Easton Translations

Sponge

New member
Fonz Awardee
In the back of Quicks, there is a guide on how to read the Easton numbering scheme.

I can understand the Ali numbers (Diameter in 64th of an inch, followed by the wall thickness) but from there is gets confusing.

Quicks lists ACC's as Spine (440) then the 3-39 as Carbon wraps (3) and width 0.339 (0.3 + 0.039) inch. This doesn't seem to work, since 3-00 1500arrows would be 0.300 of an inch diameter, and they sure ain't that. ACE's and Navigators only have spine and X10's seem to have spine and 64th of an inch.

Anyone know where there is a translation of Easton Spine to diameter that works? I can't seem to find it on Eastons website.

Also, is there a comparieson anywhere to Triples (eg weight/diameter/spine)?

Sponge.
 

Fox

New member
er, why do you want to know???

The numbers ere irrelevant except for component selection as you can just work on the spine ratings.
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
Sponge said:
Anyone know where there is a translation of Easton Spine to diameter that works? I can't seem to find it on Eastons website.
There won't be one. You won't necessarily get a direct translation from spine to diameters, especially for carbon shafts. A lot depends on the grade of carbon used. ACEs used to be thicker than they are now, and there is no guarantee that they won't be again.
While it's true that some shafts show a uniform increase in width as they go up in spine, this isn't necessarily true all the time. ACEs for example have steps in the size, so they get wider-wider-wider-drop-down-in-size-wider-wider-wider...
With ACEs you could be in the position where the next size of shaft up is not only stiffer but also thinner!
Even with aluminium shafts you can't take the figures as gospel. Easton treat them as a 'shaft code' not a size. The fuss over the shaft sizes when the 9.3 mm rule was introduced was an illustration of this...
 

Sponge

New member
Fonz Awardee
Fox said:
er, why do you want to know???

The numbers ere irrelevant except for component selection as you can just work on the spine ratings.
Basically trying to work out cross-section verses weight when looking at arrows. Look at the Eason spine chart and you can get variations across the board. This then brings in questions like, for a given spine, are ACE's much thinner than ACC's. Again for Navigators and X10's.

Given that the critical values in arrow flight is Length (fixed for a person), Spine (roughly fixed for a person), Cross-section (variable) and weight (variable) then selection of arrows needs to be based on the variables (and price)

ACE's in my spine are much lighter, but are they any thinner? X10's must be a whole lot thinner since they weight the same. Navigators don't save much weight at my spine so is there a benefit over my ACC's in diameter? The choice in Ali's is even more varied!

I know that ACE and X10's are barrelled, but the measurement could be taken at the widest point.

More out of curiosity than anything else.

Sponge
 
Top