# Slingshot Width between Forks



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

All things being equal, why is a SS with wide folks faster than one with narrower forks? If this topic has been explained before please forgive me.. I saw a video proving that this is the case, but I do not recall if the why was explained.


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

It stretches the bands slightly more producing more speed. It's marginal though.


----------



## JohnKrakatoa (Nov 28, 2013)

I thoight its the opposite case. if the forks are close together the bands are in line with the line of the flight of the ball, which means the energy transfer from bands to ball is more efficient.

EDIT: According to this based on math its the closer the bands the more efficient the setup.


----------



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

Bill Hays has a video in which he clearly demonstrates that the wider the fork the faster the shot. SS slinger you are right the misconception that closer forks are faster needs to be busted. Thanks for your replies very much what I was expecting one right one wrong. I am looking for the link to the Bill Hays video but it eludes me. Can you help Charles?


----------



## JohnKrakatoa (Nov 28, 2013)

The video from Bill Hays cant be seend as evidence, you cant expect any human to shoot consistently for a wide enough sample for the experiment to be seen as proper evidence. Not to mention the other variables.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

here we go again . . .


----------



## quarterinmynose (Jan 21, 2012)

:rofl: seeing this put a big smile on my face (i guess sometimes I get a kick out of seeing people get all worked up over nothing, rather silly and immature of me)

This topic got really heated once before, if I find the thread I'll put a link up.

I think ultimately the consensus was that wider forks could be ever so slightly faster given that all other variables remain the same, but that the difference was rather insignificant.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/26095-fork-width-power-differences-exactly-as-i-said-proven-using-an-oversived-adjustable-slingrifle/?hl=%2Bfork+%2Bwidth

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/25977-bill-hayes-fork-width-versus-speed-video/?hl=%2Bfork+%2Bwidth

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/21898-fork-width-and-speed-two-different-test-results/?hl=%2Bfork+%2Bwidth

Ok. Here are three threads confronting this topic. Please,I ask that no one take any offence to to anything I have said or linked to here. The honest truth is that I simply don't care. I will build slingshots to what I feel are comfortable dimensions with aesthetics that appeal to me, and I will not get concerned over squeaking a few more fps out of my draw length. I will leave the slingshot science to those who do care. Nothing wrong with it, it's just not my bag.


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

I read somewhere that the optimal width to be 3" a tad faster than 2" gap after 3" gap not much goes on that you get with 3" gap...I can't remember who wrote it maybe it came to me in a dream anyway its in my head and I brought that info here from there :rofl:


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

So, if I have a slingshot with 12 inch bands and my forks are 24 inches apart, when I pull back as far as I can it will project the ammo faster than if the forks are 3 inches apart? I'm not sure I buy it.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

The answer to the question is in this post:

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/26095-fork-width-power-differences-exactly-as-i-said-proven-using-an-oversived-adjustable-slingrifle/?p=334072

I used my test bed slingshot with automatic release to test the difference of fork width on velocity. I fired 3 shots each at a fork width of 1 inch and 16.5 inches. I used the very same bands and pouch at each separation. I used 3/8 inch steel for all shots. I found the following results:

1 inch ............ 180.66 fps, with a standard deviation of 2.84

16.5 inches ... 191.70 fps, with a standard deviation of .49

So an abnormally wide separation between forks gave a velocity increase of about 5% over an abnormally narrow separation. The test was completely without human intervention in any significant way.

Using just straight trigonometry and vector forces, if the force normal to the line between the forks was the same, then the resultant velocity would be less for wide separations than for narrow separations. BUT the force normal to the line between the forks is NOT the same if we use the same draw length in each case. The wider separation means the bands are stretched further with the wider separation when we use the same draw length for the two separations. That extra stretch in the bands overcomes the trigonometric loss.

But in any case, the difference is MINIMAL ... only around 5%.

Please ... no more arguments on this one.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## JohnKrakatoa (Nov 28, 2013)

I couldnt care less lol, just aying that video is not proving anything.


----------



## quarterinmynose (Jan 21, 2012)

Charles said:


> The answer to the question is in this post:
> 
> http://slingshotforum.com/topic/26095-fork-width-power-differences-exactly-as-i-said-proven-using-an-oversived-adjustable-slingrifle/?p=334072
> 
> ...


makes perfect sense.

