# Slingshot science #1: Tapering.



## Melchior (Dec 27, 2009)

Fellow slingshooter,

I recently conducted a number of slinghsot experiments. Factors such as draw weight, tapering, draw length etc. were evaluated, using a Chrony and a fixed slingshot.

The first experiment investigates Tapering. Three bandsets (latex flats) of the same mass & rubber material were tested with steel balls of 6,8,10,12 and 14mm diameter. Here are the results:


----------



## Melchior (Dec 27, 2009)

We see: The effect of tapering is huge when small diameter ammunition is use. Increasing the projectile's weight diminishes the advantage, to a point where the extremely tapered (3:1) bands shoot actually slower than the untapered ones (but still have a slightly higher performance, considering their lower draw weight).

The slight 2:3 tapered bands have less draw weight than the untapered bandset, yet have a higher velocity with all projectiles.

So what do we learn from it? A sensible tapering in the range of 2:3 is always a good idea. Extreme tapering makes sense for small ammunition, but is not worthwile when heavy ammunition is used.


----------



## Quercusuber (Nov 10, 2011)

Thank you so much for the info!!

It's people like you who give a huge contribution to the sport 

Cheers ...Q


----------



## DaveSteve (May 16, 2012)

Good info.

Your chart shows 2cm/2cm twice.

I think the red line suppose to show 3cm/2cm. ?


----------



## Rayshot (Feb 1, 2010)

I was just typing about the red line's taper, you beat me to DaveSteve.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2013)

Thank you Melchior. Great information.


----------



## Flatband (Dec 18, 2009)

Great hearing from you Mel! Excellent post too! We've known some of the drawbacks of drastic tapering but I didn't realize it would benefit smaller calibers so much. Good stuff! Flatband


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Great experimental results! Thanks for this.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Danny0663 (Mar 15, 2011)

Nice data, i shoot 10mm steel quite often and i've always wondered about the velocity.

This particular research was done by ZDP-189 (Dan) if others were interested ...

http://slingshotforum.com/blog/11/entry-408-tapered-flatbands-mechanism-and-effect/


----------



## Knotty (Jan 15, 2013)

This is exactly the type of info I was looking for. Especially useful since I shoot light ammo. Knew that taper improved performance, but by how much? Thanks for answering that question.


----------



## Melchior (Dec 27, 2009)

Sorry for the mistake guys - the red line was recorded with a 2.5cm to 1.5cm band.


----------



## Rayshot (Feb 1, 2010)

Melchior said:


> Sorry for the mistake guys - the red line was recorded with a 2.5cm to 1.5cm band.


Thanks for sharing the info and letting us know what the red line's taper is.


----------



## Viper010 (Apr 21, 2012)

great stuff melchior, thanks for taking the time to test & post.

danny, thanks for the link man. im not nearly educated enough to fully understand zdp189s technical rants, but find them highly educational none the less lol

thanks guys, always good to learn new stuff

cheers, remco


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

So after the correction of the red line being a taper, it looks like a mild taper is still the best all around band. A hourglas loop taper like Saunders patent band looks better all the time. It is what I am shooting now. Good to here from you Mel. -- Tex


----------



## chico (Feb 2, 2013)

Thats really useful, thank you.


----------



## Antoniollull (Feb 25, 2013)

Hello, thank you for your information is what i was looking for.
Let me please ask you a question. How do you calculate the energy? I think is Ec= 1/2 m V2 where m was mass and V is speed at square. If you use this equation why you have more energy as more weight and more speed. But speed is square and mass not. So I think speed is more important than weight. When I look your tables I see them proportional.
Please can you explain it a little bit?
Excuse my english
Toni


----------



## Shawn Feltman (Jan 10, 2013)

thanks for this


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Antoniollull said:


> Hello, thank you for your information is what i was looking for.
> Let me please ask you a question. How do you calculate the energy? I think is Ec= 1/2 m V2 where m was mass and V is speed at square. If you use this equation why you have more energy as more weight and more speed. But speed is square and mass not. So I think speed is more important than weight. When I look your tables I see them proportional.
> Please can you explain it a little bit?
> Excuse my english
> Toni


You are quite right that IN GENERAL, velocity is more important because energy goes up as the square of the velocity. However, because of the characteristics of rubber, at slingshot velocities and ammo weights, the loss in velocity from shooting heavier ammo is more than compensated by the heavier weight of the ammo ... up to a point, of course. As an example, you can look at my entries in the Power Rangers competition.

