This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted

for publication in the following source:

Park, James, Aitchison, Patrick, Bielby, Adam, Bleakley, Vincent, Carberry,

Trent, Ellis, Richard, Kerner, Richard, MacDonald, Andrew, Oosthuizen,
Danie, Pankhurst, Scott, & Psarakis, Konstantinos
(2018)
Effect of arrow shaft straightness on arrow grouping.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of
Sports Engineering and Technology, 232(3), pp. 236-241.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/112788/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-
ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer
to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-
nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-
mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-
ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337117736705
Page 1 of 10 Journal name

1
2
3 Effect of arrow shaft straightness on arrow grouping
4
5 James L Park *, Patrick J Aitchison *, Adam J Bielby *, Vincent Bleakley *, Trent P Carberry *, Richard
6
M. Ellis **, Richard D. Kerner ****, Andrew D MacDonald *, Danie Oosthuizen *, Scott B Pankhurst
7
8 *, Konstantinos Psarakis ***
9
10 * Archery Australia, **Archery Canada, *** Hellenic Archery Federation, **** NFAA, USA
11
12 Corresponding author: James L Park, Archery Australia, P.O. Box 54, Panania NSW 2213 Australia
13
jlpark@bigpond.net.au
14
15
16 Abstract
17
18 Arrows are available in various straightness grades. Their grouping ability as the straightness varied
Fo
19 was assessed using a compound bow and shooting machine. The research showed that archers
20
would benefit from selecting arrows with the highest straightness grades (as might be expected). In
21
22 addition, nock selection was determined to significantly impact group size. The fletches needed to
r
23 be set at an angle to the longitudinal axis of the arrow shaft in order to have the arrows spin while in
24 free flight, as that further reduced the group size.
Pe

25
26 Key words
27
28
Archery, arrow, straightness, group test, nock, fletch angle
er

29
30
31 Introduction
32
Re

33 Arrow shafts used in competitive archery are generally constructed from an aluminium alloy tube,
34
carbon fibre composite tube, or a combination of these materials. They are available in various
35
36 degrees of straightness. Shafts constructed from aluminium alloy may experience straightness
vi

37 degradation if used with hard targets, such as compacted straw board.

38
39 The straightness of an arrow shaft can be expected to affect the arrow’s accuracy: its behaviour
ew

40 during the bow’s power stroke could be affected, as well as its behaviour in free flight after leaving
41
the bow. The authors have not been able to identify published measurements of analysis in this
42
43 area.
44
45 Spinning the arrow about its longitudinal axis can be expected to reduce the impact of arrow shaft
46 straightness defects, as well as other defects. Similarly, aside from reference 1, little research has
47 been covered in the literature.
48
49
50 This paper seeks to address both these matters. The objective was to have the arrows, when shot
51 from a shooting machine, group significantly better than the archer's ability given perfect arrows.
52
53 Note that arrow manufacturers generally quote straightness and other tolerances using Imperial
54 units. Similarly, the standard, reference 2, uses Imperial units. Consequently, for consistency,
55
Imperial units have been used when referring to straightness, but otherwise SI units have been used.
56
57
58
59
60 1
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
 Journal name Page 2 of 10

1
2
3 The project team included members from five states of Australia, Canada, Greece and the United
4 States. It was run using the Internet with coordination by Dr Park from Melbourne, Australia.
5 Equipment testing was undertaken in Melbourne, Australia.
6
7
8 Method
9
10 Tubular aluminium alloy arrow shafts appear to have the most stringent straightness specifications.
11 Easton Technical Products3 quotes a tolerance range of ±0.001”, to a standard stated to be” more
12 stringent than the ASTM F 1889 standard2”, although details are not provided for the X7 arrow shafts
13
and a number of others, including several tubular carbon fibre composite arrow shafts. Other arrow
14
15 shafts from that manufacturer are stated to have straightness tolerances ranging up to ±0.008”.
16
17 Archers often test arrow straightness by spinning them over their fingernails. Subjectively, an arrow
18 with a tolerance of ±0.001” spins very smoothly, an arrow with a tolerance of ±0.003” is noticeably
Fo
19 not quite as smooth, and an arrow with a tolerance of ±0.006” bounces noticeably on the fingernails.
20
21
22 Easton Technical Products X7 arrows, constructed from 7178-T9 aluminium alloy, were selected for
r
23 testing due to their initial excellent straightness and the ability to modify their straightness during
24 the testing, whereas the straightness of a carbon fibre composite arrow shaft could not be modified.
Pe