With wider forks the bands must stretch more to reach the same anchor point.

remembering The Pythagorean theorem (and all the that bit about the hypotenuse of a triangle). Which blue line is longer?









I


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

All the science involved in slingshots hurts my brain I'm off for a rum or three and shoot up some cans :king:


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

This is where I get confused; When using a chronograph I find that shots with a new band start out fairly fast then drop in speed and then over the next dozen or so shots regain speed until they reach their maximum.

As an example, some time ago I was testing a BB shooter. Speeds started around 280 then dropped to 270 and then, over the next half-dozen shots, climbed to 320. Latex is weird.

It would seem that the testing would have to be over a dozen or more shots to get a solid average.

winnie


----------



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

i am sorry i opened up this subject again some individuals who fail to read posts are inclined to ignore the facts for one reason or the other i would have asked for this topic to be closed, but as many have not seen it, I think it is a good idea to keep it up. personally i am convinced with the conclusion reached by Bill and Charles..


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

I've been a member of the forum since November of 2010 and in that time I have seen many subjects come and go and come and go again. Though some feel compelled to admonish members for not first going into the stacks to see what was written before I have always felt the purpose to the forum was to exchange ideas and information with members "in the now". [As an aside, as I get older I often hear discussions on subjects I learned long ago. It's part of the enculturation process for others to learn in their own time.] I do go into the stacks now and then but it is a bit of an odious process. It's more fun to talk to people.

I have huge respect for Bill and Charles. Bill makes cooler slingshots than mine and shoots much better than I do and Charles is kind of like the Obe Wan Kanobe of the slingshot world.

None-the-less, all is fair game when results differ.

My point is that if my slingshot bands behave differently throughout a series of twelve shots then an experiment using only 3 shots might give deceptive results. Further, if the same set of bands are used then the third shot on the second set of forks is actually the sixth shot using the bands. My experience is such that I would expect the sixth shot to be faster than the first. If that is true then the increase of speed might not be due to the increasing fork width alone. Further, unless I read/saw wrong, Bill stated that ..."as you increase fork width, with no change to draw length, you do in actual fact increase stretch percentage."

Perhaps more research has been done that I have not seen. In lieu of that I am not yet convinced. Having said that let me also say that the differences in velocity related to fork width are likely moot anyway since the differences appear to be fairly minimal.

winnie


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

The reasons you get more speed with wider forks are really quite simple.

Although direct force in a more linear vector would _seem_ by first logic and then by physics to give faster speeds... most people do not account for the fact that with a wider fork more stretch is imparted on the bands AND that force is exerted for a greater distance as well.

In other words, the slack is taken out of the bands earlier in the draw cycle.... and as we all should know by now, a longer period of force (greater draw length) creates just as much speed, if not more, than a draw weight at shorter draw length..... i.e. if you get 200 fps with a 20 lbs draw weight at 30 inches of draw length and a 5 to 1 draw ratio on your rubber, you can get about the same with a 10 lbs. draw weight pulled to 60 inches and a 5 to 1 ratio.

In this video I demonstrate that:


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Winnie said:


> I've been a member of the forum since November of 2010 and in that time I have seen many subjects come and go and come and go again. Though some feel compelled to admonish members for not first going into the stacks to see what was written before I have always felt the purpose to the forum was to exchange ideas and information with members "in the now". [As an aside, as I get older I often hear discussions on subjects I learned long ago. It's part of the enculturation process for others to learn in their own time.] I do go into the stacks now and then but it is a bit of an odious process. It's more fun to talk to people.
> 
> I have huge respect for Bill and Charles. Bill makes cooler slingshots than mine and shoots much better than I do and Charles is kind of like the Obe Wan Kanobe of the slingshot world.
> 
> ...


The only reason I said anything about this subject in the first place is sometime ago a member stated unequivocally that extremely narrow forks (pfs) are MUCH better than wider forks... as they make MUCH more speed/power possible, PLUS they're much more accurate as well. Furthermore that individual took it upon himself to PERSONALLY insult me for no particular reason other than his own misguided notions. Therefore I then set out to show exactly how wrong he was/is.

What I've said and done is backed up with actual devices used to accurately measure it all, with EVERY part of it clearly visible on video. I have done MUCH more on this subject, but since any logical person can see the facts for themselves with what I've made available there was no need for me to introduce any more proof.


