Bear in mind that the “speedgun” for most international events is well in front of the shooting line. They are not exit bow speeds (And not wholly reliable). If you ask specific questions about specific archers, and the relevant date, somebody might know the detail you are interested in but it will be in the “I heard from a friend..” reliability level.

My understanding was that most “top” recurve archers were shooting 100gr to 120gr. (I heard from a friend…). There are exceptions of course.

I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed. They don’t care if they are getting the results. Obviously fast is good if still stable and in control but it is a relative thing. I used to have a Axis/FX setup that clocked 212fps (32” X10 410 with overnock and 100gr point). Horrible thing to shoot, tens and blues.

Stretch

 

I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.

And as Stretch said speed isnt important at all on that level.

I guarantee you, arrow speed is one of the least important considerations for a top Olympic division shooter.

SPEED for a recurve is meaningless. SERIOUS.

Speed is not important at all in Olympic recurve archery.

Nobody said speed is irrelevant, it’s just not as important as other factors.

Heh, ok.

 

Most Olympic archers at the world level shoot 100gr to 120gr as Stretch said.

And as Stretch said speed isnt important at all on that level. FOC is much more important.

Generally X10s are a pretty heavy arrow. Most will be 300gr range for arrow. I remember when i shot from 36 lbs to 54 lbs my speed was generally 198 fps. As i went up in poundage, the arrow got heavier with the spine change so the speed stayed the same.
I think the fastest i ever shot was 205 fps.

Speed seems to be much more important to archers on the compound side of archery. I see quite a lot of posts about the speed of new bows etc.

On the recurve side, it has no real bearing on tuning or results. More important is reaching the target with good sight marks. as this can be gotten with a slow or fast arrow, and tunes tend to give you what you get.

the chronos are down range from the archers at world class events on Youtube. So take the measurements with a grain of salt.


Chris

 

Most Olympic archers at the world level shoot 100gr to 120gr as Stretch said.

And as Stretch said speed isnt important at all on that level. FOC is much more important.

Generally X10s are a pretty heavy arrow. Most will be 300gr range for arrow. I remember when i shot from 36 lbs to 54 lbs my speed was generally 198 fps. As i went up in poundage, the arrow got heavier with the spine change so the speed stayed the same.
I think the fastest i ever shot was 205 fps.

Speed seems to be much more important to archers on the compound side or archer. I see quite a lot of posts about the speed of new bows etc.

On the recurve side, it has no real bearing on tuning or results. More important is reaching the target with good sight marks. as this can be gotten with a slow or fast arrow, and tunes tend to give you what you get.

the chronos are down range from the archers at world class events on Youtube. So take the measurements with a grain of salt.


Chris

Speed seems pretty important when you take wind into account. A faster arrow is less affected by wind.

 

I guarantee you, arrow speed is one of the least important considerations for a top Olympic division shooter. If it were, they’d all be shooting ACEs instead of X10s.

The flight time difference at 70 meters between a fast arrow and a slower one might be on the order of a tenth of a second, and the arrow isn't going to move much more sideways in that short a time, even in a crosswind. A dense, thin arrow will be less affected by wind than a wider, lighter one over the whole 70 meter flight.

Increased arrow speed only has significant value in unmarked distance shooting.

 

It's not so much that speed doesn't make a difference in counteracting the wind - it does, and a very large difference at that as you pilots in the thread already know - it's that there are more than one ways to skin that particular cat.
Meaning, if you're already at the limits of speed - you can't increase it anymore without other major ill effects - that doesn't mean you're SOL. You can compromise on other aspects of the shaft that can also reduce the effects of the (relative) wind. You can increase the weight, or reduce aerodynamic profile, or both.

There was a thread on this topic up in the general forum a little while ago about this same topic.....

lee.

 

Speed is important in typing and Stash said it better than me. ;^)

Steve

 

Isn't the advantage of an X10 over an ACE not only the smaller diameter, but the heavier weight? I would think that an ACE would be the faster of the two. Could an X10 be made as light as the ACE?

Steve

SPEED for a recurve is meaningless. SERIOUS.
400 spine ACE is 7.5 gpi. OD is 0.230 inches.
430 spine ACE is 7.0 gpi. OD is 0.224 inches.


