Trad Gang

Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: owlbait on May 25, 2012, 06:19:00 PM

Title: Speed vs. cast
Post by: owlbait on May 25, 2012, 06:19:00 PM
Can/will a bow that shoots slower cast an arrow farther? Why or why not? This question came up on another thread. Thanks for help clearing this up.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Sixby on May 25, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
NO. the same projectile at a higher rate of speed will go a longer distance if shot at the same angle. There is really no arguement as it is simple ballistics. If two projectiles that are identical are started at exactly the same time and shot straight down the one that is shot from the more efficient weapon will arrive first. even if they are both going the same speed due to wind resistance when they hit the ground. The more efficient weapon imparts more of its energy into the projectile. This is why a 40 lb bow that is super efficient can outshoot a 50 lb bow that is mediocre./

God bless and hope this helps, Steve
God bless you all, Steve
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: WESTBROOK on May 25, 2012, 07:33:00 PM
Nope, cant. 2 identicle arrows, the faster one will go farther.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: John Havard on May 25, 2012, 07:50:00 PM
32 fps/second is an immutable fact that can't be gotten around.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: owlbait on May 25, 2012, 08:00:00 PM
Thank you. Thanks to Chuck C for his help also.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: mwosborn on May 25, 2012, 08:01:00 PM
Unless you leave the planet!   :biglaugh:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: overbo on May 25, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Well if the faster arro isn't properly tuned to the bow or the bow tiller isn't proper.Why wouldn't a bow w/ proper arro tunning and tiller that's a few feet slower cast a arro further?
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: huntmaster80 on May 25, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by mwosborn:
Unless you leave the planet!    :biglaugh:  
:laughing:    :laughing:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: loco_cacahuate on May 26, 2012, 01:52:00 PM
As I understand it, cast was used in bow performance tests before chronographs were readily available.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Bjorn on May 26, 2012, 02:04:00 PM
It's OK to talk about cast but the 's' word upsets a lot of the older crowd.    :bigsmyl:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Zradix on May 26, 2012, 02:30:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Bjorn:
It's OK to talk about cast but the 's' word upsets a lot of the older crowd.     :bigsmyl:  
lol

yep,..they are integral parts of the same equation.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Raging Water on May 26, 2012, 02:36:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Bjorn:
It's OK to talk about cast but the 's' word upsets a lot of the older crowd.     :bigsmyl:  
Why is Speed such a controversial word here on TG?

Not trying to stir up dust but it puzzles me. Part of the accuracy, I get, is due to speed equaling cast.

Matt
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: ishoot4thrills on May 26, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Bjorn:
It's OK to talk about cast but the 's' word upsets a lot of the older crowd.     :bigsmyl:  
So true, so true. Especially with the trad police.   ;)    :p
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Sixby on May 26, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
Trouble is in the details. You just cannot have one without the tother. We can introduce mitigating factors such as ballistic coefficiency but when all test projectiles are equal the fastest projectile at the start of the race goes the farthest.

God bless you all, Steve
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: joe skipp on May 26, 2012, 03:15:00 PM
Old Timers...   :laughing:

Back in the late 60's when I started shooting and bowhunting, when someone said "This bow has good cast"...same as saying the bow has decent speed.

Then someone would throw a monkey wrench in the mix and state "My 50# bow is capable of casting an arrow 150 yds."  We took that to mean the bow was designed well. So....to answer your question...
Depends on the angle the bow is held....   :dunno:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: kawika b on May 26, 2012, 04:36:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by overbo:
Well if the faster arro isn't properly tuned to the bow or the bow tiller isn't proper.Why wouldn't a bow w/ proper arro tunning and tiller that's a few feet slower cast a arro further?
Unless physics change anytime soon... and barring any outside interference... the above is the only way a slower arrow will travel farther than a faster one shot at the same angle.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: SELFBOW19953 on May 26, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
Okay, let's say the projectiles aren't fired straight down, but perfectly parallel to the ground.  One projectile is 25% heavier than the other, but is only 10% slower, which one will go farther?  Been too many year since I use physics, but doesn't momentum enter into the equation?
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: kawika b on May 26, 2012, 04:51:00 PM
Remember that gravity is pulling more on that heavier arrow.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Sixby on May 26, 2012, 06:01:00 PM
Selfbow: that just changed the question completely. This is no different than adding in the question of ballistic coefficient. A fair test would have to be done with identicle projectiles if it is to be valid at all.

