Cartel Triple Spines - Tested

[Marcus]

OK, just built a spine tester and tested bunch of Triples
here are my results

Triple 300: .427"
Triple 400: .488"
Triple 500: .568"
Triple 600: .632"
Triple 700: .732"

Now this is interesting because it is different to the results found elsewhere.

Tested by suspending a 880gram weight from the centre of a shaft held 28" apart and measuring the deflection using a digital vernier.

[Steve B]

Interesting results Marcus, I have been toying with getting these for field.... sure is a bit different to what we are told, did you try different batches or just one from each packet ?

[Marcus]

So far just one batch. I have a few different ones to test but am still getting the hang of doing this accuratly.
It does seem to match up with what I have noticed while shooting.

Tested some Lightspeeds too and they came out as expected.

[Steve B]

Keep up the good work Marcus , and keep us informed please. :D

[Sandy Hancock]

Hmmm. Might have to break out my Triple 300's again. No wonder my AC/E 370's tuned somewhat stiffer :roll:
The 410 X-10's are the bomb though 8)

I think this bears out Pat and other's arguments that if you want really precise spine (most important for finger shooters, esp. recurve) then you should stick with Easton shafts.

Can you give us an idea of consistency from shaft to shaft Marcus?

[Marcus]

I think this bears out Pat and other's arguments that if you want really precise spine (most important for finger shooters, esp. recurve) then you should stick with Easton shafts.

Well don't know if I would say that, different spine systems lead to confusion, that is all.

Can you give us an idea of consistency from shaft to shaft Marcus?
I will, but will likely do that later in the week. I'm going to try some 300 Triples again and will spine test the dozen before building them.

[Jbird]

And right in line with what you and others have suggested. Gave my specs to Rob at Lancaster and he got with his setup guru's and PM'd me back that my setup should work best with the 500's. On Target 2 says my perfect spine is .551 on the Easton charts and the 500 Triples are the closest match. Great job Marcus.
Jbird

[lewkowski]

OK, just built a spine tester and tested bunch of Triples
here are my results

Triple 300: .427"
Triple 400: .488"
Triple 500: .568"
Triple 600: .632"
Triple 700: .732"

Now this is interesting because it is different to the results found elsewhere.

Tested by suspending a 880gram weight from the centre of a shaft held 28" apart and measuring the deflection using a digital vernier.

Matches up with my limited testing. I shoot Triple 300's for recurve 47#, 30.75" draw length, I have just got hold of three X10 (410), cut to exactly the same length they give almost exactly the same tune as the Triples, just a few clicks of the plunger different, but no need to change bow weight.

[Mark M]

So Markus using my triple 400 shafts with 110 grain points with beiter hunter nocks and ffp .175s at 29" could be a bit light on for my conquest three at 54" :roll:

[Marcus]

So Markus using my triple 400 shafts with 110 grain points with beiter hunter nocks and ffp .175s at 29" could be a bit light on for my conquest three at 54" :roll:I would say they are acceptable, but I wouldn't go lighter. Also you could try 300's as well. But I wouldn't rush out to change.

[Action Man]

Tested by suspending a 880gram weight from the centre of a shaft held 28" apart and measuring the deflection using a digital vernier.

Is that the Easton method Marcus?
I thought Easton measure spine differently from other manufacturers which is why there is a discrepency in spine values between companies.
I may be wrong but i think the AMO method is a 2 pound weight suspended from the centre of the shaft supported 26" apart.
Would the 2" less (and slightly more weight 2lbs=907grams) line the Cartel markings up closer to the actual measurement? (Haven't finished building my spine tester yet)
I recently went through the exercise of selecting new shafts for a friend and found it very confusing trying to compare brands.
Is there a formula or chart to match spine to draw weights?

[Marcus]

Yeah I built it to Easton's method. I'll try AMO's and see what the results are, but IMHO it's Easton's which is the one to follow.

[robbo]

Thanks Marcus, I have been trying to find out the spines of the 400s and the 900s.


I am using the 400s at 47# (29")fingers and one of my boys is using the 900s at 44# and 26". But I think the 900s are a bit soft. :-?

[Marcus]

Thanks Marcus, I have been trying to find out the spines of the 400s and the 900s.


I am using the 400s at 47# (29")fingers and one of my boys is using the 900s at 44# and 26". But I think the 900s are a bit soft. :-?Yeah way soft, I would suggest 700's.
s that compound or recurve?

[slick]

Yeah I built it to Easton's method. I'll try AMO's and see what the results are, but IMHO it's Easton's which is the one to follow.

