Wood vs Carbon

[Flying Dutchman]

A few weeks ago at my archery range, we had a discussion.

It was over carbon vs wooden arrows.

My idea was, that if a wood shaft and a carbon shaft are the same in weight, are equally straight and have the same dynamic spine value, that there will be NO differeince in flight.

All the rest were thinking that carbon would fly better. That is faster and straighter. I don't believe that.

What do you guys think?

[Grey Taylor]

I think carbon may have a slight edge in speed due to its smaller diameter and subsequent less air resistance. However, I think this difference will be so slight that the variance we experience in our gear will negate it.

Guy

[Kentucky Jeff]

I think you people have too much time on your hands and need to find another hobby!

Just kidding.

Speaking purely from a mechanical accuracy perspective there is no way wood will be as consistent and a carbon shaft.  There are simply too many variables in a natural material like wood to give it the kind of uniformity you can engineer into a carbon arrow.    So carbon wins from a purely hypothetical perspective.

However, the REAL question is not one of strictly theoretical/mechanical accuracy that is ONLY gained by shooting and measuring that accuracy out of a machine.  These are things that are shot by human beings and as such they are subject to the limitations of being launched by an imperfect being with infinite variation in our form.  

So the question becomes which is more accurate for a human vs. the machine.  And again, you will see the answer is deceptively easy to find.  Look at what olympic caliber archers shoot and you will have your answer.  You don't see many wood shafts being shot in competition anywhere...  There's a reason for that.  If wood was better they would use it.

Now, you people can go back to whittling spoons or whatever it is you do while you wait for the snow to melt.

[khardrunner]

Also consider the material mechanics of carbon vs. wood. The wood arrows will recover less quickly from paradox even though they are spined properly. Carbon inherently returns to its straight shape more quickly than wood will.

This will enhance speed and accuracy.

Still, I love good wood arrows!

[Rick Richard]

You guys are correct from an engineering perspective, however I believe wood to be more forgiving when introducing the human element for us average shooters, thus being more consitent and accurate...for me anyway.  I find when I have that human error in form, release or whatever when using carbons the flight and impact is much more exagerated.

[Flying Dutchman]

Is it really true that carbon recovers more quickly from paradox then wood? That would be interesting to see on a high-speed camera!

I prefer wood. For me wood is much more forgivin where carbon is a bit nervous.

It is also more easy to get the right weight with wood (between 9 to 10 gpp). When you shoot low-FOC (as we do with 3D tournaments) my carbon arrows become way too light.

But this is going to be an interesting thread! Keep um coming please!

[Keith Zimmerman]

What you are asking, "all things being equal," I would have to say it would be a tie.

If that is what you are NOT asking, which it isn't, you get the other answers.

[Flying Dutchman]

My question was indeed "all things being equal". My wooden shafts have all the same static spine (+/- 1 lbs)and weight (+/- 2 grains). They are very straight and spin on my hand like carbon.

BTW, carbon isn't consistent as many archers believe they are. I once spined a bunch of Goldtips 3555's on a digital spinetester in a professional archery-shop. I found differences in spine as big as 6 lbs! The owner measured them too and was astonished. Since then he handspines all his carbon shafts on request for his customers and he keeps on seeing differences in the static spine.

Furthermore, carbon can bent too so it isn't always straight... when you hitted something hard, like a rock or a tree, don't forget to check if they are still straight.

But mostly the weight of carbonshafts is very consistent.

[Jim Wright]

Most guys who think that carbon shafting is so superior to wood that there is no comparison have never shot good quality wood arrows.

[Craig]

Keith, you hit it on the nose.
   In the real world, I feel guys that don't like carbons can't tune carbon arrows to there bows, so they say woods are better. Give me a choice of 100 wood shafts or 100 carbon shafts I will take the carbons. I know I can make everyone of those carbons fly. I wood be throwing more then half of the woods away.

[gringol]

I think we often get hung up on theoretical stuff and miss the big picture.  I love wood because it seems to have more life than carbon, but on average there is no way wood is more consistent.  That said a good, well tuned wood arrow is just as good as a well tuned carbon arrow.  90% of Trad shooters will shoot equally bad with both.

As far as olympic shooters go, they shoot 20# bows to 80 yds and need the lightest arrow they can get.  Therefore carbon is the choice.  At Trad distances I doubt it makes any difference.

[Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by Craig:
Keith, you hit it on the nose.
   In the real world, I feel guys that don't like carbons can't tune carbon arrows to there bows, so they say woods are better. Give me a choice of 100 wood shafts or 100 carbon shafts I will take the carbons. I know I can make everyone of those carbons fly. I wood be throwing more then half of the woods away.

That sounds like you can't tune wood....   :D  

I can tune carbon equally well as wood. Bareshafting is bareshafting, no matter what material you use.

[Mint]

Carbon will recover faster than wood as said above. But i believe a good said of wood arrows will stand up to carbon arrows as far as hunting distances. In my case I switched to carbons since they are so much easier to deal with and are much tougher than wood. That being said to me there in an arrow there is nothing more beautiful than a footed shaft with self nock with matching hard wood insert.

[Bjorn]

A few years ago I spent the better part of a month tuning high end carbon shafting to my ACS CX. I bareshafted, cut, used inserts of various metals and weights, tried various points and other shafts. Believe me I have nothing against carbon-I was trying to see if I could quit using wood. In the end I sold the carbons and associated stuff and went back to wood. In conclusion both materials have merits, but if you are solely after good consistent flight wood is going to be tough to beat.      

[legends1]

Amen Bjorn!!!!!

[7 Lakes]

A wood arrow with a slight crook in it will be much more accurate when shooting around small trees.

[Scott Teaschner]

It seems people always get off track. the question was will wood or carbon perform the same if everything is the same? It is really a yes or no question in my oppinion. I would say Yes if it was possible but I dont think it is. You will never get a wood arrow the same diamiter with the same spine so it can not be proven. So I say Yes on paper and No in the real world. Everything else is just a matter of oppinion.

[Flying Dutchman]

Getting some interesting answers here! Keep um coming!

[Craig]

"I can tune carbon equally well as wood. Bareshafting is bareshafting, no matter what material you use"

Sounds like we both can!!!  

Some guys can't.

I shot wood for years. When you shoot a lot and trying to make almost impossible shots wood gets expensive. Carbons will last alot longer. you will lose them before breaking them, but I do agree if you can get a dozen of wood shafts the exact same in spine and weight as the carbons, they will fly the same. I just don't think anyone could really prove it.  

 Is it more fun to make wood arrows? Sure it is.

 
       

[hood_lum]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the difference between how carbon absorbs/uses the energy and how wood absorbs/uses the energy from the bow. I prefer wood but use carbon because they are easier to maintain. I personally believe wood is overall more forgiving and i also like the feeling of how they come out of the bow.