1. For one entry, I used my combow sling to shoot a 170 grain ball at 210.4 feet per second, for 16.7 foot pounds of energy.

2. For another entry, I used the very same combow sling to shoot a slug weighing 232 grains at 191.3 feet per second, for 18.85 foot pounds of energy.

The heavier slug moving more slowly had more energy.

One way of thinking about it is that your bands have a maximum stretch length. For lighter ammo, the rubber has more energy than it has time to impart to the lighter weight ammo over the length of its maximum stretch length. Because it can move the heavier ammo reasonably well, the bands are able to impart more of their energy to the heavier ammo over the maximum stretch length. Naturally I expect there will be some fall off if the ammo weight is increased beyond some point, because the bands do not contain enough energy to move that very heavy ammo effectively.

Cheers ....... Charles


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

I should add that a good explanation for how to calculate energy in foot pounds from ammo weight in grains and velocity in feet per second can be found here:

http://www.pyramydair.com/article/What_is_Muzzle_Energy_August_2003/5

And there is even an on-line calculator to do the work for you ... just put in ammo weight and velocity and it will cough up the foot pounds.

To convert between foot pounds and joules, go here:

http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/joules-to-foot-pounds-conversion.html

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## Antoniollull (Feb 25, 2013)

Thank you very much for your answer. Really you are the Master. I'll try to find a chrono in spain to start my measures. 
What I'mlooking for is to design the perfect slingshot. The definitive one. I have a couple of them but not perfects. I'll post my designs when ready. 
Best regards from Majorca Island
Toni


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Hey, Toni. Thanks for your kind words. And I send my very best wishes for your quest for the perfect slingshot. I look forward to seeing your designs. ... from me here on Vancouver Island to you there on Majorca Island ... If only we could find a big enough outboard motor, we could drive our islands together and have a shoot! :rofl:

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## boby (Oct 7, 2012)

Melchior said:


> Fellow slingshooter,
> 
> I recently conducted a number of slinghsot experiments. Factors such as draw weight, tapering, draw length etc. were evaluated, using a Chrony and a fixed slingshot.
> 
> The first experiment investigates Tapering. Three bandsets (latex flats) of the same mass & rubber material were tested with steel balls of 6,8,10,12 and 14mm diameter. Here are the results:


What kind of latex did you use? Had it been "broken in"? Do you know it's thickness (both nominal and measured if possible)? How did you measure the draw force and with what timing? What's your pouch weight?

Not being pesty-- just might want to try *calculating* what to expect if your bands are close enough to Hygenic 0.030" (for which I have good density and force vs pull distance data).

thanks much


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

Great work and extracted info. Many thanks.

Food for thought: Would this and other current technical knowledge have made Rufus a better shot?


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2013)

THWACK! said:


> Great work and extracted info. Many thanks.
> 
> Food for thought: Would this and other current technical knowledge have made Rufus a better shot?


No. Rufus was an instinctive shooter. He would have shot equally well with any stick fitted with any bands. It isn't so much that he would have, as he just did. For shooters like that, it is like throwing a ball, do it enough times and you will start to get hits, enough more times and you will almost always get hits. He belonged to the DGUI school of shooting rather than the Bill H. school. Bill aims, Darrel just shoots without thinking about it. Both ways are great but the one way benefits from an understanding of the physics, the other ignores everything but the target.


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

OldSpookASA said:


> THWACK! said:
> 
> 
> > Great work and extracted info. Many thanks.
> ...


I realized that.