God bless you all, Steve
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: SELFBOW19953 on May 26, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
Sixby,

The original question was "Can/will a bow that shoots slower cast an arrow farther?" I tried to put the question in terms we all deal with, e.g., will my heavy slower arrow, go further than your lighter faster arrow?  The real answer is, it depends!!  We're not talking a perfect vacuum, sans gravity.  The original question did not mention shooting straight down.  If shooting straight down, wouldn't distance and terminal velocity come into play? At some point, as I recall, gravity controls the velocity of a "falling" (shooting straight down) object.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: kawika b on May 26, 2012, 08:05:00 PM
Is it me or is the question being overcomplicated?
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: atatarpm on May 26, 2012, 08:48:00 PM
Ok I am lost I thought cast came from the limbs abblity to transfer energy to the arrow which then will results in speed which then will result in penitration when the arrow comes to a stop. Or maybe I am wrong   :confused:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: khardrunner on May 26, 2012, 10:16:00 PM
Yikes!!!! Guys once the arrow leaves the bow it is a projectile on which the only forces acting on it are friction (air) and gravity. If the arrow is aerodynamically the same then friction can be neglected (same coefficient of kinetic friction). Gravity works on all masses equally as well NOT more on heavier masses... Which is why all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

This means that the only thing that will determine the cast is in fact the initial velocity and angle at which the arrow is launched. The reason heavier arrows drop off more quickly is because thier initial velocity is less (f=ma).

All that to say physics (representing natural law) dictates that the faster arrow travels further thus has greater cast all other factors bein equal. Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case!
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: khardrunner on May 26, 2012, 10:18:00 PM
Sorry for the typos i did this on my phone past my bed time  :)
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Killdeer on May 27, 2012, 08:39:00 AM
My brain hurts!

Killdeer the mathematically challenged   :knothead:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: owlbait on May 27, 2012, 08:47:00 AM
I'm with you Killie! I thought maybe foc, efoc, etc. might have some influence on cast. Same weight arrow, leaving the bow, different results. And THEN.... "My bow really likes a heavy arrow" thrown into the equation.  :D
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Raging Water on May 27, 2012, 09:44:00 AM
All that to say physics (representing natural law) dictates that the faster arrow travels further thus has greater cast all other factors bein equal. Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case


UH? I don't understand this part. I can't throw a bowling ball as far as I can throw a baseball.

So, what am I missing here?

Signed, Confused in Texas
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Bear Heart on May 27, 2012, 10:56:00 AM
QuoteOriginally posted by Raging Water:
All that to say physics (representing natural law) dictates that the faster arrow travels further thus has greater cast all other factors bein equal. Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case

UH? I don't understand this part. I can't throw a bowling ball as far as I can throw a baseball.

So, what am I missing here?

Signed, Confused in Texas
That is because you don't have the strength to get to bowling ball up to the speed of the baseball.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: khardrunner on May 27, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Whups double post
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: khardrunner on May 27, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Exactly. Its all about initial velocity and angle of launch. A bowling ball is more massive than a baseball so if you apply equal force to them both the baseball will be moving faster when you release. This means it will go further. Once you release though you are no longer imparting any force. Only gravity and air resistance work to slow the balls down. Interestingly enough, if they are the same size they will slow down at the same rate  :)
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: eminart on May 27, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
I'm probably dumb, but, if cast is how far a bow will shoot, and speed is how fast it will shoot, then I don't think you can have one without the other.


If you throw a ball "fast" it will go farther than if you throw it slow - every time. If you throw a ball far, it it will go faster than a ball thrown not so far - every time.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Bladepeek on May 27, 2012, 01:16:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by John Havard:
32 fps/second is an immutable fact that can't be gotten around.
I agree that's a fact of physics, so why is it not helping me any more when I try to accelerate down to tie my shoes? Oh yeah, that mass in the middle wants to stay at rest.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: khardrunner on May 27, 2012, 01:24:00 PM
God bless newton!!
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: kawika b on May 27, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Bladepeek:
I agree that's a fact of physics, so why is it not helping me any more when I try to accelerate down to tie my shoes? Oh yeah, that mass in the middle wants to stay at rest.
Oh man I SO resemble that remark.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Raging Water on May 27, 2012, 04:31:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Bear Heart:
 
QuoteOriginally posted by Raging Water:
All that to say physics (representing natural law) dictates that the faster arrow travels further thus has greater cast all other factors bein equal. Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case

UH? I don't understand this part. I can't throw a bowling ball as far as I can throw a baseball.

So, what am I missing here?

Signed, Confused in Texas
That is because you don't have the strength to get to bowling ball up to the
speed of the baseball. [/b]
But the quote said:

Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of
launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case

So, is the assumption that the 1,000 gr arrow is being shot out of a heavier draw weight bow, than the 500 gr arrow?

Or, are both arrows being shot out of the same bow?
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: khardrunner on May 27, 2012, 04:41:00 PM
It would be a bow that would get it to the same initial velocity as the 500 grn arrow out of its bow
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Kevin Dill on May 28, 2012, 06:09:00 AM
None of this really matters....if you hit the dreaded "void".

