neutral plane during dynamic flight as the cornerstone of building excellent arrows or we loose all of the value that has been added over the last 12 years.

I have proven countless times over the last few years in crossbow arrows that the consistency can be elevated to an amazing level. Archers are achieving 1 1/2 in 100 yard groups with arrows we have indexed, weight and spine deflection matched. 

There are rifle shooters that would love to achieve that level of accuracy. I have also seen 1 1/2 in broad head groups at the 100 yard distance. 

This is being done by testing arrows for straightness, finding the stiff plane and indexing it then finally matching the neutral plane spine deflection or frequency (cpm) followed by weight matching and sorting out any shaft that arent +/- .001 or better shaft.

Whether it is a stone knives and bear skin type of tool such as the RAM tester, a frequency analyzer or flo all align an arrow which adds consistency. 

If these types of tests didnt work the 1000s of customers shops like mine have, the 1000s of customers tuners like Shane has would not be happy from being deceived! 

This is not the case, these processes work!


----------



## ontarget7

I have recently tested some arrows out to 100 yards and in that group of 6 I had one arrow that was out of tolerances by .004 compared to the rest. I did not mark the 6 arrows when I went through the build process to see if there was any difference. I shot several groups at 100 yards and every time all but one arrow was in the 10 ring. From there I marked that arrow that strayed just outside the 10 ring and went home and tested it. What do you know ? It was the same arrow that was .004 off from the rest. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> I have recently tested some arrows out to 100 yards and in that group of 6 I had one arrow that was out of tolerances by .004 compared to the rest. I did not mark the 6 arrows when I went through the build process to see if there was any difference. I shot several groups at 100 yards and every time all but one arrow was in the 10 ring. From there I marked that arrow that strayed just outside the 10 ring and went home and tested it. What do you know ? It was the same arrow that was .004 off from the rest.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Shane what was out the spine deflection or the straightness? What size was your 10 ring and were they indexed?

I just had an idea that would be a hoot, after the busy season that is on its way what do you think about this.

We build you a set of arrows and you shoot them at 100 yards, then you strip them, bare shaft tune them and refletch them using your bare shaft tuning process to see how close machine tested arrows are to hands on nock tuning.

The arrows would be free of course!


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> Shane what was out the spine deflection or the straightness? What size was your 10 ring and were they indexed?


All were indexed to the stiff plane / runout and the odd one was off on straightness and spine deflection. 

Arrows had a 18% FOC

5" circle


----------



## enewman

So Shane. 

You had 5 I'm guessing less then .001 run out. But the one with .004 run out. Was out. That sould be a selling point for why you should be buying .001 arrows 

On the arrow that was .004. Did you rotate the nock and see if it would move into group. If it does recheck where that point is compared to your ram tester. These are the types of test that needs to be done and documented. This is where we get percentages of pass vs failed rate. With this test you just did that shows 16.67% failed rate. Is this an exceptible fail rate.


----------



## enewman

Jerry I asked another question on post 1672.

Never mind I see what your saying. I'm good


----------



## ontarget7

enewman said:


> So Shane.
> 
> You had 5 I'm guessing less then .001 run out. But the one with .004 run out. Was out. That sould be a selling point for why you should be buying .001 arrows
> 
> On the arrow that was .004. Did you rotate the nock and see if it would move into group. If it does recheck where that point is compared to your ram tester. These are the types of test that needs to be done and documented. This is where we get percentages of pass vs failed rate. With this test you just did that shows 16.67% failed rate. Is this an exceptible fail rate.


Runout was +/- .002 on these particular shafts but when batching them for spine consistency, the one shaft was about .004 of a difference between the others. 

Have not had a chance to see if I could nock tune it to bring it back in. It would take not just that one distance since turning a nock might bring it back in at 100 but be off when that same arrow is shot at 50


----------



## johnno

IRISH_11 said:


> I know several pros that get robin hoods with bushings. I robin hooded a shaft just yesterday at 40. GT 22 series with acculite bushing and acculite nock.


That great - but unless you were actually aiming at the nock of the arrow - then technically - its a miss...


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Runout was +/- .002 on these particular shafts but when batching them for spine consistency, the one shaft was about .004 of a difference between the others.
> 
> Have not had a chance to see if I could nock tune it to bring it back in. It would take not just that one distance since turning a nock might bring it back in at 100 but be off when that same arrow is shot at 50


That would be a great test. To see if you fix it at 100. I would say it better fix it at 50 if fixed at 100. Or this would prove indexing is yardage limited and at that time indexing would be a waist of time.


----------



## ontarget7

One distance can always be manipulated but at any given distance is what I'm looking for after all tuning is done. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BlindBuck

enewman said:


> Blind buck
> 
> Could I use something like this.
> http://info.bannerengineering.com/cs/groups/public/documents/literature/178061.pdf


I do not believe that would work. What you are using to measure what I refer to as cycle/period (not frequency in the sense that I know it) does and will work. My curiosity with the device is in the accuracy of design. I am willing to bet that it drifts, and if it could be made to be stable would provide more accurate results for testing period/cycle.





