Paper Tuning vs. Archers Paradox?

[KSdan]

This has been interesting to me too.  Honestly, I never even knew there was a debate!  So, I guess I have A LOT to learn.

Thanks for all the thoughts.  

Dan in KS

[Stephengiles]

Ok not trying to start a argument here but, I just looked at page 10 in the FITA manual . It says if you want to increase dynamic spine of an arrow,(make a weak arrow stiffer),lower brace height. If you want to decrease spine(make it bend more as they put it), increase brace height. I don't understand why they are telling you to do it,then telling you to be careful. Of course with a target rig you have more than one option.  I haven't been shooting as long as some of you so  I'm no expert.

[KSdan]

Stephen- I hope I have conveyed I could be wrong here.  I just know since I have been shooting trad- I have fine tuned arrows by increasing brace ht. to take some energy off the arrow. This also showed in chrono fps.

HOWEVER- as far as the FITA manual- I guess it could mean what some of you are saying here: Increasing the brace ht. typically makes the arrow act stiffer- HOWEVER you need to be careful as the power stroke changes which could add a new variable into the equation.

IF THIS IS HOW IT READS:  then a bunch of you that corrected me would be accurate.  The angle/shelf dynamic is more critical than power stroke- THOUGH the power stroke does need to be considered some.

Conceding to your points here: The view I have had all these years that the issue was power stroke has "some" merit, HOWEVER the bigger concern is what many of you have corrected me on.

Makes sense to me.  It also makes sense that various bows will be affected by these variables a bit differently depending on the style/design.    

SO much to learn.  See- you can teach an old dog new tricks!  

Dan in KS

[Stephengiles]

I personally can't shoot good anyway  

[DaveT1963]

Im more confused now lol.