 ;)
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: pdk25 on May 28, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
QuoteOriginally posted by Raging Water:
 
QuoteOriginally posted by Bear Heart:
 
QuoteOriginally posted by Raging Water:
All that to say physics (representing natural law) dictates that the faster arrow travels further thus has greater cast all other factors bein equal. Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case

UH? I don't understand this part. I can't throw a bowling ball as far as I can throw a baseball.

So, what am I missing here?

Signed, Confused in Texas
That is because you don't have the strength to get to bowling ball up to the
speed of the baseball. [/b]
But the quote said:

Also a 1000 grn arrow will travel EXACTLY the same distance as a 500 grn arrow if all other factors ( includin angle of
launch, initial velocity, and coefficient of friction etc) are the same. Mass doesnt matter in this case

So, is the assumption that the 1,000 gr arrow is being shot out of a heavier draw weight bow, than the 500 gr arrow?

Or, are both arrows being shot out of the same bow? [/b]
Yes, Matt.  The assumption is different bows.  That is the only way to get the same velocity.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: kawika b on May 28, 2012, 01:18:00 PM
The question was posed to differentiate cast and speed which was something of a debate in this thread  http://tradgang.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=117016#000000
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: owlbait on May 28, 2012, 01:30:00 PM
Yep! Somewhere in the recesses of my bonehead I had this crazy vision that a bow could be made to cast an arrow a long distance, without regard to the speed. In other words, some bows are fast, some have great cast. I "tried" to make a  (weak)connection that a flat bow would shoot flat(fast) whereas a long bow would shoot a long ways(cast). I must've failed my physics lesson on the day that was tested  :D  I'm glad that is now cleared up until some new materials and designs change the way we think.  ;)
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: 2treks on May 28, 2012, 01:41:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by Kevin Dill:
None of this really matters....if you hit the dreaded "void".

  ;)  
So Kevin, Are you suggesting that there is a "void"
This sounds like another thread topic.
"void or no void"

"Lock down or no lock down"

"Speed vs. cast"

Questions such as this will bewilder the simple hunting archer till the end of days.
OH wait,I mean the technical archer.  :)
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: on May 28, 2012, 01:54:00 PM
I remember when Allen compounds came out. They were testing them for speed at an archery shop. as it turned out my Black Widow 41 pound field target bow shot considerably faster than that Allen compound. The man gave a real simple explanation. "Everyone  knows that it takes a while for the arrow shot from the compound to get up to its full speed." That's right he was feeding us pure B.S., problem was that most of the archers there believed him.
Question I have is why do some bows shoot better with hefty arrows better than other other bows shooting the same hefty arrow? some seem to be lugged out with a heavy arrow while others handle them with ease. As example, my target BW compared to a Jack Howard of close to the same pull.  In that case I would say the Jack Howard had better cast with the heavy arrow, while with the moderate target arrows the Black Widow had more speed.  In some longbows, while they don't slow down as much with super heavy shafts, due to the weight of the limbs in relation to the weight of the arrow, they also don't like very stiff heavy arrows, which most of the time makes it a wash. I have seen longbows, John Schulz built, that gained efficiency sooner with moderately heavy arrows and ended up gaining speed over another normally faster bow, once again I would call that better cast.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: Kevin Dill on May 28, 2012, 02:01:00 PM
Chuck...

You read me spot-on. I've never baited turkeys...but bowhunters....well, maybe!

I jest-fully made my comment because a number of us believe in things which are simply disproved by science, physics, anatomy or physiology.

'Cast' (really distance) is the end result of 'bow launches arrow' and has a very large number of variables involved in the result. One of those variables is speed, and it's usually measured at the beginning of 'bow launches arrow'. When all the other variables are eliminated (or made identical) the fastest arrow wins the day (cast).

Situations where 'slow bow' shoots farther than 'fast bow' are always attributable to inequalities in the setups.
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: 2treks on May 28, 2012, 02:12:00 PM
:thumbsup:
Title: Re: Speed vs. cast
Post by: kawika b on May 28, 2012, 02:13:00 PM
QuoteOriginally posted by owlbait:
Yep! Somewhere in the recesses of my bonehead I had this crazy vision that a bow could be made to cast an arrow a long distance, without regard to the speed. In other words, some bows are fast, some have great cast. I "tried" to make a  (weak)connection that a flat bow would shoot flat(fast) whereas a long bow would shoot a long ways(cast). I must've failed my physics lesson on the day that was tested   :D   I'm glad that is now cleared up until some new materials and designs change the way we think.   ;)  
Bro there are so many different trains of thought when it comes to what makes an effective set-up it's a wonder we can find the time to get out into the woods... momentum, f.o.c, f.p.s, penetration, off the shelf, elevated rest, vanes, feathers, string material... so on and so forth... pretty easy to get discombobulated.

Tune it well, shoot it well and enjoy it often... they're all important.