Arrow Build. Vanes?

[Weisman125]

You can get 25 grain brass insert weights. They simply screw into the rear of the insert. I built a tool to add them without taking the insert out. Get a close hanger, weld a piece of all thread (I forgot the size). What I do, is put a small dab of super glue on the 25 grain added weight, then scew it into the insert. Wait a few min and then unscrew the tool out and reinsert the nock.

This gets me thinking...I don't believe the HIT inserts are threaded all the way through to use these weights (could be wrong). However, if I buy the brass HIT inserts, I could push the 25gr break off part in from the nock and epoxy in place to offset the rear weight. May have to test some with the full 50 or even 75 grains for S&Gs.

 

[Art_Vandelay]

I will be experimenting with bohning’s x vanes this year. I want to see how small (1.5”), light weight (3.3 grains) vanes pair with large COC heads.

 

[Kurt]

I've been a engineer for over 25 years and there is one thing that had always been taught. And that's you NEVER trust another engineer or others advise when it can't be proven. By a engineer's standpoint, it's impossible to do as ashby is saying. I'm not saying all isn't true, but the rear weight isn't true. And that's easy to prove.

Ok. I'm not an engineer, so try to keep it simple. But I'm interested. I don't want to follow or try techniques that are going to be impossible to obtain, or even frustratingly hard. I want to keep it as easy as possible, but still create a high quality product. I love to tinker, but I'm not prone to do the next cool thing just because it's cool. I can follow a recipe if I know I'm going to get a reward at the end, but I don't know the in depths of the physics/engineering of it. So prove it. Please.

 

[Mr Price]

Ok. I'm not an engineer, so try to keep it simple. But I'm interested. I don't want to follow or try techniques that are going to be impossible to obtain, or even frustratingly hard. I want to keep it as easy as possible, but still create a high quality product. I love to tinker, but I'm not prone to do the next cool thing just because it's cool. I can follow a recipe if I know I'm going to get a reward at the end, but I don't know the in depths of the physics/engineering of it. So prove it. Please.

Just use your own common sense. Let's say you draw your bow, walk up to a wall and place the point on the wall. The entire arrow will see the stress of that. All of that stress is obtained from the front of the arrow, correct? As soon as you walk away the stress is released. Now do the same again with added weight to the nock end of the arrow. The arrow is still stressed just the same, the rear weight didn't do anything at this point, the arrow didn't get stiffer or stronger from this. Now when you walk away, the stressed is released, but this time the foc is changed and arrow efficiency has changed. Hope this helped

 

[Kurt]

Just use your own common sense. Let's say you draw your bow, walk up to a wall and place the point on the wall. The entire arrow will see the stress of that. All of that stress is obtained from the front of the arrow, correct? As soon as you walk away the stress is released. Now do the same again with added weight to the nock end of the arrow. The arrow is still stressed just the same, the rear weight didn't do anything at this point, the arrow didn't get stiffer or stronger from this. Now when you walk away, the stressed is released, but this time the foc is changed and arrow efficiency has changed. Hope this helped

So here's my thinking. If I loaded an arrow with 500grs upfront so the total arrow weight was 800 grs and bare shaft,and lets say 25% FoC, and fired it off a 70# bow. All of the bows energy goes to the shaft and pushes the front which causes some resistance. The arrow would paradox a given amount, lets say on a scale from 1 to 10 it paradoxed an 8. Now lets add our fletch and a lighted nock, and wraps and crests and 300grs of weight,bringing the total arrow weight up to 1200grs. We reduced the FoC, lets say to 10 or 12%. Now fire the bow and rate the paradox of the shaft on our scale of 1 to 10. The same energy our bow delivered the first time is the same as it delivers now. Only this time it's pushing more weight, and not all the weight is loaded up front, so the shaft doesn't have to deal with it all. The paradox number on our scale of 1 to 10 has to go down, because the string is only capable of delivering a certain amount of energy, and it's pushing more weight. Now what if I didn't do anything to the back of the first arrow but lowered the poundage of the bow to equal the amount of energy the bow was able to deliver to the shaft under the increased weight. Reducing the poundage of your bow will stiffen the arrow, or more accurately decrease the paradox, which is decreasing the dynamic spine. Folks tie on nock sets instead of using brass nock sets to decrease weight on their strings so the bow can deliver more energy to the arrow for higher fps. It seems the same to me.