410 spine X10 is 8.5 gpi. OD is 0.211 inches.
450 spine X10 is 8.1 gpi. OD is 0.207 inches

Yes, the X10s are heavier. Yes, the X10s are smaller diameter. IF you shoot FITA,
and you want the BEST for cross wind resistance (aiming off LESS),
go with what is proven. X10s with Tungsten points.

FASTER will not help you with a cross wind...especially if you shoot ACEs, cuz the outside diameter is LARGER
and this will hurt you. Cannot avoid cross sectional area, and aerodynamics.

 

btw, aiming off for a skilled archer isn't much of a problem. I shot against world class archers who were aiming in the blue when I never left the red, and they were scoring better than I was.

 

Very under-rated but … in my opinion… flight stability is maybe the biggest thing. If the arrow is wobbling it will drift disproportionately. So if you have a twitchy tune sometimes bigger fletches can give you less drift and MORE PREDICTABLE drift. Obviously that has limits - don’t know where the crossover is - not suggesting 2317 with 6” feathers and 200gr points.

I do find 120gr points drift less but I also find they drop more when my release gets a bit crappy - sometimes a lot more - the difference is not enough for my personal incompetence level. When your X10 point option was 90-110 (yeah that far back) I hardly saw any difference on the target between 100 and 110. I think people over think this rather than shooting what they have.

In 1997 when I got my first X10 I was told “designed for 100gr”. I have never been able to prove that wrong.

Stretch

 

No worries or poor outcomes because of low FOC with your long draw?
Total arrow weight being a thing it seems like the heavier spines 450 and below take care of the weight issue with gpi of the heavy shaft and don’t “need” 10-40gns over in point weight because the total arrow is already heavy.

 

Personally, I'll take a forgiving well tuned arrow over high FOC, and this is from the only guy with 125 grain custom tungstens in his A/C/E's at the '04 trials. Drift, for an experienced archer, is not that hard to deal with. FOC only gets you so far.

The thing that kills most people btw isn't crosswind drift. It's headwinds and tailwinds. Especially tailwinds.

 

The thing that kills most people btw isn't crosswind drift. It's headwinds and tailwinds. Especially tailwinds.

How so?

 

Because they randomly and rapidly shift back and forth and you often can’t tell if you should be aiming a bit left or a bit right on any given shot.

 

Precisely.

 

A couple of things, the tungsten point was developed to prevent bending. The stainless steel points were bending in the stramit targets thus causing problems for the expensive x10. Problem solved plus a larger profit margin. ACE's have been used to win some major events by some very capable archers, however, the mental side does not allow those who are weak minded to believe they can do well unless they use what everyone else is using. John is right about the wind knowledge. I have always been fascinated by people who believe they don't have to aim off because they are using x10's. The better the tune the less drift but also the better the form consistency, the less drift. All of these have to be taken into consideration when using a very heavy arrow. Front of center doesn't really play that much into drift as much as a perfect tune. I used to tell people that you tune your bow and once it is tuned really good, check the FOC and then you will know what a perfect FOC is.

 

Nobody said speed is irrelevant, it’s just not as important as other factors.

Heavier draw weight = cleaner release plus the ability to shoot a heavier arrow, therefore more momentum. Also, very light bow with very heavy arrow = unable to get sight on target at 70m.

 

Yup, the more recurve pounds on the fingers, the cleaner the FINGERS release, and actually easier to be consistent at long distance, with more pounds on the fingers. Then, we come into the stamina issue...finishing the ENTIRE recurve tournament still shooting strong. This is the issue I am working on with my 16 year old barebow recurve student. She poops out, runs out of stamina. Slowly building up her endurance. AS the pounds on the fingers go up, the scores go up, the group size shrinks. BUT, it's a slow process.

AT the lower pounds on the fingers for a recurve, gotta use the weaker spine ratings, so the arrows are all carbon to reach out to max shooting distances. As we are able to increase pounds on the fingers, I can switch her to ever stiff spine ratings, and the mass of the arrow gets a little heavier, and the momentum gets better, and the group sizes will get tighter, with the higher pounds on the fingers, cuz of the heavier arrow. I have her arrows using 140 grain target points, so the FOC is at the max, for whatever spine rating I have her shooting at.

