Vanes - feedback

PLEASE HELP TO FUND ARCHERY INTERCHANGE

kokes

New member
Hi all,
I have vanes I am already proud of. They meant about a decade of work to me. Especially because of the turbine. But that doesn't really matter now.

The question is what to do with it. I don't think I will become an archery champion any time soon. I am trying to build the best turbine I can, for testing purposes, and I've had my share of tries. I will be using them as a 3d business card demonstrating my skills. In aerodynamics, programming, engineering, all at once. I also think I will be able to make a whole production line for them, fully automated. Actually, I think I have to. Either I will make the whole line and will produce excellent turbine to test, or not. Plain and simple, this has been my experience. I wonder whether I should.

Could you please look at them and let me know what you think. I find them awesome, but that doesn't mean you do, too. I think I could spare funds for the line without too much inconvenience, being a programmer in a senior position. I don't really need the business side of it, but I don't mind it either, I guess. It does have its perks. Let me know what you think. Let me know how to run a business with them, in case I should. The mold is already engineered. I need the things for automation, not difficult really, but time consuming. Significantly so.

Thanks.
Jan

As good as it gets by hand. One of latest models, out of many. Tested for spin and for flight.
letky.png

3d model, one of many. Not the last take, but nearly so:
sip3d2.jpg

3d scene render
produkt_render.png
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
They look really interesting! But I'm only an end user, and know what I like, if you know what I mean. Would need to be affordable, robust, easy to install repeatably and quickly even when away from home and actually work well.
One thought: does every set of three need an individual jig to transport/fix the set to an arrow, or can they be slipped into one jig?
 

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I'd be curious about how much they weigh?
Me too. If the whole thing slips over the back of the arrow won’t it make the arrow stiffer than say a short wrap plus vanes? And how do they fit? Glue? Shrink fit? They’re certainly interesting though.
 

Stretch

Active member
So while they look kind of funky I’d be hesitant…
  1. Damage 1 vane and you have to replace all 3?
  2. Shaft specific sizing to get the correct offset?
  3. No personal control over offset?
  4. Profile looks too low for me
  5. if every set has it’s own jig they are environmentally unsound (unless compostable of something similar)
  6. Are they rigid or flexible?
Maybe I am missing something?

… but then I’m back using Spin Wings because nothing else is any better!

Stretch
 

kokes

New member
Hi,
thanks for the feedback. It was important to me. It is looking good. Should I hand them out to an archer by accident, I am getting ideas of what they may ask. It could deepen the impression I make, should I also know my turf.

As is it doesn't need a jig. It slides on. The one shown I made of hard plastic, tough, yet still somewhat flexible. It fits shafts that are equal or little bigger diameter. There would definitely have to be various sizes with end users in mind. They grip the arrow, forming sort of inward spring. A weak one, so they still slide. I super glue them on. Should one vane come off, I'd just use new set of vanes. They work out to like a dollar, with a production line i mind, plus two dollars more for the air mail. I live in a great country in this respect. I scrape the old ones off.

I don't know if they make back of the arrow stiff. I need to sniff around. If it is a common concern, surely will I also find the ways to test it.

Maybe I can make the vanes themselves biodegradable. I was thinking about it, but I haven't tried. Regardless, they should weigh in at less then 0.2 g, so I don't think they have a potential to become an environmental hazard. I am targeting 0.1g.

Shrink-fitting them sounds legit and worth trying.
Jan
mastersip.png
 

Stretch

Active member
I can’t see them stiffening the arrow reaction if you can keep the weight down under 4.5 grains (for a full set).

The issue as I see it is that the blade of the vane is too small. It might keep an arrow that is flying straight, flying straight. They won’t do enough to straighten a flexing arrow recovering from paradox. So OK if you have a perfect release/tiny light arrows. Not so much for a typical tournament archer.

The advantage of course is that you get perfect 120 degree spacing without a jig or wraps. But they will need to be produced in a ton of sizes to fit the broad spectrum of shaft diameters.