SouthShoreRat said:


> IMO we should take care to not loose the original idea of testing arrows, the way dynamic spine works on tubes and the proven results from 1000s of customers from shops like mine, tuners like Shane.
> 
> If we move to a frequency test using a oscillator that applies or inputs a frequency on a shaft and then record the results of the reaction 360 degrees around the shaft we have taken some important aspect out of the equation.
> 
> Indexing!!! and matched spine deflection aka frequency along the neutral plane


I'm not saying to remove your indexing process. I've been and will continue to buy my shafts from you. Why? You process saves me a ton of time, however even when they're index (I also verify your index with my own homemade ram device) I always have to change the nock slightly to have my shafts group as tightly as I myself am capable of prior to fletching. I do not feel that is due to the process(es) you use. I feel that is due to the consistency of myself and the group of arrows. 





SouthShoreRat said:


> It has already been proven for years that tubes develop a stiff and neutral plane dynamically when energy is applied.
> 
> And it is well accepted that arrow tubes flex as they fly along the neutral plane.
> 
> IMO to simply test frequency 360 degrees around the arrow tube gives us nothing.


Point one and two we all agree with.

Point three I myself do not. IMO if you do a "real" test for "frequency" 360 degrees around a batch of shafts you should see results and be able to better sort arrows for consistency. This is NOT something even a high volume arrow builder like yourself should/would be doing, this is something the arrow manufacturers would have to do to sort arrows. Obviously to sort this way from the factory tolerances would have to be established, and again the cost to do this might not be worth the result to the consumer.




SouthShoreRat said:


> To put it another way adding a frequency to a shaft to get a base frequency 360 degrees around the tube, then adjusting the length of the remaining shafts/tubes in a given group to match that frequency will give a set of unmatched arrows with the same frequency!


IMO the consumer would certainly never adjust the length of the shaft to match a frequency as that would defeat the purpose of the application in the first place which is to sort within a given tolerance. When Grim previously mentioned about Easton starting to "frequency" match shafts I can only presume this is what they are doing. Taking raw full length shafts and frequency matching them before packaging. If that is what they are actually doing I applaud them for doing so, as that my friend should give you/I the best matched set of arrows possible out of the box today. Then when you add an indexing process to that, you have what I believe would be the ultimate in accuracy and consistency. 



SouthShoreRat said:


> We must keep the way an arrow uses the stiff and neutral plane during dynamic flight as the cornerstone of building excellent arrows or we loose all of the value that has been added over the last 12 years.
> 
> I have proven countless times over the last few years in crossbow arrows that the consistency can be elevated to an amazing level. Archers are achieving 1 1/2 in 100 yard groups with arrows we have indexed, weight and spine deflection matched.
> 
> There are rifle shooters that would love to achieve that level of accuracy. I have also seen 1 1/2 in broad head groups at the 100 yard distance.
> 
> This is being done by testing arrows for straightness, finding the stiff plane and indexing it then finally matching the neutral plane spine deflection or frequency (cpm) followed by weight matching and sorting out any shaft that arent +/- .001 or better shaft.
> 
> Whether it is a stone knives and bear skin type of tool such as the RAM tester, a frequency analyzer or flo all align an arrow which adds consistency.
> 
> If these types of tests didnt work the 1000s of customers shops like mine have, the 1000s of customers tuners like Shane has would not be happy from being deceived!
> 
> This is not the case, these processes work!


I agree with all of the aforementioned, I'm merely suggesting that the cycle/period analyzer could be made to perform even better and that arrow manufacturers could provide a better matched sets out of the box by frequency sorting.


----------



## ontarget7

It's all at a cost and will be pushed down to the consumer. Is it needed ? I say know....due to the results I have seen with very good consistency. Most that even have a RAM will test but they forget to batch or even pay attention to static readings with spine variance. You can really determine the dynamic reaction that might be different just from paying attention to where these variances land when testing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> One distance can always be manipulated but at any given distance is what I'm looking for after all tuning is done.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This would be good data to see if indexing does change at yardage


----------



## enewman

Blindbuck 

The item I showed you is a pulse counter like you stated. That is all jerry is doing with the so called freq tester. It is just counting pulses. Or how many times the arrow breaks the beam an it passes it. It's not a true freq tester. It's a pulse counter. That's all it has ever been. But now we are back to semantics. And every one here seems to bash me on semantics. 

I also never see the tester jerry is using to be as accurate as your trying to get. It would have to have a timer so that it delays the first couple of pulses to account for how the process is started. (By hand). Then it will need to only read a few more sec then stop of the number would never stable out just do the flex slowing down. 

This is where the flo tester out shines the pulse counter for simplicity. You do not need to worry about the time duraration. If it's drawing a line it will do this till arrow stops flexing.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

ontarget7 said:


> One distance can always be manipulated but at any given distance is what I'm looking for after all tuning is done.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would just like to see how machine tested stands up to hands on real life testing


----------



## ontarget7

SouthShoreRat said:


> I would just like to see how machine tested stands up to hands on real life testing


Same with indoor target shooters. As long as it's hitting the mark at 20 yards is all that matters. Slide back to 60 and those groups can open up. 

Would like to see that test as well but tough to setup a hooter shooter at 100 yards


----------



## Beendare

SouthShoreRat said:


> IMO we should take care to not loose the original idea of testing arrows, the way dynamic spine works on tubes and the proven results from 1000s of customers from shops like mine, tuners like Shane. ....
> ...
> *IMO there are only 4 critical criteria needed to build extremely consistent arrows, the location of the stiff plane so we can know where to position the neutral plane and the frequency of the neutral plane IF we want to match the frequency aka spine deflection. # 3 would be straightness and #4 would be weight matching from shaft to shaft*
> 
> ......... finding the stiff plane and indexing it then finally matching the neutral plane spine deflection or frequency (cpm) followed by weight matching and sorting out any shaft that arent +/- .001 or better shaft.