Marcus is your preference (Easton 28") based on the 2" wider support than the AMO 26"?

[Marcus]

No it's based on Easton being a wider used system in target archery than AMO. In fact the only 'standard' of AMO's I use is their draw length measurement.
No point measuring Triples with another standard that no one uses. Compare to the one everyone knows already, and that's Easton.

[New Tricks]

I read somewhere or other that the 400s were 476 or something spine. Sounds pretty good from both sources. I reckon the bloke talking about 29" at 53# should probaly buy the 300s next time. The 400s will do the trick for the time being.

[Floxter]

The AMO (now ATA) standard of a 2lb weight suspended between 26" centers is only for wood arrows. Easton and most all other arrow manufacturers of aluminum and carbon arrows use a 1.94lb weight between 28" centers.

[Action Man]

I just read that for the Triples the spine is determined by the weight required to deflect the shaft 20mm while supported at 500mm centres :-?
Be nice if they could all use the same system :agrue:
Thanks for your test results Marcus.

[c3]

The AMO standard is now only used for wood arrows. What folks are calling the easton method is actually a published ASTM test.

I'm sure someone at easton had a lot to do with how that test was written, but it's available online for a fee if any one would like to actally read it.

There's also a conversion factor of roughly 1.85 if you measure between 23" centers and the 880 gram weight. This will allow you to get close if your arrows are shorter than 28".

Cheers,
Pete

[Sandy Hancock]

I just read that for the Triples the spine is determined by the weight required to deflect the shaft 20mm while supported at 500mm centres

That makes no sense at all. The stiffer shaft would have a higher number. That is clearly not the case.

[Jbird]

Just ordered 18 of the 500's. Can't wait to see how they perform and hold up to the abuse of Field Archery. Also ordered the Ti pins and will use McKinney Pin nocks on them. The break off points are 110/100/90.
It was suggested to use 100 grains but I would think 90 would be enough for Field archery. I'll wait till they get here and check the FOC.

What do you suggest to glue the pins in with? I have been using low melt point hot melt and sticking the arrow immeadiately in a cup of cold water on my all carbon arrows. Just heating the point slightly and heating the hot melt stick with my torch.
Jbird

[Action Man]

That makes no sense at all. The stiffer shaft would have a higher number. That is clearly not the case.

I presume they have some kind of cross reference to place the shafts into the appropriate catagory or to give it a spine rating.
On a machine (automated) it is easier to measure the force required to deflect the shaft a set distance than to acurately measure thousandth of an inch deflection for a given force.
Not that it really maters to us how they do it. We just need to be able to compare different brands.

[Jbird]

The 500's at 26" raw shaft and 100 grain points give about 13% FOC. Can't see why I would want more weight for field archery with an occasional FITA. Do you think this is enough point weight?
Thanks,
Jbird

[Marcus]

I still have never bothered testing the FOC of my arrows. Never found it makes a difference.

[Jbird]

What point weights are available for the 500's??? I thought I was ordering 110/100/90 's. The points that I received are 120/110/100.
Jbird

[bowcoach]

I have been spine testing Triples for over 9 months for the same reason, that I was concerned that the spine on the shaft does not reflect the true spine of the arrow.
Also I order in 5 doz Triple's of the same size and spin all and then rebundle the shafts. I have found in a bunch of doz there is a 50 -70 thou variation. This may not be critical for compounders but for recurvers this variation in spine will cause major problems.

I built a spine jig because my concerns were that people were being sold striker arrows to shoot them out a 50# compound, yes they are marked 540,550 and 560 this means nothing. The 540 will spine at 1182 thou this is equivalent to 1614 and the 560 will spine at 873 thou this is equivalent to 1716.

Below are the findings of the spinning of the shafts. I did the same for Easton shafts but I never found a variation of what is marked on the shaft.
I am constaintly reviewing the list.

Cartel Tripple 1100 1038
Cartel Tripple 1000 964
Cartel Tripple 900 825
Cartel Tripple 800 813
Cartel Tripple 700 650
Cartel Tripple 600 603
Cartel Tripple 500 585
Cartel Tripple 400 530
Cartel Tripple 300 415

Regards

Michael

[DanceswithDingoes]

top stuff Michael, admins could you guys capture this and archive it somewhere please?

[Marcus]

top stuff Michael, admins could you guys capture this and archive it somewhere please?Done, it's stored in the database. ;)

[Jay.G]

so basically recurvers should stick with Easton arrows? as the spine is more consistent? tho the 600s didn't look too bad.

