Easton X10s

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
Is there any empirical evidence to show that a top of the range, expensive, arrow like an Easton X10 has a better trajectory than a less expensive correctly spined and weighted arrow, if shot from the same bow?
For example: if the spine and the GPP of the X10 and the un-named other arrow are the same is there a benefit of shooting the more expensive arrow, other than the manufacturer’s hype?
 


KidCurry

Well-known member
I guess the biggest problem you have is that as archers get better they tend to change to more expensive equipment. The video above shows a cheap setup can perform very well in the right hands. But as this is a thread about arrows, it's worth noting that XX75s are excellent arrows although rather heavy. I guess the question rather refers to X10s vs something like Penthalon. But the question is rather self answered. How do you get very well matched cheap carbon arrows?
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I guess it would be possible to shoot an X10 and another brand arrow with same specs from the same bow and get them to travel on the same trajectory. The real issue is, whether all the x 10's will travel on the same trajectory as each other.... and will all the other brand arrows travel in the same way. Variations between arrows in any set will produce different flight paths compared to others in that set.
 


ThomVis

Member
That's why you generally can't buy single X10s, only matched sets.
And barreled shafts have an advantage over parallel shafts, but are more expensive to make.
So to answer the original question; all things equal a more expensive shaft will not outperform a cheaper shaft. Problem is, things are not equal.
 


Stretch

Active member
Your looking for empirical evidence that you’ll never get. I’ve shot x10s since 1997. I change from ACE 32” 400s because the arrow drift on the ACE was terrible (for me) in light to medium wind. I changed from Beman Diva S to ACE due to longevity issues.

The year I changed I shot a 302 90m in a wind that had 1300+ archers struggling to break 275. I wasn’t even aiming off more that edge of yellow.

The reason the x10 is worth so much is how it behaves in medium to light wind. That alone is worth the price IMHO. Which doesn’t mean someone shooting an arrow that drifts further but reads the wind better doesn’t have just as good setup.

There is a scale of bow weight vs arrow length vs archer ability on where you start to get the value. If you are shooting sub 300 at 70m them probably not. If you are shooting sub 310 with less that 29” arrow them probably not. The longer your arrow the more benefit you’ll see.

Of course if you can afford it and it gives you confidence to have “the best” then you’ll shoot better with x10 at any draw length/weight/level.

I have never been entirely convinced about the tapered rear end absorbing poor releases. Of the shafts I have shot the Bemans were the easiest to shoot but that might be fond remembrance of events that happened a bit different. 29 years is a long time ago ;)

In still conditions an x7/ACC etc will score just as well if you can make the distance.

2p

Stretch
 


Rik

Supporter
Supporter
Empirically, aren't halfway decent aluminium shafts the most accurate (barring wind)?
 


Stretch

Active member
In the absence of wind and other environmental factors, and given consistent application of force, any near identical object will shoot consistently.

So if the tolerances are closer on say an x7 than any other shaft, and assuming assembly of all arrows is a constant, then yes, that is probably true.

However... so many other factors come into play.

Bottom line is you don’t *need* x10s to be competitive. But if you can afford them they are a great arrow.

Stretch
 


Kernowlad

Active member
Beyond 50 yards I may as well throw my XX75s but they’re good indoors and they’re strong.
Luckily field archery is extremely unfussy about arrows so I always have a pair of ACGs for the long range shots.
I like the variety.
 


Cereleste

Supporter
Supporter
Yes, there is empirical evidence and yes there is an advantage, but the former is fairly limited and the latter is relatively small.
If the spine and the GPP of the X10 and the un-named other arrow are the same, then this is generally the case between the X10 and ACC which have nearly a factor of 3 in the price. The diameter of an ACC however is about 0.8 mm larger for the weaker spines and 1.8 mm larger for stiffer spines. Not a huge difference, but with an average diameter of 5mm for an X10, at the stiffer spines that's almost 40% more surface exposed to the wind.
The advertised weight tolerance and straightness are the same, so James Park's research on the grouping ability of bent arrows isn't any use here except as a reminder that even very bent (0.006", they bounce noticeably when you spin them) aluminium arrows still shoot perfect scores at 18m out of a shooting machine. Since an ACC splinters before it can get that bent, we'd expect the same or smaller groups when shot from a machine. Of course, a human with a bow is a different story, and not something I have enough information to make a guess about currently.
Dr Park does have some empirical (and simulation) results in his paper "Minimizing wind drift of an arrow" (doi 10.1177/1754337111418876 if you can get behind the paywall). He found that for the same spine and gpi, with a 3m/s cross wind in a simulation that have very close results to his compound bow in a shooting machine, an X10 should get 18cm of drift at 70m while an ACC gets 22cm and a X7 gets 26cm. This difference in drift is based on the difference in diameter. In a variable wind we'd expect the X10 to score slightly better if shot by a machine with manual aiming, whether or not the person adjusting the aiming direction is trying to account for changing winds.
So, there is a difference other than hype, but whether it's enough for an average archer, or even an elite one, to benefit from is a different question.
 


