# Fork width power differences, exactly as I said... proven using an oversived adjustable slingrifle



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Here is a video showing exactly what I said, but this time I took all possible ability to manipulate the results, either intentionally or unintentionally, away.

The device is a very simple slingrifle design with adjustable draw length and fork width.

I didn't want to have to make a video like this, as I've already shown and proven this simple concept before... and in a very polite and civil way.

Unfortunately though, there's a few very rude and uneducated individuals who have the opinion that I somehow manipulated the results I achieved in other videos in some way. Now keeping in mind that these really are profoundly stupid guys that would think something like that, and most of us don't give their opinion much weight... yet again unfortunately they seem to have a following of newer members that are actually smarter and better educated than these guys and who seem to believe whatever these fools say without ever really testing it out for themselves.

So here's a definitive test, using a simple device and method that gives absolutely repeatable results with no way for the operator to manipulate the outcome, with the exception of drawn time... and since the video is long and uncut, you can see for yourself there was no significant difference in draw/hold time from shot to shot.

I hope this puts the entire BS argument and ignorant speculation by the so called "experts" who claim the ability to get 30% more speed from narrower forks, to bed.... because that is just an untested theory that does not pan out in the real world.


----------



## squirrel squasher (May 17, 2013)

Very well presented.


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

Great video and a great piece of equipment.

I love the way this debate has developed, that's three threads now.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

Great info. As always Bill. Your the Man.


----------



## mr. green (Nov 3, 2012)

Thank you for the info, Master Bill.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

yup, that settles it. when you use the same length bands, tie to tie, at the same draw, the wide is a touch faster. (i think thats what ive been trying to say all along).


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

Imperial said:


> yup, that settles it. when you use the same length bands, tie to tie, at the same draw, the wide is a touch faster. (i think thats what ive been trying to say all along).


Yes and that conclusion was evident on the first thread.

Both Bill's and John's videos were correct.

But I could watch these comparison videos all day, so I say keep them coming.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2013)

Bill Hays said:


> Here is a video showing exactly what I said, but this time I took all possible ability to manipulate the results, either intentionally or unintentionally, away.
> 
> The device is a very simple slingrifle design with adjustable draw length and fork width.
> 
> ...


That is kind of ugly.

So let us cut to the chase then...

hypotenuse = sqrt(adjacent side ^2 + opposite ^ 2). It is in fact the hypotenuse that you are measuring when you are counting the amount of stretch.

Now then, If I absolutely have to do it, I can provide you a graph that explains the relationship between draw length and fork width so that we can all see that as you increase fork width, with no change to draw length, you do in actual fact increase stretch percentage. I surmise there might even be some optimal... We have not looked at that.

I don't really want to do that. Anyone with a basic understanding of Trigonometry can do those calculations for themselves in a spread sheet, and for that matter can graph them.

Do your "hand lengths" from the fork intersection and get back to us.

No insult intended, I love Texas and I have the greatest respect for you.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Actually OldSpook, I don't see any problem with what you posted and it is indeed correct.... however I do take objection to those that have repeatedly claimed they get 1/3 greater speed by simply using a narrower fork versus a wide fork.

All the video shows, in the simplest terms possible is that not only is a narrower fork NOT creating a speed advantage of 1/3... it is in point of FACT creating slower speeds so long as you draw to the same length.

I'm very aware that the bands stretch further on a wider fork and impart acceleration for a greater distance than if you use a narrow fork... so those who are saying a narrow fork is creating the magical 1/3 greater speed are either simply mistaken or they are intentionally being misleading.... and since the people who are saying they are getting 1/3 greater speed don't even own a chonograph, yet still preach this BS... and due to the fact I've had several customers specifically ordering narrow forked frames in the belief they will get some sort of mystical added FPS thing... Then because DGUI decided it would be a good idea to chastise me over and over again... saying that I somehow manipulated my results on other videos to achieve a predetermined result that is contrary to his mistaken beliefs.....

I then took it upon myself to make a very simple video that uses the fixed distances that a slingrifle produces in conjunction with an actual shooter's chonograph... not go by feel or how deep into a soup can the ammo travels.

So you should understand nothing in this video is aimed at you OldSpook... but it is aimed squarely at whoever believes and keeps preaching that a narrower fork automatically gives you better speed... when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Here's where the mixup commonly occurs... because latex pulls in a linear fashion, it was believed that the more linear the pull the faster the shot will be... and that may be true to some degree. BUT what they're not taking into consideration is exactly what you just showed OldSpook.... greater stretch equates to imparting energy over a longer distance of travel, and that gives greater speed....

Wider forks are like giving yourself a couple of extra inches of draw.... so you shoot faster, not slower. It's that simple.


----------



## DougDynasty (Jul 8, 2013)

Is it just me or am I the only one who notices that Bill looks like Stone Cold Steve Austin ? I def would NOT mess with this guy


----------



## Shazam (Jul 2, 2012)

So.... my first 3 or 4 catapults that i ever made that coincidently ended up being 3" wide at the forks (and after seeing many on here that were much narrower and thinking i'd made mine too big) were, in fact, perfect. 

Thank you Bill.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

In the last thread about this, I guessed that the reason for the opposite result between John's and Bill's experiment probably meant that wider was faster, but only to a point. There is a law of diminishing returns, a point at which adding width yields no advantage or even slows it down. You can go back there and see.

I thought that was evident. I didn't bother doing any calculations as Old Spook did because there is a law of diminishing returns there too, because I have a small brain and those calculations wouldn't yield anything that was more useful than what I already knew. My mental energy is low and therefore precious to me. So no offence, Mr. Spook.

The 1.1 ft. per second difference in speed yielded by a width difference of 21 inches (i.e. 24" vs 3") is not worth the effort it would take for me to calculate it. But that was indeed how much slower a wider spread was in this instance.

I think some people just like doing science for the sake of doing it. There is no need to put such a fine point on any of this. But I certainly do understand the driving need to prove a point sometimes.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Bill, I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone claiming a 30% increase in speed due to narrow forks. I think that claim was put forward in the "live-shooting" argument in the tapered bands thread.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

The claim was made by DGUI in the newbie questions thread while at the same time he tried to make it seem as though I had somehow manipulated the results of previous tests by holding back on certain shots to skew the outcome in favor of a predetermined desired result.

I don't take insults like that very well, so I made this video to show that not only is he completely mistaken, but John's video is actually the one where things were not done correctly... ie, using different bandsets on a narrow fork versus wide fork and then trying to pull to the max with the more unstable fork manually instead of on a slingrifle device meant that the results were completely subjective and invalid.... and in fact when John released that video I said the same to John himself, that he should try it again on an adjustable slingrifle and he'll find a different outcome.

But instead, he decided to act like a prick and then DGUI took that invalid and wrong test as gospel all in an attempt to be disparaging towards me again.

So a test was done and videoed... exactly like I suggested to John in the first place... and "miraculously" it turns out exactly like I said it would.

THAT is the end of this ridiculous argument... no more needs to be said.

Now, on the other hand... there IS something to "live shooting"... no one will achieve 30% increases... but certainly 15% is possible, as I have proven in other videos.... by yes, using a chronograph and not a subjective estimate depending on soup can penetration.

What has not been tested, as far as I know, is exactly how much speed can be achieved with a medium wide fork (3" fork interior) AND "live" shooting... since the optimal fork is around 3", and forced flip or "live" shooting does create more speed... it might be an interesting thing to explore.

BUT right now I'm trying to stay as accurate as possible and not get into the flipping habits that will throw a shot off sometimes.... These guys in the contests are really making me have to stay on my toes if I want to have any sort of a prayer shooting against them in the big finale.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Bill, I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone claiming a 30% increase in speed due to narrow forks. I think that claim was put forward in the "live-shooting" argument in the tapered bands thread.


Right, I did not make a claim that narrow or even no fork shooting will increase speed of ammo out of the pouch by being narrow. It is in combination that must include Live Active One Motion Shooting rather than static dead shooting.

Prove me right or prove me wrong try your crony with a one motion shot and see if this does not inclrease fps. Releaseing the ammo right after the pull produces an increase in fps because of the heat being available at the pull and release and not holding then releasing. This is a natural law of cause and effect. Prove me right or prove me wrong so try it yourself on a can and you dont even need a crony. Day Hiker this is not directed to you but a general statement for who ever reads this.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Bill Hays said:


> The claim was made by DGUI in the newbie questions thread while at the same time he tried to make it seem as though I had somehow manipulated the results of previous tests by holding back on certain shots to skew the outcome in favor of a predetermined desired result.
> 
> I don't take insults like that very well, so I made this video to show that not only is he completely mistaken, but John's video is actually the one where things were not done correctly... ie, using different bandsets on a narrow fork versus wide fork and then trying to pull to the max with the more unstable fork manually instead of on a slingrifle device meant that the results were completely subjective and invalid.... and in fact when John released that video I said the same to John himself, that he should try it again on an adjustable slingrifle and he'll find a different outcome.
> 
> ...