Getting into all that technological theory and practice reminds me of folks at the archery range with their compound bows - they're so busy adjusting this and that ("Hey, can I borrow your Allen wrenches?"), and replacing this and that with something supposedly "better", they miss the pure joy of just shooting. Okay, some folks enjoy tinkering with their toys (pubesence?), but personally, I prefer to spend my time shooting than tinkering.

Just my three cents :wave:


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

OldSpook,

You've a terrific looking canine there.

(I would've said "handsome" or "beautiful", but the pose negates the requisite observation for determination).

Groucho Marx said "Outside of a book, a dog is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read". And I understand that his wife was a bitch, so he should know. :king:


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

THWACK! said:


> OldSpookASA said:
> 
> 
> > THWACK! said:
> ...


I prefer to spend my time actually hitting something ... :rofl:

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## ruthiexxx (Aug 7, 2013)

Thanks for all this helpful information Melchior and Charles. It is so useful for those of us without chronys

(posted as my alter ego as I cant access my ruthiexxxx account at the moment...password probs)


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

Charles said:


> THWACK! said:
> 
> 
> > OldSpookASA said:
> ...


That's what my ex-wives told the judges :angrymod: :angrymod:


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

At the risk of sounding like an as$, I'd like to express myself on this subject.

- Slingshot shooting is an art and not a science. Which doesn't mean that the science isn't helpful. We should be aware that the numbers that make up the charts are not to be taken too seriously. Or to put it another way, the numbers are not the last word on the subject. For one glaring example of this, take Darrell (pfshooter). With his "live-shooting" technique, he can get a whole lot more power (not to mention accuracy) out of a set of single tubes or flatbands than most people. I don't see many folks driving marbles through steel cans armed with single bands the way Darrell does.

- When we look at the "numbers", we would do well to remember what "numbers" are. Numbers are only models of what is in the real world -- and very rough models at that. For my part, I would only take the charts as gospel if slingshots, shooters, rubber, and all the acoutraments of the sport were made of numbers. But they are not.

- One can never *exactly *repeat an event (like taking a shot with a slingshot). That is physically impossible, or at least improbable. Just as cutting two bandsets that will deliver exactly the same amount of energy is at best very improbable. Then again, shooting styles -- as in Darrell's example above -- can have a huge and probably incalculable effect on events. And we haven't even considered the importance of temperature.

- So what is needed is some perspective here. Let's look at the numbers and charts -- no matter how many decimal places they're carried out to -- as a rough guide. When it comes to shooting, experience is, and always will be, the best guide.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> For one glaring example of this, take Darrell (pfshooter). With his "live-shooting" technique, he can get a whole lot more power (not to mention accuracy) out of a set of single tubes or flatbands than most people. I don't see many folks driving marbles through steel cans armed with single bands the way Darrell does.


This notion is generally GROSSLY exaggerated. Have a look at Middleton's book, page 62, for some real empirical tests. Even a full 5 second hold results in a velocity loss of less than 10%.

As for each event being unique ... that is certainly true, and true particularly with respect to slingshot bands. Middleton also discusses this point. As he notes, latex is not entirely uniform, and even bands taken from the same batch will vary slightly in draw weight and the velocity they impart to projectiles. Draw weight, velocity, etc. also vary shot to shot and the amount of time between shots.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2013)

Charles said:


> Dayhiker said:
> 
> 
> > For one glaring example of this, take Darrell (pfshooter). With his "live-shooting" technique, he can get a whole lot more power (not to mention accuracy) out of a set of single tubes or flatbands than most people. I don't see many folks driving marbles through steel cans armed with single bands the way Darrell does.
> ...


I would love to read that book. My measurements are certainly not conclusive but I did look at the "hold time" problem and documented what I measured in this thread.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/20962-a-shooting-machine-for-testing/page-2?hl=%2Bvelocity+%2Bloss+%2Bhold+%2Btime#entry259003


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2013)

THWACK! said:


> OldSpook,
> 
> You've a terrific looking canine there.
> 
> ...


