Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
10-23-2002, 02:27 PM
#21
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore Maryland USA
Posts: 1,385
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Jeff does a lot of analysis on arrows and I commend him for it. I totally agree with him when he stated "Out of the 3 tolerances usually mentioned, they are in order of importance, Spine, weight and then straightness."
One reason that the spine is more important than straightness is seen much more in the dynamic/arrow accelerated mode. If there is any inconsistency in the spine (much like a weak link in a chain being pushed - not that I recommend pushing chains), then the arrow will bend moreso at that weak/inconsistent point at the initial launch of the arrow. If the arrow was straight, it will no longer be that way due to the spine issue.
After all, don't we really want to concern ourselves with the arrow at flight (dynamic) verses the arrow at rest/test (static)???
Jeff and I have always touted the usage of metal nock adapters at the ends of internal component carbon arrows.
One reason that the spine is more important than straightness is seen much more in the dynamic/arrow accelerated mode. If there is any inconsistency in the spine (much like a weak link in a chain being pushed - not that I recommend pushing chains), then the arrow will bend moreso at that weak/inconsistent point at the initial launch of the arrow. If the arrow was straight, it will no longer be that way due to the spine issue.
After all, don't we really want to concern ourselves with the arrow at flight (dynamic) verses the arrow at rest/test (static)???
Jeff and I have always touted the usage of metal nock adapters at the ends of internal component carbon arrows.
10-23-2002, 08:01 PM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Middletown PA United States
Posts: 3,625
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Hey Jeff, don't gloat too much over me. I'm not a convert. I've used ACC's for years. Just tried the ICS the last few to see what they were like. ACC is still it. I commend you for your knowledge about arrows. It must take a lot of work--OK play. You have to enjoy it. In general terms I know that ACC's are a much better arrow. They are the only arrow I know that Easton lists the spine tolerance (.005) in their technical catalogs. As far as I know none of the AC manufacturers list it for even their best arrows. DUH, I wonder why this is?
As I said, I know a lot of this stuff. I just like the way you say it. Much better with words than I am. And much better tech work.
[/quote]
Another True Believer who has seen the light folks! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
[/quote]
As I said, I know a lot of this stuff. I just like the way you say it. Much better with words than I am. And much better tech work.
[/quote]
Another True Believer who has seen the light folks! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
[/quote]
10-24-2002, 12:14 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
RB,
Yes it is ALWAYS better to go with a slightly stiffer shaft, than a slightly weak one. I would go w/ the 3-60’s to be on the safe side.
Len,
Thank you very much for the compliments. I just find it so funny that people will spend $750 or more on a complete bow set-up then buy the cheapest arrows they can find. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: you can take a 300 dollar bow and run top end shafts through it and it will group VERY well. You can take a $1000 bow, and run $45 arrows through it and it won’t group for crap.
Bgfisher,
Heh…Oh I’m not gloating, just glad to see you have found out the error of your ways when you strayed off the one-true path <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>! I really think if people would just run some ACC’s through their bow for a couple of weeks after tuning them up, they would be amazed at the difference. Or hell…just go back to high grade aluminums.
jeff
Yes it is ALWAYS better to go with a slightly stiffer shaft, than a slightly weak one. I would go w/ the 3-60’s to be on the safe side.
Len,
Thank you very much for the compliments. I just find it so funny that people will spend $750 or more on a complete bow set-up then buy the cheapest arrows they can find. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: you can take a 300 dollar bow and run top end shafts through it and it will group VERY well. You can take a $1000 bow, and run $45 arrows through it and it won’t group for crap.
Bgfisher,
Heh…Oh I’m not gloating, just glad to see you have found out the error of your ways when you strayed off the one-true path <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>! I really think if people would just run some ACC’s through their bow for a couple of weeks after tuning them up, they would be amazed at the difference. Or hell…just go back to high grade aluminums.
jeff
10-24-2002, 01:48 PM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Ok Jeff, 3-60s it is 
. Thanks for all your help.
Just for chits and giggles, what can you tell me about Cabela's carbon/aluminum shaft, the Stalker EL, I believe?
