|
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
I agree with you 100% dave, its pointless trying to explain to people who are so strongly set in their ways. They think their way is the only way, and that is just not the case. Instead of trying to make everyone who shoots an arrow that is less than 400grains feel unethical and emoral, they should get off there butts and educate those who need it.
|
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
[quote]ORIGINAL: AllenRead
davepjr71, Your last post leads me to believe that you haven't read Dr Ashby's work. Check this link and be ready for some really techincal reading: http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24 great stuff!! |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
Hey, Passthru... Tell you what, my man. You get word to the masses and get them to a class and I'll darn sure educate them. I'd be happy to do it. Since I've got to do the teaching though, I'll be sure to teach them MY philosophy for choosing and setting up hunting equipment.
If you want YOURideas taught, then you better quit complaining and get to it. Of course, most people are going to blow you off. Only a small percentage will actually want to attend your class, and those fewwill most definitely NOT be the ones who need it the worst. So, first you're going to have to come up with a regulationto forceALL bowhunters attend your training sessionso they can be educated. Oh! But wait! We can't have any more government regulations can we?? Oh dear... What are we to do now? I'll just keep working on my 400 gn minimum idea,becauseI haven't seen anybetter or even workable ideas come up with this discussion. And anyway, I'd be willing to wager a LOT of money that most people would much rather have to use 400 gn arrowsinstead ofspending their freetime in seminars. It'd be much better for them to get the education, but that simply won't fly without gov't regulation forcing them into it. And the kind of technicalclasswork you proposeis so far beyond what they can do in IBEP it's ridiculous. Tech-heads might love it but the average guy won't even understand it. You and a couple of others here need to dispose of the naivete and wake up to some reality here. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
Get bowhunters to go to all the classes you want, they'll still come out looking for the fastest, lightest arrow they can find. It appears to be human nature.
I've been "educating" guys at my local range for about 3 years on this. About 10 have "gone heavy". Unfortunately, they were already the most experienced, top hunters at the range. The guys who really need it, appear to be all but unreachable. In fact, this thread should be a good example at how people resist the idea. They look for every reason they can think of. "Ashby's bows didn't have wheels. Everyone knows that an arrow prefers wheels". About the only way a guy switches is to try it. Once he sees the vast improvement in penetration and stability, there's usually no contest. And for those of you who think there's big difference in performance from a modern longbow and a compound, you probably haven't compared the two with a 650 grain arrow, lately. There are longbows that will get that arrow over 200 fps. Most compounds aren't going to do much better. Performance can be very similar. Most of the bows they use to shoot water buffalo are high performance bows, for sure. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
ORIGINAL: Arthur P Hey, Passthru... Tell you what, my man. You get word to the masses and get them to a class and I'll darn sure educate them. I'd be happy to do it. Since I've got to do the teaching though, I'll be sure to teach them MY philosophy for choosing and setting up hunting equipment. If you want YOURideas taught, then you better quit complaining and get to it. Of course, most people are going to blow you off. Only a small percentage will actually want to attend your class, and those fewwill most definitely NOT be the ones who need it the worst. So, first you're going to have to come up with a regulationto forceALL bowhunters attend your training sessionso they can be educated. Oh! But wait! We can't have any more government regulations can we?? Oh dear... What are we to do now? I'll just keep working on my 400 gn minimum idea,becauseI haven't seen anybetter or even workable ideas come up with this discussion. And anyway, I'd be willing to wager a LOT of money that most people would much rather have to use 400 gn arrowsinstead ofspending their freetime in seminars. It'd be much better for them to get the education, but that simply won't fly without gov't regulation forcing them into it. And the kind of technicalclasswork you proposeis so far beyond what they can do in IBEP it's ridiculous. Tech-heads might love it but the average guy won't even understand it. You and a couple of others here need to dispose of the naivete and wake up to some reality here. As for Ashbey's work. As I stated in another post. I'd like to see the same test doen with a modern compound. You can not simply do a test with the lightest peice of equipment out there (Where arrow weight will give you the best results) and say that's how it is across the board. With a bow as slow as the one he was using arrow weight is the only deciding factor in penetration. Like any experiment. If you use only one pool it really isn't worth the paper it's printed on. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
ORIGINAL: Straightarrow Get bowhunters to go to all the classes you want, they'll still come out looking for the fastest, lightest arrow they can find. It appears to be human nature. I've been "educating" guys at my local range for about 3 years on this. About 10 have "gone heavy". Unfortunately, they were already the most experienced, top hunters at the range. The guys who really need it, appear to be all but unreachable. In fact, this thread should be a good example at how people resist the idea. They look for every reason they can think of. "Ashby's bows didn't have wheels. Everyone knows that an arrow prefers wheels". About the only way a guy switches is to try it. Once he sees the vast improvement in penetration and stability, there's usually no contest. And for those of you who think there's big difference in performance from a modern longbow and a compound, you probably have compared the two with a 650 grain arrow, lately. There are longbows that will get that arrow over 200 fps. Most compounds aren't going to do much better. Performance can be very similar. Most of the bows they use to shoot water buffalo are high performance bows, for sure. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
As for Ashbey's work. As I stated in another post. I'd like to see the same test doen with a modern compound. You can not simply do a test with the lightest peice of equipment out there (Where arrow weight will give you the best results) and say that's how it is across the board. With a bow as slow as the one he was using arrow weight is the only deciding factor in penetration. Like any experiment. If you use only one pool it really isn't worth the paper it's printed on. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
I'll go one step further in my modern comment. Use even a modern longbow that isn't 45 lbs. Use one tht's at least 65 lbs. However, even modern longbows have to be a higher poundage to acheive the same speeds. You have to compare equivalent equipment. not say. I'm shooting a 45 lb recurve so therefore it equated to your 65 lb compound with hatchet cams. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
I must be nieve, again, still. I was under the impression that a given amount of KE or momentum, or any other variable imparted onto a projectile was simply that - KE or momentum. I was also under the impression that it didn't matter if it came from a longbow, or a crossbow, or a compound bow, or a flipper for that matter. In other words, I thought the tool that generated the flight of the projectile had nothing to do with the subsequent perfromance of the projectile at the target (other than giving it flight in the first place).
Also, I saw the scatter plot of KE vs. penetration in Dr. Ashby's work. No correlation that I could see. He (Dr. Ashby) also made the statement, flat out, that the bow used to deliver the arrow had nothing to do with penetration. |
RE: Who said that physics wasn't fun?
and you are forcing your thoughts on them. not letting them make an educated decision. "Educate them" you say. "They need to be practicing." Well, DU-UH! Hell yes, they NEED the education. They NEED to be practicing. Now that we're agreed on those two points, HOW do we get that accomplished? How do we do it without morestate regulations? How do you instill a sense of responsibility into the average bowhunter? How do weenticehim toWANT to become astudent of the technical side of the sport? Howdo we instill in him the desire to spend time shooting and practicing with his equipment? Into the fray enters the spectre ofhuman nature. If they don't want to do it, they ain't a-gonna do it unless they're forced to. Okay, so by regulationswe make them sit through classes. We make them practice aminimum number of hours. We fix it so they have to show proof of these things before they can get an archery tag. Now what have we accomplished? The vast majority aren't going to bother. They'll quit. Theywon't buy bowhunting gear if they aren't going to use it,so... We've caused the archery/bowhunting industries to collapse and put thousands of people out of work. I'm open to suggestions here. HOW do we meet our goals? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.