Whats the deal with carbon manufacturers?

[Kingstaken]

Whats the deal with carbon arrow manufacturers?
Eastern makes a bazillion different shafts accomondating each and every peson.
What is there maybe 3 ot 4 different size carbon shafts per compaNY making some go crazy either shooting a shaft that is 3" to 4" over hanging or adding alot of weight up front etc.?
Is there business manly for olympic style shooters on the light weak end and compound shiiters on the heavier stiff end?
Are aluminum arrows that much cheaper to produce? Obviously by the selling price differences they are, but how much more profit on the other end?

[Cherokee Scout]

Carbon is stiff and light.
To get light enough spine the shaft has to be very light weight or long. Since most bows need to shoot at least 8-9 grs per pound the manufactures add wraps of carbon. This makes them even stiffer. So they have to be longer to weaken the spine or weight has to be added to the front to weaken spine.

[JC]

Originally posted by Kingstaken:
making some go crazy either shooting a shaft that is 3" to 4" over hanging or adding alot of weight up front etc.?

Well, what one man calls "crazy", some consider genious. Try a high FOC arrow (lots of weight up front), no matter what the overhang on your bow then tell me we are "crazy". Besides, what is the overhang hurting? Unless you are a gap shooter, it makes absolutely no difference.

[wingnut]

You hit the point with the fact that they make them for where the market is.  Compounds with cut past center windows dominate the marketplace and the arrows are built for them.  The Trad market is much smaller and we just "make do" with the leftovers.  But heck that's what wood arrows are for.

Mike

[Kingstaken]

John I understand the whole about tuning.
I'm lucky I guess to have 55/75 with a 145gr point plus about 1 1/2" past the riser  shoot perfect. Why are there not so many options?
Why say a 55/75. Thats 20# difference. Why not 55/65.
Aluminum increments are a fraction of that.

[vermonster13]

Just check the most popular compound bow weights sold and you'll get your answer. 60-70# is the lion's share of the market and the past center cut of them with the adjustability of the rests makes them able to handle an arrow in a wider spine range. Cheaper for a manufacturer to tool up for 3 or 4 shafts than it is to do dozens like aluminum at it's peak.

[NDTerminator]

Originally posted by Kingstaken:
John I understand the whole about tuning.
I'm lucky I guess to have 55/75 with a 145gr point plus about 1 1/2" past the riser  shoot perfect. Why are there not so many options?
Why say a 55/75. Thats 20# difference. Why not 55/65.
Aluminum increments are a fraction of that.

This is exactly why I tried and rejected carbons in favor of alums.  Alums have much more & closer spine selection so it's far easier to get a tune without resorting to excess length or aftermarket devices (brass inserts-weight tubes) to manipulate spine and/or add weight...

I shoot gap, and has been pointed out earlier, excess arrow length tends to sticky a gap shooter's wicket...

[JC]

Man I guess I am in the minority here....I think there is simply no need for the ridiculous number of aluminum shafts. If you treat them the same as carbons, there is a shaft on the market for everyone, and a few sizes will cover all the bases. Front load if too stiff, want a lighter arrow go with less spine and lighter point. I have yet to see a bow that you couldn't find a carbon that flies beautifully close to the total arrow weight you want, (but I will admit I certainly haven't tried all the bows out there). Even the Osage selfbow CJ gave me shoots (gasp!) carbons wonderfully!

Personally, I don't think there are enough options in the stiffer shafts, I wish they made even stiffer shafts for those who like to shoot higher poundages, want high foc, and don't want to modify their riser.

[Lewis Brookshire III]

I dont think for the majority of shooters its a problem, theres really no need for the carbon manuf. to produce more shafts. If you want a lighter carbon stick with your spine range and a light tip, if you want a heavy carbon get the stiffer spine and tip load weight.

I think there are only a handful of people, those who shoot really light bows or have really long draws that have any real problems getting a carbon in the spine/weight that they would be comfortable with.

Im sure the money involved to re-vamp production to offer more spines would not be worth it. I assume thats why Easton is now offering thier alluminum arrows in only three "Carbon" spine ranges, 300, 400, and 500.

[vermonster13]

Guys I'm just explaining why there aren't a lot of carbon spines, the largest share of the market doesn't need them. There are more spines available than most guys seem aware of though, but a lot of the lower spines used for Olympic style shooting haven't made the crossover yet for lack of awareness of them it seems.

