Carbon arrows

[scotty18]

Hi guys, I'm interested in carbon arrows. As you have probably read I don't know much about "modern" archery equipment. Some of the traditional archers I know are switching to carbon. Any info would be great.

Thanks, Scotty

[Deitz Dittrich]

Scotty, I guess I dont understand your question? What do you want to know about carbon arrows?

The advantages of carbon arrows are...
-Lighter for the same spine
-better penitration
-more durable(could be debated)

The advantages of Alum...
Straighter our of "the box"
Larger diamiter if shooting targets
More spine choices

The advantages of Alum/carbon composit ...
straightness of alum with the lightness of carbon...
best penitration...

Hope that may have answered your question...many compound shooters shoot both... I know most olympic recurve shooters shoot Easton ACE carbon aroows. very $$$

I myself shoot Alum for indoor target league, but shoot Alum/Carbon Composit arrows for 3D and hunting...

[PerchJerker]

Hey Scotty

I used aluminum arrows with my previous bow, both with and without an overdraw. With my current bow I've only used carbon arrows. I love them.

Initially I went with carbon for the faster arrow / flatter arrow advantage. But I believe there are other advantages as well -- you shoot a longer arrow (ie. no overdraw), so it shoots smoother, quieter, is more stable in flight, is still faster than aluminum off an overdraw, etc. You could argue that all those advantages could make carbons a little more accurate.

I'd say carbons are at least as durable as aluminums. Other than the arrows I've used on game, I'm still shooting carbon arrows that are 5 years old. I've never had a carbon arrow "wear out" -- can't say that about aluminum arrows. Refletch my older carbons every once in a while and they're as good as new. Have added more carbon arrows to my quiver, from different manufacturers, but if you size them the same they shoot identically to the older carbons.

One more thing I like -- all my carbons shoot broadheads the same. No more numbering arrows like I did with my aluminums to keep track of which ones shot the best.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

[PerchJerker]

One more thing I should add - the kills I've made with carbon arrows have been more impressive -- cleaner, quicker, much better penetration, etc. than the kills I've made with aluminum arrows. The bow I shoot carbons with is about 60 fps faster than the bow I shot aluminums with so that obviously has something to do with it, but I only have good things to say about how carbon arrows have performed on deer for me.

[Bogsucker]

My impression is they (traditional???)may be switching to carbon for reasons other than weight reduction. I hear alot about guys using very heavy heads with weighted inserts on carbons thus retaining total arrow weight while reducing shaft dia. and gaining durability and stability from the carbon shafts.

I certainly wouldn't attempt to reduce arrow weight out of a tradtional bow to gain speeed as they lose efficiency with a reduction in arrow weight.

I think Durability would be the deciding factor if I were to swith to carbon.

[irvingdog]

I like carbons for 2 simple reasons.

1) I always seem to get better penetration/pass-thru.

2) They are either straight or they are broken. No 2 ways about it. I shoot alot, and can bend aluminum from time to time.

[Deitz Dittrich]

BogSucker brings up a very going point. A lighter arrow does not get you better pass threw. Kenitic(probably spelled wrong) Energy is what helps with a pass threw. That is reached by mass and speed. A really fast arrow that does not weigh much will not pass further into a target than a slower moving heavy arrow.

For instance a grain of sand at 100 mph will not leave as big a mark or hurt as much than a golf ball hitting you at 50 MPH. Arrow companies like Easton are now making heavier carbon arrows for this reason. High KE arrows.

Perchjerker also stated that they got better broad head flight from carbons. I think this has more to do with them getting the inserts and knock inserts straight in carbons. Most of your high end alums now have the same inserts and knok inserts and you can achieve the same success with alum arrows.

each has thier own application...

[BLACKJACK]

I've shot carbons for a couple of years and I like them because they 1)flatten out your shooting, making range estimation less of a factor 2) they're more durable. I don't see how anybody can say that aluminum is more durable, you bounce one of them off the side of your butt or anything hard and they're done, with a bend or crink in them thats never coming out. Carbons last until they shatter, which I have yet to do. If I ever go after big game like elk I might consider aluminum again, but until then I'm sticking with the carbons.