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

Power exerted over a longer time makes sense along with the bands being stretched a bit further in order to get the same draw length. I suspect close forks could also cause some "tripping" of the ammo as it passes through the forks too since there does seem to be a minimum width before it then starts slowing down.

Thanks Bill. I appreciate it.

winnie


----------



## Bob at Draco (Feb 18, 2013)

There is still a good reason for using narrow forks for shooting side ways though. I learned from my Dad and still shoot with an anchor of my thumb nail at the very top, back of my ear. With a narrow enough fork, the target appears just on top of the top fork at closer ranges. As the distance to the target increases, the anchor of my thumb nail slides down the edge of my ear, always keeping my target in view and not behind the fork. With my anchor at the bottom of my ear I am on with the target still in view at about 40 yards.


----------



## slinger16 (Nov 3, 2013)

I think wider forks stretch out the rubber since they protrude more outward as opposed to one that the forks are closer


----------



## studer1972 (Mar 17, 2013)

Wider forks mean less fork hits. If you can shoot a pickle fork, or similar, you've got good technique. Lower forks give a leverage advantage over higher forks, but higher forks get less fork hits.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Winnie said:


> This is where I get confused; When using a chronograph I find that shots with a new band start out fairly fast then drop in speed and then over the next dozen or so shots regain speed until they reach their maximum.
> 
> As an example, some time ago I was testing a BB shooter. Speeds started around 280 then dropped to 270 and then, over the next half-dozen shots, climbed to 320. Latex is weird.
> 
> ...


I ran a bunch of experimental tests and found that the testbed slingshot was not prone to the sorts of extreme variation in velocities which you report.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/24525-testbed-slingshot-velocity-consistency-test/?hl=%2Bcharles+%2Btestbed

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

JohnKrakatoa said:


> I thoight its the opposite case. if the forks are close together the bands are in line with the line of the flight of the ball, which means the energy transfer from bands to ball is more efficient.
> 
> EDIT: According to this based on math its the closer the bands the more efficient the setup.


You are perfectly right, but every time there is a statement about anything one should state the suppositions :

Although rubber does not have linear elongation (and different type of rubber have each its own characteristics) it can be statically shown that the efficiency of the drag force applied taken the same drag distance pouch- centre between the forks and same rubber-pouch setup

and also very important how long you hold the rubber extended, gets higher if the distance between forks gets smaller. So the most efficient should be the stick shooter.

The effect of rubber nonlinear elongation properties may influence this a bit (i.e. with wider forks each band is more streched).

Practical experiment should show this but it has to be done rigorously with several repetitions and controlled setup.

I have seen the video from Bill Hays statting the opposite, but I think such tests are useless - performed by humans (the starching, the timing etc should be done by a mechanism allowing for same conditions for each pull and done at specific intervals (warmer rubber performs better) etc).

I doubt this can be generalised as rubber has its own character.

I prefer narrower forks for this allows me to be more precise when targeting (smaller amount of hand-twist).


----------



## AmmoMike (Dec 31, 2013)

Charles said:


> The answer to the question is in this post:
> 
> http://slingshotforum.com/topic/26095-fork-width-power-differences-exactly-as-i-said-proven-using-an-oversived-adjustable-slingrifle/?p=334072
> 
> ...


This says it all for me. Thnx again Charles !Cheers!


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

The catch is in the efficiency of the force applied. Actually one should compare the same length of streaching of each band in each instance (broad forks narrow forks) . With narrower forks you need to apply less drag force for the same effect hance a slingshot with narrower forks at the same amount of applied force is faster ! Try repeating the test with this in mind.

In other words :

as in the video the pull of 44 inch in both cases means

with wide forks the force necessary to make that pull was much much higher lets name it Fw

with narrower forks for the same pull length the force needed was much smaller lets name it Fn

the mass of bands and pouch is same in both cases lets name it m

also the gravity force influence is same, as is the air resistance in both cases so we can let these out - not considering them

So Fw > Fn (Because to stretch the rubber to a longer length (with wider forks) requires higher force respectively)

According to Newton F = m x a where a is acceleration further , a = v/t where v is speed and t is time

So: bigger the force ( Fw) higher the speed at the same mass .

