Thank you!

I don't believe anyone who knows archery would disagree with you. That being said, I think the point that Lucas is making is that, all things being equal, faster arrow speed = tighter groups due to smaller MOA.

@@michaelpoplawski3246 you're talking low single digit percentages in the difference in MOA, and most people cannot shoot consistently enough to shoot sub-MOA with a rifle on a bench rest with sand bags, let alone with a bow.

Absolutely agree. One thing I’m trying to determine is the best process of doing this. Steps of arrow selection so to speak. However one recent issue I had was arrow breakdown after a couple months of shooting my group size started to grow and arrow flight was getting less consistent. I’m trying to determine if this was from the nocks, arrow spine or something else. I ruled out bow tune with a new set of arrows the new set all flight nearly perfect all to each other without changing bow tune.

​@@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineerknocks definitely wear, but the spine break down over ti.e is an interesting thought. You could use a ram tester and take all the measurements then shoot it a and test all the parameters again ad different interval, ie every 200 shots etc

@@the_sharp_carpenter it’s in the works! Thanks for the comment/suggestion!

@@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineerI think carbon shafts do change over time and hundreds and hundreds of shots. Due to flexing, hitting hard foam etc IMO the material has be changing or “ breaking down.”, whatever that would mean. Ruling out damaged shafts I’ve shot the same group of target and hunting arrows for over three years now. Any changes must be so minuscule it’s a non-issue IMO. I have to shoot at different spots to keep from destroying them.

Agreed…💯

Thank you kindly! God Bless

I want to make sure I understand your question on diminishing returns. You are considering increasing weight for long range accuracy primarily wind drift. the question is does increasing mass have diminishing returns yes and no we are limited by arrow spine and flight performance increasing point weight will reduce spine so we can only add so much before flight performance starts to suffer. So its not really diminishing return its creating other or additional problems. The first consideration I would suggest is reduce shaft diameter then increase mass. For the purpose of increasing wind performance downrange. From the point of reducing wind drift there is not a dimension return on reducing size. The less surface area you provide for the wind to interact with the better it will do. The mass as shown in this video, has very little effect on group size a couple percent at most, which in reality is unrecognizable. However, where you choose to add or remove mass does affect arrow spine which will greatly affect accuracy. I might suggest getting a point weight test kit something with a range of field point weights or buy three weights such as 100,125, and 150s to test your group size with each weight. However, it is extremely important that the bow is very well tuned otherwise you might be finding a spine which matches an induced paradox created by an out of tune bow. I hope that makes sense. If I didn't answer your question please let me know. Take care, Lucas

@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineer You answered my question. I did notice better long range grouping with an added 25 grains of tip weight and was curious if adding more wpuld help but you explained other issies i didn't think abput at the time. I am just intrigued by your testing and thanks for putting this information together. I did see that the decrease in group size would not be an issue for my personal skill level, I don't think I would ever notice that small of a change. 🤔 Great thinking and discussion points.

So you bring up a question. In your real world test changing every variable and tuning every arrow what does the test show? To me it would show what arrow performs best given the bow being used at the specific draw length/weight and specific shooter. The problem is you have no idea the why. You can’t answer why that arrow performs best. So it’s impossible to make recommendations. My goal ultimately would be to determine which components of an arrow are most important and make recommendations from there. For example spine is already known and has been shown in the math to be critical. So I plan to run some test of spine tolerance of different arrows when the arrow is new and after x shots to determine how quickly they break down. This will give people information on what arrows have the tightest spine tolerance and last the longest. From there it will be varying weight distribution, point weight, fact weight nock weigh fletching weight to find the best dynamic spine for a particular bow. But hopefully through testing we can determine a range based on shooters draw length and draw weight as a starting point of what performs best with a well tuned bow. You make a great point on precision vs accuracy. Arguably you could say both are appropriate because the test was based on an intended aiming point (accuracy) but also group size (precision) relative to the aiming point. While precision is purely group size independent of the intended target. However, I should be more specific in how I discuss things I will keep that in mind later down the road. Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment I appreciate all the discussion and hope people read the comments on the videos sometimes the points made here in the comments are just as good or better than my videos. Thanks again, Lucas

