Archery Talk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Maybe it's just me, but are folks past the point of overthinking this stuff? It's starting to feel like nothing more than a way to perpetuate a life on grant money and donations.

I'm getting in on this action. I'm starting a new foundation. Start donating money to the Common Sense Isn't So Common Foundation. We will "study" how to use common sense, and I'll make sure we use data to prove how it works more often than not using common sense. I might even get some grants too (since Washington doesn't have any).

Broadheads... I won't even take grant money for this one. Long skinny pointy things fly better through all mediums. They fly better through the air, the water, the ground, and... wait for it... animals. That's why everything we see around us with that purpose is built that way (e.g. planes, boats, nails, spikes, drills, etc.). Why are people studying this? Do we not know a 2" wide flying meat clever won't penetrate as easily as a 1" swept back cut on contact point?

More breaking news from the lab just in. Have a sharp broadhead. If you use the broadhead, whether for practice or for hunting, and you plan to use it again... you sharpen it. Even if you didn't use it... you sharpen it. It's true. Our existence is living proof that this works... and they were using rocks tied to sticks. Pretty sure our surgical grade steel and sharpened titanium flying much faster will be just fine. Why are people studying this?

I'll include the foundation PayPal link for donations for this one. It hurts more to get hit by heavy stuff than light stuff. It's true. That's why you don't see a wrecking ball made of foam. If I make some graphs and excel spreadsheets with random numbers in tables do you think I could sell some arrow test packs with the CSISCF logo on it?

But wait, there's more. Order in the next 30 minutes and I'll throw in this groundbreaking study. We have this thing called gravity that pulls everything to the ground. It's true. The Common Sense Isn't So Common Foundation shot arrows with $30,000 radar machines for days to prove it really happens. If something is heavy, and therefore harder to propel faster, it will take longer to get to the target, and fall quicker to the ground. Accuracy is both horizontal and vertical, so the more the arrow drops, the harder it will be to hit a spot accurately from any kind of significant distance (especially if you're guessing at how far the target is). And the only way to help overcome that is a larger power source (your shoulders will thank you) or a lighter projectile. The CSISCF study found that a balanced ratio of projectile weight to power source produced the best results (even in the blind taste test).

I'll be here all week for Q&A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,254 Posts
to prove it really happens. If something is heavy, and therefore harder to propel faster, it will fall quicker to the ground. Accuracy is both horizontal and vertical, so the more the arrow drops, the harder it will be to hit the spot accurately (

And already your foundation's data is flawed... Two items will fall due to gravity at the same rate regardless of their relative mass; yes you get more drop because the heavier arrow spends more time gravity, but its a function of time and not mass.

As for less accurate at distances with slower arrows... Doesn't seem to bother the women archers at the Olympics; time over distance isn[t the defining factor of accuracy, thanks to that gravity thing again the arc of an arrow in flight is predictable and consistent, it[s only the archer's inability to use this predictable arc that effects their ability to hit the target.

But congrats on the new foundation, you have a daunting road ahead of you... If common sense were truly common, it wouldn't have to be called "common."
 

·
Registered
Mathews Traverse
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
to prove it really happens. If something is heavy, and therefore harder to propel faster, it will fall quicker to the ground. Accuracy is both horizontal and vertical, so the more the arrow drops, the harder it will be to hit the spot accurately (

And already your foundation's data is flawed... Two items will fall due to gravity at the same rate regardless of their relative mass; yes you get more drop because the heavier arrow spends more time gravity, but its a function of time and not mass.

As for less accurate at distances with slower arrows... Doesn't seem to bother the women archers at the Olympics; time over distance isn[t the defining factor of accuracy, thanks to that gravity thing again the arc of an arrow in flight is predictable and consistent, it[s only the archer's inability to use this predictable arc that effects their ability to hit the target.

But congrats on the new foundation, you have a daunting road ahead of you... If common sense were truly common, it wouldn't have to be called "common."
I was thinking of this while i was reading OP post.👍😁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Now you just need a fairy on youtube to promote it and insult 3/4 of the bowhunters in the country.
We asked the guys in wardrobe and they were all out of fairy costumes.

Here at the CSISCF, we have the farm elf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
If something is heavy, and therefore harder to propel faster, it will fall quicker to the ground.
You might want to spend more of your grant money studying that.

While it may hit the ground closer, it will not hit the ground more quickly.



It might be harder to get grant money for this, as it was sorted out about 500 years ago.


Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment - Wikipedia




EDIT: Ooops. @TheBlindArcher beat me to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
oh wait a minute, next you are going to say you are actually gonna go hunting to prove your theories............SMH!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ArchAnon

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Here at the CSISCF, we also factored in the space time continuum and an arrow bending the fabric itself. Fellas, we had blind taste testers.., you can’t argue with the farm elf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
Uh oh, you're going to start a riot with truth like this. The fast and light sub-400gr crew is going to try and eat you alive.
I think he might get hammered by both the "Fast and Light" and the "Fairy Followers"... I mean, who does @jo3st3 think he is with this "balanced ratio" for weight and speed thing???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,640 Posts
I believe in Science and physics but there is such a thing as overkill. One of my favorite statements to say is, "There's a balance here somewhere." I think God given common sense will give us that balance. Ashby had too much time on his hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
Maybe he just likes getting hammered?
here at the CSISCF, there’s a good chance we were hammered when we produced these groundbreaking studies.

Donations are tax deductible.

Keep Hammered, and Lock On!
Trademarks pending.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Pick a side and be a dick about it is pretty good mantra to live by. No really, listen the Me A Teat errr -podcast episode with Ed Ashby. It was quite good and really shed light on where all the crap is coming from. Really nobody ever said you need to shoot heavy arrow necessarily. Some folks seem to have read the opinions of someone who heard someone say about something he saw on youtube and got their mouth foaming without looking any further into it.

I mean nobody disagrees harvesting the shot game is better than having one run away with your arrow. Some apparently try to argue that getting full pass through is bad (*** really?) Point of aim and acceptable shooting angles are endless source of arguing but scientifically there's no question frontal part of lungs bleeds faster than rear. Some anatomy charts on deer are outrageously misleading which is a problem. Shoulder of a deer is a vague term. Really it's the ball joint between humerus and shoulder blade but some seem to think it's the whole front leg area so in the shoulder and behind the shoulder get mixed up. Somone just suggesting there's a possibility to use a setup that allows to ignore the bones altogether and again mouth, foam, sirens in distance.

My take on this is that trajectory is poundage issue, not arrow weight. Strength training is cheap and actually good for you but noooo I'm so proud to be weak. Add the folks who can't decide if 500gr arrow trajectory to 60 is unacceptable or shooting deer past 30 unethical, sometimes it seems that it depends on which one gets their blood pressure higher. Hail the outrage.

With firearms freely available to people bowhunting is inherently anti common sensical so I'm afraid your initiative will be short lived.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
464 Posts
My check is on it's way. Keep up the good work! Can I get a CSISCF window decal for my pickup?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
I'll include the foundation PayPal link for donations for this one.
Let me guess: “Friends &Family Only” because your brother’s cousin actually started the foundation, you’re just posting here because his mom’s good in bed… SCAMMER!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,254 Posts
Here at the CSISCF, where really studies are done, we also factored in the space time continuum and an arrow bending the fabric itself. Fellas, we had blind taste testers.., you can’t argue with the farm elf.

When do I get my check for being a blind taste tester? I can't afford to blind taste test for free...
 
1 - 20 of 125 Posts
Top