Stretch
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
I

The advantage of course is that you get perfect 120 degree spacing without a jig or wraps. But they will need to be produced in a ton of sizes to fit the broad spectrum of shaft diameters.

Stretch
Presumably only going to be for a specific range of arrows, ie X10, ACE diameters, and if they are springy, it might not need to be that specific a fit, unlike nocks. I'm thinking like a pair of human socks - they fit most people around the ankles with 3 sizes, and are knit with exactly that up and down shape, albeit interlocking.
 

kokes

New member
Hi Stretch, thank you. I think I will do one size first and see how it goes. The 3d printing has gone ways since I started, and the vast majority of what I need is printed first. So it should really be no biggie, once first size works.

I have seen the arrows fly, and spin, and I was adding rigid flags to them to make spinning harder, simulating a broadhead. I also made front mounted spinners and they too stabilized an arrow well. I was even trying them under water. Concerning archer's paradox, I think it could more question of a technique. I believe a bow can be engineered specifically to eliminate fishtailing.
luk3.png luk.png


But yes, I need to try to fishtail them as much as possible to see what happens. Good point.
 

Michael Burrows

Member
AIUK Saviour
Hi all,
I have vanes I am already proud of. They meant about a decade of work to me. Especially because of the turbine. But that doesn't really matter now.

The question is what to do with it. I don't think I will become an archery champion any time soon. I am trying to build the best turbine I can, for testing purposes, and I've had my share of tries. I will be using them as a 3d business card demonstrating my skills. In aerodynamics, programming, engineering, all at once. I also think I will be able to make a whole production line for them, fully automated. Actually, I think I have to. Either I will make the whole line and will produce excellent turbine to test, or not. Plain and simple, this has been my experience. I wonder whether I should.

Could you please look at them and let me know what you think. I find them awesome, but that doesn't mean you do, too. I think I could spare funds for the line without too much inconvenience, being a programmer in a senior position. I don't really need the business side of it, but I don't mind it either, I guess. It does have its perks. Let me know what you think. Let me know how to run a business with them, in case I should. The mold is already engineered. I need the things for automation, not difficult really, but time consuming. Significantly so.

Thanks.
Jan

As good as it gets by hand. One of latest models, out of many. Tested for spin and for flight.
View attachment 8805

3d model, one of many. Not the last take, but nearly so:
View attachment 8807

3d scene render
View attachment 8806
Hi Jan looks really interesting. Some good suggestions made. I might add that you would need to be able to orientate them to the natural flex of a carbon arrow during the fletching process. Happy to try a set for 4.5mm diameter arrows
 

Stretch

Active member
Concerning archer's paradox, I think it could more question of a technique. I believe a bow can be engineered specifically to eliminate fishtailing.
This statement concerns me a bit - might be a language issue. Fishtailing is caused by something being wrong in the shot. It can relate to bow setup or the archers execution. Yes a good fletching can correct that.

Archers paradox occurs for all events when an arrow is launched. I’m sure someone else can explain the physics better than I can but basically you accelerate the back of the arrow and the front of the arrow isn’t moving yet so the arrow bends. The direction the arrow bends depends on a lot of factors relating to the string movement… so for recurve the first bend is towards the riser and for compound with release downwards. You can’t correct that… it happens for a novice, it happens for an Olympic Champion.

If the spine of the arrow is perfect then the arrow will whip back and forward around two nodes of oscillation. The two nodes will fly in a straight line (assuming no wind). If the spine is not perfect or the archer makes a small mistake the nodes will not align. This causes the arrow to plane from its intended direction. Loosely speaking good fletch will correct the issue and stabilise the “mistake” and straighten the arrow flight to fly around the nodes. It doesn’t stop the arrow flexing.

Fletches at the font of the arrow might provide additional stability but 1 are unshootable in most bow systems, 2 will get destroyed when the arrow hits the target, 3 solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Also be aware that too high an RPM spin rate on an arrow can cause some very weird stability issues that I am not sure have been explained yet. Spin Wing Elite have a very high spin rate and work very well for some archers but many (not all) report issues around 50m or so of the arrow starting to spiral and group size opening, making them unshootable at long distance.