[robbo]

Cartel Tripple 900 825
Cartel Tripple 800 813
Regards

Michael


Micheal, is that correct that there is very little difference between the 800s and 900s.


I have some 900s and they seem a bit soft and was going to get the 800s, but it would seem that they are not much stiffer, I may need to go to the 700s.

[bowcoach]

Below is a list of shafts that I spined this morning showing a spread of spine, at the end is the average.

900 Triples 832 800 812 793 811 815 821 827 841 790 794 797 / 811 average
800 Triples 798 785 798 790 745 799 795 809 788 803 749 784 / 786 average

As I sayed before I am constaintly reviewing the spine list.

What I am going to do this week is to resipne all the Triples that I have in stock and will repost the results.

Jay.G, I wouldn't say that recurvers should not shoot Triples, I have put a lot of people into them and I shoot them as my practice arrows. But I do respine and rebundle the triple shatfs for people and to give them a closer bunch.
The other reason was the cost factor but this days the triple have gone up in price and are the same price as the Easton Navigator shafts.
There is another thing that I have been doing lately, the next time you purchase a set of Triples look down the in side and check out the residue in side the shaft. I clean the inside with pipe cleaner.

The only thing that I have not done is weigh the arrow it see if there is a variation in the weight. I have weighed the points but I have not found a variation with the points.

Robo regarding the spine of your arrows this is hard to say. Many factors determine the correct spine, limb design, mass weight of the bow and the bow set up it self.
If the bow is low poundage the spine of the arrow is critical. This is why I still recommend Aluminium arrows for these people.

Michael

[The One]

Below is a list of shafts that I spined this morning showing a spread of spine, at the end is the average.

900 Triples 832 800 812 793 811 815 821 827 841 790 794 797 / 811 average
800 Triples 798 785 798 790 745 799 795 809 788 803 749 784 / 786 average



Holy crap, those are ranges of 042 and 069 respectively!!! That's the better part of an entire spine out...

I know Easton hasn't always lived up to the weight tolerances they specify, but for recurve, spine is more important than weight I would say. What are the Cartel and Easton tolerances for spine?

Has anyone done similar tests on new easton arrows? And are the ratings (i.e. C3) done by grouping in weight or spine?

[Marcus]

I'm refining my spine tester soon so hopefully will do a whole set of 600 Triples and 600 X10's.

[The One]

I'm refining my spine tester soon so hopefully will do a whole set of 600 Triples and 600 X10's.

Great, will be interesting to see the results :)

[2Dogs]

pretty much confirms why I stopped shooting the triples and went to Navs.

Unless you have access to someone like Bowcoach that can match you up a dozen...... they really don't cut it for a tournament arrow.

:D........ what was that dumb score I shot years ago. Actually I shot a lot of my PB's with them :D

[bowcoach]

There seam to be a bit of interest in this so I respined triple shafts and the results are below. I also had a set of 650 X10's and the reults are also below.

I have not had any personal knowledge with Navigators but have many doz on order and will have results in the future.

1100 Triple 1046 1048 1049 1050 1062 1066 1068 1070 1071 1074 1082 1084 /1063 average 38 sread
1000 Triple 936 968 968 970 971 976 976 977 987 1000 1004 1004 /978 average 68 spread
900 Triple 790 793 794 797 800 811 812 815 821 827 832 841 /811 average 51 spread
800 Triple 745 749 785 784 790 798 798 788 795 799 803 809 /786 average 64 spread
700 Triple 642 642 649 650 662 669 671 680 682 691 708 716 /671 average 74 spread
600 Triple 586 590 600 605 615 616 620 629 631 633 634 638 /616 average 52 spread
500 Triple 529 540 543 549 549 550 552 565 580 581 583 584 /558 average 55 sread
400 Triple I have already grouped the this batch
300 Triple 397 403 407 408 408 409 409 410 412 412 414 415 /408 average 18 spread


X10 650 622 627 629 629 630 630 631 633 634 635 637 640 631.4166667 18 Spread

I was told that at the 2006 Nationals John Dudley touched on X10 arrows and made a remake that he starts with 3-4 doz X10 shafts and test group, from them a tournament set is established, by spining them prior, this may eliminate the need for multi doz purchases.

Regards

Michael

[The One]

Is there any method to the cartel spine system? From your posts it seems as if there is no logical method judging from the jumps between spines. A change of 037 from 800s to 900s seems very weird to me...