More pounds on the fingers for a RECURVE shooter, the bow is more forgiving of form errors, so it's actually EASIER to control group size, as the pounds on the fingers increases.

LESS pounds on the fingers for a RECURVE shooter (due to stamina issues),
the bow is LESS forgiving of form errors, so the fliers end up flying FARTHER from the x-ring at distance. So, the LOWER pounds on the fingers, are more difficult to control, to get tighter groups. Scores will be lower, for low poundage recurve setups. We are limited by stamina for younger recurve shooters.

 

however, the mental side does not allow those who are weak minded to believe they can do well unless they use what everyone else is using.

pure gold there.

 

Arrowbender, the confusion in this discussion seems to be in the distinction between “relevant” and “important”. I looked through all the posts previous to your #20 and didn’t see the words “relevant” or “irrelevant”, hence I stand behind my “nobody said speed is irrelevant”. I do not consider the two terms to be interchangeable.

In any event, yes, of course arrow speed is both relevant and important in archery. You’re not going to get far in archery with an arrow travelling zero fps.

However, the discussion is about the importance of marginal additional speed compared to other issues, primarily higher momentum and good tuning, which I think most knowledgeable Olympic archers prioritize over a few extra feet per second of speed.

 

Argh, "Marginal additional speed" gets you additional momentum, because that is how momentum works, not according to me, not according to some internet back and forth, but according to physics.
Saying additional speed is irrelevant compared to additional momentum makes no sense. One results in the other. Similarly, a good tune is important because it results in... yeah, exactly.
Cleaner flight, thus launching the SAME weight with less energy wasted, faster, resulting in more momentum.

The quotes are right there, I did not change them, and I think playing semantics games to say, afterwards, "well I didn't mean what I said because I didn't use the exact literal same word" is playing word games to escape prior statements.

Now it's:
"In any event, yes, of course arrow speed is both relevant and important in archery."

Well, ok. We agree that speed is both relevant and important in archery.
Despite what seems like everyone previously stating the opposite, my bad, not my first language and all that.

You're obviously right that it's never going to be the one single determining factor in any competition. But it's obviously not irrelevant by any means, because... as we can see here... it's a requirement, in some ways. And it adds to momentum. Which is good. Including in cross winds.

 

Huh? I got a lot of great feedback from high level competitive archers, which is exactly what I wanted.

If that's what you call getting my ass handed, I'm glad to have it happen any time I ask a question on here 🙂

 

Go outside on a windy day. Find a wall that is parallel to the wind direction. Mark an X on the wall at eye level.

Now step back about 5 yards.

Take a ping ping ball and throw it as hard as you can at the X. See how far the wind moves it.
Then take a ball bearing and toss it gently at the X. See how far the wind moves it.

Then tell me what’s going to be more accurate in the wind - a slow, heavy, small projectile, or a fast, light, large one.

Yes, the difference between a ping pong ball and a marble is much greater than an ACE and an X10, but the example illustrates the situation.

 

Yes, the difference between a ping pong ball and a marble is much greater than an ACE and an X10, but the example illustrates the situation.

No, by using a grossly exaggerated example you've fallen into the same logical error the general archery and bowhunting sections always do when they're (endlessly) debating this through irrelevant examples, and it just confuses things more.

I'll throw a bowling ball now using the same force I used for the ping pong ball and the marble previously.
Oh dear.
It fell on my toe. Ouch.
Let me try a banana next.
This is silly.

 

Wind drift is determined by both velocity and ballistic coefficient. Ballistic coefficient is a relationship of a projectile’s aerodynamic shape and it’s mass. Using the same input energy, two projectiles with similar aerodynamic shapes but different mass and therefore velocity(and ballistic coefficient) will exhibit relatively small differences in down range ballistics with the lighter and faster projectile shooting a bit “flatter” and the heavier projectile showing slightly less wind drift.


Balance, or FOC, has no direct bearing on ballistic coefficient of any arrow. In rifle bullets, the most aerodynamic bullets with the best downrange ballistics are all balanced toward the rear due their their absence of lead in the nose. Having a fast enough twist rate to fully stabilize the bullet and get rid of any wobble is essential to getting the best downrange ballistics possible, though. If FOC makes any difference in the ballistic coefficient of an arrow, it is only as a reflection on its how quickly the arrow flies straight and how absolutely straight it flies.