 

[Red Beard]

These are exactly the kinds of discussions that I love to see play out on SH! Mostly because I'm not smart enough to understand how one thing affects another. So good to hear explanations when yall dumb it down to layman's terms. Thank you! Just refilled my popcorn.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

I've been shooting bows for 46 years now. I've always heard and read that increasing weight on the nock end will stiffen the spine.
In all these years, Mr Price is the only person I've heard dispute that. Not saying he's wrong, but if the nock weight argument has been wrong all these years than why hasn't anyone established that sooner?

 

[Gamover06]

I think we try to over complicate things sometime. If you add weight to the back your FOC will go down and your arrow will be stiffer because your balancing out the weight. The more weight you add to the front the weaker your arrow will get and the higher the FOC.

 

[like.2.fly]

I will be experimenting with bohning’s x vanes this year. I want to see how small (1.5”), light weight (3.3 grains) vanes pair with large COC heads.

If you want extra light fletching (to increase FOC) then consider feathers rather than plastic vanes. I've been fletching lately with 3 Gateway Razr feathers (2" length, .512" height) that only weigh 1.2 grains per. They provide a lot more steering power than low profile 1.5" X-vanes, and at less than half the weight. Vanes might have an advantage when hunting in a downpour, but simple steps can be taken to keep feathers dry, or they can be waterproofed. I think they are a great option. Not as durable as vanes, but I feel they give better flight.

 

[Red Beard]

If you want extra light fletching (to increase FOC) then consider feathers rather than plastic vanes. I've been fletching lately with 3 Gateway Razr feathers (2" length, .512" height) that only weigh 1.2 grains per. They provide a lot more steering power than low profile 1.5" X-vanes, and at less than half the weight. Vanes might have an advantage when hunting in a downpour, but simple steps can be taken to keep feathers dry, or they can be waterproofed. I think they are a great option. Not as durable as vanes, but I feel they give better flight.

Didn't someone along the way say that feathers are noisier than vanes? Just wondering for my own edification since I'm about to place an order.

 

[Art_Vandelay]

If you want extra light fletching (to increase FOC) then consider feathers rather than plastic vanes. I've been fletching lately with 3 Gateway Razr feathers (2" length, .512" height) that only weigh 1.2 grains per. They provide a lot more steering power than low profile 1.5" X-vanes, and at less than half the weight. Vanes might have an advantage when hunting in a downpour, but simple steps can be taken to keep feathers dry, or they can be waterproofed. I think they are a great option. Not as durable as vanes, but I feel they give better flight.

thanks for the suggestion I’ll def look into them. With a high FOC (over 19%) is more or less steering power necessary? It seems that in the past the general consensus was that you need more, however lately I’ve seen claims that you do not need as much steering power on high FOC arrows.

 

[PEEJAY]

Just use your own common sense. Let's say you draw your bow, walk up to a wall and place the point on the wall. The entire arrow will see the stress of that. All of that stress is obtained from the front of the arrow, correct? As soon as you walk away the stress is released. Now do the same again with added weight to the nock end of the arrow. The arrow is still stressed just the same, the rear weight didn't do anything at this point, the arrow didn't get stiffer or stronger from this. Now when you walk away, the stressed is released, but this time the foc is changed and arrow efficiency has changed. Hope this helped

I dont think this makes sense. You need to think about putting the shock on the back of the arrow. that where the shot is coming from. THe force is going from the string to the nock. your talking about starting off with it touching a wall... if you have a heavy nock end, its going to absorb some of that energy before it gets to the weight of the business end. right? HAvent heard too many people say this doesnt affect foc

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Didn't someone along the way say that feathers are noisier than vanes? Just wondering for my own edification since I'm about to place an order.

