Easton X10s

Cereleste

Supporter
Supporter
The quality control is generally within what they claim. It's just that they claim a certain tolerance on the straightness and weight but don't mention the tolerance on the spine, which McKinney considers more important for accuracy than the weight and straightness (within reason) - he wrote a nice explanation of this here .
For Easton to do the pre-selecting in terms of spine also would likely double the cost of the shafts due to additional time and lower yield - and when it doesn't actually make a difference for the vast majority that shoot those arrows except the occasional one "bad" arrow, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Vittorio Frangilli says that in the early 2000s Easton used to do that for some top archers, but doesn't any more. Better for everyone to keep the shafts slightly more affordable and have people who notice an inadequacy buy sufficient arrows to get 12 identical.

I don't know which Italian archer you're referring to though that yield seems excessive even at the top level, Vittorio Frangilli's said several times that to get a dozen perfect X10s some national teams start with 4 dozen. He mentioned 12 dozen bought/1 dozen identical for an early carbon Beman arrow.
 

JohnK

Well-known member
During a seminar at Quicks in 2016, Mr Park of W&W explained that top Korean archers usually select their competition arrows from 60 X10s. I don't remember him saying how many they end up with at the end of that process, however.
 

Stretch

Active member
Yup I’ve heard all the mass testing of ludicrous numbers of arrows to get a comp set. I never knew anyone do it with Al arrows but it’s been common place since the carbon shaft came in. But this is a whole different story and does not explain the differences in the test results. Unless we’re just saying ACG is a duff concept and are basically crapper than much cheaper arrows.

It’s not like the non- competition arrows go in the bin. (Although I did once bin a brand new Beman Diva S 22 which was a piece of junk)

But have also seen a set of ACE and X10 go through a very accurate spine testing process. And with some minor indexing both managed to be to all intense purposes identical. (Sorry I cant remember what decimal place the tool was accurate to). We also ran the ACE (many years earlier) at roughly 90 degree turns (so 4 measurements for each shaft) and did not find anything to incur the suck breath over teeth. Personally I have never been good enough to even need to index.

To be honest this kind of information gets average archers worrying too much about their kit and trying to perfect their arrows when they’d be better off focusing on their form.

Maybe if you’re consistently shooting 350 at 70m and you’ve hit a plateau.

That’s my 12 dozen.

Stretch
 

Cereleste

Supporter
Supporter
No point in testing masses of aluminium arrows as the Young's modulus doesn't vary so as long as the weight is consistent and the arrows aren't bent, the spine doesn't have much opportunity to vary.

Nobody's said the ACG is worse than other arrows - and the test has zero data about the ACC but shows some large differences in initial grouping that don't scale with the cost, so I wouldn't infer anything about the ACC from data about the ACG or any other shafts. Straightness and weight difference are less significant than spine differences within and between arrows, which are here for the arrows in the test. There's a picture of the arrows earlier in that thread and the nocks look identical in all sets.

The initial question in the thread was about the extent of reliable empirical as opposed to anecdotal evidence about differences between between shafts of similar spine and different prices. It doesn't look like anyone's trying to use it as a "how-to" or fretting over arrows that outperform the archer even at the cheapest level.
 

Stretch

Active member
Yup agreed. I hadn’t seen the spine testing in the original thread before - thanks -that makes more sense. There are some pretty broad spreads and the ACG is broader than I would expect. Looks like several much weaker shafts. Maybe that is enough to show up the poor result with the scatter to the right.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the performance of the Nano Pro and the Nano XR given that their spine consistency doesn’t look great if I am reading the data right. That would imply that results are not as spine dependent as you might think.

But while I see this as empirical data I’m not wholly sure about the reliable bit. It’s interesting for sure :geek: I did look for the nock pictures but only found a pic of maybe 5 different arrow types and I couldn’t see what they were. I don’t see how they could all be the same - pretty sure you can’t get a pin nock for a Beman Diva.

The point about the aluminium arrows is about the consistency of the production method rather than the material itself. I’d like to see what score an x7 or equivalent gets in this test.