The automatic law of cause and effect dominates the slingshot but if you work within these laws you can work with the out come by Live Active Shooting which is a One Motion Shot by releasing the ammo while the bands or tubes are still storing the heat generated by the pulls so if it is simple narrow forks work in harmony with a rapid release and this produces up to a 1/3rd increase in feet per second and power released.

Bill the test you did with the stick and cross is completely in error. If you have already stretched the bands before pulling then you experiment cannot be a Truth. Real slingshot shooting is with a slingshot like Game Keeper John did so I am of the belief that he has already produced the Plain Truth about how Narrow is much desired over Wide. I am not the authority of these laws that are automatic but the one who created them certainly is and you cannot prove other than what these laws reveal when in use. Narrow is Fast and even Faster with Live Shooting rather than Dead Shooting.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

This is what I posted on old spooks topic with regards to your shooting experiment.

Heres the thing, some fellows desire to be The Authority. The Bill Hayes experiment is greatly flawed with the over sized stick cross shooter. This is not how fellow shooters shoot a slingshot. If your going to stretch be bands or tubes before pulling them then you are not duplicating how a forked slingshot operates by its natural order. The point is that Game Keeper John done it right and very simple and not alot of show boating and he did not pump him self up as some authority. The end result is that narrow forks are simply Faster. Now the 1/3rd increase in fps is not by the narrow forks alone but the technique of a one motion shot which is Live Active Shooting.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Who uses a Pre Stretch in the Real World of Slingshot Shooting?

Just think on that for a bit.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

I want to see on a Chronograph a 1/3 increase in speed. I've pulled and shot every type band on every fork width you can find. Releasing really fast, not so fast and slow and don't get 1/3 increase or decrease in my chrony.


----------



## G30 (Apr 16, 2013)

How much difference is pre stressed vs stressed in power. not challenging just wondering power wise?


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Cjw said:


> I want to see on a Chronograph a 1/3 increase in speed. I've pulled and shot every type band on every fork width you can find. Releasing really fast, not so fast and slow and don't get 1/3 increase or decrease in my chrony.


As soon as you get it right you will know.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

I've even tried as I'm pulling past my anchor point never stopping the pull and releasing and no 1/3 difference.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

I guess the Force has to be with you. ?


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

dgui said:


> Bill Hays said:
> 
> 
> > The claim was made by DGUI in the newbie questions thread while at the same time he tried to make it seem as though I had somehow manipulated the results of previous tests by holding back on certain shots to skew the outcome in favor of a predetermined desired result.
> ...


It's hard for me to believe you're being serious right here.... You're literally saying that all you have to do is draw fast and release in the same motion using a narrow fork and you'll realize an increase in speed of 1/3... and if you did the same thing with a wider fork it won't happen.

In light of the video that was just posted showing wider is faster... this idea happens to be one of the dumbest things I've seen on this forum... or any other forum for that matter, especially considering the FACT that whatever the draw and release speed is, a wider fork will be shooting faster than a narrow fork so long as the draw length is the same.

You simply can not call a test definitive when you use a different bandset on one slingshot than you do on another, and then try to manually draw them out to the same degree of pull especially when one is unstable and shaking and the other is not.... and this is precisely what was done in the aforementioned Webb video... it was completely and totally invalid from the start... your mistunderstanding of simple test procedure does not make it any better no matter how many times you proclaim it so.

Furthermore, there is NO ONE who actually owns a chronograph that can get 1/3 greater speed from their bands by merely doing a nonset shot versus a well aimed shot. The highest degree of speed one can achieve will be around 15% at the most... BUT if one were to apply a forced flip technique to a slightly wider fork, and since the stretch and resulting speed will be greater to begin with... I may be wrong and an extra percentage point or two may be added.

What you should all know is... pretty much EVERY statement on this and other forums that members make regarding performance enhancements due to design and or technique, get their turn at being tested by me.... so for example when Tex said that he had tested different fork widths in the past and the optimum was around 2.5"... I of course tested it out, and didn't find any evidence to the contrary. Or when some have said that a particular pouch type or shape is better, I tested it out.... or even when someone mentions that they can get a lot more speed with "live" shooting... I tested that out as well.

Some things work exactly like they're supposed to, some things are "close" enough and some things are simply patently wrong... and that's all there is to it.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

I do not flip shoot.
Tested by you?
Who are you?
You are not God.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

And neither are you Darrell... so you can NOT perform the miracle of getting 1/3 more speed by merely "live" shooting with a narrow fork. You're being completely ridiculous.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Bill Hays said:


> And neither are you Darrell... so you can NOT perform the miracle of getting 1/3 more speed by merely "live" shooting with a narrow fork. You're being completely ridiculous.


Not as much as you with your Cross Bird Shooter with Pre Pulled flatbands.

Who cares?


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

Bill you might as well bang your head against the wall . Like the old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I guess some people can do stuff us mere mortals can't .


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Cjw said:


> Bill you might as well bang your head against the wall . Like the old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I guess some people can do stuff us mere mortals can't .


Thats right I wont go for anything but truth and I have no need to follow a certain personality and support something Incorrect. Prove things for your self.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

Without FPS readings its all hot air.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Cjw said:


> Without FPS readings its all hot air.


The hot air is coming from someons behind and it aint mine. LOL BIG TIME!


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

I need to put on some waders for all the BS your shoveling. Lol????


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

No Darrell, all you go for is "feel" and unsubstantiated theory... and when presented with empirical data derived from real measuring devices specifically designed to be impartial and only show what is truth... and that being in direct conflict with your preconceived notions you choose to become belligerant, pedantic and dogmatic in your very wrong assumptions.

Now, explain to the world how EVERY width up to and including the "prestretched" state, so long as it was wider than the one inch fork... was faster.

Honestly I don't think you watched much of the video or you would have seen that EVERY width wider than the one inch was faster... granted not by much, only about 5%, but still all were faster... even the "prestretched" at the max of over 24 inches.

Enthrall us all with your profundities Darrell, enlighten us mere mortals with your "godlike" insight.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Brother Bill I can tell you have a particular fondness forr me.
I have nothing to prove.
Ahhh Whatever.


----------



## M.J (Nov 1, 2010)

I like to let conversations play out and I have much respect for everybody involved but we need to keep it civil. I understand that feelings are hurt from previous encounters but if this thread continues as a shouting match then it will be closed.

I'd much rather see more testing/evidence videos to argue one side or the other instead of talking about hot air and hip waders.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Darrell I don't feel one way or the other towards you... but I do care when you spout a bunch of nonsense that can't be proven.

Because I have customers who will ask for slingshots made a certain way to try and realize that mystical 1/3 speed increase that narrow forks are supposed to make possible when used in conjunction with "live" shooting.

Honestly I would NEVER of said anything about this subject... but when you get enough people not understanding that magical narrow forks don't exist... and the entire concept in BS... something then has to be done. Which is why I made the video with the three different sized tubeshooters and used the same tubeset on all of them.... then as expected, the wider forked slingshots outperformed the narrower ones.

Then YOU come along and say that I have somehow manipulated the shooting in that video to show something that isn't true... calling me a liar.

Darrell, the video with the oversized slingrifle gave EXACTLY the same results as I got from the previous test... and there is absolutely no way to "manipulate" the results... so now you come out and say "no it's not valid because people don't shoot like that"... idiocy.

Idiocy because many, or should I say MOST people indeed DO shoot that way. They draw to an anchor point, aim and release... which is exactly what's performed on the oversized slingrifle.... so in essence you have no idea what you're talking about as you follow along the path of ignorance.

So, do I then have no particular fondness for you because you called me a liar, and have said many other disparaging things about me in the past... you know I might have to take it back, that part about not feeling one way or another about you.... what I had in the past just written off as ignorance and lack of education now has NO excuse for the way you are acting... therefore yes, I do feel a certain degree of dislike for you right now, because you should know better than to act like you are acting.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

dgui said:


> Thats right I wont go for anything but truth and I have no need to follow a certain personality and support something Incorrect. Prove things for your self.


 wheres your video? he, bill hayes, did one to prove and support his theory, wheres your proof? i dont think you understand the test he did. ive got a lot of repect for you, but until i see your video proof, all i hear out of you is waaa waaa waaa.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2013)

Wow... The adults are fighting and the children are hanging under the table in the kitchen.

You two guys need to agree that you are talking about the same thing. Here is the truth of the matter and I do SO hope Charles will back me on this. He and I believe that ambient temperature is a major player in the "hold time before release" equation which very substantially affects recovered energy.

Really you two are arguing in the grey area where we have not made enough measurements to say for sure whether you get 30% with an "instant release" or only 15% with the same. Again this is because we believe that ambient temperature is a major player in this effect. So at 35F you might actually see 30% increase in power with what DGUI is calling a "live action release" but at 90F you might not see 5% with the same release.

