Home › Forums › Bows and Equipment › Follow-up to EFoC and Carbon Arrows
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
This past weekend I spent some more time tuning arrows for my 60″ Griffin 53#@28 LB. I decided to bare shaft a FL arrow. Even though I was getting good arrow flight with three different lengths (See More EFoC and Carbon Arrows) all utilizing a 100 gr brass insert w/ 160 gr point w/ 125 gr steel adapters.
As I proceeded with this bare shaft planing method, I noticed that even though I was getting good flight, the bare shaft cut to this lengths was hitting where I was aiming but was exhibiting a weak spine with the tails kicking severely left. I started with the Fl shaft then proceeded to cut 0.5″ from the shaft and compare with fletched shafts. Eventually, the tail of the bare shaft started to move toward center after a few trimmings.
In the end, I ended up with a bare shaft only showing slightly weak. Final shaft length is now 29.9375 (29-15/16) BOP. The shaft are flying much better even though I was happy with the previous flight of my other shaft lengths.
New arrow stats:
CX Terminator Select
29.9375 BOP
100 gr brass insert
160 gr point
125 gr steel adapter
3-5″ Shield cut fletch
EFoC 28%
12.6 GPP
Total Arrow Weight: 678 grI now have my 2010 elk arrows for the Griffin!!!!!
Mike
-
Mike
I know I have read it somewhere in the Ashby reports that because the bare shafts are flying straight you have the most efficient use of the arrows energy or you are saving the energy for impact instead of loosing some because the fletchings are working to keep the arrow straight. So even if the arrows with the fletchings look like they are all flying straight with three different lengths the action of the fletchings were hiding the best flight possible. Can any one else back up my logic on this? I am pretty sure this is what is correct but I am still learning this stuff. -
Hey Tom
I totally agree. When I was shooting a fletched FL arrow I could see the tail kick left then straighten. With the shorter fletch shaft I did not see this. I knew I was close with the shorter shaft so I decided to trim the bare shaft down to the two shorter fletched shaft lengths and compare them to the cut bare shaft. The new cut length 29-7/16″ bare shaft shoot a house of fire with no fletching on them. So as you said I’m getting an efficient arrow. Adding fletching to these bare shafts will stiffen the arrow some that is why you want to keep them slightly weak. When working with carbons using the planing method really shows you the best arrow set-up for your bow.
It is amazing how fast the arrow stabilizes and thus puts all the energy into the arrow.
Mike
-
Mike and Tom, you have it right. Arrow efficiency (the application of as much of the bow-derived arrow force as possible to produce USEFUL work) is the goal in tuning. Bare shaft tuning tells you so much more than paper tuning does. If you’re getting rapid paradox recovery and straight, clean flight all the way to the target from a bare-shaft arrow there’s no room for improvement in the arrow’s flight.
Most paper tuning uses fletched arrows. With even the best paper tuning techniques fletching CAN (and usually does) mask some amount of flight-error TENDENCY; i.e. masking some arrow “inefficiency”. This makes it far more difficult to paper tune an arrow’s flight than to bare-shaft tune it.
Ed
-
When I begain bareshafting arrows I was told to settle on a slightly weak result in my bare shaft because fletching will stiffen the arrow slightly and compensate for the slightly weak spine.
I’ve stuck with this theory and it’s proven to work well for me.
I tune my “bow” by paper tuning and also get good results.
I am of course more than open to any other theory to improve my over all arrow flight.John.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.