Stretch
 

Cereleste

Supporter
Supporter
Based on James Park's shooting machine tests with bent arrows (link in an earlier post), I'd expect another perfect score at 70m. Park looked at the group size (Sets of 4 arrows each shot 10 times instead of 12 arrows shot 3 times like in the tests above) for xx75 and protour, which are not a million miles away from X7 and X10 at 25m with a compound bow in a shooting machine. Group size was 25mm for the protour which would ideally scale to 7cm at 70m which is about the same size as the X10 grouping with the recurve. He tested several different spines of xx75 and got group sizes between 13-27mm for different configurations of spine and nock (shorter distance between the nock groove and shaft end was better) between 2213 and 2712. Given the group size was determined by looking at the size of the hole in the target after, it's likely to lead to an overestimate of the group size at 70m.

Still plenty of mystery left in terms of what determines accuracy differences between the arrows though. It seems like the extreme uniformity within each nano XR shaft was more important than the consistency between the ACE shafts at that level of spine tolerance. I suppose that as the arrow rotates in flight, slight radial differences in spine would make it flex more in some directions as it flies, though no guess as to why that matters more than the spine varying slightly between arrows.
 

Senlac

Supporter
Supporter
On the specific issue of whether X10s are better made than ACEs, I compared their rotational consistency of static spine. I.e. I know they are both barrelled, and made by rolling a trapezoidal film of carbon around a (very consistent) aluminium tube, then [manually] burnish-off the edges of the carbon wrap. But how well was this done? Is there a quality difference?
What I did was.... I put each bare shaft on a deflection spine device and measured its static spine four times and averaged these measurements to reduce measurement error. I then rotated the shaft 60deg and did the same again. And so on until the spine orientation was back where it started and had six different spine measurements for each shaft. I did this for a dozen shafts each of ACE 670s and X10 600s.
What I found was...
- The best ACE shafts varied by around 10 in spine as they rotated (typical avg. spine 662.2 but varied from 657.8 to 668.5 depending on orientation - and only 50% of the shafts were this good). The worst varied by 14.5 as it rotated and 40% were about this bad; The whole batch had average actual static spines between 662.0 - 667.2 i.e. a batch range of 5.2;
- The best X10 shafts varied by around 5 in spine as they rotated (typical avg. spine 603.0 but varied from 601.5 to 606.0 depending on orientation - and that was true of 60% of the shafts). The worst one varied by 8.0 as it rotated - but that was one bad shaft. The whole batch had average actual static spines between 597.5 - 603.5 i.e. a batch range of 6.0.
Conclusion: X10s are more consistently made, with half the variability of ACEs.
 

Sinbad

Member
Daft question but, if you had an arrow that was out of the group, would turning the nock help, as the spine (even by a small amount) could change?
 

Stretch

Active member
Daft question but, if you had an arrow that was out of the group, would turning the nock help, as the spine (even by a small amount) could change?
It can do. It’s somewhere between nock damage and prayer for likelihood of it fixing the problem. Rare in my experience. More often when rotating the nock works visibly it’s related to clearance.

This is why some archers who are analy attentive to detail have indexing marks drawn on their shafts. (Who me? No sir! I’d never do that! Honest! ... well maybe once...a long time ago on a shooting field far far away... takes a while to spine check 34 x10s... yes I did say 34...)

Stretch
 

Senlac

Supporter
Supporter
Daft question but, if you had an arrow that was out of the group, would turning the nock help, as the spine (even by a small amount) could change?
Having measured static spine in different orientations (as per my post above), it's easy to find an orientation/nock position for each shaft that would give them all almost the same lateral spine.
Similarly, it's said that the Korean teams buy loads of X10s or ACEs and have their house archers (i.e. the really good archers, but not quite the top grade ones) shoot them bareshaft to identify their natural groupings, then for each lot that have similar natural grouping, they tweak the nock positions to tighten-up the grouping further. Finally, the best of them are fletched and handed over to the top grade archers for competition sets.
 

Stretch

Active member
Let me simplify my answer... when I was shooting 1250 1440 FITA I could not notice any benefit between a spined set of X10s and an unspined set. High or low scores were dependent on my execution. (It does allow you to feel smug about your kit though...)

It is unlikely to fix a rogue arrow that is significantly out of group... but it might.

If you are shooting 1350+ you might see benefit. So what’s that in today’s language? 680 to [email protected] 70m?

Stretch
 

dottorfoggy

Member
I don't know which Italian archer you're referring to though that yield seems excessive even at the top level, Vittorio Frangilli's said several times that to get a dozen perfect X10s some national teams start with 4 dozen. He mentioned 12 dozen bought/1 dozen identical for an early carbon Beman arrow.
I won't tell the name, isn't important.
Up to 10 dozen selected by shooting bareshaft.

