[bigbadwoolfe]

I have OT2 and it's ok... not very user friendly, but once you get used to it, not all that bad.

But without OT2 or any other software, given your bow setup (draw weight/length/whatever else you may need) how would you go about calculating what arrow spine you need? Is there a formula for this? Is it all based on spine charts released by manufacturers? How does OT2 and the other programs out there do this?

Thanks!

 

[Dale_B1]

Most arrow web sites have a chart----and for the vast majority of people they are really very close.
Keep this in mind that people tend to over think things too much-----it's not really that complicated.

 

[ontarget7]

I have OT2 and it's ok... not very user friendly, but once you get used to it, not all that bad.

But without OT2 or any other software, given your bow setup (draw weight/length/whatever else you may need) how would you go about calculating what arrow spine you need? Is there a formula for this? Is it all based on spine charts released by manufacturers? How does OT2 and the other programs out there do this?

Thanks!

Manufacture spine charts are a very rough calculation because they are not intended to be bow specific. Where your arrow programs are bow specific and calculate accordingly. They really do not cost that much and can't understand for the life of me why every pro shop would not utilize this tool for there customers.

 

[Dale_B1]

Manufacture spine charts are a very rough calculation because they are not intended to be bow specific. Where your arrow programs are bow specific and calculate accordingly. They really do not cost that much and can't understand for the life of me why every pro shop would not utilize this tool for there customers.

I think basically because they don't calculate that much different than the charts do for the "average" shooter. I know your going to disagree and that is fine but like I said the vast majority of archers are not technical or even know how to get the precise with weights to adjust spines that tiny bit.

 

[ontarget7]

I think basically because they don't calculate that much different than the charts do for the "average" shooter. I know your going to disagree and that is fine but like I said the vast majority of archers are not technical or even know how to get the precise with weights to adjust spines that tiny bit.

Your right, I would disagree Dale. This is one of the areas that I see you fall short on is spine advise. Sometimes you hit it just right and sometimes you are way off, this is just like the manufactures arrow charts.

 

[bigbadwoolfe]

I agree that software is taking into consideration a lot more parameters than simple draw weight/length... and I also agree that this shouldn't be all that complicated...

But none of those answers the question "how does the software do what it does?"

Say you have 2 programs, input the same parameters in both, you get different results... How do you know which software to trust? Is there an exact science behind the calculations? A known formula that takes all those parameters and tells you yay or nay? Or does each software use a different method to come up with an answer created by the people that make it and is kept secret (in which case, how can you trust it)?

Thanks!

 

[hphunter]

OT2 isn't user friendly? My 12 year old could figure it out without instructions. Geez I never even read the how to... How could they make it any easier?

 

[ontarget7]

I agree that software is taking into consideration a lot more parameters than simple draw weight/length... and I also agree that this shouldn't be all that complicated...

But none of those answers the question "how does the software do what it does?"

Say you have 2 programs, input the same parameters in both, you get different results... How do you know which software to trust? Is there an exact science behind the calculations? A known formula that takes all those parameters and tells you yay or nay? Or does each software use a different method to come up with an answer created by the people that make it and is kept secret (in which case, how can you trust it)?

Thanks!

If I knew that I would have my own program. The foundation for a thorough tune starts with the right arrow selection and sadly this is still overlooked with all the resources we have today.

 

[bigbadwoolfe]

OT2 isn't user friendly? My 12 year old could figure it out without instructions. Geez I never even read the how to... How could they make it any easier?

I really don't think you want to start a software usability debate on an archery forum. Or if you do, I suggest starting a new thread and I'll try to explain there what can improve (and trust me, there's LOTS that can improve with OT2).

In this thread I was hoping to get info on how to verify if what the software is telling me is correct, not how easy it is to use it.

Cheers!

 

[link06]

Most arrow web sites have a chart----and for the vast majority of people they are really very close.
Keep this in mind that people tend to over think things too much-----it's not really that complicated.

Believe it or not, I have to agree with Dale on this one! Calculating for arrow spine is pretty easy but you can get too caught up in it! I have never used a program to figure out my correct spine, I can figure it pretty easily on my own without charts/programs as long as I have the correct info as can the next guy!


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

[coiloil37]

I prefer the old fashion way... shooting, tuning and reading what's happening trumps any computer program IMO.

 

[ontarget7]

I prefer the old fashion way... shooting, tuning and reading what's happening trumps any computer program IMO.

Thats the thing the computer programs will put you right where you need to be.

