Author Topic: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)  (Read 60478 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #195 on: April 22, 2018, 06:08:28 pm »
I think it should be a contest to see which type of bow shoots a broadhead arrow the farthest distance.  If that's a long draw bow, so be it.

 Back in the day they found out that tiny bows shot tiny arrows farther.  In don't think anyone said that was silly and unpractical and that everyone should shoot normal length bows  and arrows instead.

Offline Bob Barnes

  • Member
  • Posts: 942
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #196 on: April 22, 2018, 06:14:03 pm »
we are only using the broadhead, mounted at 28",  as an arrow stop so that the arrow can only be drawn to 28"...
Seems like common sense isn't very common any more...

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #197 on: April 22, 2018, 06:17:01 pm »
We all get that part.  That's the argument.

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #198 on: April 22, 2018, 06:43:59 pm »
I think it should be a contest to see which type of bow shoots a broadhead arrow the farthest distance.  If that's a long draw bow, so be it.

 Back in the day they found out that tiny bows shot tiny arrows farther.  In don't think anyone said that was silly and unpractical and that everyone should shoot normal length bows  and arrows instead.

  Pat you are completely missing the point of the whole thing either that or you just want to argue. Debate on the draw length is over. The vast majority of primitive bows are built at 28" or less draw. This is who the primary target audience is for this shoot.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #199 on: April 22, 2018, 06:54:11 pm »
I'm well aware of the in crowd decision. I am merely voicing my opinion as we are still allowed to do.

There never really was a draw length debate.  Let's be honest here.

 Thr idea that it's a " primitve" contest with grains per pound and draw length limits using a standard steel broadhead is amusing though. ;)

Offline Bob Barnes

  • Member
  • Posts: 942
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #200 on: April 22, 2018, 06:58:38 pm »
my 'broadheads' are actually trade points...so it's OK...  (lol)
Seems like common sense isn't very common any more...

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #201 on: April 22, 2018, 07:11:58 pm »
Trade points sure ain't primitive.

Offline Tim Baker

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #202 on: April 22, 2018, 07:21:19 pm »

MoJam rules makers:

Here's a thought for future meets, or this one if it's not too late:  The first Mo Meet's bow testing occupied just a few hours of total meet time, and only those wishing to participating. A fun gathering of bow folks for casual shooting isn't incompatible with also setting a few hours aside for precise stat taking and precise chronographing, only those interested in such participating. One would not interfere with the other, instead making the meet more enjoyable. Is it too late add this feature to the coming meet?  This is a unique opportunity to enlarge the store of primitive archery knowledge. Is there any good reason not to do this?

Online sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,764
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #203 on: April 22, 2018, 07:50:53 pm »
I have an issue with the 10 grains per pound and feel if this were fixed, all draw length questions would be answered.

I wrote this back in 2012 and i still feel this way. If I can make Any contribution to archery, i want this to be it.

I would like to express an opinion based of things I understand to be true and things I have read that others believe to be true. I am asking only to raise more questions, not present facts.

I think that the idea of shooting a 10 grain per pound arrow is a bad one. I think it can be misleading and overload or underload a bow depending on the bows powerstroke ( draw length minus brace heigth ). My point is bassed off stored energy. To start off with an example, I will use the cross bow. A cross bow may have a 14 inch draw and a 200 lb draw weight. ( not listing numers from any specific bow, just numbers that could be. ) If this bow were to shoot a 10 gpp ( grain per pound ) arrow it would fire a 2000 grain arrow. That arrow would fly about as far as a brick.

What is the reason for this? I feel the first answer is so obvious you would wonder at my question, but the answer is more detailed than the obvious " the arrow is too heavy " answer one would be likely to spurt out at first thought. I would be more inclined to say that the poor flight of an arrow 2000 grains out of a 200 lb @ 14 inches bow could be blamed on the arrow not being correct to the ratio of power stroke to draw length. The distance a bow is pulled in combination with the weight it reaches ( see note below ) will determine how much energy the bow stores. In this argument assume a well built bow with low tip mass, set, ect... This energy storage is all the bow has to offer to the arrow.

If you always make the arrow 10gpp, the shorter power stroke bow will suffer because of the reduced energy presented to it compared to that of a longer powerstroke bow. I would venture so far as to say that a 50 lb @ 15 with 10 gpp would perform less in arrow flight than would a 30lb @ 30 inches with a 500 grain arrow from the 50 lb bow. ( I havent done the math, but I used the numbers to illustrate my point. )

There must be a ratio of energy storage of the bow to grains per pound of arrow mass. The idea of having a standard by which to measure a bows performance is good and needed, but I think I have shown why I think 10 gpp is a bad way to measure performance of a bow, just as bad and flawed in the same way as ( those who have read the TBB series will remember this one ) measuring all bows performance with a 500 grain arrow regardless to poundage or draw length. These two factors must be calculated into measuring a bows performance. And since it is draw weight and length the bow offers ( potential energy ) and weight of the arrow I think a ratio should be calculated and used to determine the effeciency of a bow based on draw length, weight and arrow weight.

As an additional thought to this topic, I think there is a maximun effecient draw length for every draw weight of bow and that will depend on the arrow weight chosen. Shorter draw lengths get lighter arrows, longer draws get heavier. But again, here I say there is a ratio.