@@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineer Varying a parameter in an experiment is much like performing a partial derivative on a multi-variable expression. When you are first learning partial derivatives, you begin by taking the derivative with respect to one variable and you don't even include any notation for what is held constant in the derivative. When you get more advanced, you can take the derivative along any path in the vector space and then you include notation for what is held constant. Importantly, it is not always a set of variables that is held constant, but sometimes a relationship between them. For example, in 3 dimensions a student may take the derivative with respect to x and keep y and z constant. Or you could take the derivative with respect to x and keep Sqrt(x^2 + z^2) constant. With physics experiments, this is analogous to keeping a derived unit constant. Mass, length, and time are fundamental units; while energy, momentum, and action are derived units made by combining fundamental units. I could do any sort of experiment where I vary one parameter and keep a energy, momentum, or action constant. In the case of a bowhunter, keeping the arrow in tune is another way of saying you are keeping the difference between the dynamic spine of the arrow and the dynamic spine of the bow constant at zero. This is more of an applied science approach to experimentation versus a basic science approach to experimentation. In a basic science approach, you would isolate each parameter and produce an explicit mathematical function. Which is great when you will use the results for computational modeling. In the applied science approach, the parameter that you vary, the path along which you vary it, and the combination of parameters held constant should all match how those parameters are operationalized in the applied setting. Since all archers will be adjusting certain parameters (such as cutting the arrow to length) to achieve a proper tune as they change arrow weight this would be the way to operationalize the parameters in applied experimentation. Basic science looks at how fundamental parameters combine with regards to physical law, applied science looks at how parameters are operationalized by the end user. Did that make sense?

I have discussed that as well, it turns out that's not the case. The time difference is very minimal in comparison to the increase in mass size. The larger mass requires a greater wind force than a lighter arrow. However, the biggest advantage in the wind is small diameter arrows. I had the same assumption before running the numbers, assumed the reduced time in the air would provide an advantage but it does not. Thanks for the comment/question.

You also have to remember that speed is in the denominator, so you'll get diminishing returns for incrementally greater speeds at high speeds. Since traditional bow shoot about half the speed of compound bows, there are often slightly different strategies for optimizing performance.

I should have explained this better I found the angle at which each arrow would hit zero at the listed velocity at 60 yards. I then used the 350 grain arrow to find the angle variance to maintain a 6 inch group. Since the 350 grain arrows allows for the largest angle change to still maintain a 6 inch group. I used this variance relative to the zero for each arrow to determine what group size each arrow would produce if the same departure angle were maintained. The angle variance is the shooters ability. Whatever angle we can maintain to produce group down range as the bow is floating around. So in this case the shooters ability or the angle variance is assumed to be the same for each arrow with the 350 grain arrow being the control setting the group size of 6 inches. Thanks for the comment/question.

@@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineer@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineer, that makes sense. How I have to do mine is set the velocity and then adjust the degree until the set velocity crosses zero at the yardage I want. I dont know why you cant post a picture in the comments.

You can post in comments but you can post on your community tab on your channel, then tag me or send it to me on instagram if you have it.

Sure, I'm simply trying to add some clarification that accuracy and range forgiveness are two different things. The arrows ability to maintain a specific group size at a specific distance has very little change on mass alone. Thanks for your comment, Lucas

Location of the weight is irrelevant to this discussion. The point of the video is mass does not negatively affect accuracy to a measurable amount. Changing foc absolutely can and will change arrow flight due to a change in dynamic spine and ratio from fletch to cg and cg to point and therefore accuracy. However, you can change the dynamic spine in a number of ways increasing or decreasing foc. Increasing or decreasing shaft GPI, changing shaft type/size. Changing fletchings. The take away from this video should be “don’t focus on total arrow weight if you are building an arrow to be the most accurate.”

@@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineer I really enjoy your videos, BTW.