My point is that *NONE* of us know the truth because we don't know the numbers.

One thing for sure, I sincerely did not want to get both of my heros fighting about something which does not matter when it comes to knocking holes in tin cans.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Hey Old Spook. The radical increase is due to a combination of events and one being a rapid one motion shot with narrow forks and not simply based on the quick pull with a no wait release also the forward thrust. All these are required to get a 33 percent increase in speed. If there be someone with a crony that can pull a shot off as one motion the evidence will show up in numbers for the number people.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't understand how someone can claim a 33 percent increase in speed with no numbers to prove it. It's like a runner saying he can run a 100 meter dash a second and a half faster than anyone else but no verified stop watch time to prove it. How many people in the track and field world are going to take this person seriously ?


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

OldSpookASA said:


> Wow... The adults are fighting and the children are hanging under the table in the kitchen.
> 
> You two guys need to agree that you are talking about the same thing. Here is the truth of the matter and I do SO hope Charles will back me on this. He and I believe that ambient temperature is a major player in the "hold time before release" equation which very substantially affects recovered energy.
> 
> ...


Well Spook... you're right. It's completely and totally silly to become involved in a discussion about numbers and percentages when one person actually does measure differences and effects using an actual device designed and built for that purpose and the other goes by feel and conjecture.

I've stated and conclusively shown exactly what I said is exactly the truth... all arguments to the contrary by nonsubstantiated means of testing are invalid... it's really that simple.

Also, it is NOT a negative thing to become knowledgeable and an authority on subjects that interest you. The argument against improving and adding to your knowledge base reminds me of what's happening in many inner city schools where thuggish acting teens denigrate and bully those that try and excel in school... thus bringing down all hope of progress for not only themselves but their victims as well.

Lack of education and ignorance is NOT something that should be worn as a badge of honor and NOT something that should be strived for.

I bought a chrony years ago because of the old axiom Ronald Reagan was fond of repeating.... "Trust but verify". When guys say a certain load produces X or Y results and intuitively it seems a little off the wall or out of bounds for what I expect... I would just test it out and see.

If the improvement in performance were indeed true and was then able to be verified... I would always credit the originator and morph my own loads to more closely resemble the better performing ones.

When it comes to slingshots the same thing applies... if something actually does perform better, then by all means THAT is what we should be going for.

But in this case we have multiple proclamations of something that is absolutely WRONG and then veiled and unveiled barbed insults towards anyone who can actually PROVE the mistake in thinking and procedure.

So yeah, it did make me irritated when customers come to me and ask for particular styles of slingshots and then not only do they NOT perform up to the expected result as touted by DGUI and a few others, in fact the "special" narrow forked slingshots do NOT perform as well as their wider brothers and cousins....

Hence the tests had to be redone and then shown that the original tests were done in error as shown earlier in this thread... and ALL data that was built using that flawed test was not only suspect but was in fact invalid.

Then DGUI comes along saying more BS about how he can achieve 1/3 more speed and this and that, all the while throwing insults towards me.... and THAT resulted in me making a simple test apparatus which conclusively shows the error in his logic.

There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see... and in this case your eyes should be opened when you see the video proof, but instead for some they choose to put on blinders and proclaim those who wish to know more about the subject they are interested in should simply ignore logic and science and instead embrace ignorance and "feel".

As for me, I am through with this subject and have spent far to much time in vain. This is my final word unless a VALID contrary point is raised... that is all.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

I did some informal tests of "live" shooting vs one-second hold time and got about a 5% increase, shooting .44 lead ~218 fps with 1 second hold and ~228 fps "live". Increasing hold time to 3 seconds dropped velocity to under 210 fps. Of course I am reminded of the gunfighters observation, "You can't miss fast enough to win."


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Henry and Bill,

I like to read about the informal tests you do. But the proclamations of "absolutely wrong" and "actually prove" are just laughable. Please, you guys, just check yourselves, will ya?


----------



## JetBlack (Mar 9, 2012)

I am not getting involved in the argument, it is surprising that game keeper had the opposite results though.personally its about what is more comfortable to me.5fps here or there not the biggest deal when your over 200 anyway


----------



## VillageSniper (Jan 22, 2013)

As soon as a person can start shooting at a target accurately in less than 1/3 second, they will start to see an increase in velocity due to the heat retention in the bands or tubes. How much of an increase? Who knows. But the draw time that DGUI shoots with is remarkable and contributes greatly to his velocity and success. Most shooters, myself included, will never approach this level of marksmenship and natural ability. This may have more of an effect on velocity than fork width overall, but it is hard to measure since most people can't even begin to draw a slingshot and shoot it so quickly. Although, I admit that I have tried, and admire your skills greatly.

Bill- love the videos, keep them coming.

VS


----------



## AlmightyOx (Mar 4, 2013)

I won't say who I agree with here because I think starting arguments before we have nearly enough solid scientific data on either side is kinda silly. I like you set up Bill but there were just a few too many variables present in your video to call anything rock-solid science. No disrespect sir.

Hel|, I'm not even sure what the agreed upon hypothesis is here. However, I think that we can all agree with this:



VillageSniper said:


> As soon as a person can start shooting at a target accurately in less than 1/3 second, they will start to see an increase in velocity due to the heat retention in the bands or tubes. How much of an increase? Who knows. But the draw time that DGUI shoots with is remarkable and contributes greatly to his velocity and success. Most shooters, myself included, will never approach this level of marksmenship and natural ability. This may have more of an effect on velocity than fork width overall, but it is hard to measure since most people can't even begin to draw a slingshot and shoot it so quickly. Although, I admit that I have tried, and admire your skills greatly.


That being said, lets stop this please. The person with the most scientific method I have seen on this site has got to be Charles, hands down. Perhaps Charles will do a test to quite this whole thing down, or perhaps you guys could rig up something like the "Testbed Slingshot" (find it here: http://slingshotforum.com/videos/view-38-testbed-slingshot-velocity-consistency-test/), put at least 3 rounds through a chrony in each position, and then we'll talk.


----------



## JetBlack (Mar 9, 2012)

Here's the video sorry if posted in thread already:





Why such different results? Is John doing something subconsciously? Maybe its faster depending where you are on the planet? Just kidding, but a scientific breakdown would be nice...


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

AlmightyOx said:


> I won't say who I agree with here because I think starting arguments before we have nearly enough solid scientific data on either side is kinda silly. I like you set up Bill but there were just a few too many variables present in your video to call anything rock-solid science. No disrespect sir.
> 
> Hel|, I'm not even sure what the agreed upon hypothesis is here. However, I think that we can all agree with this:
> 
> ...


Actually I did do the tests with three shots per position but the video was so long that it would have taken all day and night to upload, so I just did a shorter version that again gave the exact same results...

Don't make the mistake that since I'm not wearing a white lab coat and the apparatus isn't made from polished stainless steel and carbon fiber and the test wasn't done in a temperature controlled lab within an aircraft hangar... that results are somehow not valid.

It doesn't matter what apparatus or how the operator is dressed... so long as you are pulling to the same draw length, and your forks are adjustable narrower to wider and you're using the exact same bandset... the 1 inch gapped fork will shoot slower than the 2 inch, 3 inch... 5 inch even out to 24 inches wide fork. It's that simple.

It does not matter how fast or how slow you draw, the wider fork creates the effect of more stretch in the bands which results in more speed. Drawing out speed is a completely separate factor than fork width.

Now, I have done tests on accellerated draw and release speeds as well... and there IS something to that. You CAN shoot with greater FPS with it. In fact I've proven it before, with an aggressive draw and release in conjunction with a forced flip... over 15% greater velocity is possible... for example in one video I show how you can shoot a normal speed of around 220 FPS and then up to 260 FPS with the same bandset on the same slingshot.

So this part is not even in question.

However, shooting a 33% faster is in question. I know it seems like nitpicking, and in fact I never really cared... but DGUI decided in was a good idea to become belligerant and insulting towards me personally. So some very simple tests had to be performed.... and they showed that it is not possible to do what he's incessantly proclaiming.

So the challenge is, for ANYONE to make a device with adjustable forks that uses the same draw length to PROVE me wrong... and I already know that's not going to happen because it's not possible.... even if you made "band heater" for the device, it's not going to happen.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

JetBlack said:


> Here's the video sorry if posted in thread already:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Several things.

John did not use the same bandset on the slingshots.... invariably there are small differences in one bandset to another.

He was very unstable and gunshy from the handslap.... and the draw lengths were not the same.. you can easily see that in the video.

John did not intend to make these mistakes and tried to do a fair video... but it was invalid from the get go.

At the time when he released this video I told him that he should try it again on a stable shooting platform like an adjustable slingrifle because his results will be very different. And of course they would have been and are as can be seen on the current video I did.