 

I was wondering how long this thread would continue before the 30-06 vs 6.5PRC would come up

 

You know, Arrowbender, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been thinking about the wrong thing, momentum. I should have been considering inertia. Thinking about the movement of an arrow towards the target, but should have been thinking only about the movement of an arrow at 90° horizontally. I made a mistake. There, you can quote me. 😄

Another experiment, then.

Hold different arrows horizontally in a crosswind, and drop them. Let’s say, from a height that takes approximately 1 second to fall, about 5 meters. Compare how much the wind blows them sideways and see how far they get blown further from straight down - thin heavy ones and thick light ones.

Easy enough to measure how far each gets blown by the wind per unit of time during the falling and compare that to the time they would be in flight on their way to the 70m target.

Example: in a particular crosswind, arrow A, lightweight, wider diameter, moves 30 cm downwind in a 1 second fall, shoots at 200 fps (average speed) takes 1.15 seconds, should drift 34.5 cm. Arrow B, heavier, thinner diameter, moves 25 cm downwind in the fall, shoots at 180 fps, takes 1.27 seconds, should drift 31.8 cm.

Now, these are made-up numbers of course, and one of those “spherical chicken in a vacuum” things. But might be close to reality in comparing something like an ACE to an X10.

 

Heh, pretty sure you've some examples of me being wrong you're sporting enough not to bring up

I do understand your point re weight, I do agree. And N&B did also point out the OD being important, which I had forgotten to consider.
But at lees has said better than I could- none of this makes speed unimportant or irrelevant to the issue.

I'll keep reading as I think it's been really interesting so far but I'll bow out of commenting - as another user said, " then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation".
I genuinely do seem to be interpreting those quotes I, er, quoted incorrectly then.
Let's chalk it up to it not being my first language, my apologies.

 

LOL

 

My original point was that ballistic coefficient and velocity determine downrange drop and wind drift for any projectile and that just like proper barrel twist fully stabilizes a bullet to help it achieve its maximum ballistic coefficient, a properly tuned arrow that recovers from paradox quickly and flies as true as possible will also get down range more efficiently.

Is there something wrong with that logic?

The post you quoted was in response to someone posting that I was comparing a 30-06 to a 6.5 PRC. I was simply replying that comparing arrows out of one bow is more like comparing two bullets from the same rifle, not two different cartridges and bore diameters.

 

This is another of those “how did we get here threads”.

If you read “I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.” And your mind transposes that statement to “don’t care” or “doesn’t matter” - then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation - you’re seeing words that are not there. Just concentrate on your shooting.

The top archers cares about results - if shooting different limbs, heavier limbs, different string, lighter or heavier arrow etc etc gets them the results that is what they shoot. They are likely shooting a “typical” draw weight so speed will be enough. Do they pick the 210fps setup of the 202fps setup? They pick the one that works best across a range of conditions. (Exceptions of course apply - I recall Vladimir Escheev (did I spell that right?) always tuned for speed). But Nespoli - who has probably the fastest bow on the mens line - says he shoots what he shoots because IT WORKS BETTER FOR HIM. (And I think he prove that in Tokyo - respect earned).

Very few actively go in search of “more speed”. They go in search of results.

Stretch

 

Agree with Stretch. The basic practical "mental game" for items like dealing with the wind are the same as for basically everything in archery:

• Bows & arrows are compromises, not more-X-is-better or less-X-is-better.
• The best compromise on a piece of gear is found by trial-and-error, and not back-of-the-envelope (or even Phd. level) math.

The problem with lowering the priority of the latter is it can distract you into holding ideas that are wrong ("speed doesn't matter", etc.) as well as tie you to the bench, tape measure and micrometer instead of out on the line shooting. This is a particularly obnoxious problem on the compound bow, which has many more moving parts and therefore offers many more opportunities to seduce the archer into a long, dreary life in the shop, and away from actually shooting the bow.

As for the current topic of dealing with the wind, the practical reality is that all of the items we're talking about affect the performance of the shaft in the wind, and they all interact with each other. The effects of changes in speed can be counteracted by the changes in overall weight which can be counteracted by changes in aerodynamic performance which can be counteracted by ....