You have achieved slight increase in speed but your drag force was much higher (can be calculated given data about the rubber and the geometry - distance between forks is available) . Efficiency is important, if yes , than your thinking is flawed.

It does not prove that wider forked slingshots are faster - the opposite is true.


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Bill Hays said:


> The reasons you get more speed with wider forks are really quite simple.
> 
> Although direct force in a more linear vector would seem by first logic and then by physics to give faster speeds... most people do not account for the fact that with a wider fork more stretch is imparted on the bands AND that force is exerted for a greater distance as well.
> 
> ...


With this approach you do not prove anything ! Why?

Because the force you input for the same drag distance is much higher with wider forks resulting in higher speed.

You should eliminate that if you are talking about fork width influence . Use the same force - meaning stretch the same length of rubber in both cases (i.e. measure the rubber bands strech along their axes !)

and the speed should be the same on average (i.e. shoot 30 times in each instance (wide/narrow) if we neglect small influences of like timing, rubber temperature etc. Narrow forks require less drag force for the same speed (they are also more stable in the hand - smaller momentum (twist) acting on the forks when your pouch is not dead center and should be therefore more precise by targeting due to more stable grip)

BtW I am new to this forum but have seen few of your videos and I bow low to your shooting skills - looks like you are guiding your shots to the target with your mind &#8230; amazing !


----------



## JohnKrakatoa (Nov 28, 2013)

well ... if someone says wider forks are more efficient after reading waterlogics posts... then I think that someone has some really big bias and cant understand plain text... and we have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

*@Waterlogic*

The question addressed here is: If I as a normal slingshot shooter use the same length bands and the same draw length and the same weight ammo and the same pouch and the same hold time, on a frame with narrow forks and a frame with wide forks, which is going to shoot faster (assuming "narrow" and "wide" are within reasonable parameters). The answer by direct experiment, with no significant human interaction, is that the wider forks will shoot faster ... period. I invite you to try the experiment yourself.

Of course, I could ask another question. I could investigate what happens when I adjust the draw length in the two cases so that the tension on the bands is the same for the narrow and wide forks. (... or adjust draw lengths so that the force applied is the same for the wide and narrow forks) In that case, simple vector analysis tells me the narrow forks will shoot faster. But of course, normal slingshot shooters are MUCH more likely to use a fixed draw length rather than a fixed force application, so this sort of analysis is not very useful for normal slingshot shooters.

Of course, I could ask still another question. I could investigate what happens when I use heavy ammo with wide forks and light ammo with narrow forks .... and on and on and on. But these other questions are not particularly relevant to the original question.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Charles said:


> *@Waterlogic*
> 
> The question addressed here is: If I as a normal slingshot shooter use the same length bands and the same draw length and the same weight ammo and the same pouch and the same hold time, on a frame with narrow forks and a frame with wide forks, which is going to shoot faster (assuming "narrow" and "wide" are within reasonable parameters). The answer by direct experiment, with no significant human interaction, is that the wider forks will shoot faster ... period. I invite you to try the experiment yourself.
> 
> ...


With all due respect,

The statement was that wider forks shoot faster. This is not true .

If you make such a statement you have to provide all parameters correctly i.e. to isolate the fork width from everything else ( mass of the projectile is the same, length of the rubber and the force is the same etc so that beyond any doubt nothing influences this which you need to compare and make a legit conclusion - scientific approach i.e. no pseudo mambo jumbo science allowed if you want to be taken seriously ...

If you push the gas pedal of your car less you will go slower as if you floor it . The type of wheels will have no influence etc, etc.

But of course it is a free world and you can mix apples and bananas but this helps noone except maybe your ego ?

The story that you insist selling me about the accustomed fixed distance of pull with slingshot shooters is irrelevant in this issue.

This way of thinking leads to beliefs such as that of global warming is caused by humans - nothing can be more far away from the truth than this make believe lie.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

WATERLOGIC said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > *@Waterlogic*
> ...


I do not think you are bothering to read the details of the experiment I conducted. I have isolated "everything else" from fork width, in so far as that is possible. You cannot hold EVERYTHING constant. You cannot hold slack band length, draw length, and band tension all constant between narrow and wide forks. So I chose to hold those things constant which a normal slingshot shooter would hold constant ... slack band length and draw length. There is no "pseudo science mumbo jumbo" involved in what I have said at all ... none. I have simply reported the results of an empirical experiment.