[Kingstaken]

JC there's a difference between going crazy and being crazy. Never called anyone here crazy, as trad shooter we and I use the word "we" incluidng myself maybe alil stubborn, but diffintely not crazy.
The longer the arrow the weaker the spine or the heavier the point the weaker the spine so I don't understand you meaning. High FOC IMO has no bearing on arrow length as it does in getting high FOC arrows tuned. Unless your so heavy in FOC that you move up a spine or two in shaft.
I personally see no reason for such high extreme FOC when I see 120-200 gr head is way more then enough for anything here in N.A.
Theres a point of where enough gr is enough gr or enough GPP is enough GPP and anything else is merely personal choice. Is there really a need for 12gr/in. arrows? Most bow ambufactures set the standards for nothing more then warrantees. The heavier the arrow the less chance of failure of the bows.
Whe someone comes up tp me and says "I'm shooting a 300gr point" first I know he shoots trad, second I only see bragging rights and pay no attention to it which I take as not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing wrong with someone with conviction especially with something that cannot cause any harm to or have any effect on another human being.
I've seen and heard of many a times the longer the shaft get in the way of a hunter. Whether in the tree stand or ground with them mostly turning into position and it getting caught on something and either falling off or bouncing away from the bow.
Anyway I'm still lQQking for an answer to my question, not a debate.

[JC]

David, I agree....but it can also be looked at from a different angle. Not just the "largest share of the market" imho...but all the market. You just don't need all those previous spines of aluminum. If you just want all those spines, that's a different story.

[Kingstaken]

JC I agree with you as there is no need for so many aluminum shafts, but there have always seem to be here, so why cannot the carbon builders provided more options?

[NDTerminator]

Your making a gross generalization that's borderline insulting there Lewis.  Seems to me most of the folks hereabouts are very consciencious in their tuning and efforts to achieve excellent arrow flight.

I myself have been shooting bow since the late 60's and have been actually tuning since the mid 70's.  In that time I've shot & worked with literally every arrow type that has come along.
My arrow choice is based on those years of experience, not laziness or lack of tuning knowledge.

I shoot carbons with my compounds as the bow/rest can be tuned to the arrow, and they don't require add on weight to shoot & penetrate well due to the geater speeds the compounds generate.  With my recurves I use alums as the arrow must be tuned to the bow.  In this regard alums are far easier to work with than carbons, and again don't require add on weight and/or excessive length to shoot and penetrate well.

Now if some carbon manufacturer can come up with an an arrow designed for Trad with decent weight and closer spine that doesn't cost $100+ a dozen,
I would certainly try them...

[snag]

To be more productive you try and simiplify your business operation. If you loose business because you don't provide what the market wants then and only then will business expand and offer more options. Guess no one in the shaft business is loosing business!

[Lewis Brookshire III]

Jon, your right I edited my post.

[Kingstaken]

From all the replies I received here in only a 1/2 hour by the way I thank you all for, my thought is the carbon manufactures designed there shafts for the average draw of say 25" to 28", with a 75gr tip plus or minus and an arrow short enoug to be pulled thru a clicker or just catch the elevated rest of an olympic style recurve.
Not for bows that require broadhead clearance.
Again, I have no problems tuning my carbons I recenlty got.
I shoot 65# to 75# bows and would like to see more options also.

[Bob Morrison]

Whe someone comes up tp me and says "I'm shooting a 300gr point" first I know he shoots trad, second I only see bragging rights and pay no attention to it which I take as not necessarily a bad thing.

Kinda like I shoot 85# I've never killed anything with it yet but...........

Serious hunters know what 300 gr. will do, even at low poundages. Bragging rights come with what you have hanging on the wall or in the freezer.

[Shaun]

JC, I just spine tested some Grizzly sticks (got a half doz at an auction) the spine 150# - that should be high enough for anything.

With the number of manufacturers each with their own spine ideas and ranges, there should be enough around for folks to find a combination that works. I have used all three spine ranges of GT's and both standard and light AD with good results.

High FOC is intersting stuff and may have several advantages besides penetration. Lots to experiment with in this field.

[JC]

Shaun, Grizzly Sticks    ....got any other options? That is pretty stiff though.