25 Most testing was conducted using the 2315 arrow size since that is the largest diameter permitted
26 under World Archery competition rules4 and the most commonly used for indoor archery
27
competition. Several tests were also conducted using sizes 2512 and 2712, which can be used in
28
some non-World Archery competitions, as well as size 2213 as comparisons. The first two digits of
er

29
30 the arrow size indicate the arrow shaft external diameter in 64th of an inch. The last two digits
31 indicate the tube wall thickness in thousandths of an inch. Easton Products Protour arrows, size 380,
32 which are constructed using a carbon fibre composite overlay on a small diameter aluminium tube,
Re

33 were also tested as a comparison. Two sets of Easton Technical Products LightSpeed arrows, which
34
are constructed using an outer aluminium tube over a carbon fibre composite inner tube, with
35
36 differing straightness specifications were also tested for comparison.
vi

37
38 Eighteen X7 2315 arrow shafts were separated into four sets, three sets of four and one set of six.
39 Two of those sets were to remain straight, one set with fletches set at an angle of 0.9 degrees to the
ew

40 shaft axis and the other with fletches set parallel to the shaft axis. The remaining two sets were
41
similarly fletched, both angled and parallel, but during the testing they were to be bent. Initially, the
42
43 straightness of all the arrow shafts to be tested was measured using an “arrow straightener”
44 manufactured by Arizona Archery Enterprises5. Several minor adjustments were made to the initial
45 straightness and all the shafts were within the manufacturer’s tolerance specifications after the
46 adjustment process. The arrow straightener was used during the testing to bend arrows as desired.
47
48
Arrows were bent at the geometric centre of the shaft using the arrow straightener to stress them
49
50 just to the yield point. Over time, the arrows relaxed slightly back toward their nominally straight
51 position due to slight spring back of the alloy, so they were checked and re-bent, if necessary,
52 immediately prior to each testing session.
53
54 Prior to bending any arrows, they were group tested at a distance of 25 m using a “Hooter Shooter”
55
shooting machine6 with eight shots for each arrow, totalling 32 shots for each group of four arrows.
56
57 A Hoyt Pro Comp Elite compound bow with Spiral X cams, draw length of 700 mm and peak draw
58 force of 240 N was used for all testing. A hard draw stop was used on the shooting machine to
59
60 2
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
Page 3 of 10 Journal name

1
2
3 provide a draw length consistent to better than 1 mm. In previous projects the hard draw stop has
4 been found to be important to ensure the smallest arrow groups. A small diameter peep sight in the
5 bow string was used, together with a very small black dot on the 0.75 dioptre lens in the bow’s sight,
6
to enable accurate aiming. A bubble level was used to ensure that the bow was vertical for each
7
8 shot. The shooting machine was bolted to the ground with the legs stressed to minimise movement
9 from shot to shot. Nevertheless, the bow was re-aimed, if necessary, prior to every shot. At a target
10 distance of 25 m, the aiming error was estimated to be less than ±5 mm. Prior to group testing the
11 arrows, the bow was adjusted to provide very good arrow flight and arrow clearance over the bow’s
12 launcher blade for the particular arrow type. A paper test was used where the arrow orientation and
13
longitudinal rotation about the arrow’s centre of mass (yaw and pitch) were examined by shooting
14
15 arrows through paper sheets at various distances and by visual observation of the arrow flight.
16 Testing was done indoors as well as outdoors in a sheltered area with no wind. The target was very
17 well lit to allow precise aiming of the shooting machine.
18
Fo
19 Each arrow of each set was shot a total of 10 times for each configuration to assess the group size.
20
The size of the group was then assessed by measuring the minimum diameter of the circle that could
21
22 fully include all arrow holes. An attractive alternative would have been to measure the vertical and
r
23 horizontal distances each arrow hit from some nominal center point, which would have enabled the
24 authors to conduct a more in-depth statistical analysis of the arrow group. However, this method
Pe

25 was not used as it would have been time and labor intensive, requiring a new target face for every
26 shot due to the arrow holes overlapping. Nevertheless, a more focused future test should ideally use
27
that approach.
28
er