I invite you to do the experiment yourself and report on your results. No pseudo science mumbo jumbo, no apples and bananas, just a simple experiment. Do it.

As for global warming being caused by humans ... well, that is not an appropriate topic for debate on this forum.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Waterlogic,

All things else being equal... draw length, same bands, same ammo... wider forks will shoot faster. It's that simple.

The exact opposite is what was stated as fact by someone else, so I simply showed that is in error.

Now if you take into account draw weight, or if you draw further on one test versus another... you will of course get a different result.

BUT, that was not the original misguided statement that was made.... As a matter of fact, we had a member unequivocally state that extremely narrow forks are MUCH faster than normal sized forks.... and that if you simply release with zero hold time as well... you will get as much as 50% more speed.

Well, for a statement such as that a certain amount of testing had to be conducted.

I simply broke down the testing in as basic of terms as possible to show that what that member was saying was not true.... the video you are looking at is only one part of the testing that was done.

If you feel like I'm in error... then you are encouraged to make up a real physical test and video it all yourself. Otherwise everything you're posting is simply conjecture.

That's part of the fun of slingshots... pretty much everything can be done and tested yourself.... so go for it Man!


----------



## BrotherDave (Oct 29, 2012)

I really try to avoid controversial topics...but it's a slow night for the Olympics. Hey, at least I'm not claiming I can hit something at 75 yards or 70 meters. Those are some highly controversial distances. 

What these experiments prove we already know; other variables being equal, increasing the percentage of elongation of the bands will increase the speed of the projectile. That's all these experiments prove. If you want to isolate the effect of fork width, one of the most important factors to control for is percentage of elongation of the bands.

It seems like this is acknowledged; if anything, the same percentage of elongation being applied, narrower forks will produce higher velocities. Odd then to conclude "wider forks shoot faster". Logical to conclude "narrower forks shoot faster".

If I use 6" slack length bands on my green frame, and 7" slack length bands on my red frame, and draw to the same anchor, do I conclude that green slingshots shoot faster?


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Bill Hays said:


> Waterlogic,
> 
> All things else being equal... draw length, same bands, same ammo... wider forks will shoot faster. It's that simple.
> 
> ...


Hi Bill

This is the original question (Topic/ post by Dr J - see above) :

All things being equal, why is a SS with wide folks faster than one with narrower forks? If this topic has been explained before please forgive me.. I saw a video proving that this is the case, but I do not recall if the why was explained.

I am not aware of other topics so I would be much obliged if you point me to the topic you are mentioning.

The question itself is not precise i.e. which things are equal ?

This is primary school physics problem ( Newton Laws) here in Europe.

Lets suppose we have two slingshots wide fork and narrow fork.

Asking which one shoots faster is obviously not enough and in such a case the answer is straight forward :

The faster SS is the one that catapults the projectile with bigger input force (no matter what forks narrow or wide) . I hope you agree with this statement ?

Now how can you find which forks are faster, obviously you have to exert the same input force to both SS s. It is the only way to find which one is faster. (same band set, same projectile). The projectile has no idea through which forks it was shot i.e. bigger the force faster will it fly.

In the setup you use in your experiment the narrow forks have no chance for the force needed to extend the wider forks bands is bigger if you pull the bands the same length in the direction of flight measured from the centre between the forks. Do you agree with this ? You should, for you need to stretch more rubber length with the wider forks .

So what you actually have been doing was checking which forks are faster although you already know the answer those through which bigger force is inputed (the wider forks SS) .

Can t you see that such experiment makes no sense and is mildly put a waste of time ? Whereby allowing the same input force for both will show you that the narrow forks are faster - ALWAYS ! (such experiment makes sense - for you are using the same force, same projectile, band set - you will find out what forks are faster). Myself i would not do this experiment either for I can calculate the result so for me this would be also a waste of time - I would not tackle this even if I would be bored to death and had nothing else to do ...

Honestly I am getting bored explaining such a trivial issue ...

Have A Nice Day !


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Charles said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > Charles said:
> ...


See my reply to Bill above .