It is no secret that when drawing the bands on an unsupported frame design characteristics like handle shape, fork width and height and other things all contribute to the overall usefullness and stability of the slingshot.

A simple low and narrow forked slingshot is very hard to beat as far as stability is concerned... and that's the difference when manually drawing.


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

Dayhiker said:


> Henry and Bill,
> 
> I like to read about the informal tests you do. But the proclamations of "absolutely wrong" and "actually prove" are just laughable. Please, you guys, just check yourselves, will ya?


That ol' saying ..."There are no Absolutes?!"  I cannot estimate percentage number increase off top of my head and if I did, I would likely be off or wrong. I do know however, using the principle of active pulling (taking best advantage of heat energy in band) and somewhat quick release, and also pouch bending/tweaking, I can feel the speed/power increase and see results impacting the target. I know the more 'scientific ones' would prefer exact numbers and that is also part of your enjoyment of slingshots. We all partake of the slingshot sport in different ways.

I am guessing that Rufus and other slingshot ol timers likely learned those principles & methods through practice and trial & error without much use of formulas, charts, science, etc. I do like science but for layman (me), presented in a more digestible overview manner. For instance, knowing the general physics & behavior of rubber, I found fascinating and has added to my appreciation of the slingshot sport, but when it gets to number crunching, formulas, statistics, hairsplitting speed measurements, etc. .... my eyes begin to glaze over! :blink:


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

The only way to know your speed is to chronograph it. Or else it's just guessing. If you didn't have a speedometer on your car how close could you guess your speed ? Enough to not get a ticket? Or how fast your gun reloads are shooting? Please this is ridiculous. Make all the claims you want but without proof it's just idle chatter.


----------



## AZ Stinger (Aug 30, 2012)

Sorry I missed all this, I was out shooting...


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

AZ Stinger said:


> Sorry I missed all this, I was out shooting...


 :rofl: !


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm sure someone with a chrony will test the live shooting theory soon enough.

There is so much interest in this that someone is bound to test it out.

But ther will be many variables so the saga may continue.


----------



## wombat (Jun 10, 2011)

Cjw said:


> The only way to know your speed is to chronograph it. Or else it's just guessing. If you didn't have a speedometer on your car how close could you guess your speed ? Enough to not get a ticket? Or how fast your gun reloads are shooting? Please this is ridiculous. Make all the claims you want but without proof it's just idle chatter.


Zorro said he could "FEEL" the difference in speed and power. If I'm driving along the highway and WITHOUT looking at the speedometer I step on the gas, I can easily "FEEL" the difference in speed and power. As for how fast I was going at the beginning and how fast I was going at the end.......phht I could give a rat's ass!!!


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

When you Crank back the Throttle and your sinking in your seat Now what do you Think.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

Ya but people are driving the same car and are going 0 to 60 in 9 seconds and you claim you can do it in 6 second with no verified time and you say you can tell by feel or how it feels in the seat their going to laugh at you.


----------



## AZ Stinger (Aug 30, 2012)

Cjw said:


> Ya but people are driving the same car and are going 0 to 60 in 9 seconds and you claim you can do it in 6 second with no verified time and you say you can tell by feel or how it feels in the seat their going to laugh at you.


They might be driving the same car but with half the skills, that`s how we ended up with the Pro Circuit.....


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

You can believe all the fantasies you want an there's a Santa Claus and an Easter bunny to go with it.


----------



## M.J (Nov 1, 2010)

Are you guys still here?


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

This can be settled real easy have him so us the numbers . That's all and if he can ill give a public apology on the forum an a bow.


----------



## AZ Stinger (Aug 30, 2012)

Santa still comes every year


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

And the checks in the mail.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

A couple of things to consider about Game Keepers shooting tests with wide and a Pickle Fork Shooter is 5hat his tests were right to the point with no Fluff and no axe to Grind.


----------



## BC-Slinger (Jan 6, 2013)




----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Henry and Bill,
> 
> I like to read about the informal tests you do. But the proclamations of "absolutely wrong" and "actually prove" are just laughable. Please, you guys, just check yourselves, will ya?


Feel free to show where I used the words "absolutely wrong" and "actually prove" or even hinted at the ideas. All I did is make a few informal tests and report the results.If anything my results show that you can get a speed increase by "live" shooting, but I did not achieve anything close to a 1/3 increase.


----------



## AZ Stinger (Aug 30, 2012)

And the Easter Bunny, hey, you can`t beat that basket of love


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Henry in Panama said:


> Dayhiker said:
> 
> 
> > Henry and Bill, I like to read about the informal tests you do. But the proclamations of "absolutely wrong" and "actually prove" are just laughable. Please, you guys, just check yourselves, will ya?
> ...


You surely can obtain a 3rd increase if the technique is there but it will not work if a half hearted shot is taken. So go all out and see if the numbers will change. Not doing videos at this time but I will have to see if someone else has posted anything along this line this way if it should come from someone else you just might believe it.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

dgui said:


> A couple of things to consider about Game Keepers shooting tests with wide and a Pickle Fork Shooter is 5hat his tests were right to the point with no Fluff and no axe to Grind.


You know, you're a real piece of work. Explaning what you're supposed to see is not fluff.... and if you didn't throw so many axes at me, I wouldn't have anything to sharpen.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

dgui said:


> A couple of things to consider about Game Keepers shooting tests with wide and a Pickle Fork Shooter is 5hat his tests were right to the point with no Fluff and no axe to Grind.


until i see your test video to disprove hayes, i have to go with him.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

dgui said:


> Henry in Panama said:
> 
> 
> > Dayhiker said:
> ...


You keep making that claim, Darrell, but so far that's all it is; a claim.

Now, I'm going to ask you, very nicely, to please stop the personal attacks and insinuations that others are not being honest in their reports. I won't ask again.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

This post has ONLY to do with the wide versus narrow fork issue. I am very busy at the moment, as I have to leave town in one week to drive south to teach some art. I do not have the time to do full scale testing. I did set up and make a short test. Here is the video of the equipment that I used.






I note that with the changes I made, the time from beginning to crank until the shot is fired at a 44 inch draw is on the order of one second. I also note that the ring shooter and looped tubes would not be my preference for this sort of test because of the possibility of the bands fouling the shot at narrow fork separations. But it is what I had on hand, and I did not have the time to make up an easily changeable OTT rig with flat bands or single tubes. Because of time limitations, I did only two separations: 1 inch and 16.5 inches. The slotted angle was a piece I had lying around the shop. The 1 inch was the closest I could set the rings, while the 16.5 inches was the widest I could get on that piece of angle. The slack length of the bands was 11.5 inches. The draw length was 44 inches.

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

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

Based on this one test, I would say that abnormally wide forks will shoot a slight bit faster ... but the difference in velocity is only about 5% and that band separation is pretty outrageous. I suspect that individual shot-to-shot variation from shooting by hand would be greater than differences between velocities between, say 1 inch separation and a separation of 3 or 4 inches.

The above conclusion is very limited in scope. To give a more rigorous test would require a LOT of time and effort. One would have to try lots of steps in between 1 inch separation and 16.5 inches of separation. One would have to try different factors of band stretch; because of the shape of the usual stress/strain curve for latex, I suspect the differences become greater as one approaches the elastic limit of the bands. And there may be other factors that need to be considered.

But for what it is worth, these are the quick results that I found.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> This post has ONLY to do with the wide versus narrow fork issue. I am very busy at the moment, as I have to leave town in one week to drive south to teach some art. I do not have the time to do full scale testing. I did set up and make a short test. Here is the video of the equipment that I used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Charles it will be of interest that instead of using a fixed draw length with different fork widths to adjust the draw length for the same "elongation length" for the rubber, that means equal stored energy for each separation, note that wider forks will give a slight longer acceleration path than the narrower forks but the cosine law will transfer slightly less acceleration, on some very simple calculations I did at same elongation state the difference is negligible from 2" to 3" only 2.7mm not enough to justify a significant increase of speed most probably compensated by cosine law ... what you did using a fixed 44" fixed anchor was giving more stored energy to the wider forks what explains your results. My prediction is that at same stored energy the differences form 2" to 3" should be negligible, so if that differences exists in real shooting the explanation should be found I suspect in the way the shooter releases ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

You keep making that claim, Darrell, but so far that's all it is; a claim.

Now, I'm going to ask you, very nicely, to please stop the personal attacks and insinuations that others are not being honest in their reports. I won't ask again.[/quote]

...and there you go...(too soon?)


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

FishDoug said:


> Is it just me or am I the only one who notices that Bill looks like Stone Cold Steve Austin ? I def would NOT mess with this guy


If you have the cohones, do it.


----------



## HarryBee (Jun 29, 2013)

Slingshots are simple, but then, there is nothing so simple that you can't complicate it !