So ultimately the true answer is you have to find the best performing setup The Old Fashioned Way by trial-and-error with different setups. What we know about the various effects of different dimensions can be guidelines to help us get into the ball park. But at the end of the day we just have to experiment to find the right combination.

That's a roundabout way of saying more or less nothing at all. But that's the practical reality. The right gear can only really be found by actually shooting it. And shooting it some more. The result may or may not correspond to our best guess about the right combination, and we have to be prepared for that too.

Strange but true.

lee.

 

Just about anything you do to get more speed will affect tune and arrow flight. If you tune for results as Stretch correctly points out most do, speed is simply not a big priority. If you want more speed you increase the draw weight then work the other variables like arrow selection for the best tune and groups. But most find a weight range that they can be consistent with and go from there. You end up with the speed you end up with. Not that it does not matter, just way down the list.

If you want speed, btw, Rick’s arrows have a relatively high spine to weight ratio. I have them and x10s and like them but do find they drift a bit more. Mainly don’t happen to tune quite as well at the setup I prefer. If the did happen to tune better or I change my weight I could easily shoot them. The point is the tune and grouping is more important than speed. It is just one factor but I don’t think most rate it as a high priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To Lee's point about "trial and error" - Very few, if any, archers have put in enough objective testing to truly know the difference between limbs or arrows or risers or pick whatever piece of equipment you want to talk about. Even the best archers in the world who shoot full time only have a "feeling" that they shoot a certain thing better than another thing. There are two things going on here. First, most amateurs aren't skilled enough to objectively test equipment and second, they lack the time required to objectively test equipment.

 

Totally agree. And we have this same argument format on a wide number of topics, including this one, up in the compound forums too. And the results tend to be the same.

You have the camp that says "don't worry about why X produces result Y. Just do X and it'll give you Y" and then you have the camp that says "Here's why X produces result Y. Accordingly, that's how you know you're doing what isn't X and getting what isn't Y all the time. That can help you decide whether you even want to try X or not., etc". And varying gradations in between.

I tend towards the latter camp, because I think that, in general, it's better to know than to not know. Depending on how much it costs to know, I think knowing yields a better result than not.

As for this particular topic, one thing I do think is true is that it tends to produce detectably better results at the target when you're dealing with the extremes.

For example, for sheer physical endurance reasons, I shoot compound at peak weights at least a full 20lbs less than my competitors do. So if I want to be competitive, optimizing both the speed and the aerodynamic advantages of my setup for the particular conditions is vastly more important than it is for my competitors. They may get the same results at 50 meters shooting a XX75 and an X10, or if there's an improvement with the X10, it's negligible. OTOH, because I'm shooting the same bow up to half the peak weight lighter, I stand to gain a lot more if I experiment with my outdoor arrows, knowing what I know about how lift, drag and momentum contribute to performance in the wind.

And so on. That's the general idea.

Most folks who aren't hindered in that way aren't as affected by these phenomena and they can safely ignore them. Up to and including incorrectly concluding "they don't make any difference"....

lee.

 

Chris, Good explanation and on point for some of us. Everyone has a philosophy on what works and what does not work. I'm ok with that. I tell my students to try everything if they can. That way when they go to a tournament and someone is doing something that didn't work for you, you will not feel mentally disadvantaged because you KNOW it doesn't work for you.

As for speed. I probably said this before on another thread, but my first world title was with the slowest bow speed of the men's field clocking in at 179 fps. This was with a 51# otf and the 2115's were too stiff. So I raised the brace height to 10.5" with a 68" bow. It slowed my bow down substantially but it gave me the results I was seeking. I was humiliated by a few people until I won. Their comment was that since I had a super slow bow I was not going to do well. Hmmmm, I wonder what I could have done with a perfect setup? (snicker) I could have let it bother me, but I was more focused on competing and beating my nemesis (DP). He won the title two years ago and won the Gold Medal at the Olympics and he was truly the one person everyone was going after. Oh, and I didn't know this at the time but I measured my FOC later and it came out at 5.6%. I had light points in it because I couldn't get the distance if I went with heavy points. My arrow just barely cleared the sight pin at 90 meters. The winds were strong at this event and I was comfortable on how to aim in the wind.