 

[baldyhunter]

Spine charts also don't take into account what the user will be using the arrow for. It makes a LOT of sense for many reasons to use a stiffer spine for hunting. Matter of fact, I've been working my way to a minority opinion on the matter for years. I really like TAP and have picked arrows on the stiff side (just off the green or adjust the hunting scale) for years with great results. Well, I've tested a crap ton of combinations over the last several years and am coming to this conclusion:
as long as your on the stiff side of that scale, and you can be WAY STIFF, and you minimize inconsistencies among your arrows and the way they leave the bow (TUNE WELL!!) your going to be golden. I've yet to see a tuning problem in all my years....or lose accuracy as long as the tuning is good with even the stiffest arrows.
Honestly one of the best braodhead shooting setups I've had personally was with 300 spine arrows out of a 58 lb bow and a 28" draw. I had the bow and the arrows tuned very well. So, If I didn't have a program and I were choosing a hunting arrow, I'd simplify the choice and just make sure I was stiff enough!

 

[baldyhunter]

I should also qualify that. The above is true using modern compound bows with mechanical releases. Change any of that and my statement becomes false.

 

[bowtech2006]

I agree with baldy here I shoot 60lbs and found ot and many other charts put me at a 400 or 340 spine but I found a 300 spine shoots the best for me with BH and hunting. I've spent a lot of money trying different arrows and combos now I just get a 300 spine arrow, tune and hunt.

 

[Darrin Dietrich]

seems crazy to go that nuts on perfect spine. What do I know I am just a hunter. I know that target shooters want everything perfect just like gun shooters choose ammo that is far more expensive that what most use to get better results. My dad and I have been shooting our whole lives.... choose arrows by the charts, and I shoot everything from deer to gophers with my bow....... no problems with spine effecting my accuracy, and I get perfect paper tears and bare shaft tuning.... maybe I have been lucky, but I think people overthink too much because of what people gossip about on forums.

 

[ontarget7]

Never had an issue tuning a overly stiff hunting set up, I have said this for years.

I will say there is a sweet spot even when using the computer programs. You can get to know them pretty well. For instance, my long range groups have always been the best when I am selecting the hunting set up option and spine will run just outside the ideal spine recommendation but slightly to the weak side. This position will usually generate the best overall groups for me from 20-100 yards and still be fine for fixed blade broadhead flight.

 

[Dale_B1]

Thats the thing the computer programs will put you right where you need to be.

Again I'm going to disagree. The programs give you numbers but in no way do they tell the person HOW to get those numbers into an arrow. They give you the "perfect" spine number in between what is actually produced by the arrow companies-------so say I'm between a 400 and a340 spine and I want that perfect number the program come sup with then tell me how to achieve that number just don't give it to me.
Not coming down on the purpose but these programs are far from perfect and tend to give the "average" archer more problems that don't effect them than they need.
Now to the reason why using one program over another and getting different results. Bottom line two different trains of thoughts------you only get out what a human person perceives and puts into the program. So technically it is someones opinion-----same as the charts from the people that design the arrows for the masses.

 

[ontarget7]

Again I'm going to disagree. The programs give you numbers but in no way do they tell the person HOW to get those numbers into an arrow. They give you the "perfect" spine number in between what is actually produced by the arrow companies-------so say I'm between a 400 and a340 spine and I want that perfect number the program come sup with then tell me how to achieve that number just don't give it to me.
Not coming down on the purpose but these programs are far from perfect and tend to give the "average" archer more problems that don't effect them than they need.
Now to the reason why using one program over another and getting different results. Bottom line two different trains of thoughts------you only get out what a human person perceives and puts into the program. So technically it is someones opinion-----same as the charts from the people that design the arrows for the masses.

Not the case at all. I find the programs very close between one another and with first hand testing over the past 8 years with them, I find them far more accurate than a spine chart.

The reason, spine charts do not account for the most important part, dynamic spine. They do to a degree, but know where near what the programs offer.

If you want a better start to the foundation of your tuning process I would highly suggest an archery program.

I mean no disrespect but if I go into a archery shop and see them look on the back of a box for advise to give some one, this is the first sign of the knowledge of that shop IMO. Not only lack of knowledge but I have an idea they would be pushed out the door without the best tune for their set up.

These same shops will have their customers shoot through paper to achieve a bullet hole regardless how their form is. One bullet hole in paper at one distance does not mean you are tuned.

I see this all the time.

 

[va limbhanger]

Spine charts also don't take into account what the user will be using the arrow for. [/QUOTE



OT2 has an allowance tab for what you are saying. It has a "Target, Hunting, and Both" filter to make allowances in spine requirements based on the filter you have chosen. example it takes a stiffer spine to reach an "optimal spine rating" using the "hunting" filter vs the "Target" filter to compensated for fixed blade broadhead flight.