( Ref. note above )
The end poundage of a bow does not matter as much to the kenetic energy of an arrow as does what the force draw ( FD ) curve looks like. High energy storage in a bows early stages of draw gives the arrow the benifit of the rest of the draw length to absorb that energy. The longer the arrow is inside the fat of of the FD curve, the happier it is, as an arrow can soak up energy as fast as it is given. The more energyin the FD curve that is ahead of the arrow ( read early draw weight ), the more it leaves the bow with. This was not exactly part of my original discussion but felt it played a significant part of the performance of a bow and needed to be understood by people who havent read about fd curves yet.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 07:58:55 pm by sleek »
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Online sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,764
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #204 on: April 22, 2018, 07:56:43 pm »
After presenting my argument, Dave, aka woodbear, came up with this simple formula and I believe its the one that should always be used.

 10gpp x draw/28

This little gem can normalize any draw length and put every bow on an even playing field by adjusting the arrow weight to the bkws draw weight AND draw length. I bring this up every chance i get. I feel like if this oportunity to adopt this formula as a standard is wasted, progress will NEVER be made.
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,267
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #205 on: April 22, 2018, 08:39:55 pm »
 Sleek
So according to your proposal, someone that has a 26" or 30" to back of broadhead arrow, should be allowed to shoot no lighter than   26 x 500 / 28 = 464 gr arrow, and 30 x 500 / 28 = 536 gr arrow ?

 I suppose what we need know from Badger, is whether the purpose of the event is to create a competition that pretty much duplicates the competitive focus of the existing USAA Broadhead event or whether he sees something with less rules and  classes that might have a broader appeal as a club shoot.

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #206 on: April 22, 2018, 08:49:26 pm »

MoJam rules makers:

Here's a thought for future meets, or this one if it's not too late:  The first Mo Meet's bow testing occupied just a few hours of total meet time, and only those wishing to participating. A fun gathering of bow folks for casual shooting isn't incompatible with also setting a few hours aside for precise stat taking and precise chronographing, only those interested in such participating. One would not interfere with the other, instead making the meet more enjoyable. Is it too late add this feature to the coming meet?  This is a unique opportunity to enlarge the store of primitive archery knowledge. Is there any good reason not to do this?

   Tim, the spreadsheet and entry form has a place for FPS, a chrono will be available to shoot though but the archer will have to shoot it himself. My personal goal is to promote a flight shoot but I support gathering the info off the chrono. I do agree that without one person doing all the shooting or using a shooting machine the data is of limited value and that is one of the reasons I am not pushing it.

  Sleek, a standard has to be used in testing primitive has adopted a standard of 10 grains at 28". If the archer chooses to short draw we can't make adjustments for that. A cross bow with a shorter draw would indeed not use a 10 grain standard he would work off stored energy as you suggested. The 10 grains is based on a 28" draw, if the bow stores less energy at 28" it simply pays the penalty.

Online sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,764
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #207 on: April 22, 2018, 09:04:14 pm »

MoJam rules makers:

Here's a thought for future meets, or this one if it's not too late:  The first Mo Meet's bow testing occupied just a few hours of total meet time, and only those wishing to participating. A fun gathering of bow folks for casual shooting isn't incompatible with also setting a few hours aside for precise stat taking and precise chronographing, only those interested in such participating. One would not interfere with the other, instead making the meet more enjoyable. Is it too late add this feature to the coming meet?  This is a unique opportunity to enlarge the store of primitive archery knowledge. Is there any good reason not to do this?

   Tim, the spreadsheet and entry form has a place for FPS, a chrono will be available to shoot though but the archer will have to shoot it himself. My personal goal is to promote a flight shoot but I support gathering the info off the chrono. I do agree that without one person doing all the shooting or using a shooting machine the data is of limited value and that is one of the reasons I am not pushing it.

  Sleek, a standard has to be used in testing primitive has adopted a standard of 10 grains at 28". If the archer chooses to short draw we can't make adjustments for that. A cross bow with a shorter draw would indeed not use a 10 grain standard he would work off stored energy as you suggested. The 10 grains is based on a 28" draw, if the bow stores less energy at 28" it simply pays the penalty.

I respect you a lot. In this case i have to very much disagree. The standard is wrong. Here we have a chance to fix it. To just shrug and say oh well to this is not inline with progressing archery. If we say we hope to learn things and advance, how can we if we ignore certain facts, and important ones. Simple as thelis solution is to a few problems that have been discussed already, and the ease we can implement this, only to be shrugged off, is hard to just deal with.
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Offline BowEd

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,390
  • BowEd
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #208 on: April 22, 2018, 09:14:01 pm »
This is a competition the way I see it.The bow/the shooter/and his arrow as a team against other teams.For those who participate it'll be a learning experience.For those who don't it won't.
BowEd
You got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
Ed

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #209 on: April 22, 2018, 09:18:01 pm »
  We have already hijacked Tim's thread but for the record I have no desire to change it. I do use the method Sleek is suggesting when I am testing light arrow flight bows but for this we need a basic standard. In regular flight shooting all bows shoot 450 grains even if they draw 100#. Here we simply set a different standard using hunting weight arrows. This is a hunters round.