Great thread and excellent post South shore. Thanks for taking the time to post that.


----------



## BlindBuck

ontarget7 said:


> It's all at a cost and will be pushed down to the consumer. Is it needed ? I say know....due to the results I have seen with very good consistency. Most that even have a RAM will test but they forget to batch or even pay attention to static readings with spine variance. You can really determine the dynamic reaction that might be different just from paying attention to where these variances land when testing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It would be at a cost but on a level from manufacturing standpoint it would be pennies on a dollar. So the cost that would be pushed down to the distributor/shop/consumer should(unless manufacturers get ultra greedy.lol) be minimal. Not putting down the consistency you or anyone else is achieving. I just believe if shafts were frequency sorted from a manufacturing perspective you would go from "very good" to "excellent" with your process.


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Same with indoor target shooters. As long as it's hitting the mark at 20 yards is all that matters. Slide back to 60 and those groups can open up.
> 
> Would like to see that test as well but tough to setup a hooter shooter at 100 yards


I shot 60 yards with my hooter shooter. I think I can make a 100. Or close to it. Now for this type of test do we need 100 yards


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Same with indoor target shooters. As long as it's hitting the mark at 20 yards is all that matters. Slide back to 60 and those groups can open up.
> 
> Would like to see that test as well but tough to setup a hooter shooter at 100 yards


Got a thought on what you just wrote. I would say yes. If you only shoot 20 yards tune for that. But if you tune for 100. Then it will be better no matter what as you move closer

We are getting to semantics again. When we index. We are not realy tuning. We are matching the reaction between arrows then tuning. So if all arrows are index. Then if you tune to what ever yardage then it's tuned. If you back up and it changes that it tune. Not indexing. .

Indexing is just to get the arrows to leave the bow the same. Key word is leave the bow. That means to check index with paper only needs to be done at 3 ft. Remember indexing is nor tuning. It's matching


----------



## enewman

Grim. I got to thinking about johns cpm. I would say he's converting it to make it easy and a smaller display. 

Say jerry checks an arrow and it's 250.15 for the stiff plane. A cps reading would be 15,009. I believe the display is a 3 digit. Then you push a button to get the 1/10 reading on the same 3 digit display. To keep it at cps you would need a 5 digit display.


----------



## BlindBuck

enewman said:


> Blindbuck
> 
> The item I showed you is a pulse counter like you stated. That is all jerry is doing with the so called freq tester. It is just counting pulses. Or how many times the arrow breaks the beam an it passes it. It's not a true freq tester. It's a pulse counter. That's all it has ever been. But now we are back to semantics. And every one here seems to bash me on semantics.
> 
> I also never see the tester jerry is using to be as accurate as your trying to get. It would have to have a timer so that it delays the first couple of pulses to account for how the process is started. (By hand). Then it will need to only read a few more sec then stop of the number would never stable out just do the flex slowing down.
> 
> This is where the flo tester out shines the pulse counter for simplicity. You do not need to worry about the time duraration. If it's drawing a line it will do this till arrow stops flexing.


Sorry missed this.

Yes it is a pulse counter which is no different than "Club Scout" products. 

As for the accuracy it depends on what is being used to provide the following statement from Kauffman Enterprises "Crystal controlled timing provides precise accuracy." Which is one of the questions I emailed them. Without knowing what they're using and how the circuit is designed I see this device as no more accurate than say a chronograph. So I am picturing in my mind a plethora of different manufacturers selling a unit like this all providing different results with regard to CPM. (hopefully I'm wrong) 

So are you saying the process is literally started by hand with this unit? I was picturing a launching device that provided the exact same deflection/launch every time.

If I am understanding this product correctly and how it is functioning, I agree with your statement about FLO.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

BlindBuck said:


> Sorry missed this.
> 
> Yes it is a pulse counter which is no different than "Club Scout" products.
> 
> As for the accuracy it depends on what is being used to provide the following statement from Kauffman Enterprises "Crystal controlled timing provides precise accuracy." Which is one of the questions I emailed them. Without knowing what they're using and how the circuit is designed I see this device as no more accurate than say a chronograph. So I am picturing in my mind a plethora of different manufacturers selling a unit like this all providing different results with regard to CPM. (hopefully I'm wrong)
> 
> So are you saying the process is literally started by hand with this unit? I was picturing a launching device that provided the exact same deflection/launch every time.
> 
> If I am understanding this product correctly and how it is functioning, I agree with your statement about FLO.


IMO it is far more accurate then any shoot in the world needs. But remember something i have said many timed. When looking at the stiff and neutral planes with a frequency analyzer there are only 4 cpm readings two stiff and 2 neutral. In order to pinpoint dead center accuracy the shafts must be nock tuned of run through a flo process


----------



## enewman

Blindbuck

I don't know or think what is going on with the this tester needs to be accurate. Let's say we test two arrows. One is 250 and 260. This means the stiff plane is at 250. And netrual is 260. The next arrow is 240 and 230. Then we know the stiff plane is. And can index both arrows. These are just made up numbers. 

