Point Weight and Spine Change

PLEASE HELP TO FUND ARCHERY INTERCHANGE

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I don't think it's been established to be accurate, though. I find it kind of boggling that anyone could assert that a shootable point weight would damage a shaft... I'd want to see evidence for that, as it's such a strange thing to say.
I think it is interesting to just imagine what point weight would be required to bring about the " spine change" in question. Would any readily available point that fits actually do the job?
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
simple answer: no. I mean, 20 grains doesn't do it, 40 or 50 might make some sort of a visible difference. An extra 150, 200 grains? At which point, I go back to the "shootable" question...
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Yes, totally shootable, but results come from the "suck it and see" department.
 

Andy!

Active member
I asked a very experienced archer this type of question and he replied that it will have a detrimental effect on the arrow.
Getting back to this particular part.
It's an extremely common thing in human nature to trust people who are very experienced. There is an assumption that they have a clue what they're on about.

I personally know many archers who have attended the Olympics. One of them openly admits that she has no idea about tuning her bow.
Another one who has medalled at the Olympics randomly installed a piece of equipment onto his bow as an idle experiment and then couldn't figure out why he was shooting all over the place until myself and another archer, who was an Olympic Bronze medallist, asked him WTF he had that on his bow for. He went on to become a world champion eight years later. Great bloke. Still does odd stuff.
I've seen Olympic Gold medallist archers write on international forums that their new win and win limbs keep the string going in a flat plane after release.

When you see someone lie blatantly to the entire world, it is your duty to the human race to call them out. You can either contribute towards knowledge or endorse global stupidity.

The ability to put an arrow where you want it can be totally isolated from the requirement to know anything other than the process required to achieve it.

How many of you people reading this felt yourself get smarter as your scores increased?

Did you gain an appreciation of composite materials, stability and aerodynamics last time you hit a PB?

Do 1400 plus Fita shooters all automatically get engineering degrees?

There is a guy in my club who is very experienced. He's been shooting the way he's been shooting for more than 20 years.
I know this, because he tells everyone who makes any suggestion at all to how he could improve.
It never ceases to amaze me that he shoots next to an archer who started attending world cups within three years of taking up the sport and has been now doing so for two years.
Would I ask either of them for archery advice? Both of them look like experienced archers to the beginners.
I would ask the one who has shot for 20 years nothing, because their method isn't working.
I'd ask the other what they did to get good enough to qualify for World Cups in such a short time. I already know that though.
They spend a lot of time shooting.
Until I threw my bow, press and new strings at them earlier this year and said "Figure out how to put them on." they would never have the confidence to do it themselves.
We have very similar bows, so it is totally worth having them experiment and learn on mine so that they have the confidence to fix their own overseas if they need to.

Beware of who you choose to believe. I know excellent archers who are conspiracy theorists.
 

Del the Cat

Well-known member
Infinite point weight equates to zero spine.
This can be proven by drawing up and pressing the point of the arrow against a brick wall (simulating infinte point weight).
At loose the shaft will deflect an infinite amount, or "explode" as we sometimes call it.
Del
PS... That was a joke to illustrate a valid point ... don't actually try it....
Reductio ad absurdum :)
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
It's an extremely common thing in human nature to trust people who are very experienced. There is an assumption that they have a clue what they're on about.
I would go so far as to say it is almost built into our learning style, to take note of experienced people. We start by listening to our parents and it develops from there. I know that some people do think for themselves; specially with topics they feel more confident with. Those who challenge ideas of others are exceptions.There is a difference between challenging ideas and wanting to understand how or why things happen as they do.
Beware of who you choose to believe. I know excellent archers who are conspiracy theorists.
I guess it is difficult to sort out who to believe; the less I know about anything, the easier I am to lead down the garden path. Some mistaken ideas can seem logical when I don't know enough to find the mistakes.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
It's an extremely common thing in human nature to trust people who are very experienced. There is an assumption that they have a clue what they're on about.
I would go so far as to say it is almost built into our learning style, to take note of experienced people. We start by listening to our parents and it develops from there. I know that some people do think for themselves; specially with topics they feel more confident with. Those who challenge ideas of others are exceptions.There is a difference between challenging ideas and wanting to understand how or why things happen as they do.
Beware of who you choose to believe. I know excellent archers who are conspiracy theorists.
I guess it is difficult to sort out who to believe; the less I know about anything, the easier I am to lead down the garden path. Some mistaken ideas can seem logical when I don't know enough to find the mistakes.
 

