Archers Advatnage vs Easton shaft guide

gjb

New member
Has anybody else got any experience of choosing arrow shafts using Archers Advantage and / or Eastons shaft selector.

I bought a set of ACC's (3L-18) on the basis of the Easton guide, but when I enter the same information into Archers Advantage it tells me that the arrows will be too stiff. Who do I believe?
 
R

rgsphoto

Guest
gjb said:
Has anybody else got any experience of choosing arrow shafts using Archers Advantage and / or Eastons shaft selector.

I bought a set of ACC's (3L-18) on the basis of the Easton guide, but when I enter the same information into Archers Advantage it tells me that the arrows will be too stiff. Who do I believe?
I find Easton charts do tend to be on the side of stiff. Some say to protect there equipment. However, due to many variables all charts are only a starting point, and are not cast in stone. The only way to really know is to see how they tune for you, with your form and your bow setup.
 

joetapley

New member
If you post your draw weight, pile weight, shaft length and nock to button distance then there are probably several AIUK members with similar enough set ups to give some sensible advice. Practical experience is the bottom line with arrow selection - the various selection systems can only guess some sort of average.
 
I used the Easton charts when I bought a set of X7's for this years indoor, simply looked down the correct column for draw length and poundage and they were spot on. Best bet is to go to a pro shop if in doubt and have them weigh the bow and measure your draw length then trial a couple of shafts if possible.
 

Gerry

Member
Archers advantage

When you input arrow length in Archers Advantage it's only the length of the carbon shaft nothing else and then the point weight/nock/fletches and any insert weight etc. etc.
 

napolienne

Active member
Fonz Awardee
gjb said:
Has anybody else got any experience of choosing arrow shafts using Archers Advantage and / or Eastons shaft selector.

I bought a set of ACC's (3L-18) on the basis of the Easton guide, but when I enter the same information into Archers Advantage it tells me that the arrows will be too stiff. Who do I believe?
In my experience the easton shaft selector is utter rubbish - the shafts it recommends for my draw length are way too weak. I suspect no-one bothered collecting proper data for us short folk. If you're going to use any easton chart use the spine/weight comparison one - I think its the best way of finding your ideal carbon as you use your perfect ali as a guide.
 

robbo

New member
they shouldn't come in too stiff, i am using the same arrows at 29" holding 35lb with 100 grain points in. I was told that these may be too stiff to start with as I have my bow at it's lowest weight, but when I increase the weight (can go up another 3lb) they should come into line.

They were a bit stiff until I fitted the 100 grain points, achieving a good bare shaft test was pretty straight forward with them after that.
 

Big Boy Blue

New member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
I agree with some of the comments above I have found the Easton Chart gives a spine on the stiff side. My first set of XX75 were chosen using the Easton chart and they were a nightmare to tune as they were way to stiff.

Archers advantage does seem to give better selection, but this does depend on the quality of data you put in. I made a mistake early on of using my actual draw length and not the AMO draw length the program actually needs. I have just chosen my ACE's using AA and they are spot on for spine.

I also believe the Easton charts give a Static spine (deflection using a weight) and AA gives Dynamic spine recomendations.
 

joetapley

New member
I also believe the Easton charts give a Static spine (deflection using a weight) and AA gives Dynamic spine recomendations.
All arrow recommendation systems (including Easton's) are based on dynamic spine as this is the only property with any meaning. Static spine is just a method of ordering arrows into a dynamic spine sequence.

Impossible to include all parameters that affect dynamic spine into some selection method. Easton etc do they best they can I think. That's why a deterministic approach using a real archer database could be so useful. At the moment it's based a lot on hearsay - go down one spine or go down 2 spines but the correct 'hearsay' is going to depend on your arrow length and draw weight. Archers with very long or very short arrows have a lot of difficulty.

Agree with Napolienne that the Easton spine/weight chart should be used as part of the arrow selection process.
 

Big Boy Blue

New member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Thats interesting as I had read the Easton charts were based on static spine, I will have to try and find the document and re-read it.
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
I think the figures they use to identify shafts are static spine (or close to it). That doesn't mean the data they use to build the charts is based on static spine...
 

joetapley

New member
Rik said:
I think the figures they use to identify shafts are static spine (or close to it). That doesn't mean the data they use to build the charts is based on static spine...
Exactly. They don't need you to specify EI value or gpi as they know these already. They can make a reasonable guess at brace height and draw length from the selected arrow length, combine this with your specified draw weight and (assuming all limbs are equal) a guess can be made about the energy input into the arrow.
 
Top