[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: New Ashby update just posted; health issues #48882

Surgery is on for 6:00 AM tomorrow. Strange as it might sound I’m really looking forward to it. Means I’ll be one step closer.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: New Ashby update just posted; health issues #44290

Thank you all for the well wishes and kind words. I’ll try to get the next update out on a more timely basis.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Wood arrows and EFOC #62735

Kegan, it difficult to get enough point weight on wood arrows to get very far into the EFOC range. Check out the “Mail order source for tungsten wire” thread. It will give you some idea on what folks are working on; trying to get wood shafts to EFOC levels.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #62729

🙂

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #62522

Patrick, we’ve tried several different long, one piece insert/IF’s. So far none have worked. None of the flexable materials we’ve tried were strong enough to withstand hard, direct impacts and the harder materials didn’t have enough flex to prevent breakage on the hard impact angling shots.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #61515

TTT for partick.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #61513

Patrick, I brought the IF thread back to the top. It has photos and some of the construction and assembly details.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #61508

Patrick. I generally make my IF’s either 7″ or 9″ OAL. The first 2″ of the 7″ IF (or 4″ on the 9″ IF) is parallel, with a diameter matching the shaft’s internal diameter. The rear 5″ on each is tapered in a parabolic curve.

I’ve tried several materials. Whatever material is used for the IF it needs to be something with some degree of flex. From among all the materials I’ve tried the ones which have worked best so far are hardwood, hard nylon and carbon. I use oak the most. On the hard nylon you need to add glue groves in the parallel portion in order for it to hold securely on direct impact. I found 4 glue groves, each 5mm wide and 1mm deep was the minimum number for a secure grip of the nylon IF to the shaft’s wall.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #61076

One never knows for certain until it’s tested, but my impression of the outsert/insert design is that it should definitely provide extra strength on direct hard-impact hits, but won’t add much (if any) extra strength on the angular impacts. On those angular impacts it will still not add support to the shsft at the point where the insert terminates inside the shaft; and that’s precisely where the weak point is on angular impacts. It’s at this point where the gradually tapering portion of the Internal Footing adds additional support, spreading the force across a 5″ long section of the shaft; rather than having it concentrated immediately back of the insert – or the forward, parallel section of the Internal footing.

Ed

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #61073

No idea Tom. I’ve not even seen one.

David, I doubt that there’s any shaft that’s going to routinely stand up to breakage by an animal rolling on it. Not even the best hardwood shafts stand up to that, and they are the most damage resistant shafts tested. Best cure for that is to have pass-throughs as often as possible! The big concern is breakage on hard impacts, especially at oblique angles.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Dynamic spine #61067

I’m waiting too, David. Not being able to do much these past 19 months has me very frustrated. So much I want to be experimenting with and yet am unable to do so.:x

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Steel Force Broadheads #61062

Spot on Tom. The more options we have in good BH choices the better.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #59216

David, are those impact breaks or breaks created by the animal moving with the arrow still in him?

Simply moving the weak point of the shaft farther back was also what I observed when using the all-parallel internal Footings too, on oblique angle impacts. It was only after going to the tapering back section Intertnal Footing that the shaft fractures ceased to be a major, major problem.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Steel Force Broadheads #58744

That’s the same ferrule design I tested on the double-bevel screw-in. That ferrule fade-in is more abrupt than that of the Samauri, with that second ‘step-up’ towards the ferrule’s rear. Even the ferrule fade in of the Samauri (which matches that of the SilverFlame) is more abrupt than I like. Having the very best possible ferrule fade-in isn’t important on many hits, but on some it can become a big, big factor. It’s more critical as the animals get larger or the arrow force you’re working with gets lower.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: efoc vs arrow integrity #58119

There will be a section dealing with this in an upcoming Update. The shaft-damage results with the very thin shafts used on the Ultra-EFOC arrows was not what I had expected it to be. However, all the test data to date with these Ultra-EFOC arrows has been on shots fired from a broadside shooting angle, giving a bone-impact angle closer to perpendicular. I haven’t yet done any oblique angle impact testing for shaft durability but suspect that some problems will be encounterted on these, making the use of a IF of greater importance. But, as with the direct impact testing, what I expect doesn’t always end up being the same as what the actual results show. Only time and actual testing results will tell the true story.

Ed

[Author]

Posts