29
30 In the initial arrow testing, the selection of arrow nock, which is used to attach the arrow to the bow
31 string, had a significant impact on arrow grouping accuracy. Thus, prior to further grouping tests, a
32 number of different types of nock were tested and the best one was selected for later tests. As a
Re

33 result of that testing a set of size 2213 arrows, a set of 2512 arrows, and a set of 2712 arrows with
34
different nock arrangements were also tested.
35
36
vi

37 Two of the sets of arrows, one set with straight and one set with angled fletches, were then bent to
38 ±0.003” and group tested. The set with angled fletches was then bent to ±0.006” and group tested.
39 Following that testing, the bent set with zero fletch angle was refletched with an angle of 2.1
ew

40 degrees and then group tested once more.

41
42
43 An arrow can be expected to behave differently in the vertical and horizontal planes during the
44 bow’s power stroke. In the vertical plane, its behaviour is strongly influenced by the path taken by
45 the bow’s nocking point during the power stroke (and hence by the cam design), while in the
46 horizontal plane, its behaviour is strongly influenced by the forces from the bow’s cables on the
47 cable guard and the arrow’s support on the bow’s launcher7. Consequently, the plane of any bend in
48
the arrow can be expected to be of importance. In this testing, the bends placed in the arrow were
49
50 initially oriented at 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees for each of the arrows in a set of four in an attempt
51 to catch the worst-case impact of the bends.
52
53 Aside from the above testing with tubular aluminium arrows, two sets of tubular carbon fibre
54 composite arrow shafts were tested. Those selected were Easton Technical Products “LightSpeed”
55
with a nominal straightness of ±0.003” and “LightSpeed 3D” with a nominal straightness of ±0.001”.
56
57 Both sets were of size 400. The straightness of these arrows was checked prior to the tests and were
58 within tolerance specifications. A set of Easton Technical Products “Protour” arrows size 380 with a
59
60 3
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
 Journal name Page 4 of 10

1
2
3 nominal straightness of 0.0015” was also tested. Consequently, during the testing three distinctly
4 different arrow types were tested.
5
6
Arrow details are as shown in Table 1. Aside from the points used with the 2315 arrow shafts and
7
8 the high precision nock adapters used with the 2512 arrow shafts, all components used were
9 manufactured by Easton Technical Products. The 2315 arrow points were manufactured by
10 Competition Archery Products. The non-commercial, high precision nock adapters for the 2512
11 arrows were custom made.
12
13
Table 1 Arrow details
14
15 Arrow shaft Length Mass Point Fletching Nock
16 (mm) (g)
17 X7 2213 750 27.26 NIBB 88 Diamond vane 280 G nock
18 X7 2315 750 37.68 ProPoint 200 Diamond vane 235 G Nock **
Fo
19 3D Super Nock
20 MicroLite Super Nock
21 X7 2512 740 30.88 NIBB 108 Diamond vane 235 G Pin Nock*
22
X7 2712 740 43.20 One piece Feather 100 3D Super Nock
r
23
24
300 MicroLite Super Nock
LightSpeed 400 720 22.08 CB 100 TiteFlight vane 200 G Nock
Pe

25
26 LightSpeed 3D 400 720 22.08 CB 100 TiteFlight vane 200 G Nock
27 Protour 380 720 24.70 120 TiteFlight vane 200 G Pin
28 *The 2512 arrows used custom high precision nock adapters for G Pin Nocks.
er

29 ** Using G Nocks on the 2315 arrow shafts required a second adapter in addition to the one
30 installed on the shaft by the manufacturer.
31
32
Arrow rotation due to fletch angle was modelled using the method developed by Park1. In that
Re

33
34 study, the arrow rotation was modelled primarily using the arrow’s rotational inertia about its
35 longitudinal axis and lift from the fletching. It was measured by both shooting arrows through sheets
36 of paper at various distances (from 1-30 metres) and examining the arrow holes as well as by
vi

37 shooting arrows into a target butt, which quickly stopped arrow rotation, set at various distances.
38
39
ew