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

HarryBee said:


> Slingshots are simple, but then, there is nothing so simple that you can't complicate it !


slingshots looks simple but ARE NOT SIMPLE AT ALL to explain, a complex non linear model and much more difficult to find explanatory hypothesis, to say the less ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Wingshooter (Dec 24, 2009)

Come on girls don't quit now I just went and got another bag of popcorn!!


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

2: the method and importance of Pushing style(It's 'flipstyle' in English)
Please refer
http://www.dankung.com/dk/?q=slingsho...

*Flipstyle with dankung slingshot adds 1/3 range.(loose attachment,no stop to the momentum)


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

OK guys, enough. NOBODY can make personal attacks on any other member.


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

There was no personal attack no name calling no threats just offering a way to show proof and settle these wild tales once and for all .


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

If the person doesn't have a Chrony I was offering a way to get one for them. And put an end to the debate.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> 2: the method and importance of Pushing style(It's 'flipstyle' in English)
> Please refer
> http://www.dankung.com/dk/?q=slingsho...
> 
> *Flipstyle with dankung slingshot adds 1/3 range.(loose attachment,no stop to the momentum)


It seems there has been a not so subtle shift here. Previously you claimed you got a 1/3 increase in velocity just by "live" shooting, as compared to so-called "dead" shooting. Then the claim seemed to morph into "live shooting with narrow forks". Now it seems to be evolving into "live shooting with narrow forks and flip shooting". But as I recall, you recently said "neither do I flip as I see no use for flipping" ...

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/24621-the-path-of-the-ammo-when-shooting-ott/?p=309385

Why all the flip-flopping around?

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Cjw said:


> There was no personal attack no name calling no threats just offering a way to show proof and settle these wild tales once and for all .


what proof ??? a crony doesn't proof it only measures, when you do fixed draw with different forks width you are not doing any proof, I will REPEAT last time if the proof is "wider forks are faster than narrower forks" then the only variable IS FORK WIDTH, all other must stay fixed the same and that means that the DRAW LENGTH will be different for each fork width to preserve SAME ELONGATION in all cases (that's was I was suggesting Charles), to this moment there is no proof of nothing ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Cjw said:


> There was no personal attack no name calling no threats just offering a way to show proof and settle these wild tales once and for all .


Stirring the pot is also grounds for hiding a post. If you really want to buy Darrell a Chrony, please do it by PM.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Arturito said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > This post has ONLY to do with the wide versus narrow fork issue. I am very busy at the moment, as I have to leave town in one week to drive south to teach some art. I do not have the time to do full scale testing. I did set up and make a short test. Here is the video of the equipment that I used.
> ...


Arturo, you and I are basically in agreement here. You will find that I made this point in an earlier thread on this very topic.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/21898-fork-width-and-speed-two-different-test-results/?p=265462

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## M.J (Nov 1, 2010)

Henry in Panama said:


> Cjw said:
> 
> 
> > There was no personal attack no name calling no threats just offering a way to show proof and settle these wild tales once and for all .
> ...


You can buy me a chrony, that won't be stirring the pot at all :thumbsup:


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

dgui said:


> 2: the method and importance of Pushing style(It's 'flipstyle' in English)
> Please refer
> http://www.dankung.com/dk/?q=slingsho...
> 
> *Flipstyle with dankung slingshot adds 1/3 range.(loose attachment,no stop to the momentum)


This guy is just making a subjective argument as well... he has no REAL number to back up any claims.

The ONLY way to get 1/3 more speed is to get 1/3 more stretch... it is a LOT easier to get additional stretch by simply having a little bit wider forks... and then as that guy shows, doing a forced flip. You will be able to achieve over 15% more speed if everything comes together just right.... BUT at the loss of precision.

Okay guys, I think this is enough now.

It's simple logic that a wider fork gives more speed than a narrow fork when drawn to the same point.... and it is also logical to assume that if the bands were drawn to the absolute max, then there MIGHT be a _very slight_ advantage to using a narrow fork... but it would be VERY slight... and in REAL shooting almost nobody ever pulls to the absolute maximum.

So for the average shooter, a comfortably wide fork setup up with decent bands, drawn to an anchor point, aimed for a second or two... will give you just as good performance as someone who uses a very narrow fork with the same bands and does somewhat "live" shooting with a forced flip.

As for hitting the target... my money will always be on the guys who takes his time and aims versus just slinging it all out there. And that includes for true aerial shooting as well... not the self thrown hit an object from arm's length away shooting but actual aerial shooting like at a bird flying ten or so meters away.

I, myself have personally tried a lot of different things... and what works best for me, and pretty much everybody else, is the style that the guys in the Pocket Predator contests are using.... taking my time and aiming to hit very small targets at decent distances is just very hard to beat... but if you're shooting at fairly large objects from shorter distances, sure point and release is more than adequate most of the time.... and the closer the object, no matter how big or small, the less precision aiming needs to be done to hit it.

BUT if you get in the habit of not aiming all the sudden at some point you're going to find out that it's a LOT harder to be precise when you NEED to be precise... like when you NEED to put the shot through the earhole of a rat, or simply light a match from 10 meters away. Using good aiming concepts it's more than possible to do precision shooting with a slingshot.

As far as videos and all that being used as proof of a method.... let me just say, it's VERY easy to show only what you'd like to be seen to back up your case.... 20 or 30 second video bursts of awesomeness to not necessarily translate to that being how you shoot all the time.... which is precisely why many times I do make a little longer video... because the way I shoot is just the way I shoot.

I've given up on the "fast instinctual" shooting (sloppy shooting) in favor of having the ability to simply hit the target at whatever range and no matter how small the target, so long as I can see it.

Now, if ANYBODY thinks I'm mistaken in my beliefs.... it's very easy to prove me wrong. All you have to do is get the numbers on a chronograph to back up what you say... or enter the contests and go for "the money"... but I seriously doubt you'll find ANY "instinctual" shooters on the planet who will be able to hang with these "aimers" participating in the contests... but then again, if you think I'm wrong... put your "money" where your mouth is!


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

thanks Charles for the thread link ... I've did a numeric model program for TBG with tapering based on ZDP-NNN? proposed model and my model agreed with him that the significant differences occurs in the first quarter of acceleration path (I can explain or PM the specifications on what I did), the most tricky part are the heat looses which are different in each state (much more speculative) ... I will update it with the cosine law to see what happens ... anyway the model was within a 5% on what other people measured of known bandsets, ammo weight and draw ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

Intermission time! For those into number crunching, statistics, chronometers, measurements, charts, formulas, etc. ... GameKeeper John with narrow Pickle Fork style shooters ....











I don't know, is that pretty fast speed for PFS? In second 417 fps video he said it was cold day and using his secret band cut. It looked like the bands not requiring herculean effort to draw. Not much mentioned in discussions here about ambient temperature such as If colder day, when band heats up you get more increase in snap performance, verses a hot day there not much an increase? I'm getting sense there is maybe negligible increase, and/or diminishing returns, if forks gets too wide, as Dayhiker stated before.

Okay, Zorro is going back outside and do some plinking with PFS & gobstopper ammo and getting my enjoyable satisfaction watching the candy *exploding* on the targets! B)


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Arturito said:


> thanks Charles for the thread link ... I've did a numeric model program for TBG with tapering based on ZDP-NNN? proposed model and my model agreed with him that the significant differences occurs in the first quarter of acceleration path (I can explain or PM the specifications on what I did), the most tricky part are the heat looses which are different in each state (much more speculative) ... I will update it with the cosine law to see what happens ... anyway the model was within a 5% on what other people measured of known bandsets, ammo weight and draw ...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Arturo


Certainly I would be interested in the model you used, so do send it via PM. I will not be able to look at it for several weeks, however. It is not surprising that the biggest differences occur in the first quarter of the acceleration path ... that is where the force is the greatest, after all.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

dgui said:


> 2: the method and importance of Pushing style(It's 'flipstyle' in English)
> Please refer
> http://www.dankung.com/dk/?q=slingsho...
> 
> *Flipstyle with dankung slingshot adds 1/3 range.(loose attachment,no stop to the momentum)


Seems like a great place for me to try instinctive shooting I couldn't miss for all those trees,heck I could even go blindfolded and hit something :rofl:


----------



## tnflipper52 (Jan 26, 2012)

Shoot I coudn't hit the tree for the forest. Anybody understand Chinese?


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

@Zorro, torsten has achieved same or better results, it seems there is a optimum tune between bands and ammo weight where energy is transferred at it's maximum and don't coincides with the strongest (bulkier) nor the most tapered ones, rubber is very tricky, it's a cut and try process ... anyway is known for all of us is that the most dominant factor is draw length ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Are you guys going to make it necessary for me to award points and/or give timeouts?


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

This thread reminds me of that daffy duck cartoon where daffy gets into a fight with the illustrator and the illustrator starts erasing him little by little. Half a dozen posts just dissapeared!!