@@ghostrider846 thank you I appreciate your support! Also I appreciate all the comments please always ask the questions! It always help me know what I might not have explained as well as I should have. Take care, Lucas

Your right the point of the video is there is very little difference less than a couple percent of advantage for a light arrow over a heavy arrow. When we only consider mass change. This will be important later on when we start testing arrows out of bows and try to determine why 1 arrow performs better than another. Don’t worry about comments it’s easy to be miss understood. Take care, Lucas

So I should have explained this better, but I was using a ballistic calculator I have built for archery. It factors in drag and all arrow properties to determine downrange performance. An app version of this app is available for download on iOS with an android version in the works. I used the calculations to determine first at what angle the arrow would have to leave the bow to hit exactly zero at 60 yards. Then adjusted the departure angle until it was 3 inches high at 60. Then adjusted again for 3in low. Once I had the difference between 3in high and 3 in low I knew the spread between the two. This value could be applied to each zero angle for the different arrow weights to determine their group size if the same degree of accuracy was held at the launch of the bow. Hope that helps.

Videos 2-5 all discuss the building and using of the calculator.

Absolutely I am working on it right now. However, not to hate on android but the program side is ridiculous! Haha🤣 it’s two different program language thrown together to create the apps. To save cost and money I am doing it all myself which means I have to learn how to do it. Apple was relatively easy android is proving the opposite. I’ll be sure to let everyone know when it is ready.

Shooting known or un-known?

@@the_sharp_carpenter known

The lighter arrow is performing better coming off your bow. However the mass/speed of the arrow is not the reason it is performing better. It is performing better most likely due to the dynamic spine of the light arrow relative to what your bow performs best at, or perhaps that arrow is slightly better tuned to your bow. There are numerous reasons why one arrow performs better than the others the mass itself has very little effect. Mass distribution i.e. where the mass is located does have an affect since it while change how the arrow reacts coming off the bow. Thanks for comment/question. Take care, Lucas

@@Lucas_Palmer_bownerd_engineer same arrows different vanes and point weight. Lower point weight and lower profile vane vs higher point and higher profile vane. It’s crazy how different the 2 perform considering there’s only a 30grainish difference between the 2. If I add more point weight to the lower profile vane arrow the group opens and if I take away point weight from the higher profile vane arrow the group opens. Supper interesting

Most people who don't shoot multiple different arrows never notice the difference, but it's there. From a target point of view it's critical. When you get to hunting, now not only are you looking for the best accuracy possible but the arrow also needs to be flying as perfectly true as possible and be as stiff as possible to absorb impacts. The perfectly true flying and stiffness don't matter in target as an untuned arrow may group better for some and the stiffness is irrelevant as long as your getting your best groups. Thanks for discussing your experience. The more I study arrows and arrow flight the more I understand how critical arrow spine is. Take care, Lucas

Absolutely! We can use weight to change arrow spine, foc, ect to produce a better flying arrow. But the weight itself is irrelevant what’s important it’s what the weight does to the shaft that matters.

This video is more to address a comment/question I have received asking are lighter shafts inherently more accurate. This came after the range forgiveness video where I showed drop relative to a miss judge in yardage. The thought was if a light arrow misses by 6in and the heavy arrow misses by 8in then the light arrow must be more accurate. This video illustrates that mass does not matter in terms of accuracy for a known shot distance.

@leap_outdoors yea I questioned whether or not to even make the post, and reworded it a couple times, it's probably not necessary, but also comments aren't a bad thing.

@@josephr1198 please always comment any thoughts or questions. Sometimes all it takes is explaining something slightly different for more people to understand and that’s what I am hoping for this channel expanding all of our understanding. Also sometimes I am wrong if no one comments I might leave a video with bad information. So thank you! I appreciate the discussions!

This is based on arrow ballistics not rifle ballistics. All arrow parameters are taken into account and mass was isolated as the only variable which could change. I.e. all arrow geometry is the exact same regardless of mass. It is also assumed the arrow flexes in the exact same manner coming of the bow. This test cannot be physically performed by shoot and arrow with a bow because it is not possible to isolate the mass without changing some other property of the arrow. Thanks for you comment! Take care, Lucas

Haha I agree with you however I have heard it more than once that lighter arrows are more accurate. Maybe this isn’t what they meant? 🤷‍♂️ I’ve got some more technical analysis coming up that might be interesting for you. Take care, Lucas