• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Who has snorted the Fairy Dust?

krub6b said:
Technically the bow isn't an energy generator, it's a storage device that holds the energy you put into it and then transfers that to the arrow. The valid part of page 47 is that at a set weight and draw length, these would be your comfortable max weight and draw length, energy is the same as it leaves the string, no matter what arrow you shoot, as soon as that arrow leaves the bow though the arrow does what arrows do which is slow down and loose energy, how much it loses is directly related to the arrow mass
Click to expand...
If we solve for K1 and K2 we get K1=-.0023 or .23%, K2=-.0015 or .15% That represents the change in velocity per yard, and therefore KE and momentum.
So you retain .08% more KE and momentum with the 650 gr arrow.

Drop for the arrows the arrows in inches at 10/20/3/40/50 yards:
K1 = -2/ -7/ -17/- 31/ -50 ( 360 gr)
K2 = -4/ -14/ -30/ -54/ -87 ( 650 gr)

20230208_104539.jpg
Got that from this thread, courtesy of @Plebe if I remember right.

Is the juice worth the squeeze on those heavy arrows? Shoot what you want. I look at that math, and the 12 factors and say no to that heavy of arrow
 
I have found that my current setup 575 TAW and 20% FOC is very forgiving.
 
Horn said:
If we solve for K1 and K2 we get K1=-.0023 or .23%, K2=-.0015 or .15% That represents the change in velocity per yard, and therefore KE and momentum.
So you retain .08% more KE and momentum with the 650 gr arrow.

Drop for the arrows the arrows in inches at 10/20/3/40/50 yards:
K1 = -2/ -7/ -17/- 31/ -50 ( 360 gr)
K2 = -4/ -14/ -30/ -54/ -87 ( 650 gr)

View attachment 81416
Got that from this thread, courtesy of @Plebe if I remember right.

Is the juice worth the squeeze on those heavy arrows? Shoot what you want. I look at that math, and the 12 factors and say no to that heavy of arrow
Click to expand...
Did you say yes to 360 taw though?
 
BTaylor said:
Did you say yes to 360 taw though?
Click to expand...
No to the feather wieghts. I seem to always be floating around 475. Current arrow is 478 & 17% foc. Count on that changing :sweatsmile:

I just wanted to share some math from thier info. It's mathematically correct that the heavier arrow retains energy better down range, but it's a miniscule difference.
 
Horn said:
No to the feather wieghts. I seem to always be floating around 475. Current arrow is 478 & 17% foc. Count on that changing :sweatsmile:

I just wanted to share some math from thier info. It's mathematically correct that the heavier arrow retains energy better down range, but it's a miniscule difference.
Click to expand...
I like that 475-500 range to for my compound setup. Might be a small difference from a mathematical standpoint but I definitely saw diminished terminal performance when I tried a lighter setup to chase speed. Stopped getting consistent pass throughs even without hitting big bone. Pushed the weight back up and right back to shooting through everything.
 
BTaylor said:
I like that 475-500 range to for my compound setup. Might be a small difference from a mathematical standpoint but I definitely saw diminished terminal performance when I tried a lighter setup to chase speed. Stopped getting consistent pass throughs even without hitting big bone. Pushed the weight back up and right back to shooting through everything.
Click to expand...
How did FOC change when you were switching? Say did you dip foc and taw together? Or up foc but lower taw? Vice versa?

I am looking to stay in the mid 400s, I don't want to get too light
 
Horn said:
How did FOC change when you were switching? Say did you dip foc and taw together? Or up foc but lower taw? Vice versa?

I am looking to stay in the mid 400s, I don't want to get too light
Click to expand...
Didnt know a single person that had a clue what FOC was back then. When I say went lighter, I made the switch from xx75's to a carbon shaft. Pretty quickly went back to luminum and arrows stopped slowing down when they went through much less stopping. Dont remember what those first carbon I shot weighed but they were light.
 
When I started Archery hunting roughly 40 years ago well B4 the internet, My local pro shop was attempting to help me understand the advantages of more FOC. I was not having anything to do with it. Took me over 30 years B4 I started to really grasp what Al, the pro shop guru was attempting to help me understand. I am fairly sure Al could been taught a thing or two from todays internet.