Andy!

Active member
Infinite point weight equates to zero spine.
This can be proven by drawing up and pressing the point of the arrow against a brick wall (simulating infinte point weight).
At loose the shaft will deflect an infinite amount, or "explode" as we sometimes call it.
Del
PS... That was a joke to illustrate a valid point ... don't actually try it....
Reductio ad absurdum :)
This is legit. However, I think you meant infinite spine, not zero. The closer we get to zero, the stiffer the shaft has to be.
 

Andy!

Active member
I would go so far as to say it is almost built into our learning style, to take note of experienced people. We start by listening to our parents and it develops from there. I know that some people do think for themselves; specially with topics they feel more confident with. Those who challenge ideas of others are exceptions.There is a difference between challenging ideas and wanting to understand how or why things happen as they do.
I guess it is difficult to sort out who to believe; the less I know about anything, the easier I am to lead down the garden path. Some mistaken ideas can seem logical when I don't know enough to find the mistakes.
The concept of Halo Effect is a cognitive bias.
It's just one of the things that humans do.
Once you start knowing what these biases are, you can directly apply them to archery if you feel like it.

Once you understand and identify how our thinking is directed by our biases, you will see them constantly for the rest of your life. Largely in other people. Knowing about them won't change you an instant, but you'll understand why the scientific method is what advances the world and how anecdotes are firmly moving it backwards.

If you have a firm grasp of fundamental basics, you will very quickly learn who has a clue and who doesn't.

Things that are as simple as understanding the effect of gravity on a projectile is one of those basic things.
If someone tells you a fantastic story which sounds convincing, yet ignores gravity, you may then have some decent grounds in considering that they have no idea.

If you have no base knowledge on how some parts of the world works, you are at the mercy of someone else's opinion.

People who are excellent at shooting arrows often have their own demons, like other regular people.
 

Del the Cat

Well-known member
This is legit. However, I think you meant infinite spine, not zero. The closer we get to zero, the stiffer the shaft has to be.
No I mean what I write... you are measuring spine on a different system to me.
I'm talking of spine as in 35-40# spine wooden arrows.
Bigger the number the stiffer the arrow...
(yeah yeah yeah, I know the original question quoted it in fancy modern meaningless numbers...)
Dunno why the new fangled system had to run the other way... probably felt it would somehow add confusion and earn more money (cynical? Moi? Surely not!)
Del
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
he concept of Halo Effect is a cognitive bias.
It's just one of the things that humans do.
Once you start knowing what these biases are, you can directly apply them to archery if you feel like it.

Once you understand and identify how our thinking is directed by our biases, you will see them constantly for the rest of your life. Largely in other people. Knowing about them won't change you an instant, but you'll understand why the scientific method is what advances the world and how anecdotes are firmly moving it backwards.

If you have a firm grasp of fundamental basics, you will very quickly learn who has a clue and who doesn't.

Things that are as simple as understanding the effect of gravity on a projectile is one of those basic things.
If someone tells you a fantastic story which sounds convincing, yet ignores gravity, you may then have some decent grounds in considering that they have no idea.

If you have no base knowledge on how some parts of the world works, you are at the mercy of someone else's opinion.

People who are excellent at shooting arrows often have their own demons, like other regular people.
Nice post ,Andy!
( confirmation bias, at work??)
I did watch a TV programme on bias and found it very interesting. Sadly, I can only remember small bits of it.
However, that aside, I feel that bringing truth out into the open( as opposed to passing on old wives' tales) is a good thing. I think this forum is one place to do that. We can find out what people currently think, so long as the atmoshpere encourages all to put forward their ideas however sound or otherwise they may be. That is best done when all posters have the same objective of bringing out the truth for all to see.
When we are wrong (as I find myself more often than I would like) one of our instincts kicks in and wants to defend our views. That is a critical time in the discussion. "Persuading" someone to change their thinking, is a sensitive situation, I feel. "Handle with care" should be on the wrapper.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
he concept of Halo Effect is a cognitive bias.
It's just one of the things that humans do.
Once you start knowing what these biases are, you can directly apply them to archery if you feel like it.