Ive heard that too. But somewhere I also read that feathers sound more natural and less likely to spook deer. Like a flying bird. I don’t know if I buy it though. Noise is noise.

 

[BTaylor]

Kurt made the point earlier but it gets missed often in discussions re: spine and adding weight to each end of a shaft. The spine of the shaft is determined at construction. The dynamic spine is determined by everything else that happens on or to that shaft in making and using it. Front weight, rear weight, draw weight, length the shaft is cut too, cam efficency, etc. all play a part in the dynamic spine of the shaft and how that particular arrow is going to tune given the setup it is being applied too.

While Mr. Price is correct that adding rear weight is going to lower the FOC of the arrow, what wasnt mentioned is the increase in total arrow mass and it's influence on momentum. With that 340 shaft, if it is tuned at this point and you want to increase the point weight by say 25 grains, you may find that you need to increase the rear weight with a lighted nock to keep it tuned. I think you for sure would find that increasing front weight and switching to feathers would destabilize that arrow and reduce accuracy. Maybe not to the point that you couldnt hunt with it but certainly to the point that efficiency and penetration is reduced. Everything is a give an take and the only way to find what works best for you is to test different setups in your rig.

 

[like.2.fly]

Didn't someone along the way say that feathers are noisier than vanes? Just wondering for my own edification since I'm about to place an order.

Yes, they are a little noisier. Noisier in-flight because they are creating a little more drag than vanes. But that also equates to more steering power. I don't feel this noise difference is large by any means, but it's there. Feathers are also a little noisier when brushed against something while walking or climbing. But vanes aren't quiet in that regard either. Brushing either one could spook a deer. As with everything there are trade-offs. I accept the noise factors to get the higher FOC and better arrow flight. That's been my experience anyway...

 

[Kurt]

I've been shooting bows for 46 years now. I've always heard and read that increasing weight on the nock end will stiffen the spine.
In all these years, Mr Price is the only person I've heard dispute that. Not saying he's wrong, but if the nock weight argument has been wrong all these years than why hasn't anyone established that sooner?

Doesn't stiffen the spine of the arrow, it changes the dynamic spine so the arrow reacts stiffer, as I understand it. Again I'm not an engineer so I'm just reiterating what I've read and come to understand all these years. Could I be wrong in my assessment, hell ya I could.

 

[Weldabeast]

Just use your own common sense. Let's say you draw your bow, walk up to a wall and place the point on the wall. The entire arrow will see the stress of that. All of that stress is obtained from the front of the arrow, correct? As soon as you walk away the stress is released. Now do the same again with added weight to the nock end of the arrow. The arrow is still stressed just the same, the rear weight didn't do anything at this point, the arrow didn't get stiffer or stronger from this. Now when you walk away, the stressed is released, but this time the foc is changed and arrow efficiency has changed. Hope this helped

Take a drinking straw and hold it from the back and try to stab the wall. Take the same straw hold it in the center and stab. Now hold at the stab end and stab into the wall

 

[Allegheny Tom]

Doesn't stiffen the spine of the arrow, it changes the dynamic spine so the arrow reacts stiffer, as I understand it. Again I'm not an engineer so I'm just reiterating what I've read and come to understand all these years. Could I be wrong in my assessment, hell ya I could.

I guess I was a little loose with my terminology, but isn't the end result basically the same?

 

[BTaylor]

Doesn't stiffen the spine of the arrow, it changes the dynamic spine so the arrow reacts stiffer, as I understand it. Again I'm not an engineer so I'm just reiterating what I've read and come to understand all these years. Could I be wrong in my assessment, hell ya I could.

You are not wrong.

 

[BTaylor]

I guess I was a little loose with my terminology, but isn't the end result basically the same?

The loose terminology is something we can all be guilty of, I know I can be. The issue is somewhat like when folks clarify things related to climbing safety because someone posted something that many folks who understand the issue recognize but left unclarified could lead folks in the wrong direction. Spine and dynamic spine can be the same way in that if things arent clarified someone could head off down a rabbit hole for a very unavoidable reason.