. Thanks for all your help.Just for chits and giggles, what can you tell me about Cabela's carbon/aluminum shaft, the Stalker EL, I believe?
10-24-2002, 10:16 PM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Middletown PA United States
Posts: 3,625
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Jeff, you're a trip. I got to ask you--how do you know all this stuff about arrows? You got some and tried and tested them, right? Well, I sometimes do this too, albeit on a much smaller scale (money). That's how we used to do things before the age of computers and forums where we could pick each others' brains. And boy do I agree with you on the comment about buying an expensive bow and shootin cheap arrows. Sorry to say that most guys think the $700 to $800 bow is the cure-all but fail to recognize that all a bow is is a launchpad for the arrow. It's what the arrow does after it leaves the bow that's important.
10-24-2002, 11:00 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,903
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jeff and I have always touted the usage of metal nock adapters at the ends of internal component carbon arrows.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Len or Jeff , can you explain to me why you "tout the usage of metal nock adapters" for ic carbon arrows?
Jeff and I have always touted the usage of metal nock adapters at the ends of internal component carbon arrows.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Len or Jeff , can you explain to me why you "tout the usage of metal nock adapters" for ic carbon arrows?
10-25-2002, 01:34 AM
#28
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: O\'Fallon MO O\'Fallon, MO
Posts: 95
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
I shoot the 02 BK II. 71 lbs, 30” draw, 29” ACC 3-60 with 75 grain tip. 4” vanes, almost no helical. Tru-Flight hurricane release. Am I spined correctly? If I go to the Hyperspeed 2-60?
Also, should I be using a string loop due to my 30” draw & ATA on my BK II.
Also, should I be using a string loop due to my 30” draw & ATA on my BK II.
10-25-2002, 06:19 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jeff, you're a trip. I got to ask you--how do you know all this stuff about arrows? You got some and tried and tested them, right? Well, I sometimes do this too, albeit on a much smaller scale (money). That's how we used to do things before the age of computers and forums where we could pick each others' brains. And boy do I agree with you on the comment about buying an expensive bow and shootin cheap arrows. Sorry to say that most guys think the $700 to $800 bow is the cure-all but fail to recognize that all a bow is is a launchpad for the arrow. It's what the arrow does after it leaves the bow that's important.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
BG...I've spent ALOT of money on them. Actually I had a good teacher fegarding archery equipment at the shop I used to run, and he turned me into the tech nut I am...we had an arrow spine tester, and just started testing everything we could find.. he's retired now, but whenever I'm home I go to his house to spine test new stuff I may ahve bought, or I just send him stuff..Alot to trial and error, and picking some industry folks' brains over the years re: contstruction, spine issues, etc.. A few years stint with wood arrows and longbows taught me quite a bit as well...especially regarding the various tolerances of straightness, weight, and spine match..
BoWFANTAIC,
We reccomend their use basically from an "insurance" perspective...the nock ends of IC carbons are their most vunerable point becuase of the amount of abuse that end sees, and the fact that the nock does not reinforce as well as say an insert..
IF a nock end hit (from another arrow) occurs, a uni-bushing will most of the tiem allow for a "glance off"..so that the shaft end is not damaged..when you get nock end hits or VERY hard front impact hits it can damage the arrow internally causing minute cracks and the layers of the shaft to shift very slightly which basically makes them bend...sometimes you can even see the damage if you take the insert and nock out, and hold the shaft up to a light source and look...you can see the imperfections.
AB,
dropping to the 2-60 HS will likely put you a little on the soft side...the Hyperspeeds are all a bit softer in spine than their standard ACC counterparts (Due to one less wrap of carbon...hence 2-60 for the HS, and 3-60 for the standard ACC).
If you wanted to use Hyperspeeds (and I really DON'T suggest them for hunting, they are not durable enough in my opinion) than I would use the 2-71 Hypers.
As far as the loop, that's your call.I like them and find the advantages outweight the disadvantages.