Now where I do see a problem with this is where jerry said you can spine match. This would need to be more precise. We spine match with an indicator that reads in thousandths. This is going to be way more precise then the club scout. But I don't know for sure


----------



## GRIMWALD

BlindBuck said:


> Sorry missed this.
> 
> Yes it is a pulse counter which is no different than "Club Scout" products.
> 
> As for the accuracy it depends on what is being used to provide the following statement from Kauffman Enterprises "Crystal controlled timing provides precise accuracy." Which is one of the questions I emailed them. Without knowing what they're using and how the circuit is designed I see this device as no more accurate than say a chronograph. So I am picturing in my mind a plethora of different manufacturers selling a unit like this all providing different results with regard to CPM. (hopefully I'm wrong)
> 
> So are you saying the process is literally started by hand with this unit? I was picturing a launching device that provided the exact same deflection/launch every time.
> 
> If I am understanding this product correctly and how it is functioning, I agree with your statement about FLO.


Until Mr. Kaufman returns your correspondence, he has supplied a few brief observation of his testing equipment and methods to help us better understand what he is proposing

http://csfa.com/technote6.php

GRIMWALD


----------



## GRIMWALD

enewman said:


> Grim. I got to thinking about johns cpm. I would say he's converting it to make it easy and a smaller display.
> 
> Say jerry checks an arrow and it's 250.15 for the stiff plane. A cps reading would be 15,009. I believe the display is a 3 digit. Then you push a button to get the 1/10 reading on the same 3 digit display. To keep it at cps you would need a 5 digit display.


Sorry Eric, that will have to be confirmed by Mr. Kaufman. I understand the information being discussed but I don't have access to the equipment nor does he consult with me on his equipment.

GRIMWALD


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Sorry Eric, that will have to be confirmed by Mr. Kaufman. I understand the information being discussed but I don't have access to the equipment nor does he consult with me on his equipment.
> 
> GRIMWALD


 To keep it simple. And at that price he sales his product. I see nothing wrong at all with it.


----------



## enewman

GRIMWALD said:


> Oh my GOD, moderation from you Eric!!! The sky must be falling!!!!!
> 
> LOL!!!! Sorry, I couldn't resist Eric.
> 
> GRIMWALD


Haha. Love you to.


----------



## tmv

way too much science going on here. 90% of archers wouldn't know or see the difference.
if my arrows come from South Shore with a mark on them like they always do, great
if I get them from the local shop and(not knowing it) my 7 yo puts a random mark on them ..will I know the difference? probably not I only shoot to 50yds 
but my confidence in both sets would be the same , to me that's the important part


----------



## skynight

tmv said:


> way too much science going on here. 90% of archers wouldn't know or see the difference.
> if my arrows come from South Shore with a mark on them like they always do, great
> if I get them from the local shop and(not knowing it) my 7 yo puts a random mark on them ..will I know the difference? probably not I only shoot to 50yds
> but my confidence in both sets would be the same , to me that's the important part


Bet you'd notice. Indexing doesn't fix bad shots but it definitely tightens up the good shots.


----------



## enewman

tmv said:


> way too much science going on here. 90% of archers wouldn't know or see the difference.
> if my arrows come from South Shore with a mark on them like they always do, great
> if I get them from the local shop and(not knowing it) my 7 yo puts a random mark on them ..will I know the difference? probably not I only shoot to 50yds
> but my confidence in both sets would be the same , to me that's the important part


If this is to much science for you. I can post some links for you to read. We haven't even put a dent in it. 

Jerry gives you a service. He indexes the arrows and sends them to you. they are deffently a step up from arrows being bought at a local shop


----------



## rangerdanger

This may be a dumb question...but will having an insert already installed affect the spine test results? Specifically floating test? Obviously one end would be heavier, but will the heavy side of the arrow still rotate down?


----------



## Bwana

rangerdanger said:


> This may be a dumb question...but will having an insert already installed affect the spine test results? Specifically floating test? Obviously one end would be heavier, but will the heavy side of the arrow still rotate down?


Floating doesn't work :darkbeer:


----------



## ontarget7

Bwana said:


> Floating doesn't work :darkbeer:


Agreed


----------



## swbuckmaster

Tested my daughters nano pros on my ram tester with the updated bearings kit. 

First off they were straight to begin with but cutting them for her 25" draw makes them really straight. 

On the 9 arrows where I can see a high spot they tune with perfect bullet holes bare shafts. 

3 arrows are so straight I get a slight high reading in two spots. The high readings happen to be be a 180 degrees apart. The low spots happen to be 90 degrees off the high spots so it tells me on those arrows I'm looking at stiff plane and neutral plane. 

When verifying those 3 arrows through paper it will only tune a perfect tear on one of the high spots I located with the ram tester. 

So the ram tester sped up the arrow tunning process. However with these straight of arrows you wouldn't be able to tune them as easy without the bearing up grades because the Teflon catches more and isn't as accurate.

It literally only took a half hour to tune the whole dozen. Usually takes several hours and several shots through paper per arrow to find the sweet spot. Also without the spine tester you don't know if you tuned the whole batch to a bad arrow. With the ram you know they are all tunned to the high side and to a good arrow. 

Ram is worth the investment if you purchase the bearing up grades!




Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

swbuckmaster said:


> Tested my daughters nano pros on my ram tester with the updated bearings kit.
> 
> First off they were straight to begin with but cutting them for her 25" draw makes them really straight.
> 
> On the 9 arrows where I can see a high spot they tune with perfect bullet holes bare shafts.
> 
> 3 arrows are so straight I get a slight high reading in two spots. The high readings happen to be be a 180 degrees apart. The low spots happen to be 90 degrees off the high spots so it tells me on those arrows I'm looking at stiff plane and neutral plane.
> 
> When verifying those 3 arrows through paper it will only tune a perfect tear on one of the high spots I located with the ram tester.
> 
> So the ram tester sped up the arrow tunning process. However with these straight of arrows you wouldn't be able to tune them as easy without the bearing up grades because the Teflon catches more and isn't as accurate.
> 
> It literally only took a half hour to tune the whole dozen. Usually takes several hours and several shots through paper per arrow to find the sweet spot. Also without the spine tester you don't know if you tuned the whole batch to a bad arrow. With the ram you know they are all tunned to the high side and to a good arrow.
> 
> Ram is worth the investment if you purchase the bearing up grades!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I'm glade it all worked out for you. Would like to see a chart on the three to see your numbers. I do not mean anything by this but only way to truly see the planes of any shaft is with a freq tester. to see both and a flo to see one plane. And you see same as I do the arrows that have a distinct run out tune quicker then a arrow with no run out reading. 

And yes bearings make a major defference. 

Eric


----------



## COArrow

tmv said:


> way too much science going on here. 90% of archers wouldn't know or see the difference.
> if my arrows come from South Shore with a mark on them like they always do, great
> if I get them from the local shop and(not knowing it) my 7 yo puts a random mark on them ..will I know the difference? probably not I only shoot to 50yds
> but my confidence in both sets would be the same , to me that's the important part


I agree if you are only using field points.


----------



## mx482

I just received the RAM spine tester and have a few questions. Should I start another thread or would you mind the questions being posted in this one?


----------



## ontarget7

mx482 said:


> I just received the RAM spine tester and have a few questions. Should I start another thread or would you mind the questions being posted in this one?


Not a problem


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> I just received the RAM spine tester and have a few questions. Should I start another thread or would you mind the questions being posted in this one?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Sure


----------



## enewman

Ran some comparison on .003 with ram tester. And flo. Same as I seen to almost always get with the .003. Flo is about 20drgrees off from high point in run out. This means if flo is one of the planes and the planes are always 90 degree from each other. Then neither plane lined up with the run out. Going to do more testing. But so far I'm not seeing a relation ship between flo and ram with one of the planes inline with the ram.

Now if flo is always 20 degree out then yes. You can use the ram find the run out and set I doubt most of us could ever see the differnce at normal shooting range. Now at a 100. Then probably so.


----------



## mx482

Cool, we'll see how this goes. I'm learning this so apologize in advance for stupid questions.

Got the tester and there was a board in the packaging. It was kind of a gnarly unfinished board with paint on it that fit perfectly lengthwise between the two aluminum standards but wasn't wide enough to actually attach to the standards. I'm assuming it was along for the ride to keep the shipping box sturdy?

Do people screw the standards into a board to keep it more sturdy?

Second question and I'll stop there for now so I'm not posting a bunch of questions at once. Put a shaft on the tester to play around a bit. Was able to see that as I turned the arrow the zero-ed out needle would move to the right indicating less deflection. (as you press down on arrow the needle moves to the left) I'm assuming this is the stiff side of the arrow - the top - 12:00. So if everything is true so far, that is where the top of the arrow needs to be as it waits for launch (assume a drop-away rest with cock vane at 12:00 - top).

We'll stop there and make sure I'm understanding this before I go on. Thanks and what a valuable thread this has turned out to be!


----------



## enewman

The ram is a great tool. Remember it's first job is to match the deflection of all the arrows. The spine number given by the manufactures. This is just the reading when you first hang the weight. I like doing this is several spots on the arrow. In other words. Add weight write down number. Take weight off. Turn arrow. Rezero indicator add weight. Should be same reading. Then repeat with all arrows and sort. 

This is what the ram is for. 

Then do as your saying rotate arrow find point with least amount of deflection and mark. This is what you set for 12:00


----------



## enewman

I just used numbers Numbers I used would be on a 350 spine and .003 arrow. It will very on arrows but this shows you what you will be seeing. .001 arrows will be a lot less.


----------



## mx482

Looks like I'm on the right track. Thanks.

The next question is regarding indexing. Can I index an arrow that the insert has already been installed? The shaft I was playing around with last night already had a nock, an insert installed and no fletching. It seemed to work fine. Does it really matter when finding the stiff side?


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> Looks like I'm on the right track. Thanks.
> 
> The next question is regarding indexing. Can I index an arrow that the insert has already been installed? The shaft I was playing around with last night already had a nock, an insert installed and no fletching. It seemed to work fine. Does it really matter when finding the stiff side?


Not at all


----------



## mx482

Okay, great. Now the Ram spine tester comes a with nock alignment tool as you know. So I'm a little confused how to do this or even if it is applicable to what I want to do. Once I find the stiff side I mark the shaft. The nock alignment tool has a nock pin mount that is horizontal when the bubble is level (not vertical as you would find on a vertical bow). Is this piece used for this purpose or something else?


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> Okay, great. Now the Ram spine tester comes a with nock alignment tool as you know. So I'm a little confused how to do this or even if it is applicable to what I want to do. Once I find the stiff side I mark the shaft. The nock alignment tool has a nock mount that is horizontal when the bubble is level (not vertical as you would find on a vertical bow). Is this piece used for this purpose or something else?