Whitehart

Well-known member
Very few top archers have strayed away from X10's (not all about sponsorship) yet the governing bodies are happy for their junior counter parts to test and shoot all carbon arrows such as Fivics clearly more testing needed.
The quality of carbon shafts is improving all the time. (I too enjoyed shooting Diva S even the bent ones it did not seem to matter - but scores jumped with X10's over 50M)

From my own experience all carbon shafts seem an equal for compound but recurve something seems missing is this an understanding as to how parallel all carbon shafts work in the real world especially over 50m
 


Stretch

Active member
Beman Diva S was a great performance arrow but in hard bosses they lasted a year. When the 22 size went from 5.5mm to 5.9mm they became uncompetitive beside an ACE. I always found that they shot better if showing a bit weak on tune which was counter to all tuning theories at the time.

I have shot a broad range of carbon and a/c arrows and have always found the x10 the easiest to shoot. Much easier to setup than an ACE for example. But that is for me, my 32” draw length, my form faults etc. ACC shot well to about 50m. Any further than that and my scoring was down a lot.

My experience of wind drift differences between an X10 and an ACC was considerably different from that above. Tuning was similar (440 ACC v 410 X10 v 430 ACE). I much prefer being able to hold on the edge of the gold etc when reading light winds the x10 does that - the ACE not so much, the ACC not at all.

Although my highest practice 70m was shot with ACE but on a totally still day and on any other day I have only been close to it with X10.

I found XX75 2213 shot OK outside too but past 50m it was hard going, especially when windy :)

Stretch
 


Cereleste

Supporter
Supporter
I happened accross some properly empirical information yesterday here and remembered this thread. The video links are long since broken but the two imageshack images have the results at 70m (indoors?) of a recurve bow shot from a shooting machine with a simulated finger release using 13 different arrows including the X10 and much cheaper ACG. Each dozen was the right size for the bow and was used "fresh out of the box" so no weeding out of any fliers or small adjustments to individual arrows. Each arrow was shot 3 times, and crucially the images of the groups have numbered arrows.

So what this tells us at first glance is that if you buy one dozen matched X10s and one dozen (unmatched) ACG and shot them with a machine, the X10 scores 358 and the ACG 325. But if you zoom in enough to see the arrow numbers, 11 out of 12 ACG arrows shot groups the size of the 10 or smaller - while the differences between arrows is much larger for the ACG than the X10 (huge score difference), the differences in trajectory for an individual arrow shot multiple times are about the same for both types (4 arrows with a group the size of the X, 7 with a 10-size group, 1 with a 9-size group).

If someone bought two dozen of the ACG (at the cost of one dozen X10), they would probably have slightly less than a dozen arrows that grouped together right out of the box and gave a perfect score in the machine. Or, they could take one dozen ACG and a grainscale and adjust the point mass of the flyers slightly, and also rotate their nocks in case by magic it cancels out some slight bend or other inhomogeneity.

What this tells me is that the both arrows are capable of perfect scores with a bit of work, but a matched dozen of X10s could do this right out of the box with 10/12 arrows while the ACG would either require many hours of shooting+scoring+fiddling or quite a few more shafts purchased to get to the same result. ACEs have both a cost and a result about halfway between the ACG and X10.

The author (Jerome Trouillet) also tested a dozen carbon one - the individual arrow groups were noticeably larger in that even if each arrow's group was perfectly centered, the score would "only" be 354. Though if the most similar 12 were selected from 3 or 4 dozen then a perfect score would likely still be achieved, though at a higher cost and with fewer Xs than a dozen "good" X10 or ACG.
 


