Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
08-11-2004, 09:45 PM
#11
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pasadena Texas USA
Posts: 186
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
Thank You, to Roland, NorthernMN, 5shot, and BowElkFreak for your opinions and write ups, I read them and they were informative and helpful. Looks like anywhere from straight to 1-3 degrees of offset is the best. C903 I value contrasting opinions as well but theres weigh more because they have actually used the QuikSpin vanes. Thank you though as well.
08-12-2004, 03:38 AM
#12
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,862
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
BowElkFreak:
You need to peruse all that I have said regarding the "claims," and show me where I have indicated that I know for a fact that the "claims" are erroneous, based on personal use. I do not recall having said that no person should use the product because the "claims" are indisputably false. I do not recall having directly criticized anyone whom uses the product or intends to purchase and use the product.
Being an engineer, you should know that not everyone involved in the innovation, the design, the speculative level of evaluation of proposed performance, the fabrication, etc, are ALL involved in the final testing. Therefore, I would assume that you would NOT totally discount the applied theories and input from all those NOT involved in the testing. However, conversely, you are saying that I must be involved in the testing in order for my dispute of some of the claims vs. cost to have any credibility.
As an engineer, are you willing to state that the short-term and undocumented tests by an individual, including your short-term experience with the product, satisfies all the requirements of "regressive and conformance testing?" That you, or any other person or retailer can say with certainty that the Quikspin vane does "Maximize accuracy and produces tighter arrow groups like you’ve never thought possible," and that the "Quikspin" vane does have a "Flatter trajectory compared to conventional vanes," and therefore the cost and the use are absolutely justified?
According to your synopsis of your test, you are not ready to say with certainty that the product lives or does not live up to all claims and that the vane is superior. Therefore, if you have not yet performed all the aspects of proper testing, and are yet convinced that your test results validate or invalidate all or some of the performance claims, how can you already discredit any reasonable hypothesis?
So far, it appears that the "Quikspin" simply falls within the category as many other products do; that the product does, so far, seem to perform reasonably well, but not so superior as to make all other similar products inferior or outmoded, and that the product might work sufficiently well for some people, but cannot be guaranteed to work the same for all?
As I said previously, if a person has the money and wants to try the product, and is not concerned about being disappointed for having spent $20.00 for 36 "Quikspin" vanes when it costs about $10.00 for 100 vanes of a different but popular brand, that is the person's right of choice. However, I still have not seen any long-term evidence that indisputably justifies the cost or demonstrates that the performance is so greatly superior that a person should sell some family heirlooms and purchase the vanes for bowhunting purpose.
I will pass on the testing of the vane, because my fletch has performed exceptionally well for 40 years and I have yet to read anything that convinces me that the "Quikspin" is superior. If I ever was convinced, then I might give them a try.
You need to peruse all that I have said regarding the "claims," and show me where I have indicated that I know for a fact that the "claims" are erroneous, based on personal use. I do not recall having said that no person should use the product because the "claims" are indisputably false. I do not recall having directly criticized anyone whom uses the product or intends to purchase and use the product.
Being an engineer, you should know that not everyone involved in the innovation, the design, the speculative level of evaluation of proposed performance, the fabrication, etc, are ALL involved in the final testing. Therefore, I would assume that you would NOT totally discount the applied theories and input from all those NOT involved in the testing. However, conversely, you are saying that I must be involved in the testing in order for my dispute of some of the claims vs. cost to have any credibility.
As an engineer, are you willing to state that the short-term and undocumented tests by an individual, including your short-term experience with the product, satisfies all the requirements of "regressive and conformance testing?" That you, or any other person or retailer can say with certainty that the Quikspin vane does "Maximize accuracy and produces tighter arrow groups like you’ve never thought possible," and that the "Quikspin" vane does have a "Flatter trajectory compared to conventional vanes," and therefore the cost and the use are absolutely justified?
According to your synopsis of your test, you are not ready to say with certainty that the product lives or does not live up to all claims and that the vane is superior. Therefore, if you have not yet performed all the aspects of proper testing, and are yet convinced that your test results validate or invalidate all or some of the performance claims, how can you already discredit any reasonable hypothesis?
So far, it appears that the "Quikspin" simply falls within the category as many other products do; that the product does, so far, seem to perform reasonably well, but not so superior as to make all other similar products inferior or outmoded, and that the product might work sufficiently well for some people, but cannot be guaranteed to work the same for all?
As I said previously, if a person has the money and wants to try the product, and is not concerned about being disappointed for having spent $20.00 for 36 "Quikspin" vanes when it costs about $10.00 for 100 vanes of a different but popular brand, that is the person's right of choice. However, I still have not seen any long-term evidence that indisputably justifies the cost or demonstrates that the performance is so greatly superior that a person should sell some family heirlooms and purchase the vanes for bowhunting purpose.
I will pass on the testing of the vane, because my fletch has performed exceptionally well for 40 years and I have yet to read anything that convinces me that the "Quikspin" is superior. If I ever was convinced, then I might give them a try.