[2Dogs]

It would be interesting to find out how Easton actually measure the spine. Do they have a machine that flexes every shaft and calculates it?

Most large shaft manufacturers frequency match the shafts. I'm guessing Easton do something similar, in order to pump out the volume to keep up with orders.

Frequency matching is supposed to be a lot more accurate.

[Glenn Ryan]

Hmmmm....hence John Dudley's 36-48 arrows group testing...ie "live frequency testing" so to speak...irrespective of spine gauges?

Would be interesting to run a set of tournamanet arrows from one of these 'top' shooters through a traditional spine gauge and see the results.......

However, having said all that, notice in the above tests that a relatively weak size X10 had the least deviation apart from the very stiff Cartel 300's...........hmmmm.....................

[2Dogs]

I remember Chris White telling me that Werner Beiter put a set of his X10's through some testing at his center.

Werner said they were the most matched set of arrows he had ever come across.

[Glenn Ryan]

I wonder if Mr Beiter was referring to "the best matched set of X10's" he had come across or was he being more general, as in "the best matched SET OF ARROWS" he had seen...?

Also, was he doing static or dynamic tests (ie spine guage or frequency testing)?

[lewkowski]

I have not had any personal knowledge with Navigators but have many doz on order and will have results in the future.


That's great work Michael and Marcus, if you guys could do some more testing of X10's, ACE's, Navigators etc, for comparison that would be much appreciated.

[2Dogs]

I wonder if Mr Beiter was referring to "the best matched set of X10's" he had come across or was he being more general, as in "the best matched SET OF ARROWS" he had seen...?

Best matched set of arrows he'd ever seen. He was specifically refering to the match in spine.

[New Tricks]

CX3DSelects Fools.

[2Dogs]

One WORD for you RADGirl......... Enya!


".....Sail away sail away sail away...." :wink:

[apexrob]

One WORD for you RADGirl......... Enya!


".....Sail away sail away sail away...." :wink:

:rofl:

I'll be making a digital readout spine gauge very soon, should be interesting to see some results.

[Singerov]

Marcus, do you conducting your tests with 29" arrow shafts on 28" span or you are using whole length shafts (factory length) for testing?

I believe as per Easton they test the deflection of 29" shafts on 28" span with 880 grams of weight.
Since you've made such spine "device" I would like to know if you could test completed arrow (with glued point, nock and vanes) and compare it with the same length of arrow shaft ?

Thanks,
Zoran

[The One]

To be honest, I doubt the extra length of arrow would matter much, as long as the barrel was placed in the same location. There is no force on the end bits (apart from self weight, which is minimal at that length), so should not affect the deflection by any drastic proportion.

[Marcus]

factory length shafts Zoran. I will compare a cut, uncut and made one down teh line for sure.

[gt]

Every single Easton X10 shaft is spine tested manually and by machine at least a dozen times during the manufacturing process.

Every single one goes on a manual master tester before final packaging.

Judging from some of the numbers posted here it appears to me that the spine gauges some of you are using are not calibrated. You may have precision with a miscalibrated tester but you will not have accuracy. (if you don't know the difference, imagine a 1" group of arrows at 90M ...in the two ring. That is "precise" but it is not "accurate".)

The X10 numbers posted in a message above indicate this is the case. It might alternatively indicate that you have mislocated the nock end support datum.

Spine tester calibration for purposes of accuracy is a nontrivial matter and is generally beyond the capability of a home or pro shop device. When I worked for Easton directly, I spent a vast amount of Jim Easton's money getting the company's spine testers in various locations (Los Angeles, San Diego and Salt Lake City) all reading exactly the same. I even had to account for local variations in gravity (which accounted for about .0005") and the spans are very critical, so the tester bases were built of Invar to prevent the effects of thermal expansion from manifesting themselves on the device readings. It was neccessary to do this because each division would audit the quality of the others (for example, Los Angeles would inspect several thousand XX78's from Salt Lake every week, while X10's made in San Diego and Los Angeles would be audited in Salt Lake City) and we didn't want quality managers at the divisions arguing over whose master testers were more accurate. With all arrow operations consolidated in Salt Lake City now, there are still separate spine test cells that are cross-checked twice daily.

When Easton sold pro shop spine testers in the early 1990's, the devices were accompanied by a set of "master shafts" (aluminum, naturally) with perfect spine readings. If you could get your hands on a set of these it would make your efforts much more accurate (as opposed to precise). Those devices were just as accurate as a Master tester when properly set up and used, but good luck finding one. They sold for about $700.00 USD but cost almost twice that to build, which might be why they aren't sold anymore.