Once you understand and identify how our thinking is directed by our biases, you will see them constantly for the rest of your life. Largely in other people. Knowing about them won't change you an instant, but you'll understand why the scientific method is what advances the world and how anecdotes are firmly moving it backwards.

If you have a firm grasp of fundamental basics, you will very quickly learn who has a clue and who doesn't.

Things that are as simple as understanding the effect of gravity on a projectile is one of those basic things.
If someone tells you a fantastic story which sounds convincing, yet ignores gravity, you may then have some decent grounds in considering that they have no idea.

If you have no base knowledge on how some parts of the world works, you are at the mercy of someone else's opinion.

People who are excellent at shooting arrows often have their own demons, like other regular people.
Nice post ,Andy!
( confirmation bias, at work??)
I did watch a TV programme on bias and found it very interesting. Sadly, I can only remember small bits of it.
However, that aside, I feel that bringing truth out into the open( as opposed to passing on old wives' tales) is a good thing. I think this forum is one place to do that. We can find out what people currently think, so long as the atmoshpere encourages all to put forward their ideas however sound or otherwise they may be. That is best done when all posters have the same objective of bringing out the truth for all to see.
When we are wrong (as I find myself more often than I would like) one of our instincts kicks in and wants to defend our views. That is a critical time in the discussion. "Persuading" someone to change their thinking, is a sensitive situation, I feel. "Handle with care" should be on the wrapper.
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
No I mean what I write... you are measuring spine on a different system to me.
I'm talking of spine as in 35-40# spine wooden arrows.
Bigger the number the stiffer the arrow...
(yeah yeah yeah, I know the original question quoted it in fancy modern meaningless numbers...)
Dunno why the new fangled system had to run the other way... probably felt it would somehow add confusion and earn more money (cynical? Moi? Surely not!)
Del
Hah, yes. The problem is that the "modern" system is quoting a measured value (deflection), which sounds better in theory. But it's indirectly related to arrow match... Leads to all sorts of confusion along the lines of "but this one bends more", which isn't really the point...
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
With all the different materials involved in arrow making these days, there isn't a clear system that we can call upon to make our own decisions. I think we need to rely on the charts that group arrows together that will behave in much the same way as others in the same group. The work has been done for us, just as it was with the old system of wall thickness and outside diameter.
It seems to me that trying to make charts that will give a closer match for most people will require charts that are not so simple to use and the benefit will be lost.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
With all the different materials involved in arrow making these days, there isn't a clear system that we can call upon to make our own decisions. I think we need to rely on the charts that group arrows together that will behave in much the same way as others in the same group. The work has been done for us, just as it was with the old system of wall thickness and outside diameter.
It seems to me that trying to make charts that will give a closer match for most people will require charts that are not so simple to use and the benefit will be lost.
 

assybish

Member
There is no symptom of paradox.
There's only what you see which looks to be incorrect, but isn't.

There is the explanation of the paradox. The explanation is not the paradox.

Would you like to get into an evidence war where I present all published references?
I have everything from an actual physical copy of the 1912 Field and Stream where Rendtroff coins it as toxophilist's paradox, the book with Elmer's reference to it, Stills from Hickman's high speed video of the phenomenon, through to the point where Kooi first calls the explanation of why, the actual paradox. For almost 100 years, people knew what archers paradox is.
Then came Kooi.
If you ever wanted to nail down a part in history where someone investigating a phenomenon totally hashed it a nomenclature level, it's right here:
You don't even have to consider yourself intelligent to work it out.

At figure one, he illustrates "archers paradox" which is the explanation for the paradox.
http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/kosp97.pdf

If you trace the history, it's not even something you can argue about. It's just flat out what happened. You may as well argue that Hitler didn't invade Poland.
Better yet
Arrow behaviour in the lateral plane during and immediately following the power stroke of a recurve archery bow (sagepub.com)
 
Top