40 Analysis and discussion

41
42 Given no archer error, arrows should group well enough to easily ensure a perfect score. The X ring
43 (the central ring) on the 400 mm diameter World Archery indoor target face has a diameter of 20
44 mm. Given that an arrow touching a scoring line is allocated the higher score, the maximum
45
46
diameter of the group (the smallest diameter circle that will fit all arrow holes within it) must be less
47 than 20 mm plus twice the arrow shaft diameter. Preferably, the group should be smaller than that
48 given that the archer might not have the bow’s sight optimally adjusted to ensure that the group is
49 located in the centre of the target face. Consequently, for an arrow of the maximum diameter
50 permitted by the World Archery4 equipment rules, the maximum diameter of the group must be no
51 greater than 38.6 mm. Given that the archer will make errors, such as not aiming as well as the
52
53
shooting machine, the authors were seeking a maximum group diameter considerably smaller than
54 that. Perhaps half of that diameter, and hence approximately 20 mm, would be a suitable objective.
55 Note that objective would be for testing at the normal indoor competition target distance of 18 m.
56 This testing was conducted at 25 m in order to magnify errors and consequently a group diameter at
57 that distance of perhaps less than 30 mm could be accepted.
58
59
60 4
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
Page 5 of 10 Journal name

1
2
3
4 Each individual arrow, shot multiple times, grouped very consistently, typically hitting close to the
5 same arrow hole repeatedly within the aiming error. Indeed, for some of the arrows tested, all the
6
arrows grouped very nearly within the same arrow hole. The resultant hole in the target face was
7
8 only a little greater than the diameter of one of the arrows. For example, the grouping for the X7
9 2512 arrows at 13 mm was just 3.1 mm greater than their 9.9 mm shaft diameter. In most other
10 cases, the size of the group increased when more than one individual arrow was used.
11
12 The group size for either the testing of a single arrow or for the arrows, such as the X7 2512 arrows,
13
which grouped superbly can be used to assess the aiming accuracy of the shooting machine and its
14
15 operator, which was conservatively estimated to be ±5 mm.
16
17 The X7 2315 arrows were first tested with fletches angled at 0.9 degrees with G nocks and arrow
18 shafts meeting their nominal straightness specification (±0.001”) in order to ensure that the
Fo
19 equipment was working satisfactorily. However, the group sizes, 44 mm, at a target distance of 25 m
20
were not satisfactory. Nevertheless, the group size for a set of Protour arrows using G pin nocks, size
21
22 380, used as a comparison, was satisfactory at 25 mm. The G nocks and their adapters on the 2315
r
23 arrows were replaced by 3D Super nocks and the group size reduced to 33 mm, which was still
24 greater than desired. The 3D Super nocks were removed and replaced with MicroLite Super nocks,
Pe

25 and the group size reduced to 27 mm, which was deemed to be satisfactory for the straightness
26 testing.
27
28
Given the experience with the nock selection changing the group size on the X7 2315 arrows, several
er

29
30 other arrows sizes were tested as a comparison. The X7 2712 arrows, initially equipped with 3D
31 Super nocks and then MicroLite Super nocks, had group sizes reduced from 32 mm to 15 mm. The X7
32 2512 arrows with a custom precision adapter for G pin nocks had a group size of 13 mm. For both
Re

33 these arrow sizes, the final group size was only marginally greater than the arrow diameter. The
34
2213 arrows used G Nocks, but without the requirement for a second nock adapter, and provided a
35
36 satisfactorily small group diameter of 25 mm, although greater than the group diameters for the
vi

37 2512 and 2712 arrows.

38
39 Consequently, testing revealed that the nock selection had a major impact on the group size. The
ew

40 authors speculate that the length of the plastic of the nock body between the end of the arrow shaft
41
and the string groove might be the parameter of importance. Another factor affecting the group size
42
43 may have been the concentricity where a second adapter was required, potentially leading to small
44 variations in the alignment of the forces on the arrow and the arrow’s longitudinal axis during the
45 bow’s power stroke. Further testing would be of value in this area. The MicroLite Super nock is very
46 short with a distance of approximately 3.7 mm. For the G pin nock used on the precision adapters
47 for the X7 2512 arrows, the distance is approximately 2.5 mm (measured from the start of the end
48
taper of the pin). The 3D Super nock and G nock are longer at 11.7 mm and 8.0 mm, respectively. In
49
50 addition, the need to use a second adapter when the G nocks were used on the X7 2315 arrows may
51 have resulted in additional inaccuracy.
52
53 Group sizes obtained for the various arrows and arrow configurations and straightness, after nock
54 selection, are shown in Table 2. The X7 2213, 2512, 2712 and Protour arrows were only tested in
55
their nominally straight case as a comparison to the X7 2315 arrows.
56
57
58 Table 2 Arrow group diameters at a target distance of 25 m
59
60 5
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
 Journal name Page 6 of 10