I do not buy in to everything we see on the internet though we would do well to understand High FOC & high TAW was a relatively common thing Back in the BC years. Both B4 carbon & likely B4 christ.
 
BTaylor said:
Didnt know a single person that had a clue what FOC was back then. When I say went lighter, I made the switch from xx75's to a carbon shaft. Pretty quickly went back to luminum and arrows stopped slowing down when they went through much less stopping. Dont remember what those first carbon I shot weighed but they were light.
Click to expand...
Most likely they were AFC's. Aligned Fiber Composite. Shortly after that Beman's came out as well.
 
Plebe said:
So, for a given constant taw (mass), increasing draw weight doesn’t produce more velocity and therefore more KE?
Click to expand...
By increasing the draw weight you would be increasing your energy output.

But at a set draw weight and length the output is consistent across various arrow weights.
 
Last edited:
Horn said:
If we solve for K1 and K2 we get K1=-.0023 or .23%, K2=-.0015 or .15% That represents the change in velocity per yard, and therefore KE and momentum.
So you retain .08% more KE and momentum with the 650 gr arrow.

Drop for the arrows the arrows in inches at 10/20/3/40/50 yards:
K1 = -2/ -7/ -17/- 31/ -50 ( 360 gr)
K2 = -4/ -14/ -30/ -54/ -87 ( 650 gr)

View attachment 81416
Got that from this thread, courtesy @Plebe if I remember right.

Is the juice worth the squeeze on those heavy arrows? Shoot what you want. I look at that math, and the 12 factors and say no to that heavy of arrow
Click to expand...
Is the velocity deteriorating at a set amount or is more/less lost as it slows down and travels further?
 
DroptineKrazy said:
But wouldn't the heavier arrow absorb more of that energy.
Click to expand...
Yes, sorta. For a given bow setup, draw length, weight, cam, etc there is a fixed amount of energy that will be produced. Some of that energy is going to be used as the bow cycles. The rest is going to go somewhere, lol. The arrow obviously has to be the proper spine to fly right but otherwise arrow weight is what will capture bow energy. If the arrow is not heavy enough untransferred energy left over is going into the bow in the form of vibration and noise. You can also get to a weight where the arrow is taking all available energy. This shot will lack vibration and nearly all noise. Any weight above that ,imo, serves no real purpose. You could still see incremental gains in momentum but the bow is no longer working in its optimal range because it is pushing an arrow weight that surpasses the available energy the bow can put into it.
 
SD Guy said:
Troy's compliment with the brain of Rocket man.

Click to expand...
A little late here, but I watched the video

Very interesting! I very much appreciate the technical approach. Plenty of food for thought in regards to FOC and fletchings / lift and roll.
 
Anybody experimented with moving fletchings further back? I assume the biggest hurdle is string/ face clearance. I doubt there’s that noticeable of a difference moving them back but according to Barnett it should create a more stable arrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jtw0057 said:
Anybody experimented with moving fletchings further back? I assume the biggest hurdle is string/ face clearance. I doubt there’s that noticeable of a difference moving them back but according to Barnett it should create a more stable arrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I run mine a little farther back than what factory arrows come with, can't say it makes any real difference since the angle and fletch aren't the exact same. The jig I have I picked up used from a guy who had a collection of used bitzenberger's and didn't need them all, he had a mark on the clamp that he used for all the arrows people had him make for them and his recommendation was to stay as far back as string clearance allowed. now that I run a four fletch I could back them up a little more though.....
 
krub6b said:
I run mine a little farther back than what factory arrows come with, can't say it makes any real difference since the angle and fletch aren't the exact same. The jig I have I picked up used from a guy who had a collection of used bitzenberger's and didn't need them all, he had a mark on the clamp that he used for all the arrows people had him make for them and his recommendation was to stay as far back as string clearance allowed. now that I run a four fletch I could back them up a little more though.....
Click to expand...
One of my archery mentors staggers his fletching. The first fletch goes on at the appointed place, the second goes on 1/8" behind that one, and the third 1/8" behind that. Theory being that this reduces turbulence and produces (marginal) increases in accuracy. I haven't quantified his claims on my own fletching jobs. Anyone hear of this before? Possibly in concert with a turbulator (sp)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top