I built my ram tester so I don't know wha your talking about.


----------



## ontarget7

mx482 said:


> Okay, great. Now the Ram spine tester comes a with nock alignment tool as you know. So I'm a little confused how to do this or even if it is applicable to what I want to do. Once I find the stiff side I mark the shaft. The nock alignment tool has a nock pin mount that is horizontal when the bubble is level (not vertical as you would find on a vertical bow). Is this piece used for this purpose or something else?


For what it's worth I don't even bother using that. Just mark all your stiff plane readings and note where they land in readings. After awhile you will get a feel of how far out on those readings might effect down range accuracy. Some top level archers might batch so all readings are within .005 from one another and so on. Just giving you an example


----------



## mx482

I'm not even sure how one would use that nock indexer ontarget7. If the nock pin would swivel you could pinpoint the exact location of the stiffest part of the spine and make sure your nock reflects this. As it is, I guess marking it with pen will suffice.


----------



## ontarget7

mx482 said:


> I'm not even sure how one would use that nock indexer ontarget7. If the nock pin would swivel you could pinpoint the exact location of the stiffest part of the spine and make sure your nock reflects this. As it is, I guess marking it with pen will suffice.


Yea, don't even bother

Just be picky on the stiff plane reading and mark with a paint pin etc 
You will get the hang of spinning the arrow so it's very easy to have consistent readings


----------



## skynight

mx482 said:


> Okay, great. Now the Ram spine tester comes a with nock alignment tool as you know. So I'm a little confused how to do this or even if it is applicable to what I want to do. Once I find the stiff side I mark the shaft. The nock alignment tool has a nock pin mount that is horizontal when the bubble is level (not vertical as you would find on a vertical bow). Is this piece used for this purpose or something else?


The nock alignment tool is just to orient your nocks identically from shaft to shaft. So once you have your mark you can use it to twist the nock to the same orientation in relation to the mark on each shaft. I don't use it because I run the mark at 12:00.
The other end of that tool is useful. It can be used to check pin bushing or broadhead runout. I use different tools for both of those functions however.


----------



## mx482

skynight said:


> The nock alignment tool is just to orient your nocks identically from shaft to shaft. So once you have your mark you can use it to twist the nock to the same orientation in relation to the mark on each shaft. I don't use it because I run the mark at 12:00.
> The other end of that tool is useful. It can be used to check pin bushing or broadhead runout. I use different tools for both of those functions however.


It seems like your precision is lost because the nock pin is horizontal and not vertical. I could make them all uniform (via the tool) if I end up having the stiff side 90 degrees to right or left.
Am I right or is there a way to get the nock pin to rotate to the vertical position while maintaining the bubble in the horizontal plane?


----------



## skynight

mx482 said:


> It seems like your precision is lost because the nock pin is horizontal and not vertical. I could make them all uniform (via the tool) if I end up having the stiff side 90 degrees to right or left.
> Am I right or is there a way to get the nock pin to rotate to the vertical position while maintaining the bubble in the horizontal plane?


No, I don't think you can do what you are asking. You can use the nock receiver pin as a reference I suppose. I just haven't found that tool necessary or useful.


----------



## mx482

Okay, at least I'm not overlooking the obvious. Thanks.


----------



## mx482

I'm going to throw this out there for some general discussion. I've heard it said many times that it doesn't matter how they are indexed as long as they are all indexed the same. I emailed Ram and asked the question I asked above concerning the nock indexing tool and the fact that if you use it as intended (using the balance bubble) your stiffest part of the spine at launch will be 90 degrees to one side or the other. Here is the answer I got.

"I put the spine on the side of the arrow. I do that because lets say you have two arrows that have a .003" defection difference in the spine. If you put the spine on top the arrows see the entire .003" spine difference during the shot cycle. If you put the spine on the side you cut that difference in half to .0015" during the shot cycle."

Now I'm throwing this out there cause I'm not sure I understand it so well. What do you think?


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> I'm going to throw this out there for some general discussion. I've heard it said many times that it doesn't matter how they are indexed as long as they are all indexed the same. I emailed Ram and asked the question I asked above concerning the nock indexing tool and the fact that if you use it as intended (using the balance bubble) your stiffest part of the spine at launch will be 90 degrees to one side or the other. Here is the answer I got.
> 
> "I put the spine on the side of the arrow. I do that because lets say you have two arrows that have a .003" defection difference in the spine. If you put the spine on top the arrows see the entire .003" spine difference during the shot cycle. If you put the spine on the side you cut that difference in half to .0015" during the shot cycle."
> 
> Now I'm throwing this out there cause I'm not sure I understand it so well. What do you think?


Your fixing to get into a lot here. Most on this post disagree with me. So I'm trying to not get to far involved. Let's look at a few things this is just me. An arrow that is a .001 will have a total of .002 on the run out. If it's more then it failed to meet standards. If less then it's a good arrow. .003 will be total of .006 and a .006 will be total of .012. This is run out. The bend in the arrow. It's not spine of the arrow. Static spine of arrow is what you get when you first hang the weight. Ok enough of that. 