[Bogsucker]

Wrong unit of measure Kinetic Energy "KE" means nothing regarding penetration, MOMENTUM is more closely related to penetration. KE does not apply.Period. Don't even use the term KE!

You can have two bows shooting two identical length and diameter arrows having the identical KE but different weight and momentum, with the arrow having the greater momentum having greater penetration. KE doesn't work as a measure of penetration.

[This message has been edited by Bogsucker (edited 03-11-2004).]

[Bogsucker]

I take that back, almost, only when comparing a heavy arrow out of the SAME traditional bow as a lighter arrow, can you assume the heavier arrow has greater KE thus greater penetration but it's not the KE affecting penetration it's the increase in MOMENTUM due to the heavier arrow and the efficiency of the bow.

[Deitz Dittrich]

Ok.. I stand corrected... Thanks...

[irvingdog]

Energy lost at point of impact is critical. Studies suggest that aluminum reverberates much more than carbon, when constructed properly. If the arrow wobbles side to side at the point of impact, energy gets dispersed in directions not beneficial to penetration. Carbon arrows focus more impact in a forward-going direction, allowing a better chance for pass through.

[Bogsucker]

I hate to rant and rave about KE but it is most often misused as an indicator of projectile performance. Yes, misused even by "expert" archers and bowmen. Not that it(KE) isn't a measure of energy, the problem being with how the term (KE)is applied.

[scotty18]

Hi guys. thanks for all the response to this topic. I haven't had time yet to collect my thoughts and form a intelligent response. That will be soon.

Thanks, Scotty

[scotty18]

Hi guys, I guess most of the traditional shooters I know switched because of the they don't have time anymore to build arrows out of cedar. I know that even if I shoot a heavier broadhead, I'm still going to save some weight. If I switched to carbon can I still dip and crest them like wood or aluminum arrows? I use bohning products now to build arrows, Will the same glue and dipping/cresting paint work? How are the nocks and broadhead adapters attatched?
The arrows I build now are made out of cedar. I use a 125gr. 2 bladed solid broadhead. I use fletching done in a "pope and young" cut, 5 1/2 in. Finished lenghth is 28 inches long. Finished weight is about 500 to 550 grains. Most cedar arrows weigh from 7 to 10 grains in weigh for each pound of bow weight. My bow is 55 lbs. at a 27" draw.
Now if I substitute a carbon shart for the cedar shaft, what kind of weigh would I get?
Is it even posible to do this?
What companies make a suitable carbon shaft for my use?

Thanks, Scotty

[jlm]

I would disagree with the statement that kenetic energy has nothing to do with arrow performance. KE is stored energy. In other words, when you pull your bow back, it has stored energy that is ready to be utilized (KE). When you release your string, the KE is used up in the form of arrow flight (what you are referring to as momentum). If all else is equal, the bow with the most KE will have greater energy in its arrow path. Thus, 30 yards down the arrow path, the bow with the most initial KE with have greater performance in speed and penetration. This is of course if everything is equal which is mostly impossible. Shaft variation, fletching variations and impact points with have an impact on the momentum of the arrow flight. Once the arrow is released, there are many influences such as contact with the rest, wind friction, and lots of other things (for me it is often a tree). Sooo, KE will determine initial performance. Once it leaves the string, momentum comes into play. Thats where all the tricky stuff happens. In my opinion, carbon arrows are a much better choice for accuracy, speed, and penetration (unless you shooot an aluminum arrow with the same diameter, weight, and length).

[wastewaterguru]

There is some confusion here and I'm here to try to save the day. I am no physicist, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

KE is the energy of a moving object and is a measure of the ability of that object to do work. It is the product of one half the mass times the velocity squared.

Momentum is simply a physicists creation to describe how two dimensional collisions occur and is the simple product of mass times velocity.

Here's an example.

A 10,000 pound truck is traveling at 0.1 feet per second.

and

A 1 pound walleye is travelling at 1000 ft/second.