 :rofl: That just ain't right! But it sure is funny. That dog is Sassy. She has been a good dog for a long time. If I can find it, I will change my avatar to a picture of her and her "boy friend" Diesel.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

OldSpookASA said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > Dayhiker said:
> ...


Thanks for the link! More good information.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

OldSpookASA said:


> THWACK! said:
> 
> 
> > OldSpook,
> ...


It took me a "heckova" ( from the Russian root "tuber") time to locate it, but I found the image of Sheena, and she's my new avatar. Only rightly so, considering that this is a slingshot forum and she's wearing a hot pink (to match her tongue) tactical slingshot. Yeah, sher's accessory concious. She wanted a Chihuahua as a fashion accessory, but I convinced her that they don't necessarily taste good. Not that I've personally had the experience, but I've been talking with the landscapers lately...

PLEASE, fellas, don't take me seriously!

BTW - if there are still nerwspapers around in your neighborhood, check out the obituary section - seems that nowadays folks are dying alphabetically.


----------



## Dr J (Apr 22, 2013)

VUI (very useful information )thanks for sharing! Very much appreciated.


----------



## muddog15 (Aug 15, 2012)

This answers a lot of questions I had also.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Charles said:


> Dayhiker said:
> 
> 
> > For one glaring example of this, take Darrell (pfshooter). With his "live-shooting" technique, he can get a whole lot more power (not to mention accuracy) out of a set of single tubes or flatbands than most people. I don't see many folks driving marbles through steel cans armed with single bands the way Darrell does.
> ...


Charles, I don't think you have a good idea of what Darrell means by "live" shooting as opposed to "dead" shooting. I have spent close to 2 hours scouring the archives and on Darrell's YT channel looking for the video he posted about it. I am going to pm him and ask him to come on this thread and explain.

In the meantime, I will attempt to briefly explain. Live shooting involves releasing the ammo while the bands are still in motion. Dead shooting has three steps: draw, aim, release. No matter how fast, they are present. Darrell compresses all three into one fluid motion. The critical factor is releasing the ammo while you are still stretching the rubber.

Now I can tell you from experience that this results in far more than a 10% difference. It's pretty huge, Charles. You can generate a very noticeable jump in power/speed. But just the observation that Darrell's blowing holes through STEEL cans with single .030 latex bands and marbles should tell you that he is getting a huge amount of oomph over a dead shooter who stretches the bands and shoots from a still (or dead) state with respect to the bands.

I urge you to try this yourself. Snap that ammo out! Release while you're still drawing! Practice. You will soon see how much harder you're hitting.


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

But the world speed record is held by a shooter shooting butterfly with heated bands and holding for a short period of time. I think that band heat plays a big part in speed and a band heats up when stretched, but cools quickly. I think that is why a quick release produces more speed. At the last Summer Nationals that Nell and I went to, it was very hot and we both were shooting high. I adjusted the bands to compensate for the high temperature to get back on target that day. -- Tex


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > Dayhiker said:
> ...


I believe I am quite familiar with the distinction you wish to draw:

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/19722-speed-freaks-ssf-300-club/?p=273044

I invite you, or anyone else, to do an empirical test under controlled conditions that does not depend on human intervention and uses a chrony to measure the velocity. I am afraid that a video of Dgui shooting marbles at a can does not settle anything.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Ha! So numbers trump reality? I have nothing more to add.

except this: Until you have driven a marble through a tin can with a set of single .030 latex bands, I think you are full of sh*t.

Hate to put it this way, but you have forced it.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Ha! So numbers trump reality? I have nothing more to add.
> 
> except this: Until you have driven a marble through a tin can with a set of single .030 latex bands, I think you are full of sh*t.
> 
> Hate to put it this way, but you have forced it.


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No one has claimed "numbers trump reality" ... quite the contrary. So called steel cans come in a variety of thicknesses, some a lot easier to pierce than others. Ammo velocity will vary tremendously with ambient temperature, and whether the bands have been left in the sun or in the shade. Whether a piece of ammo will pierce a can depends in part on the size of the ammo, as well as a number of other factors. And the velocity of the ammo will also vary depending on how many shots have been taken and the time between shots. The distance to the target will also make a difference, as will whether the can is full, weighted, or free standing.