Thank you.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Yep ... I am also getting bored with this. Same bands, same ammo, same pouch, same draw length, you will shoot faster with wider forks ... period. It is a simple experiment to do. SURELY that is not in dispute.

You want to interpret the phrase "all things being equal" to mean something very different from "same bands, same ammo, same pouch, same draw length". But your interpretation is certainly no more "correct" than what was used in the experiment. I cannot understand any basis for your objection.

Of course there are lots of variables one could muck about with ... bands, pouches, ammo, draw length, etc. No dispute about that either. Changing those things will indeed affect velocity in a variety of ways. No one has denied that either.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Charles said:


> Yep ... I am also getting bored with this. Same bands, same ammo, same pouch, same draw length, you will shoot faster with wider forks ... period. It is a simple experiment to do. SURELY that is not in dispute.
> 
> You want to interpret the phrase "all things being equal" to mean something very different from "same bands, same ammo, same pouch, same draw length". But your interpretation is certainly no more "correct" than what was used in the experiment. I cannot understand any basis for your objection.
> 
> ...


There is no mystery here - it is pure physics - you do not need to experiment but you can if you enjoy doing it .

Some people love reinventing the wheel just to kill some time. Enjoy.


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

studer1972 said:


> Wider forks mean less fork hits. If you can shoot a pickle fork, or similar, you've got good technique. Lower forks give a leverage advantage over higher forks, but higher forks get less fork hits.


Wider forks are less stable (bigger transversal force component) than narrow so fork hits are more likely if your pouch is not dead centre - my 2 cents.


----------



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

Folks please accept my sincerest apologies for resurrecting this topic. It was not my intention for it to be as controversial as it is turning out to be. My grand mother always told me "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

WATERLOGIC said:


> Wider forks are less stable (bigger transversal force component) than narrow so fork hits are more likely if your pouch is not dead centre - my 2 cents.


Now there is a quote not based on NO experience!!!! :rofl:

The vast majority of shooters find they are much less prone to fork hits with wider rather than narrower forks ... more room for error.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm beginning to understand the difficulty in discussing this topic.

winnie


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

Winnie said:


> I'm beginning to understand the difficulty in discussing this topic.
> winnie


Beginning??


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Charles said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > Charles said:
> ...


I overlooked your comment about global warming.

Why not appropriate ? Your rubber shoots faster due to global warming-

And at last but not least why should it bother you, it does not bother me when you present flawed experiments here .

If you are a man of the world you should be open to everything . If you don t know forums are virtual meeting places for people to interact, argue, exchange ideas, art etc .

Can you imagine a chef cooks forum where they only discuss chicken soup ?


----------



## Sandinfool (Dec 28, 2013)

quarterinmynose said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > The answer to the question is in this post:
> ...


Yes. What He Said! A spark of reason amid the chaos. Physics has no emotion, it won't change no matter how loud you scream.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Less slack = greater speed. And force is force, doesn't matter if it's farther apart or not, it's force against the center pull... same as a recurve bow basically.


----------



## Rathunter (Feb 14, 2014)

Winnie said:


> So, if I have a slingshot with 12 inch bands and my forks are 24 inches apart, when I pull back as far as I can it will project the ammo faster than if the forks are 3 inches apart? I'm not sure I buy it.


a longer draw length is more efficiant, right? More time for the bands to accelerate the projectile.

so let us say that your bands are 5" long.(short, but it forms a very convienent 3-4-5 triangle.)

You have a fork width of 3".- so you have a triangle with the band as the longest side, and 1/2 the fork width as the shortest.

that means... that you lose 4" of draw length because the bands have length. AKA they aren't stretched until you pull past 4".

So... let us increase the fork width to 11",

Now, instead of a triangle, we have a line.

There is a slight tiny bit of tension in the bands, and when you pull it, there is no draw length lost because there is NO slack.

Therefore, assuming you use slightly smaller bands to keep the drawweight the same(the bands are strained roughly 15% more than a 3" fork)

Since there is more time for the acceleration to take place, and the acceleration doesn't change due to fork width, you get more speed.

Longer bands work the same as a narrower fork.

Shorter bands work the same as a wider fork.

So in theory, a long bandset, with a WIDE fork, would be extremely efficiant... and also very powerful.

and last a long time due to lower band strain due to longer bands.