Both have identical momentum (1000 ft-lb/sec)

but the truck has a KE of 50 lb-ft2/sec2

and the walleye has a KE of 500,000 lb-ft2/sec2.

It is obvious which one will do the most damage.

Momentum is used in physics to describe how objects react to eachother. For example, lets say you weigh 200 pounds for this example above.

You get hit by the truck and you and the truck move forward with a mass of 10,200 pounds and a speed of .098 ft/second.

You get hit by the walleye (assuming it doesn't go through you) and you both go forward with a mass of 201 pounds at a speed of 4.97 feet per second.

Neither appear that traumatic......

However, we made a key assumption here. Momentum in no way describes the work done to tissues, bones, etc. Work that breaks chemical bonds, tears tissue, and breaks bones.

There is a significant chance that the walleye at that speed went completely through you because the Kinetic Energy not momentum was transferred to the soft tissues at the impact point.

[Ruttin' Buck]

Ha! I knew this would come up eventually! I frequent hso_archery_forum.com alot and the members there are all but sick of this topic. It comes up all the time. Here's my post and a link to the same conversation between a bunch of 'archery experts':
====
From an engineer's standpoint, I rely on Newton...as do many many published articles out there.

KE has been mentioned...the higher the KE when the arrow impacts the better....I'd say true.

KE = 0.5 m * v^2
or kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity SQUARED.

A squared term will far outweigh that of a non squared term so naturally if a little arrow mass is sacrificed to gain some arrow velocity the KE will be greater.

Once the arrow impacts, inertia or "the conservation of momentum" is crucial. Momentum is conserved by maintaining a force over a period of time from velocity at impact to 0 velocity. Force at impact is F=ma or force is equal to mass times acceleration (actually negative accleration due to wind resistance... or deceleration).

The reason KE is important is because you need to maximize the acceleration term when impact occurs. The opposing force or friction takes the arrow from the velocity at impact to 0 velocity (unless there's a pass through..does not reach 0 velocity). The larger the diameter arrow, the more surface area there is for friction to be applied which wipes out the conservation of momentum more quickly...hence, smaller diameter carbons improvement in penetration.

All that being said, your best bet theoretically (us nerds like that term) is a lightweight, small diameter arrow projected as fast as possible. I also prefer this as the same sighting pin can be used for a plethora of ranges.

FINALLY, with all that theory, I'm actually not a guy who prefers to watch my arrow pass through and bury itself 6" in the dirt. I want my arrow to stay in whatever I shoot. If anyone has ever downed a black bear you know that keeping an arrow in the animal makes for a better blood trail because it keeps the layers of muscle, fat and tissue aligned. Deer are not as crucial since they don't have 3" of fat underneath a hide that can soak up a ton of blood like bear do. To me a double lung is a double lung...may as well give the blood that pools an easy path out.
====
http://216.7.172.165/vb/showthread.php?s=f19545015c1896c8dc1ecd8bb6f54989&threadid=56913&highlight=KE

[Ruttin' Buck]

One thing I forgot to mention. JLM, you were close....your bow stores PE...potential energy...or the ability to do 'work'. Bogsucker is correct in stating that KE must be a body traveling at velocity 'v'.

Tons of speculation and theory out there on this guys. I'm sure we'll have hours of entertainment hashing this one out time and time again!

Best advice...shoot often, shoot straight, and most importantly, make your shot count!

------------------
Just when you think you've come up with something one-who-thinks-I-am-silly proof, someone comes up with a better one-who-thinks-I-am-silly.

[Bogsucker]

A reason a carbon shaft may penetrate better is due to the shaft diameter being smaller than the broadhead ferrule diameter. As a rating of penetration you cannnot logically say that an arrow with higher KE will out-penetrate an arrow with lower KE. It simply does not work that way, KE does not indicate penetration. There are other factors involved.

"All that being said, your best bet theoretically (us nerds like that term) is a lightweight, small diameter arrow projected as fast as possible. I also prefer this as the same sighting pin can be used for a plethora of ranges."

No, your best bet is a heavyweight, small diameter arrow projected as fast as possible. Somewhat related to the sectional density of a bullet with respect to ability to penetrate.