If recurve is the target I‘d say your goal is sub 5 grains for all 3 fletches. Spin rate will depend on the arrow mass but something similar to the upper end of existing high end fletchings. I’d expect them to need less “foot” and more vane to achieve that.

Good luck and have fun!

Stretch
 

tabashir

Supporter
Supporter
Having tried many combinations of vanes, feathers, spinnies, wraps, tapes and the like, I found every combination has it's bonuses and issues. I have yet to find a 'perfect' combination. If you have to replace the whole thing due to one damaged arrow that isn't the worse that could happen. That's much the same as I've had to do when I've shot a hole through one of my blazers when using arrow wraps and thus could not easily replace a single one.
I would love to give them a go.
 

kokes

New member
Thank you, gentlemen, for more feedback. First of all, I will take the liberty, if you don't mind, to call those of you that volunteered up here once they are ready. I will be more than happy for early testing by independent third parties.

I was planning 4 mm diameter. I can scale them up to 4.5 easily while it is all in computer. I am unsure as of what diameter to use. I want something archers use. Ideally competitive archers. I imagine they are more likely to produce videos.

I was wrong with fishtailing then. I apologize, it was, indeed, a language barrier. English happens to be my third language.

I am quite concerned with high rpms, as the turbines were calculated specifically for high speeds and high rpms. That is why I am using them with arrows. In the tests I have done, if I remember correctly, the arrow spun 4 times around its axis per meter. A lot. They flew well as far as I can tell, short distance. I didn't have an option of a long distance shot at the time.

With stabilizers up front I was trying to overcome the issues with a crossbow, which in turn was to solve my problems of consistency. The crossbow gave long before I had significant data, and I dismissed it for the time being. I didn't care if I destroy some front mounted vanes during my tests. They could have survived though. Were they made as broad-heads. Or if they could slide upon impact. I was planning magnets I am now recalling. However, after the tests I don't think the arrows are as stable with spinners up front. The only exception being side wind. In side wind the front mounted stabilizers are definitely better, I'd say. This is my observation: The side wind acts more on the light back of the arrow. The heavy tip doesn't move to the side as much. As the tip spins, it spins the arrow more toward its original flight path. So, for hunters, yes, why not. But for target archery? I'd say, not a good enough option.

How do only 2 fletches in a gripper configuration sound? (I was even testing one.)
Jan
 

tabashir

Supporter
Supporter
I won't currently be able to test 4mm, as I'm currently using 560 ACCs which are 6.5mm. I understand that you may want to go with folks that have higher end kit though, so no worries if you wish to leave me out. I'll be happy to try later if you want to expand your testing.
 

Stretch

Active member
I’m scratching my head a bit about 4mm, even the smallest X10 is bigger diameter. I think my 450 x10 are around 5mm (but I’d have to put the calipers on them to be sure).

I know lots of people who have tried 2 spin wings but they usually end up back with 3 (and some try 4). Ultimately it is about getting the arrow to stabilise quickly… while clearing the rest and button… and not causing excessive wind drift. For most that is 3 fletched at 1.75 to 2”. Nowadays you also have some 2.5” (Gazoz) and Ellison shot the world record with 1.5”. (women’s gold and WR are Spin Wings 1.75”) You will shoot bad shots. Decent fletches save you from looking like an idiot when you shoot bad shots :eek:

I’ve tried everything (actually a lie as I haven’t tried Gas Pros) and nothing beats spin wings (but other vanes can be as good).

Stretch
 

kokes

New member
Ok, so we are talking about a new redesign now. Because:

Based on the recommendations above, I want something like:
4.5 mm diameter shaft, 45 mm length, > 0.3 grams, 3 vanes.
While current specs, with the newest model, are:
4 mm diameter shaft 35 mm length, < 0.1 grams, 2 vanes.

