RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Again, this is adding variables to the test.

The problem with that adding weight is now you've changed the spine and FOC of the arrow depending on where you place the weight.

If you put the weight in the front you increase FOC and make the dynamic spine weaker. If you place the weight in the rear you lower the FOC and make the dynamic spine stiffer.

You'd have to ensure that you've kept the same FOC and dynamic spine or the test is invalid. For the dynamic spine you'd have to use calculations or a program to determine the spine.

A spine tester only measures the static spine of an arrow and would only be good to determine if your arrows all have a spine within acceptable ranges.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

nodog,

I commend you for testing different set-ups. No too many will even make the effort.

Unfortunately, many of the comments are valid.

The tests that you ran may be valid for you and give you the information that you want, butthey arenot applicable to everyone else's situation.

I hope that you won't let the "helpful criticism" here discourage you.

Allen

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Agreed. Conducting tests are funand I'm personally not saying that you shouldn't do them with the equipment you have. A few months ago I did my own testjust comparing heavy VS light and ignoredarrow diameter. lighter thinner arrow out penetrated heavier thicker arrow in the media thatI used. It was a fun test andallowed me to shoot twice as many arrows that day.

The tests allow you to see the difference for yourself.So, please do not stop on our account.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I spit on my wife on a daily basis, nothing changes except , I still have to sleep outdoors....

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

thats harsh

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

[/quote]

Every test that's performed on arrow performance (or any test for that matter)musttry to have only 1 variable and keep everything else as a contant when comparing items. Introduce too many variables and the test is not valid or the outcome is skewed.
[/quote]

You said it, there's the problem

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I'm trying to figure out your pointof quoting me? And, what the problem is that you are saying exists.

Because I talk about what you should do for a test does not mean that you can't do any test that you feel like doing. Why, because from performing tests with a lot of variables usually you often learn the differences that arrow diameter or weight, point shape, etchave on an arrow at impact. From that you can decide if you want to perform a controlled test. Yes, the tests are not valid in the technical stand point butfrom a real world stand point they are.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Every test that's performed on arrow performance (or any test for that matter)musttry to have only 1 variable and keep everything else as a contant when comparing items. Introduce too many variables and the test is not valid or the outcome is skewed.
[/quote]

You said it, there's the problem
[/quote]


????

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Bogus thread... too much misinformation going on here. There's no way an intelligent human being with a bow that's tuned to the arrows could come up with these results or really even attempt the test thinking a sound answer would prevail. I guess I'm saying the test is full of doo doo.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

This seems like a Deja voo for me Len!!! If I am not mistaken I heard you Schooling Pat Dinan on this same subject last week ;)No disrespect Pat if your reading this;););):D:D:DYou Da Man!!!