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

OK,,, I have been reading these threads every time they come up.. First to ensure it doesn't get ugly, and Second, I find it interesting enough to learn from, but not to try out myself 

Here is what I gather, setting all disputes past or present aside

1.If you keep band length anchor and ammo the same wider forks will be faster due to more stretch,power, force or whatever

2.If you keep the force, stretch, resistance or whatever the same, you will either have shorter bands or farther anchor on the narrow forks,,, which seems that would make the narrow forks faster

If that is the case, I would assume that in the slingshot world wider forks would be "faster" (or whatever) because we are all lead to understand to cut band length in a certain ratio based off of draw length. Since we cut bands based off of that and not by determining what slingshot we are attaching it to, it is logical to follow the constants of #1 above.

So if we are just talking about the pure science of things, I believe further tests with different variables and constants if we are to draw our own results from text book physics.

But, if we are talking about science in the realm of maximizing our enjoyment of this hobby we accept our habits and use science to aid along those parameters or change our habits and parameters to meet what we want to discover or achieve.

Another observation is, not that people are beating a dead horse, but they are kissing different ends of the horse and debating their views of it.

LGD


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Rathunter said:


> Winnie said:
> 
> 
> > So, if I have a slingshot with 12 inch bands and my forks are 24 inches apart, when I pull back as far as I can it will project the ammo faster than if the forks are 3 inches apart? I'm not sure I buy it.
> ...


Another science fiction delusion ?? !!!


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

lightgeoduck said:


> OK,,, I have been reading these threads every time they come up.. First to ensure it doesn't get ugly, and Second, I find it interesting enough to learn from, but not to try out myself
> 
> Here is what I gather, setting all disputes past or present aside
> 
> ...


But, if we are talking about science in the realm of maximizing our enjoyment of this hobby we accept our habits and use science to aid along those parameters or change our habits and parameters to meet what we want to discover or achieve.

WOOOOW !

Are you sure you are from planet Earth ?


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

Bill Hays said:


> Less slack = greater speed. And force is force, doesn't matter if it's farther apart or not, it's force against the center pull... same as a recurve bow basically.


Let the force be with you Sir !


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Speaking of efficiency... which would most deem most efficient, a lighter draw weight propelling a shot faster, or a heavier draw weight producing less speed?

Wider forks not only produce more speed, but the draw weight is less as well.

The difference is simple... less slack = longer period of acceleration = more speed = more power

Through actual experimentation I've found the best all around forks are around 4.5" wide with about a 2.5" fork interior... it's a compromise between speed, stability, concealability and aesthetics.


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

WATERLOGIC said:


> lightgeoduck said:
> 
> 
> > OK,,, I have been reading these threads every time they come up.. First to ensure it doesn't get ugly, and Second, I find it interesting enough to learn from, but not to try out myself
> ...


Now I know you are like taking jabs... I didn't say anything that warranted anything directed towards me... I wasn't making any claims, nor trying to disprove anyone... i am only summing up what I gathered from what I was reading. if I read it wrong.. I am sure I will see the error when I continue reading and people point out their findings..

However,, all of my other comments are written where if it isn't accepted it usually is ignored. your reply wasn't constructive at all and not even a point that needs to be dwelt on...

I will give you this fact... learn to disagree, or make your point/counter point without being insulting... it will sit better on the forum that way.

Thanks


----------



## S.S. sLinGeR (Oct 17, 2013)

Why argue over this. Either way it's so marginal its not even worth testing anymore. Bill did it. It's faster. That's it!


----------



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

Je concur! Amen!


----------



## BrotherDave (Oct 29, 2012)

Well, I want to understand, and if I've got it wrong then OK. Maybe we should stop beating this horse... but I swear I heard her sputter...

It seems to come down to one question. In Bill's and Charles' experiments, are higher velocities achieved:

a.) *because *the forks are wider?

or,

b.) *because* the bands get stretched more?

If I understand the experiments, both things are acknowledged as facts, correct? The forks are wider in one of the test sets, of course. And the bands are stretched more when on the wider forks than when on the narrow forks, right?