When you find this run out. The arrow will fight this as it tries to flex. Say you mark it at 12:00. And your reading is 300 deflection. And it's a .003 arrow. Then 180 degree you will see .006. The arrow is bent. Normal. So when an arrow tries to flex it will flex easier with the bend and fight against the bend. This is why they are telling you to put it at 90 degree. Your not fighting against the bend. Again most on here disagree with me. But it's simple physics. Now does it matter I would say no. Ontarget proves that everyday. But this is also why you should try to by the best arrows possible.


----------



## ontarget7

If you put the stiff plane reading out, say 3 or 9 o'clock, there is a very good chance you will have to induce more pre lean on any yoke system bow to get clean lateral nock travel. 

It's completely up to you, but from my testing the majority of the time 12 o'clock stiff plane reading is where I index

Also keep in mind I am referring to bareshaft results 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman

It's a easy test. See if you have two arrows that are out by at least .003. Then mark them and set the same and shoot. See if they shoot the same.


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Yea, don't even bother
> 
> Just be picky on the stiff plane reading and mark with a paint pin etc
> You will get the hang of spinning the arrow so it's very easy to have consistent readings


Especially if you have a set of fine roller bearing from yours truly! Right Shane?


----------



## enewman

Super 91 said:


> Especially if you have a set of fine roller bearing from yours truly! Right Shane?


Have you ever contacted ram with your rollers.


----------



## mx482

Super 91 said:


> Especially if you have a set of fine roller bearing from yours truly! Right Shane?


It's on my todo list Super 91.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> Especially if you have a set of fine roller bearing from yours truly! Right Shane?


Your back !!! Haven't seen you around in awhile. You did an excellent job on those rollers


----------



## skynight

Super 91 said:


> Especially if you have a set of fine roller bearing from yours truly! Right Shane?


They certainly help.


----------



## SAVIOUR68

There's more infomercials going on in this thread than solid fact based documentation


----------



## enewman

SAVIOUR68 said:


> There's more infomercials going on in this thread than solid fact based documentation


Haha. Yes. I can sale you a flo tester fully bearing. $500


----------



## SAVIOUR68

And I will happily pay you a extra 1000.00 for training :tongue:


----------



## enewman

SAVIOUR68 said:


> And I will happily pay you a extra 1000.00 for training :tongue:


On my way. Haha.


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Your back !!! Haven't seen you around in awhile. You did an excellent job on those rollers


Thank you sir! Been busy, so mainly lurking and reading these days when I can. I've been getting a kick out this revived thread!


----------



## Super 91

SAVIOUR68 said:


> There's more infomercials going on in this thread than solid fact based documentation


Not true, I'm the only supporting manufacturer running an "Ad"....LOL Lots of "term defining" and "arguments" over who calls what what, but it has come down to a few who believe indexing is working well with the RAM, and happen to 100% agree, regardless of what terms you choose to use.


----------



## ontarget7

Super 91 said:


> Thank you sir! Been busy, so mainly lurking and reading these days when I can. I've been getting a kick out this revived thread!


Your welcome and hope all is well !!

I view the threads in between sets working out in the morning. Always catch my self cracking a smile, that's for sure. 

Those bearing upgrades I'm sure would do well if you made some more


----------



## enewman

ontarget7 said:


> Your welcome and hope all is well !!
> 
> I view the threads in between sets working out in the morning. Always catch my self cracking a smile, that's for sure.
> 
> Those bearing upgrades I'm sure would do well if you made some more


Is this you Shane


----------



## Super 91

ontarget7 said:


> Your welcome and hope all is well !!
> 
> I view the threads in between sets working out in the morning. Always catch my self cracking a smile, that's for sure.
> 
> Those bearing upgrades I'm sure would do well if you made some more


I have made another run due to so many PM's requesting more. I think I have 10 or so sets here ready to go if anyone needs them. Thanks! Just PM me for details.


----------



## SAVIOUR68

My comment was not directed at any person and meant as a joke , and yes it was put there to make people LOL.:wink:
I knew I could suckered Eric into posting something :darkbeer:


----------



## enewman

SAVIOUR68 said:


> My comment was not directed at any person and meant as a joke , and yes it was put there to make people LOL.:wink:


that would mean you think people have a since of humor.


----------



## mx482

Super 91 said:


> I have made another run due to so many PM's requesting more. I think I have 10 or so sets here ready to go if anyone needs them. Thanks! Just PM me for details.


Tell us a little bit about your upgrade. 

Does your upgrade include the weight or do you add the rolling bearings to the existing setup?
If it does include the weight, is the weight the same as the one included?

Post up a pick of your invention if you've got one.

Just as a general question, when indexing nocks and testing for the spine, does it matter what the weight is?

I realize the spine stiffness is measured with a standard.
(ASTM F2031-05) an arrow's official spine deflection is measured by hanging a 1.94 lb. weight in the center of a 28" suspended section of the arrow shaft


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> Tell us a little bit about your upgrade.
> 
> Does your upgrade include the weight or do you add the rolling bearings to the existing setup?
> If it does include the weight, is the weight the same as the one included?
> 
> Post up a pick of your invention if you've got one.
> 
> Just as a general question, when indexing nocks and testing for the spine, does it matter what the weight is?
> 
> I realize the spine stiffness is measured with a standard.
> (ASTM F2031-05) an arrow's official spine deflection is measured by hanging a 1.94 lb. weight in the center of a 28" suspended section of the arrow shaft


When checking for correct spine of arrow the weight matters. But looking for run out to index no it dosent matter. At that point your just looking at the veriance. When I do my arrows I spine match. Then I cut to the length I want. Then I move my bearings and then check. I also like to zero out when looking for high point so again it dosent matter.