Going forward to 6 years later and I was using the AC 1308-3 (I think) I was using a 70 grain point because that was all they had at the time. We learned so much during those years on speed, spin and FOC. The arrows were much skinnier than the aluminums but the weight was virtually the same. In reality I did not notice much difference between the two shafts but since I was sponsored, it was wise to use the new AC arrows. Again, I won due to figuring out what works for me and not anybody else. My brace height was normal however, my tiller became radical with a 5/8" difference (positive). This was because it helped my aim tremendously allowing my grip to be fully relaxed. The weird part was that the arrow flew well until about 70 meters and then they literally popped over due to drift. We attributed that to too much spin on the shaft causing the arrow to "parachute" the last 20 meters. The spin was faster than the speed of the arrow. Not a good thing at 90 meters! After winning that title I tried some new "Futura" points developed by the Troncoso family. It was one of the first 100 grain one piece "bullet" point and it worked great! Most of us headed in that direction at the time. It was very rare to have a point heavier than 70-80 grains back then. This was revolutionary!

Going forward to 4 years later, Beman came along and beat the pants off the AC arrow literally dominating the World Championships. This caused Jim Easton to scribble on a napkin developing the beginnings of the barreled shaft. Thus the ACE shaft was born. Super fast and very critical since most of us were used to a heavier sluggish shaft. It was amazingly super fast. I shot it at the 1988 Olympics and got 220 fps out of it. I felt it was too fast and a few years later I complained to Jim about the speed being too fast so they made up some "BB's" (for big barrel). That was the arrow I used to shoot the 1352, however, in the wind it was a bit squirrelly since the diameter was the same as the ACE. That was when the engineers got to work developing the X10. The same weight as my "BB's" but a lot skinnier and have proven to be the magic elixir. I didn't shoot the regular x10's due to my departure from the company. However, the x10 has proven to be long lasting and as I have told people that would listen, other arrows will shoot just as good but not better and "professional" archers always go where the money is if everything is equal.

One thing that Earl Hoyt told me years ago was that you have a "law of diminishing return". This essentially means that you look for the ultimate but you may try to go beyond that but it doesn't really help. Look for that one magic that gives you the best performance no matter what people say. Use what works even if it defies logic and science. Once you include yourself (human), most of science gets screwy anyway. It's just a good place to start and look for what works for you.

Sorry my posts just get longer and longer....

 

Chris, Good explanation and on point for some of us. Everyone has a philosophy on what works and what does not work. I'm ok with that. I tell my students to try everything if they can. That way when they go to a tournament and someone is doing something that didn't work for you, you will not feel mentally disadvantaged because you KNOW it doesn't work for you.

As for speed. I probably said this before on another thread, but my first world title was with the slowest bow speed of the men's field clocking in at 179 fps. This was with a 51# otf and the 2115's were too stiff. So I raised the brace height to 10.5" with a 68" bow. It slowed my bow down substantially but it gave me the results I was seeking. I was humiliated by a few people until I won. Their comment was that since I had a super slow bow I was not going to do well. Hmmmm, I wonder what I could have done with a perfect setup? (snicker) I could have let it bother me, but I was more focused on competing and beating my nemesis (DP). He won the title two years ago and won the Gold Medal at the Olympics and he was truly the one person everyone was going after. Oh, and I didn't know this at the time but I measured my FOC later and it came out at 5.6%. I had light points in it because I couldn't get the distance if I went with heavy points. My arrow just barely cleared the sight pin at 90 meters. The winds were strong at this event and I was comfortable on how to aim in the wind.

Going forward to 6 years later and I was using the AC 1308-3 (I think) I was using a 70 grain point because that was all they had at the time. We learned so much during those years on speed, spin and FOC. The arrows were much skinnier than the aluminums but the weight was virtually the same. In reality I did not notice much difference between the two shafts but since I was sponsored, it was wise to use the new AC arrows. Again, I won due to figuring out what works for me and not anybody else. My brace height was normal however, my tiller became radical with a 5/8" difference (positive). This was because it helped my aim tremendously allowing my grip to be fully relaxed. The weird part was that the arrow flew well until about 70 meters and then they literally popped over due to drift. We attributed that to too much spin on the shaft causing the arrow to "parachute" the last 20 meters. The spin was faster than the speed of the arrow. Not a good thing at 90 meters! After winning that title I tried some new "Futura" points developed by the Troncoso family. It was one of the first 100 grain one piece "bullet" point and it worked great! Most of us headed in that direction at the time. It was very rare to have a point heavier than 70-80 grains back then. This was revolutionary!

