UEFOC by double inserting, where's the truth??

[olddogrib]

This post was titled poorly and my apologies to anyone who thought it was some kind of accusation. I was merely trying to point out that the conundrum associated with those wanting EFOC(and I believe in it) has always been how to add tons of weight to the front end of an arrow without weakening spine.  Conventional wisdom has always said you can't do it. Now with the excellent real-world videos like Jason's, we see that the wisdom may be suspect. I just wanted to see if we can now agree that inserts which protrude down the end of the shaft further than standards can have the effect of stiffening the shaft, intended or unintended, and regardless of their weight. This may in fact be the simplest way to achieve EFOC.  My apologies to Dr. Ashby if all this is rehash, but last time I read his findings it wasn't clear.  My mind is not the steel trap it once was, but when the longer weighted inserts came out, I recall it being before the EFOC movement, so that's not how they were marketed, although it now appears that's where they excel.  They were marketed to appeal to the heavier shaft=better penetration movement by maximizing total arrow weight, allowing one to shoot a stiffer/heavier shaft and still get the added weight up front needed to limber it up enough to shoot! These two were/are related, but are two different things.

[ChuckC]

we have all seen the teeter totter games where you move the fulcrum point and it changes the game, and you place a person on the end vs not quite on the end and it changes things.  

This is no different.

The weight is still there, it does matter (to FOC), but the changes are different and you need to be smart and think it, or just experiment and do it.

As previously stated, stiffening up the front of the shaft by adding internal (or external) footing materials changes the stiffness dynamics of the shaft, but shouldn't change FOC.   You just added another aspect to factor into your game.

In the end, play the games and if it works for you , great, and if not, go back to the drawing board.
ChuckC

[Orion]

olddog: Ashby didn't talk about long internal footings in his research.  Don't know if he even tried them there.  He and O.L. Adcock did quite a bit of experimenting with them later and discussed it on this site a few years ago. Maybe those threads are still here.  Don't know.  The initial intent was to strengthen the shaft immediately behind the head where it was most vulnerable to breaking. Of course, they found it also impacted FOC and dynamic spine.