KidCurry

Well-known member
...So what this tells us at first glance is that if you buy one dozen matched X10s and one dozen (unmatched) ACG and shot them with a machine, the X10 scores 358 and the ACG 325.
Just checking... I assume that should read 358 and 352 respectively ? :)
 


olis

Supporter
Supporter
Looks like the nano pro is your best bet based on these tests only (29x max score)
As far as I can tell people want X10s because they are much better at the longest distances in wind.
For the intermediate archer on a budget second hand ACEs is probably a good choice.
 


Stretch

Active member
As far as I can tell people want X10s because they are much better at the longest distances in wind.
For the intermediate archer on a budget second hand ACEs is probably a good choice.
Which was the design criteria for the x10. 70m in Stone Mountain Park, Atlanta -which is windy. The unexpected side effect was that it was also better at 90m if you can handle the lower sight mark.

The ACE is a great arrow, but at 32” when it’s really windy, you are giving away 2 to 3 zones at 70m against an equivalent 29” ACE shot from a similar bow at similar draw weight. (Estimates based on some crude tests done back in 1996). So the x10 is much easier to aim off - you don’t need to read the wind as critically. (You still need to be able to read it of course!)

The x10 also takes wind in a very predictable way. Lighter arrows less so in my experience. Wind looks the same, the arrow drifts linearly the same up the distances. With an ACE the effect of drift at 70m and 90m was disproportionate from the change in distance. So distance changes were harder (not that we worry about that these days).

I do think the experiment has an issue somewhere, because I have been on 70m targets with compound archers who shot more than 325 2X with ACC. So to my mind there is something in the test which is a disadvantage to the ACG. Or do we believe that the ACG is much worse than the cheaper ACC?

Stretch
 


KidCurry

Well-known member
Just checking... I assume that should read 358 and 352 respectively ? :)
Ahh... okay, thanks. It was the centred C1s that threw me being 354. What was the target size and distance out of interest? Oh it's okay, I think Stretch has answered it. 70m Full size face. Although 325 does sound low.
 


Cereleste

Supporter
Supporter
The low initial score on the ACG is just how they come out of the box with no modification. With cheaper arrows (less quality control) I'd expect more variation between sets in addition to the lower score. With the ACGs, all 6 of the 8s were scored by the same three arrows, and the overall group looks more like a group of 4 the size of the 10 in the right 9, another group of 5 in the left 9, and three making their own way. With that much variation, I'd expect some dozens to be lucky and have none of the 8s, and maybe some to have more. It's possible that a twist of the nock on those 8s would have made them 10s - all arrows were shot without modification or fiddling so we can't know for sure.

Compound archers are the big proponents of weighing out the glue and squaring off the ends and spinning shafts and rotating nocks to nth degree (I don't know which of those actually helps) - The numbers in these tests aren't a maximum score for the arrow, just the starting point.

Though even without any modifications, if the sight on the shooting machine were moved so the group of 5 was in the middle, the score using the best 6 would be 355.

@olis The ACE is a good arrow for an intermediate archer on a budget ... or one not on a budget, or a GMB archer, or Michele Frangilli shooting world records indoors and outdoors. It has the ability to shoot perfect scores, just takes a little more arrow prep and selection than X10.
 


Stretch

Active member
Weight tolerance on ACE and X10 is +/- 0.5 gr
Weight tolerance on the ACG is +/- 1gr

So that is not enough to make weight the issue.

So it would need to be inconsistency in spine or straightness (the later being 0.002” vs 0.0015”) if that causes 4 fliers in a dozen then that is 4 arrows scrapped in a batch of 12. Doesn’t fit my experience with ACC anyway.

I suspect that there was another experimental factor affecting the ACG. (Eg nock fit). Or simply that while the spine of all the arrows was roughly equivalent, in dynamic circumstances there is variation in the arrow reaction. Or even an issue with arrow assembly (seems unlikely also). Which of course could be the same of other shafts too :p

Also note that the Carbon 1 Which has the same weight tolerance of the ACG but straighteness at 0.003” outshoots the ACG in this test. That seems unlikely in a like for like shootoff.

Or the ACG set did not match the Easton specs but I would have thought someone putting this much effort in would have checked?

Stretch
 


Top