08-12-2004, 07:49 AM
#13
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Ogden, Utah
Posts: 96
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
c903 - I'm fully aware of the process and who is involved from an engineering standpoint, etc. Bottom line, when it's all said and done, what report are we all reading at the end of the project? Performance tests on that product. I want to see if my suggestions or theories were right or wrong and so does about everyone else on the team. Plain and simple, tests need to be ran.
What bothers me is simple, you make it sound like we are touting these as the "golden vane". If you read my posts in the other threads you will know this is not true. Personally, I can't say anything about grouping yet and I haven't tried to! I agree that my testing isn't complete. I SAY this in my thread. I can say that get 1 - 1 1/2" inches deeper penetration into a block target. I hunt Elk alot, so that makes them worth it to me.
It boils down to really one thing, with all do respect, your posts are 90% awesome. It's just that little extra flare and twisting of the words to make us all sound like we are touting the greatest archery innovation since the arrow... when we are not.
What bothers me is simple, you make it sound like we are touting these as the "golden vane". If you read my posts in the other threads you will know this is not true. Personally, I can't say anything about grouping yet and I haven't tried to! I agree that my testing isn't complete. I SAY this in my thread. I can say that get 1 - 1 1/2" inches deeper penetration into a block target. I hunt Elk alot, so that makes them worth it to me.
It boils down to really one thing, with all do respect, your posts are 90% awesome. It's just that little extra flare and twisting of the words to make us all sound like we are touting the greatest archery innovation since the arrow... when we are not.
08-12-2004, 12:42 PM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,862
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
BowElkFreak:
I am assuming that "we" means that already there is some type of gathering of the aficionados of the vane. As for the touting of the greatest invention to come down the pike; maybe not, but the insinuation has been presented by some as a result of "backyard" testing. The reporting of personal testing has obviously had an influence, since some readers have stated that he or she is going to run right out and purchase the vanes.
Take for instance, your reporting that you experienced an overall greater penetration. Just that statement of one individual's experience and evaluation would lead some to believe that the vane alone generates greater penetration (no doubt, penetration is a very valid consideration.) However, a more thorough testing of the vanes revealed just the opposite. The testing determined that the velocity and KE of shafts mounted with "Quikspins" was less than the shaft mounted with other popular brand vane(s); to the extent that apparently NAP has come out with a broadhead that spins so that penetration is HOPEFULLY not greatly affected. Catch 22!!
All I am saying to the many new shooters is, before he or she succumbs to hype and just the personal experience of a few, read and listen to all the opinions before you decide. Then maybe, he or she might not end up wasting money, having too many disappointments, and having a tackle-box full of useless stuff.
A recent thread titled "Where does it end," was a very valid question and contained some posts that expressed some valid points regarding the rush to judgement and purchase of many of the "gadgets" on the market.
I am assuming that "we" means that already there is some type of gathering of the aficionados of the vane. As for the touting of the greatest invention to come down the pike; maybe not, but the insinuation has been presented by some as a result of "backyard" testing. The reporting of personal testing has obviously had an influence, since some readers have stated that he or she is going to run right out and purchase the vanes.
Take for instance, your reporting that you experienced an overall greater penetration. Just that statement of one individual's experience and evaluation would lead some to believe that the vane alone generates greater penetration (no doubt, penetration is a very valid consideration.) However, a more thorough testing of the vanes revealed just the opposite. The testing determined that the velocity and KE of shafts mounted with "Quikspins" was less than the shaft mounted with other popular brand vane(s); to the extent that apparently NAP has come out with a broadhead that spins so that penetration is HOPEFULLY not greatly affected. Catch 22!!
All I am saying to the many new shooters is, before he or she succumbs to hype and just the personal experience of a few, read and listen to all the opinions before you decide. Then maybe, he or she might not end up wasting money, having too many disappointments, and having a tackle-box full of useless stuff.
A recent thread titled "Where does it end," was a very valid question and contained some posts that expressed some valid points regarding the rush to judgement and purchase of many of the "gadgets" on the market.
08-12-2004, 04:37 PM
#15
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Ogden, Utah
Posts: 96
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
ORIGINAL: c903
Take for instance, your reporting that you experienced an overall greater penetration. Just that statement of one individual's experience and evaluation would lead some to believe that the vane alone generates greater penetration (no doubt, penetration is a very valid consideration.) However, a more thorough testing of the vanes revealed just the opposite. The testing determined that the velocity and KE of shafts mounted with "Quikspins" was less than the shaft mounted with other popular brand vane(s); to the extent that apparently NAP has come out with a broadhead that spins so that penetration is HOPEFULLY not greatly affected. Catch 22!!
Take for instance, your reporting that you experienced an overall greater penetration. Just that statement of one individual's experience and evaluation would lead some to believe that the vane alone generates greater penetration (no doubt, penetration is a very valid consideration.) However, a more thorough testing of the vanes revealed just the opposite. The testing determined that the velocity and KE of shafts mounted with "Quikspins" was less than the shaft mounted with other popular brand vane(s); to the extent that apparently NAP has come out with a broadhead that spins so that penetration is HOPEFULLY not greatly affected. Catch 22!!
