Archery Talk Forum banner
61 - 80 of 93 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
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.)
 

·
Genesis 21:20
Joined
·
24,822 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
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 ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,380 Posts
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".
Just a quick AT tip: when you hear this - AkA the "reading comprehension" accusation - you automatically know "a-priori" that the poster has little to no idea what he's talking about. Or if he does know, he has little to no idea how to actually talk about it....
Just another tool to keep around in your AT toolbox to help filter the proverbial wheat from the chaff.

lee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
P.S.
Missing Joe Tapley comments ...
I was thinking the same. Joe had some great stuff on this topic.

From the physics point of view people tend to conflate heavy and skinny as desirable. It is really just the skinny.... heavy is a side effect. To make a hollow column thinner with the same stiffness (spine) you need to increase wall thickness (increase weight) or change materials, but we need to keep prices at something people will buy and X10s are probably pushing that limit already.

But as usual, I think Rick nailed it with:

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.
I for one am a very mediocre recreational archer and when shooting in windy conditions I know I am far more affected than the arrow - I will get more value trying to maintain stability and stick to my process (and time my shots) than worrying about which arrows I should be using. I doubt I'm alone there.
 

·
Genesis 21:20
Joined
·
24,822 Posts
I was thinking the same. Joe had some great stuff on this topic.

From the physics point of view people tend to conflate heavy and skinny as desirable. It is really just the skinny.... heavy is a side effect. To make a hollow column thinner with the same stiffness (spine) you need to increase wall thickness (increase weight) or change materials, but we need to keep prices at something people will buy and X10s are probably pushing that limit already.

But as usual, I think Rick nailed it with:



I for one am a very mediocre recreational archer and when shooting in windy conditions I know I am far more affected than the arrow - I will get more value trying to maintain stability and stick to my process (and time my shots) than worrying about which arrows I should be using. I doubt I'm alone there.
At nearly 6'5" with a 32.5" draw, I know that battling the wind against my body is a much higher priority than finding arrows that drift less. We don't shoot in a wind tunnel. Wind practice is as much about learning to shoot while being buffeted by wind gusts as it is about learning to aim off. There have been days when I wished I was a short guy with a larger "counterweight." LOL
 

·
Lowered expectations
Joined
·
19,051 Posts
There have been days when I wished I was a short guy with a larger "counterweight." LOL
You greatly overestimate the advantages of that condition...😄

Wasn’t there something about smaller (female) archers wearing backpacks full of rocks during a windy tournament once?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
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..
You cannot answer a question when the question isn’t based on facts.

It’s the same sort of question as “Do you still beat your wife?”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
You cannot answer a question when the question isn’t based on facts.

It’s the same sort of question as “Do you still beat your wife?”
George, Michele is using X10 410 in these days, and still have some X10 410 he got from Rick McKinney in Atlanta in 1996.
They react and tune very differently, now they are quite forgiving, similar to ACE's of the past.
Same for 1996 ACE's and Ace's from 2 years ago (but opposite, they are worse than the old ones and more fragile ) .
Of course technology for any product evolves over the years, but who makes the product usually knows ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TER

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
At nearly 6'5" with a 32.5" draw, I know that battling the wind against my body is a much higher priority than finding arrows that drift less.
You sound like a big dutch guy I shoot with. In club shoots, where lanes aren't assinged, he is a big part of the wind strategy, we all try and get the position next to him and use him as a wind break!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
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....
Rick, didn't Rabska's study of the arrows used at the 1996 Games show that the winners were using arrows 1-1.5 groups stiffer than the current chart recommended and there was decline performance as the arrows were less and less stiff? (My 2115's were too stiff . . .)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #77 ·
Rick, didn't Rabska's study of the arrows used at the 1996 Games show that the winners were using arrows 1-1.5 groups stiffer than the current chart recommended and there was decline performance as the arrows were less and less stiff? (My 2115's were too stiff . . .)
Can you provide a link to that? I really want to check that out.

I've read about a number of archers who prefer a weaker arrow, albeit slightly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Interesting post. I am intrigued with how often archery folks use physics to “prove” a point, or explain a point. I’m sure it’s a wonderful theoretical discussion, but I’m much more in the McKinney camp where he suggests to his students “try everything – that way you know what works for you and what doesn’t” that, to me, makes the most sense. Instead of asking everyone what their opinion is, (even though it is very interesting) I think one would benefit much more by going out and experimenting to see what works best for them. What works for me, may not work for you.

One of the things I picked up from Rick was to look at what the top shooters are shooting, they shoot their setup for a reason – it works for them. When there was a great debate about which were better, straight vanes or spin wings, I tried both all of one summer season. For me, the straight vanes worked best, I knew that because my own experimentation “proved” that – for me. A few years later, I tried the same experiment again, with much different results. That year, the spin wings easily outscored the straight vanes on almost every occasion. Just showed me that experimentation works. Since my form had improved, my shooting style had changed a bit and I needed to change what I was shooting.

I think sometimes we get too caught up in the minutiae to actually go out and experiment and see what really works for us. By the way, on that basis, I tend to respectfully disagree with Limbwalker when he said the average shooter isn’t skilled enough and doesn’t have enough time to objectively test equipment. I’m not sure exactly what he means by objectively, but I think that if I’m an average shooter, I am probably the best one to determine what works for me, since I’m the one doing the shooting. Looking at things objectively implies that one isn’t influenced by personal feelings or opinions, however, it’s pretty difficult to eliminate your feelings and opinions, it is probably much better to remain open to others’ opinions as well as your own; that works for me as any other opinion I get just helps me understand a bit better. As Rick once said "I’m not a shooting machine" I'm not either, I make mistakes, thus I need to do the best I can knowing I make mistakes, the better my experimentation is and the better I “know” my own shot, the better I will perform.

Good post, thoroughly enjoyed it and gained some additional info and a few things to try out on my own as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Rick, didn't Rabska's study of the arrows used at the 1996 Games show that the winners were using arrows 1-1.5 groups stiffer than the current chart recommended and there was decline performance as the arrows were less and less stiff? (My 2115's were too stiff . . .)
I honestly don't recall this information. I think it depends on the type of arrow used. Possibly the barreled shaft might require a bit stiffer since spine is determined for 28" and since the back end of the shaft is normally the weakest section the actual dynamic spine will be a bit weaker than the static spine. A parallel shaft spine is consistent throughout the shaft thus the dynamic spine is very similar to the static spine.

I do recall that the Beman shafts shot best being a bit weak in relationship to spine.

Alan Rasor gathered the information at the 1996 Olympics and he collected a lot! Rabska and I were busy in the equipment repair booth working on equipment that was a bit off for about 75% of the archers. It was a cluster if ever there was one! I am sure information has been shared somewhere on this board but I have no clue where it is. I probably have it in one of my many boxes in storage but looking for it might be a very monumental task! Suffice to say the info is available but good luck finding it!
 

·
Genesis 21:20
Joined
·
24,822 Posts
Alan Rasor gathered the information at the 1996 Olympics and he collected a lot! Rabska and I were busy in the equipment repair booth working on equipment that was a bit off for about 75% of the archers. It was a cluster if ever there was one! I am sure information has been shared somewhere on this board but I have no clue where it is. I probably have it in one of my many boxes in storage but looking for it might be a very monumental task! Suffice to say the info is available but good luck finding it!
I think most recreational archers would be shocked at how poorly tuned and set up the bows are for - as you say - probably 75% of archers shooting international events. I'd say about half the men and 90% of the women's setups are not properly aligned or tuned. At least, that was my experience.
 
61 - 80 of 93 Posts
Top