1
2
3 Arrow Nock Fletch Group Group Group Group
4 angle Diameter for Diameter Diameter Diameter
5 Arrow for Arrow for Arrow for Arrow
6 Straightness Straightness Straightness Straightness
7 of 0.001” of 0.0015” of 0.003” of 0.006”
8
(degrees) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
9
10 X7 2213 G 0.9 25 - - -
11 X7 2315 MicroLite 0 39 - 48 -
12 Super
13 X7 2315 MicroLite 0.9 27 - 30 48
14 Super
15 X7 2315 MicroLite 2.1 20 - 28 40
16 Super
17 X7 2512 G Pin 0.9 13 - - -
18
X7 2712 MicroLite 0.9 15 - - -
Fo
19
Super
20
21 LightSpeed G 0.9 - - 42 -
22 400
r
23 LightSpeed G 0.9 30 - - -
24 3D 400
Pe

25 Protour 380 G Pin 0.9 - 25 - -

26 Protour 380 G Pin 0.9 - 15 * - -
27 *The group size for a single Protour 380 arrow shot multiple times
28
er

29
30 The LightSpeed 3D arrows, with their tighter straightness tolerance, gave a smaller group size than
31 the LightSpeed arrows. As noted earlier, the straightness of those arrows or of the Protour arrows
32 cannot be changed due to their composition.
Re

33
34 Arrow group size increased noticeably as the arrow’s straightness deteriorated. At a straightness
35
tolerance of 0.003”, the group size became greater than desired.
36
vi

37
38 While Table 2 is limited in its extent, for the 2315 arrows the full range of viable fletch angles and
39 likely range of arrow straightness is covered.
ew

40
41 Arrow group size decreased noticeably as the fletch angle increased. Arrow rotation rates and the
42
distance travelled for the first rotation for the X7 2315 arrows were calculated to be as shown in
43
44 Table 3, both for the fletch size used and for a larger size.
45
46 Table 3 Arrow rotation
47 Fletch Fletch length Offset Angle Rotations in 25 m First rotation
48 (mm) (mm) (degrees) (m)
49
Diamond 235 58 0 0 0 -
50
51
Diamond 235 58 0.9 0.9 8.4 6.9
52 Diamond 235 58 2.1 2.1 19.6 4.4
53 Diamond 280 73 0.9 0.7 10.3 5.5
54 Diamond 280 73 2.1 1.7 24 3.5
55
56
57
58
59
60 6
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
Page 7 of 10 Journal name

1
2
3 The angular rotation speed increased from zero, while the arrow was on the bow string during the
4 bow’s power stroke, to its stable rotation rate after some distance down range, as shown in Figs. 1
5 and 2, for an X7 2315 arrow with Diamond vane 235 fletching at an angle of 0.9 degrees.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25 Figure 1 X7 2315 arrow rotations down range, Diamond vane 235

26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45 Figure 2 X7 2315 arrow rotation rate, Diamond vanes 235
46
47 The straightness of an arrow can be expected to affect its behaviour during the bow’s power stroke,
48
49 as the line of force from the string could vary in relation to the nominal centre line of the arrow.
50 Since spinning the arrow in free flight does reduce the group size, the authors can conclude that the
51 arrow straightness also affects its behaviour in that state.
52
53 A lateral force resulting from some arrow imperfection, such as straightness, can be expected to
54 have a sinusoidal component with a mean of zero in any particular direction for an arrow with a
55
56 constant, stable, rotation rate. However, as the rotation accelerates from zero, while still attached to
57 the bow string, to that stable rate, the cumulative force in a particular direction can be non-zero and
58 hence, contribute to a lateral velocity down range. For example, for the arrow shown in Fig. 1, the
59
60 7
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
 Journal name Page 8 of 10