----------



## mx482

Thanks, that's kind of what I was thinking.

Also, it looks like the upgrade fits with the existing weight.


----------



## enewman

mx482 said:


> Thanks, that's kind of what I was thinking.
> 
> Also, it looks like the upgrade fits with the existing weight.


I don't know on the parts super91 is selling. Bearing make a big difference. But weight would have to be adjusted some where. Just pm him. He will respond


----------



## mx482

ontarget7 said:


> Hmmmm ! I can go back to any given arrow I have indexed from the past and still locate the stiff side. Seems to not vary much at all for me. One thing I do, is not let the plunger gauge stay up against the weight and I lube that plunger gauge as well. You can get varying results if the plunger gets dusty and dirty over time.



Can you explain what you mean by not letting the plunger gauge stay up against the weight?


----------



## 1diesel

For a pic of the upgrade Super 91 made. 

If you want to see what it looks like on the weight go back to page 38 post 935

If you want to see the upgrade not on the weight go to page 39 post 965

Sorry tried to copy and post the pics here but could not do it


----------



## Super 91

Thanks Diesel, been busy and away for a few days.


----------



## SouthShoreRat

mx482 said:


> I'm going to throw this out there for some general discussion. I've heard it said many times that it doesn't matter how they are indexed as long as they are all indexed the same.


This is correct from a consistency point of view but as Ontarget7 has stated it could and most likely would change the tune.

I tell customers it does not matter if the stiff point is up or if it is down because it is not a point it is a plane 180 degrees through the arrow. Doing this will always put the neutral plane 90 degrees out or in a horizontal plane. 

From a physics point of view the stiff plane guides or directs the energy dynamically toward the center of the arrow and it escapes in the form of oscillation along the neutral plane. So if you place the stiff plane at any orientation it will flex 90 degrees from that orientation. 

Placing the stiff plane so it enhances the tune of the bow is a far the better was of indexing. It does not matter what straightness you have dynamically as far as the flight of the arrow is concerned dynamically unless the arrow is so un-straight that the static bend, natural bend etc (what ever name you care to call it) effects the dynamic flight of the arrow by causing a broad head to take control of the POI!


----------



## SAVIOUR68

SouthShoreRat said:


> This is correct from a consistency point of view but as Ontarget7 has stated it could and most likely would change the tune.
> 
> I tell customers it does not matter if the stiff point is up or if it is down because it is not a point it is a plane 180 degrees through the arrow. Doing this will always put the neutral plane 90 degrees out or in a horizontal plane.
> 
> From a physics point of view the stiff plane guides or directs the energy dynamically toward the center of the arrow and it escapes in the form of oscillation along the neutral plane. So if you place the stiff plane at any orientation it will flex 90 degrees from that orientation.
> 
> Placing the stiff plane so it enhances the tune of the bow is a far the better was of indexing. It does not matter what straightness you have dynamically as far as the flight of the arrow is concerned dynamically unless the arrow is so un-straight that the static bend, natural bend etc (what ever name you care to call it) effects the dynamic flight of the arrow by causing a broad head to take control of the POI!


Bingo we have a winner, some use a certain side of a specific plane to tune different arrow rests.


----------



## mx482

Super 91, Put me down for a roller bearing upgrade. PM'd you.


----------



## mx482

Super 91 said:


> I have made another run due to so many PM's requesting more. I think I have 10 or so sets here ready to go if anyone needs them. Thanks! Just PM me for details.


Got my bearings from Bob yesterday. Really nice work! Highly recommended.


----------



## Ron213

Tagged


----------



## Super 91

mx482 said:


> Got my bearings from Bob yesterday. Really nice work! Highly recommended.


Thanks! I hope you enjoy them. I sure made my indexing job easier when I made the first set. 

As far the question about how much weight it adds, it is very little. But if you have a good quality scale, weigh the brass weight with the new arms vs the old, take a good quality drill bit and drill a small hole in the center of the bottom of the weight, removing a tiny bit at a time to remove a small amount of material until you reach the 1.94 weight that is the standard. Only do a tiny amount at a time and keep check so you don't go too far. But this is only a concern if you want to check spine defection to make sure the arrow that is marked "350" is truly a 350 spine. It is not important to remove any weight if you are talking about just doing spine indexing.


----------



## nwcrowder

Super 91 said:


> I have made another run due to so many PM's requesting more. I think I have 10 or so sets here ready to go if anyone needs them. Thanks! Just PM me for details.


pm sent for purchase. thanks


----------



## mx482

I'm putting the stiff side up for my drop-away rest and compound bow.

Where should the stiff side be when finger shooting with a recurve with a flipper rest?


----------



## Fury90flier

If I remember correctly it's opposite the plunger...check the FITA section for confirmation.


----------



## highwaynorth

enewman said:


> I don't know on the parts super91 is selling. Bearing make a big difference. But weight would have to be adjusted some where. Just pm him. He will respond


The weight only matters if you're checking to see if the spine matches what the manufacture says it should be. You can still
spine match arrows to each other regardkess of the weight ,becuse the amount of deflection is all that matters .


----------



## zwalls

found this old thread in my subscriptions......it was one of my favorites!


----------



## dkkarr

Marked


----------