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

ZorroSlinger said:


> Intermission time! For those into number crunching, statistics, chronometers, measurements, charts, formulas, etc. ... GameKeeper John with narrow Pickle Fork style shooters ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQsOXZ-S6AU I don't know, is that pretty fast speed for PFS? In second 417 fps video he said it was cold day and using his secret band cut. It looked like the bands not requiring herculean effort to draw. Not much mentioned in discussions here about ambient temperature such as If colder day, when band heats up you get more increase in snap performance, verses a hot day there not much an increase? I'm getting sense there is maybe negligible increase, and/or diminishing returns, if forks gets too wide, as Dayhiker stated before. Okay, Zorro is going back outside and do some plinking with PFS & gobstopper ammo and getting my enjoyable satisfaction watching the candy *exploding* on the targets! B)


Wow 417 Feet Per Second on a cold day. I am impressed with John and The PFS Hunter. I dont want to say what The PFS potential is.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

How cold could it have been? He is wearing a t-shirt...


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Since GKJ has not posted here, it's not fair to make him the subject of discussion. So please, stick to the subject and posts made here.


----------



## 8mmslinger (Jul 27, 2013)

SmilingFury said:


> How cold could it have been? He is wearing a t-shirt...


it would have to be snowing and minus 5 for us brits to wear a coat,

and even then your seen as a bit of a soft lad :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

If Game Keepers video is not on course for narrow forks then How could Charles have posted a Chinese video of a fellow shooting when he did not post here ever. John posts some impressive shooting videos with real facts. But I suppose you will have to go after the fellow or fellows that post when you do not think is part of slingshot shooting and sharing proper tested information.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

8mmslinger said:


> SmilingFury said:
> 
> 
> > How cold could it have been? He is wearing a t-shirt...
> ...


I am the same, I need to see my breath before I put jeans on in place of my shorts and t-shirts. I cannot see gkj's breath in that video. How cold does it have to be to affect rubber anyway?


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

I think everything is being twisted and emotions are guiding most of the response. There are a lot of points being made, but the issue ,though there are similarities ,they are on different paths.

The shame is that this whole thing has been misguided, that the hodgepodge of information has turn this to be unproductive and somewhat embarrassing. With that being said, I am staying out of this, and let this thread have its own fate.

With my head down, I am bowing out of this

Lgd


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > thanks Charles for the thread link ... I've did a numeric model program for TBG with tapering based on ZDP-NNN? proposed model and my model agreed with him that the significant differences occurs in the first quarter of acceleration path (I can explain or PM the specifications on what I did), the most tricky part are the heat looses which are different in each state (much more speculative) ... I will update it with the cosine law to see what happens ... anyway the model was within a 5% on what other people measured of known bandsets, ammo weight and draw ...
> ...


I've just remembered a moving arm ballista device attached to a slingshot by Jeorg and he showed 20% oh speed increase and that is only by the initial kick off reinforcement, I think that wrist tendons can do the same or better than the TBG powered ballista arms ... sooo ???

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

I'm giving my self a time out. Can't take it any more. Un freaking believable . My heads going to explode. Have at it children. How much more can this be beaten ?


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Thanks for that information Arturo , I had no knowledge that Jeorg had aquired a 20 percent increase in fps by manipulation with a ballista arm. Jeorg is known for his mastery of the slingshot and all that pertains to it. Im thinking 30 percent from the technique that current for me but 20 percent is impressive. Wow.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Cjw said:


> I'm giving my self a time out. Can't take it any more. Un freaking believable . My heads going to explode. Have at it children. How much more can this be beaten ?


i think those that disagree are missing the point and didnt pay attention as to how he was going to do the test. so far, i think charles has proven bill right. also, they both have proven dgui wrong in his percentage difference. dgui says 30% but charles and bill have proven 5%.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

dgui said:


> If Game Keepers video is not on course for narrow forks then How could Charles have posted a Chinese video of a fellow shooting when he did not post here ever. John posts some impressive shooting videos with real facts. But I suppose you will have to go after the fellow or fellows that post when you do not think is part of slingshot shooting and sharing proper tested information.


Darrell, step back and take a deep breath. Charles did not post that video, you did, and Charles quoted your post. I did not say that posting videos from outside sources is out of line. I said that making GKJ the subject of discussion is out of line. And yes, GKJ makes some impressive videos, but since he has chosen not to post here, we owe him the courtesy of not bringing him into a controversial subject.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Imperial said:


> Cjw said:
> 
> 
> > I'm giving my self a time out. Can't take it any more. Un freaking believable . My heads going to explode. Have at it children. How much more can this be beaten ?
> ...


It has been my experience that The Majority are usually Wrong.


----------



## JetBlack (Mar 9, 2012)

Wingshooter said:


> Come on girls don't quit now I just went and got another bag of popcorn!!


Always the trouble maker, lol


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

dgui said:


> Imperial said:
> 
> 
> > Cjw said:
> ...


then prove them wrong. show us your test video using the same parameters that were used, and then one with yours. i still say you misunderstood how the test was done . the only thing that changes was the width. the tie to tie distance stayed the same. the draw distance stayed the same. the only thing that changed was the width of the forks.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Arturito said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > Arturito said:
> ...


In this context especially, it would be much more useful to actually reference the video, rather than attempting to rely on one's memory.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## tnflipper52 (Jan 26, 2012)

Glad the topic is not something unimportant like the 3rd world war and the second coming of Christ. Tally Ho Gents, have a smashing time.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

I think I'll shoot an F-16 today. Dont anyone panic its a Daisy.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Charles said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > Charles said:
> ...


Here's the Topic where he demonstrated it. I'm not sure if the increase is due to the ballista effect or the extra rubber and longer draw length.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/5245-slingshot-ballista/?hl=ballista


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > Charles said:
> ...


here is the link






Cheers

Arturo

PS sorry Henry I've didn't noticed inside the thread is the same video ... and notice that Jeorg reports the additional acceleration occurs in the 2 first inches ... Jeorg is a very credible source, he has done some investigations with Justin a NASA guy


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

I agree Joerg is very credible, but I would like to see the same rubber used in a series setup (without the ballista arms) compared with the ballista form.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Thanks for posting the link. It is an interesting design. The increase in power has nothing to do with the way he is shooting, but rather it has to do with the design of the device. And he does not specify what the 20% improvement is relative to ... I suspect he means it is 20% faster than just using the bands alone. Essentially it looks to me that has just increased the draw length of the slingshot, and of course added more bands. I would like to see it compared to a similar rig with rollers in front and the bands doubling back. Without the weight of the ballista arms, I suspect he would get even more power out of it. The Combo Sling gets a lot more velocity than a regular slingshot because of the greatly reduced slack length and the extended draw length. I do not see that either device is particularly relevant to the discussion above.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Charles said:


> Thanks for posting the link. It is an interesting design. The increase in power has nothing to do with the way he is shooting, but rather it has to do with the design of the device. And he does not specify what the 20% improvement is relative to ... I suspect he means it is 20% faster than just using the bands alone. Essentially it looks to me that has just increased the draw length of the slingshot, and of course added more bands. I would like to see it compared to a similar rig with rollers in front and the bands doubling back. Without the weight of the ballista arms, I suspect he would get even more power out of it. The Combo Sling gets a lot more velocity than a regular slingshot because of the greatly reduced slack length and the extended draw length. I do not see that either device is particularly relevant to the discussion above.
> 
> Cheers ..... Charles


Charles ... I followed that thread in his old channel (I don't know if it is still available) and it is 20% more speed ... it is NOT more band length extension (in fact the arms shortens main bands elongation) the ballista arms are the basis of modern cams systems in compound bows, a speed multiplier in tandem with bands, it effectively adds acceleration in the crucial first quarter region, finally roller devices are SLOWER than free flying bands at equal length and the pre-stretch capability only shortens the crossbow at expense again of a little speed sacrificing the low acceleration region ... of all Jeorg's devices variations in my opinion this is the most interesting and successful to add power without adding length but as he said is more complex and bulkier ...

I found the original document about the model, I am reviewing it before sending to you ...

Cheers

Arturo

PS forgot to mention is that is relevant to the "active shooting" the ballista arms effect is the same as sudden forward flipping movement of the hand just when releasing ...


----------



## wombat (Jun 10, 2011)

As I watched the video the thought that popped into my mind was....*he's automated the forced flip!! *And as far as I can tell, the forced flip is the only thing that everyone agrees is a way to increase speed/power.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

the ballista, the modern cams and forced flip in slingshot has it's origins past in the neolithic age, the javelin launcher was maybe the first device invented to multiply speed ... all of them shares the same principle ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Yes I very well remember Jorg's video and when he posted on it... I also remember it was a "gut" feeling that he was shooting 20% faster by using this device... and in my opinion it is very similar to what I've measured in the past when doing a forced flip.... so if he put it across a chrony and it only achieved 15% more speed as I've shown is more than possible... that's real nice and good.