By the redesign I mean I need to go all the way back to my turbine/propeller calculation script, calculate one more turbine blade of different specs, remaster the gripper in 3d, glue the vanes in, cut it up again, remake the mold and master mold. About a week. But I may have problems with designing the mold in such a way that it can be printed. I have run into problems with it in past. 3d printers have their limitations. Namely a wall thickness is the bottle neck here. Three or more vanes are more risky. Two vanes are risk free. Okay. It looks I am scratching my head a little.
proudnice.png
 

Stretch

Active member
Yup so 4.5mm would need to stretch a tiny bit to go on an X10 450. That is a pretty high end arrow. You may find a bigger market with a larger diameter (more budget efficient so more common) arrow. Depends how much they stretch without deforming the vane/changing the offset.

Mind you, there could easily be a market for a larger, straight vane profile slip-on fletching solution at the more budget end of the market if it was robust enough and stretchy enough to fit a wide range of shafts. The focus there is on convenience rather than performance. (Been tried before with a rubber curled vane but they didn’t work well enough for top archers and weren’t cheap enough for club archer use). Ideally the system would give enough movement to create a bit of vane offset. Your target is then the weight of a standard 2.5” rubber fletch which is a lot heavier than a Spin Wing type vane.

What material are you using? Is it rubbery/flexible or quite rigid?

Stretch
 

tabashir

Supporter
Supporter
If you are limiting yourself to high end archers, that's cutting out a very large proportion of the market. Of course you really want it to be used by the top end archers since lots of kit, maybe even the majority of it, is used by archers based on recommendations or due to a well known archer using it, but that's also because it is physically possible.

If it will only fit on very high end arrows, it doesn't matter if Brady, Mete or Kim use your vanes, your average archer won't be able to.

As @Stretch points out, there are a number of other factors in vane choice for many people and I agree that a lot of club archers would happily use a simple slip on vane if it proved cost effective.

I'd be more than happy to try a 2 vane solution if that was easier to make.
 

kokes

New member
Hi. I think 0.1 grams is about 1.5 grain, and it is to be the weight of the whole set. The lightest Spin Wing is 0.3 grams, or three times as much, on a single vane. I use rtv polyurethanes. They are unbelievably expensive, but I don't need all that much.

Simple sliding vanes could be a viable business idea indeed. A large customer base and all. My goal is to get the turbines between people. There are things I would like to prove by them. But, I think I can model the straight vanes tonight and have them ready by the next week if I really want to. I am not sure I do. Maybe, again, complete with the line. As a test. Good, good. I think I like it. I can't really stand by a molding machine all day. I am a lead developer. I need automation.

I think I can make the three vanes mold. I have to do some more checks, but it looked viable.

Once I have it all in the computer, I can make a larger diameter by typing s1.2, which will scale it to 120% in all directions. I can't do it now when the arrows are dis-proportionally short, in one direction only, because of the screwy airfoils. I have to remodel them first, or keep the vane short. I think I prefer the former. They print the same regardless of the size, they will cost about the same, since vanes are all small, and getting each size into production should take roughly the same time. The cashflow could bite me if I am not careful, meaning I could run out of money if I want everything at once. Another point for straight vanes. Stretch, I am not much of a flatter, but I think your knowledge is invaluable.

PS: This arrow spun.
sikmo.jpg
 

kokes

New member
I guess all has been said. As for the newest update, I decided not to do the straight ones. I can make them using 2 part mold, while for the real thing I need 7. 2 vs. 7 feels too passive. If somebody wants it, the idea, you can have it. I don't file patents. I also decided not to change the length as I have it tested short and it works, even with less blades and against against resistance. I will make three blade version though, as I like three blades and I was forced to come up with the solution already. However, the two bladed version will come first.

I don't think it will be appropriate of me to continue this thread once I have it. If you like them, and I will be doing them, you will see my add pop up here and there at this site. The add will bring you to my site, which I have kept confidential thus far. More precisely, I don't have one. Yet.
 
Top