I see the Cartel product does not seem to have improved much since their introduction. I routinely measured .100" excursions in sets of these a few years ago. A dozen arrows with two spine sizes of variation violates truth in labeling when called "arrows". They do meet the definition of tomato stakes, however. :)

[Glenn Ryan]

I think people are trying to compare apples and oranges. Unless you can build a "spine tester" EXACTLY like, for instance, Easton uses, you can NOT compare the results you get with the actual spine marking on the arrow.

However, having said that, I think these home made jigs are excellent for testing the spine of your arrows, especially circumferentially, to give you an idea of how well matched they are and even more importantly, to find the "cock fletch" position.

Lets face it, you could build your own and hang a 5kg weight off the arrow - as long as you do it the same for all your arrows, you have a result set that is relative to your gear...which is exactly what I would want.

So lets say you take 4 measurements circumferentially around each shaft (the quadrants) and you record these. You could then work out an average for all shafts and run each arrow through the jig again and mark the shaft where this "average" deflection occurs. It then begs the question - do you put your cock fletch on the "tension" side or the "compression" side?

Just some thoughts.

[Marcus]

I agree should not be a be all and end all test in any way.
BTW tested a set of Erika's unmade X10 600's and every one was exactly the same.

[Peter King]

I think people are trying to compare apples and oranges. Unless you can build a "spine tester" EXACTLY like, for instance, Easton uses, you can NOT compare the results you get with the actual spine marking on the arrow.

However, having said that, I think these home made jigs are excellent for testing the spine of your arrows, especially circumferentially, to give you an idea of how well matched they are and even more importantly, to find the "cock fletch" position.

Lets face it, you could build your own and hang a 5kg weight off the arrow - as long as you do it the same for all your arrows, you have a result set that is relative to your gear...which is exactly what I would want.

So lets say you take 4 measurements circumferentially around each shaft (the quadrants) and you record these. You could then work out an average for all shafts and run each arrow through the jig again and mark the shaft where this "average" deflection occurs. It then begs the question - do you put your cock fletch on the "tension" side or the "compression" side?

Just some thoughts.

And good thoughts too. Whilst the X10 is probably the best arrow going, they are not all perfect. Having purchased a matched dozen I observed one of them to be significantly "heavy" on one side, simply by using an arrow spinner.
That arrow (a bare shaft) always finished in a set orientation. . It was the only arrow in the set to show that characteristic. Clearly, it would not have passed the stringent tests claimed below for Easton.

The supplier referred me back to Easton. I could not find an email contact for Easton (???) so I eventually gave up on it.

It would be interesting to see what different orientation of cock fletching on that arrow would show on the Hooter Shooter, but I guess there are hundreds of other tests waiting to be done.

[Glenn Ryan]

Peter,

I was going to suggest a similar thing to Jim. Set up at say 50m or whatever distance he can shoot the same hole with, then index all the nocks by 1 fletch and see what happens to the group pattern...

[Peter King]

Peter,

I was going to suggest a similar thing to Jim. Set up at say 50m or whatever distance he can shoot the same hole with, then index all the nocks by 1 fletch and see what happens to the group pattern...


That's the one. A starting point could also be to select the arrow in the "matched" dozen that shows a slightly different tear through paper.

[Dave Barnes]

The supplier referred me back to Easton. I could not find an email contact for Easton (???) so I eventually gave up on it.

http://www.eastonarchery.com/contactUs.asp

[2Dogs]

Bloody hell Glenn your becoming quite the guru !

Now try shooting some :D:D:D

[SBR]

Bloody hell Glenn your becoming quite the guru !

Now try shooting some :D:D:D

Not much chance of that 2Dogs.......LOL

[Peter King]

http://www.eastonarchery.com/contactUs.asp
Thanks. I could not find anything except a phone number when I last looked. I have emailed them and will be interested in their reponse.

[Glenn Ryan]

In reference to gt's post above about the spine jig Easton made in the early 1990's:

I remember this appearing in Easton catalogue's back then and unfortunately I don't have them anymore. On a side note, I would like piccies if anyone has any.

Back to my point. With the advent, or shall I say, more specifically, the take up of the internet since the early 1990's, the average archer has access to a LOT more information and consequently, is more informed and discerning about equipment.

Leading on, with modern manufacturing technologies, if Easton were to again offer this product, I think it would sell like hot cakes on a sub zero day in Siberia.

Cheers,
Glenn.