Home Forums Friends of FOC Point of deminishing return while tuning

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • Troy Breeding
      Post count: 994

      I guess this question is basically point in the direction of Ed Ashby. However there maybe someone else that is asking the same question.

      Is there a point in tuning and arrow setup where demenishing turn has arrived?

      Incase your wondering what demenishing return is, it’s the point in time where speed, weight and overall flight stops growing at a steady rate and begins to level off.

      I understand KE is basically a mute point when it comes to archery. Demenishing return will show at it’s best here.

      Mominum also has a point where it hits DR. Even though mominum really never stops growing, it will on any bow hit a point where the amount of average increase in growth starts to level off if charted on a graff.

      When working for UEFOC is there a point in the setup where the speed and weight will out weigh the advantages of UEFOC?

      Just wondering….. Did I finally find something that will make Ed stratch his head?

      Troy

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Troy Breeding wrote: When working for UEFOC is there a point in the setup where the speed and weight will out weigh the advantages of UEFOC?

      Just wondering….. Did I finally find something that will make Ed stratch his head?

      Troy

      Didn’t even have an itch Troy! You don’t have to equate arrow weight with Ultra EFOC. The Ultra-EFOC arrow I tested on buffalo in 2008 (see the 2008, Part 4 Update, it’s in the ‘Library’) is only barely above the heavy bone threshols. It weights 655 grains and has 31.4% FOC.

      Now go over to the 2008, Part 5 Update. It has the comparison of this 655 grain Ultra-EFOC arrow against other arrow groups from the same bow. I think it will more than answer your question.

      Within the limits of what I’ve been able to develop so far Ive found no point of diminishing degree with FOC. Arrow mass is a different matter. At some point the arrow weight becomes too heavy to permit acceptable trajectory. That’s one reason I’m so excited about Ultra-EFOC. It’s demonstrated that a well tuned, lighter weight Ultra-EFOC arrow has greater penetration than a well tuned, much, much heavier arrow having normal or high FOC … and it equals the performance of a well tuned, significantly heavier EFOC arrow.

      Ed

    • Troy Breeding
      Post count: 994

      Dang,,, 🙂 🙂 🙂

      I can’t catch you on anything…. hehehehehe!!!!

      I thought for sure I had come with something that would offset your train of thought for atleast afew seconds…..

      Troy

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Post count: 816

      As badly as I hate to admit it … that WAS a good question, one I don’t think anyone has asked me before. Of course, THEY may have read the Updates first! 🙄 😛 Sure is good to have you back Amigo.

      Ed

    • Troy Breeding
      Post count: 994

      Been doing alittle reading since my last post. As you well know I’m one of those that can understand things better by seeing it than reading it.

      I do understand things alittle better since reading most of it.

      The question I do have, that I didn’t see covered in the artical is:

      What length arrow (nock grove to end of shaft) did you end up with?

      I know it stated that you used a 7595 GT shaft and pulled 27″. This question os one I may have overread without allowing it to settle in.

      Troy

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Post count: 816

      No, Troy, you didn’t overlook it. I intentionally didn’t put the shaft length on any of the arrow setup specifications. I’ve tried to stress to folks the need to tune their arrows to their bow. I found that when I put the shaft length some folks were just duplicating the setups I showed and considering them to be ‘tuned’. 🙄

      You just had to find something to ask so that I would have to drag the Study computer out and look up in the data base to be able to answer, didn’t you? 😈 However, that particular setup had a shaft length of 689 mm. That’s approximately 27 1/8”. I used those shafts without an internal footing. I had some I worked up, but never used in the testing, that had an oak IF and they had a shaft length of 768 mm (30.236 inches) and weighed 755 grains, with a FOC of 33.9%. They never got tested because I ran out of time on my visa before I had a chance to test them on a buff. I intended to do them on the next trip but …:cry:
      Ed

    • Troy Breeding
      Post count: 994

      Hehehehehehe!!!!

      Finally found something that atleast you had to look up. 🙂

      I totally understand the part of finding what works for you and noy trying to copy someone else.

      The problem I’m having right now is I’ve hit the limit my 300 shafts will allow without building out the sight window.
      Think I’m going to try the IF. I still have afew of small old style beman shafts I want mind cutting up. That should stiffen up the shaft add FOC without adding to much overall weight.

      Troy

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Troy, If some folks didn’t have knuckles that drag the ground they wouldn’t have so much trouble getting their arrows to tune. 😛

      Here’s a link to the thread on Internal Footings.

      https://www.tradbow.com/members/cfmbb/messages.cfm?messageid=736A1B11-1422-1DE9-ED3B9ED358D0B836#736A1B11-1422-1DE9-ED3B9ED358D0B836

      Check out Kingwouldbe’s post on his external footings too. It’s another option for needing to stiffen the spine on longer shafts (or bows with deep cut risers).

      Bottom line is you only have a few options: a spine stiffer than 300, tapered shafts like the Grizzly Stik or Momentum, internal footings, external footings or building out the riser. Those old Beman shafts are a perfect fit but heavier than the hardwood IF’s. There are other styles of IF’s too. O.L. uses a series of carbon tubes, one inside the other, in a step-down configuration. Works well too.

      Ed

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.