Another thing that I think is an excuse on easton, is the C mark, I think is more by the big tolerance they have during production, think twice, aluminium core+glue+taped carbon, it mean that you have three different material to balance in the building process. And that's why the C mark came, just to justify more wide tolerance in the production. I'm trying slowly to avoid Americans products in my back pack
 

Stretch

Active member
Once you have shot a carbon or AC arrow more than a few thousand arrows they no longer shoot the same as new shafts anyway. The grain code batching gives a genuine matched set. It’s not like you can add new arrows to an old set and expect a good match anyway. So really this is worrying about something that isn’t an issue. If you buy 2 or 3 sets of the same grain code they will all shoot the same to any level a mortal (sub 1350 archer) can discern in both weight and static and dynamic spine.

You think this is a manufacturing quality issue but it is OK that virtually no two carbon risers shoot the same? Don’t you shoot a CXT?

I’m pretty sure Easton could produce to a tighter tolerance without post production matching but the cost would get ridiculous. (Bad enough already). It’s in the vain of depleted uranium points and titanium carbon arrows - fantasy!

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not a must shoot Easton person. I loved the French made Beman Diva S. They were cheap(er), they shot great and when they died you knew they were dead. (When you grabbed each end you could twist it). So you just bought a new dozen every spring - at less than half the cost of ACE at the time, that was cost OK if not very environmentally sound. They were light, fast and although 5.5mm their drift was not bad. (The later 5.9mm was bad).

The X10 is a safe bet with proven (and proven and proven and proven) results and so is the ACE. There is no other recurve oriented shaft that has anything like the same results (maybe the X7). Even the super dooper Carbon Express arrows don’t really have much of an elite user group and they are more expensive! But they have a following for sure.

It’s your money and your choice of course :geek: but being on the bleeding edge of new products is rarely a path to higher scores.

Stretch
 

dottorfoggy

Member
I was talking in the production quality process and results, c mark are just a larger tolerance that begin a more accurate matching dozen to the public, as 3 kind on materials are crafted together you have three more chance to fail the tolerance margins
Valevaa have done an European record in fita with ace's when other top was already shooting with X10.
Regarding Tom Hall and the Nano pro test vs x10 didn't reveal a big difference.
At that level is just the archer that make the difference with a good dozen matched together, it can be fun too see Ellison or someone else at that level how can they score with ace/acg or even acc.
BTW I'm not a big fun of USA products, I shoot weel with acc/ace/x10, I'm not a pro shooter, I like to test materials and I have limits in my scoring, but who cares, I like to shoot against my self :D
I like also my actual w&w riser, the nanomax 27" more than the Prodigy XT where i could lost my self in the next infinity tuning setting on the formula, and here, another feature to excuse a bad mass production products.
The border temper and hex limbs used by another in the club, are just amazing, impossible to compare to w&w and hoyt, when i reach the budget, I will shoot with border, I'm in love with the overall quality.
 

Stretch

Active member
That’s my point. Your Nanomax is glue, other stuff and various grades of carbon. So by your reckoning it has loads more points for error than a machined Aluminium riser. Which on one hand is true - if you want an identical riser you’d need to shoot a bunch to come close - but on the other hand it doesn’t make any difference if each individual bow shoots well (as long as they don’t crack).

My Prodigy RX is a piece of crap... honestly it is so not straight it must have been made on 1st April. But by the time you have tinkered the hell out of it, it shoots well. I wouldn’t swap it for any W&W that have tried (none recently). But if I bought another it would shoot the same. But your right, these bows need the attention of a bow mechanic. The manual does not explain why you’d make some of the choices - you need to understand the implications of your own preferences to set them up. But surely the nanomax has the same adjustments? Or are you talking Verta-tune?

Unfortunately my experience has been that after the HPX Hoyt seemed to struggle to get 27” risers out of the factory straight. Yet all the 25” risers seem OK and only need a small adjustment at the most.

My next riser will probably be Hoyt as I have no problem shooting 70”. I like the Velos limbs and grip system and I’m unconvinced by other Formula fit risers (Gillo looks good but too heavy for me). If another Hoyt is as far out as my PRX then I will probably try all the other Aluminium options and ditch the Hoyt (after 24 years shooting Hoyt). But it won’t be Border, been there, done that, paid my £££, not for me. Each to his/her own.

Sorry wandered off topic!

Stretch
 
Top