And if it shot the 20% as his "gut" was telling him that's fine too, as I'd expect a mechanical device such as this would be substantially faster than what a wrist could normally snap forward....

BUT, the point is moot.... since we've been admonished more than once by Darrell telling us all he "does not flip, and doesn't feel any need to".

Anyway, there are many factors that affect speed.... the main ones are how "snappy" the bands are, how far you draw the bands, how heavy is the ammo, how wide your fork is, how fast you release the bands, whether you force flip and ambient temperature.

So far we've been able to test fork width, hold times, ambient tempatures, and forced flipping....

1) With a forced flip I know, and have proven 15% improvement is possible....

2) a touch wider forks also produce a little faster speeds if drawing the same distance, about 5% faster than narrower.....

3) thin medical grade latex shoots up to 5% faster than TBG of the same dimensions and weight

4) A 100 degree day makes the bands shoot about 5% faster than a 90 degree day (it's about 1 fps per degree in a linear way)

Soooooo, if you were to force flip shoot on a 100+ degree day, with a "live" shot on a 3" fork, setup with medical grade latex...... Maybe, MAYBE you could get an improvement of 25% or better versus non active shooting done with a very narrow fork, setup with TBG on a 90 degree day....


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Thanks for posting this video Aurtoro I have not seen this with the Ballista Arms acting as tendons but now it just makes sence that one can manipulate the forward natural action of the slingshot to get so much more from its natural force. Jeorge is a Master Craftsman and Designer and certainly thinks in a manner that puts Him at the Top. I see Jeorge demonstrating what is happeing when an individual is assisting in propelling the ammo beyond the elastics capability and giving it a Good Send Off.

Now I will rethink the Technique I am currently using.

Thanks Aurtoro

http://slingshotforu...ta/?hl=ballista


----------



## VillageSniper (Jan 22, 2013)

Not to take sides here.... But I've watched all of Darrel's videos and he probably doesn't "flip" his slingshot, since he demonstrates that he points the forks of his pfs at his target upon release, adding to it a tweak and so forth of the pouch. Maybe a play on words.... Maybe its extraordinary technique.....I personally believe that a human is much more capable of achieving outstanding performance than a contraption or machine. It is something unique to human nature and we see it everyday as people do all sorts of amazing things.....and the process might be immeasurable or at least hard to equate....Be it speed, be it accuracy....... How did they do that!

By the way, Bill and Darrel, I love all of your videos. They are amazing and are inspiraring to all of us.

VS


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

dgui said:


> Thanks for posting this video Aurtoro I have not seen this with the Ballista Arms acting as tendons but now it just makes sence that one can manipulate the forward natural action of the slingshot to get so much more from its natural force. Jeorge is a Master Craftsman and Designer and certainly thinks in a manner that puts Him at the Top. I see Jeorge demonstrating what is happeing when an individual is assisting in propelling the ammo beyond the elastics capability and giving it a Good Send Off.
> 
> Now I will rethink the Technique I am currently using.
> 
> ...


I am starting to practice with an early flip, torsten show it's here,






the sudden flipping action he does is the key for the speed he achieves, 141 m/s (462 FPS), if you watch it carefully it's the same as a ballista arm,

it is evident an noticeable the increment of speed to me when I shoot this way, I have measured with audio analysis 20% increments using this technique,

I agree VillageSniper, the tendons are a marvellous material, can unleash significant power stored by muscles faster than rubber ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Im a Fan of Torsten and will take some time to study his Technique.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

VillageSniper said:


> Not to take sides here.... But I've watched all of Darrel's videos and he probably doesn't "flip" his slingshot, since he demonstrates that he points the forks of his pfs at his target upon release, adding to it a tweak and so forth of the pouch. Maybe a play on words.... Maybe its extraordinary technique.....I personally believe that a human is much more capable of achieving outstanding performance than a contraption or machine. It is something unique to human nature and we see it everyday as people do all sorts of amazing things.....and the process might be immeasurable or at least hard to equate....Be it speed, be it accuracy....... How did they do that!
> 
> By the way, Bill and Darrel, I love all of your videos. They are amazing and are inspiraring to all of us.
> 
> VS


You have managed to see beyond our Frailtes.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

this is a REAL shooting example, 3 first shoots were "passive" and the 3 last were "active"




the audio extracted from this tape gives the following results,







zooming the fastest "passive"







zooming the slowest "active"







I took the fastest "passive" shoot and the slowest "active" shoot for comparison
the audio analysis of delays is the following
net delay correction time, the difference of time from backstop (target) to camera minus the time from shooter to camera as camera is behind, measured with metric tape
is 0.0281818 seconds (9.3 meters net difference / 330 <- speed of sound in m/s)
the fastest "passive" shoot (0.447944 - 0.312695) - 0.02818 = 0.116259 seconds
the slowest "active" shoot (0.7727 - 0.656441) - 0.02818 = 0.088077 seconds
the ratio is 0.116259 / 0.088077 = 1.2156
that is in this shooting my worst "active" shoot was 21.5% faster than my best "passive" shoot
Cheers
Arturo

PS all that said taking I am not an expert in "active" technique ...


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Arturo... first off, I really do respect you and you really are trying... but the problem is the test is very flawed.... you're doing a very nice forced flip on the second set of shots versus a relaxed to almost static hold on the first three shots, plus your draw length is substantially greater on the second series of shots before doing the forced flip.

When someone _really, really_ wants a result to be in accordance with their beliefs... sometimes we do things subconsciously that affect the outcome of the rusults.... and that's the case here.

It's well known that a forced flip, by itself, can produce a proveable 15% increase in velocity, add to that the increased draw length on the second series of shots and you can easily arrive at 20% improvement....

But again, it is a moot point... since Darrell says he does not flip.

Here let me show you the difference in your draw from one set of shots to the next... these are frame captures taken right before the shot, the top three are your first three shots and the bottom three are your last three shots... it's fairly easy to see the angle difference in your rear forearm which created much of the speed difference.










Also, it's been shown more than once that using the chrono connect app, or any other audible means of testing speed is very subjective... it was allowed for the speed related badges and such because it averages around 10 fps different in comparison to an actual chrony... but the numbers seem to very rarely match exactly no matter how it's setup to the real thing... Certainly the audible chronies are good enough for day to day informal use... but when you're trying to prove a point that is dependant upon fairly precise percentages I'd think that the difference potentials between an actual chrony and the audible would be to great to base much on.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Maybe Bill, I was not trying to do a "scientific" test, to do that I would need to be sure that the stored energy was the same and nobody has done it to date, it's a very difficult experiment (and slingshot physics is a hairy stuff) , for me it's is not as important to reach an "exact value" ha ha that's another philosophical discussion giving my background and on what I give "scientific validity or proof" I have a few reservations, but let it aside ... I care for real shooting I mean when you are on the field you are not shooting in front of crony, you are seeking your goal (hunt, bull eyes, or cutting a card), that is a situation plenty of subtleties and subjective judgements that arises to be plain REAL ... every shooter "knows" when he is hitting harder or more accurate, you don't care if the can is softer or harder you just "know" you kick it harder on that shoot ... so it's a fact that maybe I tense the draw a bit more to prepare the flipping, that should be normal I am not a machine LOL ! that's why I took the best case vs the worst case for the comparison, but what matters here is I got some meaningful increase in speed mostly by the forced flip ... about my audio analysis it's completely valid for recording delays (verified and validated with the 2 paper method) and I should say it is better than the cheap simple phones apps for airguns that not takes account of the "two burst noise" pattern of a slingshot the only difference with a crony is that measures average speed (or absolute delays) instead of instant speeds (no delay) ... anyway I took special precaution not to mention the word "speed", the conclusion is based on delays ratio (same as speed at a fixed distance) ... so what is important to me as conclusion is that this technique gives me around 20% more speed in a REAL situation ... as I said before a discussion about slingshot subtleties could be long and very controversial as seems to be ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Arturito said:


> this is a REAL shooting example, 3 first shoots were "passive" and the 3 last were "active"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great Hi Tech proof of the ammo travel as its speeds increase.

Thumbs Up Arturo.

Dgui


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Arturito said:


> Maybe Bill, I was not trying to do a "scientific" test, to do that I would need to be sure that the stored energy was the same and nobody has done it to date, it's a very difficult experiment (and slingshot physics is a hairy stuff) , for me it's is not as important to reach an "exact value" ha ha that's another philosophical discussion giving my background and on what I give "scientific validity or proof" I have a few reservations, but let it aside ... I care for real shooting I mean when you are on the field you are not shooting in front of crony, you are seeking your goal (hunt, bull eyes, or cutting a card), that is a situation plenty of subtleties and subjective judgements that arises to be plain REAL ... every shooter "knows" when he is hitting harder or more accurate, you don't care if the can is softer or harder you just "know" you kick it harder on that shoot ... so it's a fact that maybe I tense the draw a bit more to prepare the flipping, that should be normal I am not a machine LOL ! that's why I took the best case vs the worst case for the comparison, but what matters here is I got some meaningful increase in speed mostly by the forced flip ... about my audio analysis it's completely valid for recording delays (verified and validated with the 2 paper method) and I should say it is better than the cheap simple phones apps for airguns that not takes account of the "two burst noise" pattern of a slingshot the only difference with a crony is that measures average speed (or absolute delays) instead of instant speeds (no delay) ... anyway I took special precaution not to mention the word "speed", the conclusion is based on delays ratio (same as speed at a fixed distance) ... so what is important to me as conclusion is that this technique gives me around 20% more speed in a REAL situation ... as I said before a discussion about slingshot subtleties could be long and very controversial as seems to be ...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Arturo


Ahhh the less the delays has it.