1
2
3 asymmetry, timewise, in the force direction as the arrow travels the first 25 m is 58% versus 42%. If
4 the fletches were changed to Diamond vanes size 280, that asymmetry would be reduced to 56%
5 versus 44%, which could be expected to reduce the group size marginally. Similarly, retaining the
6
235 fletches but increasing the fletch angle to 2.1 degrees reduces the asymmetry to 55% versus
7
8 45%, which again could be expected to reduce the group size marginally, as was found in the group
9 testing.
10
11 As noted, this testing was conducted using a shooting machine. Very few archers in the world have
12 sufficient skill and patience to match the machine. In testing conducted by one of the authors (Park)
13
separately from this project, the majority of elite archers tested have paper test results matching
14
15 those of the machine, while less competent archers frequently do not. Hence, it is expected that if
16 they were sufficiently skilled to reduce their errors, assuming the errors were principally aiming
17 errors, to match the machine, then the arrow groups of the archers and machine would be similar.
18
Fo
19 Summary
20
21
22 The prime objective of this collaborative project was to assess the importance of arrow straightness.
r
23 Straighter arrows provided smaller diameter groups. Archers of moderate ability could be expected
24 to obtain higher scores by using arrows with a tighter straightness tolerance.
Pe

25
26 Archers can quickly test the straightness of an arrow by spinning it across their fingernails. An arrow
27
with a straightness tolerance of ±0.003” can be readily detected as not spinning as smoothly as an
28
arrow with a straightness tolerance of ±0.001”, and should be set aside from use in competition, or
er

29
30 during a competition if it becomes bent.
31
32 In addition, the most capable archers would benefit from group testing their arrows using a shooting
Re

33 machine prior to competition use and setting aside arrows that group poorly. The orientation of the
34
nocks for outlying arrows could be varied to both minimise the group size and as a check on the
35
36 nock’s contribution to the group size.
vi

37
38 Nock selection was found to be important, with some nocks giving markedly smaller groups than
39 others. While further study is recommended, particularly for nock straightness and concentricity,
ew

40 initial results indicate that it is beneficial to use a nock for which the distance from the end of the
41
arrow shaft or end of the nock pin to the string groove is minimised. The shape of the string groove
42
43 might also be of importance. Archers should consider using a new set of nocks for important
44 competitions.
45
46 It was very important that fletches were placed at an angle to the longitudinal axis of the arrow as
47 spinning the arrow in free flight markedly decreased group sizes. A fletch angle between 1 and 2
48
degrees was found to be sufficient, with 2 degrees being about the largest angle at which a typical
49
50 fletch would comfortably fit on the arrow shaft.
51
52 Acknowledgements
53
54 As noted, the project team came from four countries. Interworking was possible through facilities
55
kindly provided by Marcus Anear.
56
57
58 Declaration of conflicting interests
59
60 8
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
Page 9 of 10 Journal name

1
2
3
4 The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
5 and/or publication of this article.
6
7
8 Funding
9
10 This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-
11 for-profit sectors.
12
13
References
14
15
16 1. Park, J.L., The aerodynamic drag and axial rotation of an arrow, Proc. IMechE, Vol. 225(4),
17 199-211, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 2011, DOI:
18 10.1177/1754337111407124
Fo
19
20
2. American National Standard F 1889 – 05, Standard Guide for Straightness Measurement of
21 Arrow Shafts, ASTM International, 2005
22 3. Easton Technical Products, Target Archery catalogue, 2016
r
23 4. World Archery, Rules, https://worldarchery.org/Rules, accessed 29th December 2016
24
5. Arizona Archery Enterprises, Arrow straightener, https://arizonaarchery.com/products ,
Pe

25
26 accessed 29th December 2016
27 6. Spot Hogg, Shooting machine, http://spot-hogg.com/accessories, accessed 29th December
28 2016
er

29
7. Park, J.L., The behaviour of an arrow shot from a compound archery bow, Proc. IMechE Vol.
30
31 225 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology, DOI: 10.1177/17543371JSET82, 2010
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 9
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)
 Journal name Page 10 of 10

1
2
3 Figure 1
4
5 X7 2315 rotating down range
6
7 1
8 0.9
9 0.8
10 0.7
11 0.6
Turns

12
0.5
13
14 0.4
15 0.3
16 0.2
17 0.1
18 0
Fo
19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
21 Distance travelled (m)
22
r
23
24
Pe

25 Figure 2
26
27
28
X7 2315 rotating down range
er

29 0.6
30
31 0.5
32
Rotations/metre

Re

33 0.4
34
35 0.3
36
vi

37 0.2
38
39 0.1
ew

40
41 0
42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
43 Distance travelled (m)
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/(site)