So which of these two factors accounts for the increase in speed? Wouldn't you have to isolate these variables during testing to know which is the *cause*? (Assuming you're like me and can't do the physics on paper.) I know it would be difficult to calculate the slightly different slack lengths to get the same degree of stretch, but it seems all important in this test. We adjust slack length all the time, because we know the degree of stretch is a *major* factor in speed. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be done in this case. (I remember when a newbie naively posted, "How do I shorten my bands?", and someone quipped, "Do you have scissors there?" :rofl: )

So am I missing something? I really do want to understand.


----------



## WATERLOGIC (Feb 4, 2014)

lightgeoduck said:


> WATERLOGIC said:
> 
> 
> > lightgeoduck said:
> ...


Well I am not disagreeing - for I am mesmerised .


----------



## Winnie (Nov 10, 2010)

"Well I am not disagreeing - for I am mesmerised."

Well, it would certainly explain a few things.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

BrotherDave said:


> Well, I want to understand, and if I've got it wrong then OK. Maybe we should stop beating this horse... but I swear I heard her sputter...
> 
> It seems to come down to one question. In Bill's and Charles' experiments, are higher velocities achieved:
> 
> ...


It's as simple as, wider fork gap takes up some of the slack out of the bandset....

You really should watch the last two videos to really understand.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

BrotherDave said:


> Well, I want to understand, and if I've got it wrong then OK. Maybe we should stop beating this horse... but I swear I heard her sputter...
> 
> It seems to come down to one question. In Bill's and Charles' experiments, are higher velocities achieved:
> 
> ...


Oh, come now. You seem to be reasonably intelligent, judging by your linguistic skills. I find it hard to believe there is anything here that you do not understand.

You press the accelerator of your car and it goes faster ... Is pressing the accelerator *the* *cause* of the car going faster? Or is it the increased flow of fuel to the cylinder? Or is it the increase in thermal energy in the cylinder? Or ....

My friend died of a heart attack. Was the infarction *the* *cause* of her death? Or was it the lack of blood flow to the brain? Or was it the lack of oxygen to the brain cells? Or was it the disruption of metabolic activity in the brain cells? Or ....

Causal talk is notoriously ambiguous and has been the subject of controversy at least as far back as Aristotle. Have a look here for a few of the high points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Sooo, let's just skip down to basic facts. If you use the same bands and same pouch and use the same ammo of course at the same temperature with the same hold time and same draw length, on a frame with wider forks, you will get higher velocity than on a frame with narrower forks. No question about it ... period ... end of story.

Now suppose we use several forks, all with the same separation between the fork tips. Make some of wood, some of metal, some with long handles, and of varying colors. Use the same bands with the same pouch shooting the same ammo same temperature, same hold time, same draw length, and you will find they all shoot with the same velocity. No surprise.

To summarize. frame color, frame materials, handle length do not affect velocity. The separation between the fork tips does affect velocity, and the wider the fork tips the higher the velocity (within reasonable parameters of course).

You may well ask why we get a higher velocity with the wider forks. And the answer is that with the wider forks the bands are stretched further than with the narrower forks, and the acceleration path is a bit longer because the bands will begin to be stretched sooner in your draw. These two factors overcome the losses due to the geometric resolution of the force vectors. This explanation has been given over and over. Your a and b above are not contrary to each other ... they are part of the same "causal chain", if you want to insist on using causal talk.

On the other hand, suppose we try your suggestion. Suppose we cut one set of bands shorter than the other. Put one set of bands on a fork with a certain separation and the other set of bands on an identical fork ... same material, same color, same shape and dimensions. Wow! We find that when we use the same draw length, the frame with the shorter bands gives a higher velocity. How do we account for this. Simple ... the shorter bands get stretched more than the longer bands and the acceleration path with the shorter bands is greater. No mystery here at all. The result is due to having one set of bands shorter than the other.

And what happens if we put a somewhat shorter set of bands on a frame with narrow separation and a longer set of bands on a frame with wider separation? Well, IF the shorter bands are SHORT ENOUGH, you may well get a higher velocity with the shorter bands. So what do we conclude? Once again, we conclude that shorter bands will in general result in higher velocity.

The fact remains: If you use the same bands with the same pouch and the same ammo with the same draw length, same hold time, all at the same temperature, you will get higher velocity with wider forks than with narrower forks ... no question about it.

There is nothing difficult to understand here ... and I am sure you have understood it all along.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

As the person who asked the question, can we now say AMEN!


----------