Just curious... where did you get this information (quote above)? With my setup I've only experienced deeper penetration and my groups with QuikSpins are consistanty higher than those without, even at a distance (about 2 inches at 40 yards). I would be curious about all the variables in their test. With my setup, I have only experienced deeper penetration. I have yet to have a single QuikSpin arrow be "shallower" than a normal vane. I've been shooting them every night for about a week.
One other note. Please be aware that the extra weight they provide is good for my setup. I can't shoot feathers. They are too light and just flat ruin my FOC (13.79%). With normal GoldTip vanes I'm sitting around 12.55% and with QuikSpins 11.17%. With my setup, these vanes are worth it. Others will have to judge for themselves.
08-12-2004, 06:16 PM
#18
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,862
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
Quikspin Test and Review:
Also notice the greater loss of speed (shedding of KE) downrange, and the change of FOC.
http://www.technology-for-hunting.co...nes_review.htm
Even with the pros and cons determined by the test, the vane appears to perform well enough to use, but maybe not greater enough for your average shooter to want to spend $20.00 for 36 vanes, when 36 vanes of another good type and brand can be purchased for $6.00, or $10.00 for 100 vanes.
Also notice the greater loss of speed (shedding of KE) downrange, and the change of FOC.
http://www.technology-for-hunting.co...nes_review.htm
Even with the pros and cons determined by the test, the vane appears to perform well enough to use, but maybe not greater enough for your average shooter to want to spend $20.00 for 36 vanes, when 36 vanes of another good type and brand can be purchased for $6.00, or $10.00 for 100 vanes.
08-12-2004, 07:53 PM
#19
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Ogden, Utah
Posts: 96
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
Good stuff. They help my FOC as stated above and my KE is so high I have nothing to worry about. My KE is 72. If I lose a little here, I'm still doing just fine. Thanks for the link! One thing that stands out to me is they may be questionable for "whitetail" setups. I know most whitetail hunters don't pull alot of weight, have different setups, usually only use 100 gr broadheads and don't shoot long distances. This seems to be the general trend that I see in here. I'm an Elk and Mulie hunter that will shoot to 50 yards in a blink of an eye. They work with my setup, so I'm a fan on them and will pay for them. They are still cheap to me when you consider the overall cash spent on bow hunting in general.
Hopefully you can see why I like them? They have benefits for me and they give my setup some improved performance -- thus, I'm a believer in them.
One thing that stands out to me is they may be questionable for "whitetail" setups. I know most whitetail hunters don't pull alot of weight, have different setups, usually only use 100 gr broadheads and don't shoot long distances. This seems to be the general trend that I see in here. I'm an Elk and Mulie hunter that will shoot to 50 yards in a blink of an eye. They work with my setup, so I'm a fan on them and will pay for them. They are still cheap to me when you consider the overall cash spent on bow hunting in general.Hopefully you can see why I like them? They have benefits for me and they give my setup some improved performance -- thus, I'm a believer in them.
08-13-2004, 05:38 AM
#20
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,862
RE: Questions Re: Quik Spin vanes?
I do not have to see (understand) why you like them. Your choices and your reasons for your choices are your prerogative. However, I have to ask; at the distance you are shooting and the bulk of the animal you are hunting, do you (already) truly believe that the vane provides such an advantage as to give up downrange velocity and penetration energy?
Not challenging your choice, I would say, in general; I know that I would not give up velocity and KE for a product that does not (yet) appear to afford greater advantages than what can be had for a lesser price.
If future tests were to eventually show that the "Quikspin" can undoubtedly and consistently tighten groups much greater than other fletching could at greater yardage, and undoubtedly improves accuracy, then maybe to give up velocity and penetrative energy makes sense.
However, the vanes are heavier, the vanes appear to cause a decrease in shaft speed, appear to cause a decrease in penetration energy to the point that a special broadhead might be required to offset the penetration loss, are not yet proven to be greatly durable, some say they are noisy, etc; all for a slight group improvement for some shooters, and at a cost approximately 4 times greater that a vane or fletch that does just as well and does not cause as great of loss of velocity and KE.
Not challenging your choice, I would say, in general; I know that I would not give up velocity and KE for a product that does not (yet) appear to afford greater advantages than what can be had for a lesser price.
If future tests were to eventually show that the "Quikspin" can undoubtedly and consistently tighten groups much greater than other fletching could at greater yardage, and undoubtedly improves accuracy, then maybe to give up velocity and penetrative energy makes sense.
However, the vanes are heavier, the vanes appear to cause a decrease in shaft speed, appear to cause a decrease in penetration energy to the point that a special broadhead might be required to offset the penetration loss, are not yet proven to be greatly durable, some say they are noisy, etc; all for a slight group improvement for some shooters, and at a cost approximately 4 times greater that a vane or fletch that does just as well and does not cause as great of loss of velocity and KE.