KE is a valid rating of energy just not applicable to penetration.

Yes, us engineering folk can be quite argumentative.

[TomBow]

wull...yeah...but what about the space/time continuum and the reverberation characteristics of the duodenum of the astral plane?? I mean, if I'm planning on travelling by evaporation through a black hole in space, won't my shirt get wrinkled?? What if I travel my osmosis? Will that change the overall reticulation of the python in question? Somebody he'p me!!

The KE vs. momentum issue done been talked to death! It's fun to theorize the stuff but mainly, my concern is making an effective shot into and hopefully through the vitals of my quarry and then have the opportunity to eat a home cooked meal of venison! Think back in the olden times when our ancestors were harvesting game with 25# bows and rocks for broadheads. Now thars som perspective fer ye!!

oops, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt! Just let me know when you guys find the answer.

Yer Pal, TomBow

[Bogsucker]

Yeah, and they (ancestors) weren't shootin carbon were they? They shot a heavy wood shaft with a two blade, narrow stone point, eg. penetration!

I know the answer I just gotta convince these other fellas.

Ke sells, KE doesn't kill.

Does the KE of a rifle bullet at the muzzle equal the KE of the recoiling rifle (equal and opposite reaction)?

[This message has been edited by Bogsucker (edited 03-12-2004).]

[Deitz Dittrich]

Bog- I got a fishing buddie that is a scientist for 3M... You remind me a lot of him.. You know the right answer, but getting it to terms that my head can understand just isn't going to happen. Thanks again to the many replys to this post. They truely have been very fun to read. I may have read them all a dozen times and still cant figure them out. But I know now that KE really dosn't mean what I thought. I was shooting a heavish arrow for more momentum NOT KE...anyway.. i was doing it for the right reason just not the right reason!!!!!!

[Ruttin' Buck]

Whew! Darnit Bogsucker...I don't like to argue! How can you stereotype me with all engineers being argumentative? Are you just trying to wind me up?! You must be a civil?! Kidding!! You are correct Bogsucker....you didn't mention that us engineers also have our own brand of humor!

If all things are the same and you can launch a heavy arrow as fast as a light arrow, that is the best.

But, generally impossible with the same bow, same settings, etc. A heavy arrow is slower.

So I guess I was generalizing the best bet thing. To conserve momentum (inertia) you need to slam home with some force over a period of time OR...I hate to get into the math, but when itegrated (ish) the product of velocity and mass times V at impact to V when arrow stops (mx(v1-v2)).

Increasing either mass or velocity will result in better penetration...okay, and that's the argument...ahem..discussion ;-)

Most oftentimes by reducing arrow mass, considerable velocity increases can be achieved but there is definitely a mathematical threshold to this advantage. The threshold is where having a certain amount of mass is necessary as no more speed is attainable and energy is lost to vibration (previously mentioned). I trust that if a heavy arrow was better even if it was sluggish in flight someone out there would be turning some fat boys on a lathe outta some rerod they had out back!

It really is the balance of mass and velocity. But a little less mass can get you some decent V...so that's what people are buying.

When you have higher velocity you will have higher KE when in flight...that's the mistake too many articles have focused on in the past..discussing KE...not what happens when it reaches the target. That's where I guess I was going.

I think we're actually on the same page with the smaller diameter thing...strange a civil and a mechanical agree!

I call a truce! I'll design the stuff Bogsucker....you get it to run downhill!! Cool??!!!

Tombow's got it right. When you hear Bill Murray exclaim "it's in the hole!!" in your head after you release an arrow...that's all that counts!

Have a great weekend all!

[wastewaterguru]

So I can agree that the penetration factor isn't 100% KE. It's friction, cross sectional area, maybe a little momentum thrown in there........us chemical engineers don't use physics too often anymore anyways.

But how many of you really care if your arrow sticks 3 inches into the ground or 6 inches??? Most compounds and traditional bows used for hunting are capable of enough energy to achieve pass through so the whole penetration argument is kinda moot anyway.

On a lighter note.....

What if C.....A......T really spelled dog??