JeffB
Jeff, you're a trip. I got to ask you--how do you know all this stuff about arrows? You got some and tried and tested them, right? Well, I sometimes do this too, albeit on a much smaller scale (money). That's how we used to do things before the age of computers and forums where we could pick each others' brains. And boy do I agree with you on the comment about buying an expensive bow and shootin cheap arrows. Sorry to say that most guys think the $700 to $800 bow is the cure-all but fail to recognize that all a bow is is a launchpad for the arrow. It's what the arrow does after it leaves the bow that's important.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
BG...I've spent ALOT of money on them. Actually I had a good teacher fegarding archery equipment at the shop I used to run, and he turned me into the tech nut I am...we had an arrow spine tester, and just started testing everything we could find.. he's retired now, but whenever I'm home I go to his house to spine test new stuff I may ahve bought, or I just send him stuff..Alot to trial and error, and picking some industry folks' brains over the years re: contstruction, spine issues, etc.. A few years stint with wood arrows and longbows taught me quite a bit as well...especially regarding the various tolerances of straightness, weight, and spine match..
BoWFANTAIC,
We reccomend their use basically from an "insurance" perspective...the nock ends of IC carbons are their most vunerable point becuase of the amount of abuse that end sees, and the fact that the nock does not reinforce as well as say an insert..
IF a nock end hit (from another arrow) occurs, a uni-bushing will most of the tiem allow for a "glance off"..so that the shaft end is not damaged..when you get nock end hits or VERY hard front impact hits it can damage the arrow internally causing minute cracks and the layers of the shaft to shift very slightly which basically makes them bend...sometimes you can even see the damage if you take the insert and nock out, and hold the shaft up to a light source and look...you can see the imperfections.
AB,
dropping to the 2-60 HS will likely put you a little on the soft side...the Hyperspeeds are all a bit softer in spine than their standard ACC counterparts (Due to one less wrap of carbon...hence 2-60 for the HS, and 3-60 for the standard ACC).
If you wanted to use Hyperspeeds (and I really DON'T suggest them for hunting, they are not durable enough in my opinion) than I would use the 2-71 Hypers.
As far as the loop, that's your call.I like them and find the advantages outweight the disadvantages.
JeffB
10-25-2002, 08:56 AM
#30
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Jeff is correct about the ICS all-carbons and using 3-60 ACC uni-bushing nock inserts. I've been using these exclusively since the ICS-type carbons came onto the scene. I rip-out the supernocks unless otherwise specified not to by customers. The uni with "G" nock makes for a much better and more precise combo, and they have shorter tails for loop use.
I currently run the ICSCH for hunting, but always go with an ACC or ACE for tournament work as regardless of the initial straightness tolerance, they hold spine much better over time with the aluminum core as long as they are not dinged up heavily. After heavy usage I've found the all-carbons to lose spine and fly erratically, giving different impact points. This has gotten better since the introduction of biased-wrapped shafts, the old pultruded shafts with their longitudinal fibers lost spine surprisingly quickly, especially in hot weather. That is why they were ultimately discontinued.
But----
All-Carbon shaft design is still pretty much in it's infancy, we've got a long way to go yet, IMO. Each year it gains, but the problems such as the nock ends need to be looked at by manufacturers, along with new techniques for superior durability and spine consistency.
ACC-type arrows have been around awhile, and remain a perennial favorite amongst target shooters and hunters alike. They are not cheap, but like anything else, you get what you pay for, for the most part. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12
I currently run the ICSCH for hunting, but always go with an ACC or ACE for tournament work as regardless of the initial straightness tolerance, they hold spine much better over time with the aluminum core as long as they are not dinged up heavily. After heavy usage I've found the all-carbons to lose spine and fly erratically, giving different impact points. This has gotten better since the introduction of biased-wrapped shafts, the old pultruded shafts with their longitudinal fibers lost spine surprisingly quickly, especially in hot weather. That is why they were ultimately discontinued.
But----
All-Carbon shaft design is still pretty much in it's infancy, we've got a long way to go yet, IMO. Each year it gains, but the problems such as the nock ends need to be looked at by manufacturers, along with new techniques for superior durability and spine consistency.
ACC-type arrows have been around awhile, and remain a perennial favorite amongst target shooters and hunters alike. They are not cheap, but like anything else, you get what you pay for, for the most part. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12