Going forward to 4 years later, Beman came along and beat the pants off the AC arrow literally dominating the World Championships. This caused Jim Easton to scribble on a napkin developing the beginnings of the barreled shaft. Thus the ACE shaft was born. Super fast and very critical since most of us were used to a heavier sluggish shaft. It was amazingly super fast. I shot it at the 1988 Olympics and got 220 fps out of it. I felt it was too fast and a few years later I complained to Jim about the speed being too fast so they made up some "BB's" (for big barrel). That was the arrow I used to shoot the 1352, however, in the wind it was a bit squirrelly since the diameter was the same as the ACE. That was when the engineers got to work developing the X10. The same weight as my "BB's" but a lot skinnier and have proven to be the magic elixir. I didn't shoot the regular x10's due to my departure from the company. However, the x10 has proven to be long lasting and as I have told people that would listen, other arrows will shoot just as good but not better and "professional" archers always go where the money is if everything is equal.

One thing that Earl Hoyt told me years ago was that you have a "law of diminishing return". This essentially means that you look for the ultimate but you may try to go beyond that but it doesn't really help. Look for that one magic that gives you the best performance no matter what people say. Use what works even if it defies logic and science. Once you include yourself (human), most of science gets screwy anyway. It's just a good place to start and look for what works for you.

Sorry my posts just get longer and longer....

Brilliant post Rick.

 

Some of the (eight) shooters using the ‘big barrel’ ACE’s I made for the Barcelona Games also used the first tungsten point I had developed at that time- for greater FOC with the heavier shaft.

(Nothing to do with ”preventing bending”- that point had a tungsten head with an aluminum shank.)

 

Some of the (eight) shooters using the ‘big barrel’ ACE’s I made for the Barcelona Games also used the first tungsten point I had developed at that time- for greater FOC with the heavier shaft.

(Nothing to do with ”preventing bending”- that point had a tungsten head with an aluminum shank.)

So tungsten points for ACE's were already available in Barcelona? For better FOC?
Passed many years asking for Tungsten points for ACE's, even asking for them to Jim E. , until we decided to make our own supporting Jason McK to have them for Athens (and Limbwalker got them too). Still here, those points, a girl in my club used them last week to weaken her stiff ACEs..
George, I knew many of the stories behind "official" opinions on arrows, but frankly, this is the first time I hear about tUngsten points available in 1991 already ...
May be you can also tell now for instance why X10 today have nothing to do with X10 made in 1996, what happened to the special X10 for London, and why also ACE's are no more (unfortunately) the same as they were in 1996...
Just curious..
P.S.
Missing Joe Tapley comments ...

 

This discussion comes out every 3 or 4 years, and still answer is same: refer to Joe Tapley's studies and software to get the answers you need.
In the real top level archery world:

• Very few top level archers have the knowledge to understand exactly what they are using and why, they almost all refer to their coaches for tuning and material choice. Coaches don't want to take any risk, so at the end everyone using the same things at same poundage. (example: new Korean coach of the French team has imposed to all archers to switch from any type of vanes they were using to Spin Wing only, and almost all followed)
• Very few care of arrow speed in target, simply because these days the "standard poundage" is > 50# to 55# for men, variations on X10 you can get from there are negligible if you don't go >> 60#
• They still do care of arrow speed in Field (and 3D for BB) , to get better sight marks
• Compound look to speed because they can have more speed without more pounds, and speed does matter a lot to group in a 4 cm ring at 50 mt, but 140-150 gr Tungsten points are what they wanted for the wind, and they got them
• Then there are the secrets in new materials under development, but they are kept secrets. You can sort them out when some results are not corresponding to the poundage used, for instance .. After 20 years, apparently, some of them can be disclosed, so most probably I will not be here on time to know about today's secrets.

 

I thought this was an interesting article (one of three) on modeling arrows in Bow International:

Modeling Arrows in Flight

Here is the first one:

Modelling arrows – how to select the best arrow for any situation