Very Good Show,

Dgui


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Go for the 30 percent increase in Power. You can even get lots more power even with the Daisy F-16 by Technique alone and consider if you would have a pocketable shooter with narrow forks for the xtra edge like a OPFS or a PFS a Super Slammin Shooter is what you would have.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

here I show a lucky and unintended example, first shoot to full extension no active flip and the second 6" less (half butterfly) with active flip






delay for first shoot 0.09369

delay for the second shoot 0.09584

ratio 0.09369 / 0.09584 = 0.9778 almost 98% ! or both speed were very close, active shoot slightly less

in other words the active flipping almost compensate the last more energetic 6" of the draw !

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Arturito said:


> here I show a lucky and unintended example, first shoot to full extension no active flip and the second 6" less (half butterfly) with active flip
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aurtoru that is a Great Find, this can possible change the slingshot world.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

dgui "Aurtoru that is a Great Find, this can possible change the slingshot world."

I don't think so Darrell, there are many shooters doing this for years, one of them is torsten, but "active shooting" adds power no doubt, the "exact amount" doesn't exists, every shoot is different for every shooter, for me could be around 20% which is a very good result, the down side is accuracy at least for me even I has done some improvements this last days ...

Cheers


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Arturito said:


> dgui "Aurtoru that is a Great Find, this can possible change the slingshot world."
> 
> I don't think so Darrell, there are many shooters doing this for years, one of them is torsten, but "active shooting" adds power no doubt, the "exact amount" doesn't exists, every shoot is different for every shooter, for me could be around 20% which is a very good result, the down side is accuracy at least for me even I has done some improvements this last days ...
> 
> Cheers


All is Aquired.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

DGui... good attempt but there are some real problems with you little informal test... on an empty can it is easier to penetrate it at some places than others... in the center is usually the easiest spot.

But that's not even the biggest problem... the biggest problem and the real reason you achieved more velocity on the second shot was you drew a lot further. It's very easy to see when you do a frame grab of the frame right before the release.

Now, I'm not saying you're intentionally doing it... but you ARE pulling further, in fact quite a bit further before the release when you're doing "live" shooting.

Let's just say your arm is approximately 22" long, which happens to be the draw length you're claiming for the first shot, and it indeed looks like is is about the length of your arm as it is somewhat bent... in the second frame grab you can see you pulled way beyond arm length... using a simple vector it looks like a good 10 or 12 inches minimum.... the added draw length will of course give you more velocity... even over 1/3 is possible with a longer draw.

So good try, but we ALL know added draw length creates greater speeds....


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

You can photo shop all you want Bill but a Quick Pull and Release is what does it. If some will try it they will see the results. Did you not understand anything Arturo explained to you. Come on Bill try it gohead give in, its ok you can do it too. You would make a Great Convert and then spread the word that Live Active Shooting has its place in the slingshot world.

The Trains leaving so hop on Bill lets go.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

so it seems my first experiment (active shooting) even I pulled maybe about 1" or 2" more (despite my effort to keep the same draw) is not so flawed at light of the second one on where I did an intentionally short draw, 6" shorter !, the conclusion is bold simple even not scientific proof to date, it falls on common sense domain and verify what others have already experimented (torsten, Jeorg, Bill ...), active shooting is much more than a marginal effect, it indeed increases speed, no doubt ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

Give up Bill this guys going to beat this horse until PETA steps in for animal cruelty .


----------



## JetBlack (Mar 9, 2012)

A bit ot but be careful with force fliping,, that's how I shot my hand, twice.I think sometime s especially when shooting something far we may pull past our anchor point. if you get used to flipping at a certain moment and you're one second too early when you flip the balls going right into your hand.at least wear a glove or wrap your hand, if you think band slaps hurt you're in for a surprise


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Arturito said:


> so it seems my first experiment (active shooting) even I pulled maybe about 1" or 2" more (despite my effort to keep the same draw) is not so flawed at light of the second one on where I did an intentionally short draw, 6" shorter !, the conclusion is bold simple even not scientific proof to date, it falls on common sense domain and verify what others have already experimented (torsten, Jeorg, Bill ...), active shooting is much more than a marginal effect, it indeed increases speed, no doubt ...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Arturo


Arturo you spresent all things with Logic and Good Horse Sence. Just checked my video for the first and the second shots and actually the tubes are pulled to the same stretch so there is something to this style of shooting. Hope someone will buy a Daisy and attemtp to blow through a can with it by the standard method of pull stall then release. But with The Live Active shot even with a Daisy it was was Slammin for sure.


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

Ok, I know I said I am out of this, but I do have a question though...

With the "static" draw release tests, if the results turned out that the wider the fork the more power/speed/whetever.. With the same draw and bands, would that not transfer over to an "active" test? Meaning if you flip the same way for both narrow and wider forks that the wider would produce an increased result?

I would imagine that the chart would curve back down at some point of width, but I am talking within the common spectrum of narrow/wide forks.. I do know Torsten gets great speed with narrow forjpks, not necessarily PFS narrow but narrow none the less. However Tobse does records with the "morrhammer??" Or the other model (can't recall at the moment ).

Either way, most know that technique and other variables play a part in the effect of the ammo, but I would believe that true tests of material capabilities we would have to have a test environment omitting as much of the human factor as possible... IMO

I mean heat tests, taper tests, and other of the sort is best charted with repeated data. I don't know the answers definitely, be ause I would prefer testing out what others have shared with their tests.... I do know that I find others efforts a privalage to read.. This way I have a base to go by with my guesstimated set ups... I have seen improvements and found that some of it holds true... Or should I say that my technique is compatible with others sweat driven results....

I wish findings could be just posted and let the free thinking audience make the determination, rather than being rammed down the throats a conclusion that isn't all conclusive....

LGD


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)




----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Bill Hays said:


> DGui... good attempt but there are some real problems with you little informal test... on an empty can it is easier to penetrate it at some places than others... in the center is usually the easiest spot.
> 
> But that's not even the biggest problem... the biggest problem and the real reason you achieved more velocity on the second shot was you drew a lot further. It's very easy to see when you do a frame grab of the frame right before the release.
> 
> ...


Bomp ! Wrong again bill I just viewed my own video and the tube stretch is the same. I physically cannot stretch the tube beyond the 22 inches no matter slow or fast I cannot do it but not to fear I have another easy to understand video coming.

Nice try to Discredit.


----------



## treefork (Feb 1, 2010)

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/852429/competition-electronics-prochrono-digital-chronograph


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

dgui said:


> Bomp ! Wrong again bill I just viewed my own video and the tube stretch is the same. I physically cannot stretch the tube beyond the 22 inches no matter slow or fast I cannot do it but not to fear I have another easy to understand video coming.
> 
> Nice try to Discredit.


Hey, Dude really?

It's YOU who's discrediting himself! All anyone has to do is watch your videos and then pause, measure, and compare... it really is that simple... You really don't have any idea of how you yourself pull off your own "miracle"!


----------



## JetBlack (Mar 9, 2012)

Happy labor day!


----------



## Cjw (Nov 1, 2012)

Mods step in put and end to this PLEASE. It's turned into a CIRCUS. It's never going to end.


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

I'll tell you what... it is ridiculous to argue on a subject that has already proven to be in error... and now the error has been brought out into the light and everybody can see it.

We now KNOW that given the same draw length you can get around a 5% advantage if you use a little wider forks... so the conversation has shifted to "live" shooting and the way it's REALLY accomplished.

Well I have a proposal, and it will definitely show DGui is right in his thoughts..... all he has to do is tie a piece of string to his drawing hand's wrist, attach the other end to the bottom of his slingshot... any slingshot will do... even the Daisy. Make the string as long as your normal draw, so you can't go beyond it... and simply redo the "tests" with the string in place...

If using the Daisy, just give yourself about 23 inches of slack....

When/IF you were to do the test then you will either be able to absolutely prove that is "all about the speed of the release" as opposed to "the length of the draw" as I'm saying it is.

So simple I'm sure even YOU could do it Darrell!


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

CJW has a point. The horse is dead. Let's all try to find something rational to discuss.

And guys, please don't move this to another thread.


----------