Quite frankly, I believe in physics. I do not believe there is some mysterious "penetrative power" that is imparted to the ammo that is independent of the velocity of the ammo. Also, there are many, many examples in science in which the bias of the experimenter subtly, unconsciously influences the outcome of the experiment. Sooo ... let's just focus on the velocity ... after all, that was where we began anyway. I think my request for an objective velocity test independent of human intervention is quite reasonable in the circumstances.

As for you suggesting I am full of sh!t ... well, you are not the first to express such an opinion, and I assure you I harbor no ill will toward you for saying it. :wave:

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Okay, Charles. Independent of the mystery of penetrative power, let's see some action. I think the concept of "thrust" has some importance here.

I want you to put your money wher your numbers are. All that convinces me are results. Put some marbles thru some steel cans.

I hope Darrell comes on here and you two standardise the cans. ... Until then I stand by my own personal experience and say you are still full of sh*t.


----------



## Aussie Allan In Thailand (Jan 28, 2013)

With all due respect Dayhiker.

Charles has a wealth of knowledge he shares with all of us, and he is prepared to stand corrected, should he be proved wrong.

Therefore I do not see the need for disparaging remarks toward our senior citizen members; quite simply as a matter of respect if nothing else.

In saying this I mean no insult to yourself, as I have seen many of your comments which are quite constructive.

But rather I am attempting to foster good manners among forum members, which of course is not alway possible when personalities clash; which is inevitable from time to time.

Cheers Allan


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

Gentlemen;

From a study I did on how much hold time affected loss of power, I derived these heuristics.

*1) Larger stretch percentages are more affected by hold time.*
The same band set drawn further looses stored energy faster.

*2) The effect of hold time is NON LINEAR. You lose most of the power in the first three seconds.*
More power is lost in the first second of hold time than in the second. More is lost in the second second than in the third second of hold time. After about five seconds the vast majority of power which will be lost to any reasonable hold time has been lost already. Very little more is lost with a ten second hold time than with a five second hold time.

*3) Smaller stretch percentages are practically unaffected by hold time.*
Bands which are not stretched far do not loose much power due to hold time. This is probably because the bands heat up much more when they are drawn such that they have stored about as much energy as they are able. Also the surface area of a band stretched close to breaking is as big as it is going to get. Large surface areas are better conductors of heat.

These things pretty much any of us realize.

One last point, a band set that is drawn to 400 percent over a short draw length and released immediately will deliver about the same power as a longer band set of the same material, thickness, and width which is drawn to 400 percent over a 25 - 35 percent longer draw length if that band is is held for three seconds before release.

It is the post above this one: http://slingshotforum.com/topic/20962-a-shooting-machine-for-testing/page-2?hl=%2Bvelocity+%2Bloss+%2Bhold+%2Btime#entry259003


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

So, I can order my heuristics with fries?


----------



## muddog15 (Aug 15, 2012)

So,,,,, does that mean a shorter band set and pull would be a better idea for more power?? Am I understanding that right?


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

@Aussie Allan: Haha. Well I guess I'm no gentleman, Allan. Did you happen to notice the little  after what I said to Charles? This means I'm not really serious when I say he's full of it. It's my guess that he understands the subtleties of my wording because it would be pretty much out of character for me to address him so in earnest.

@Old Spook... This is a case of "Live" shooting I'm talking about here. As I tried to make clear, it's not the same as "hold time". When you put it to practice and start putting marbles through steel cans with single .030 latex bands the way Darrell does, you will understand.


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

I prefer to shoot dead cans to begin with.

That way, if I just wound one, it won't turn around and attack me.

:screwy: :screwy:


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

THWACK! said:


> I prefer to shoot dead cans to begin with.
> 
> That way, if I just wound one, it won't turn around and attack me.
> 
> :screwy: :screwy:


Yeah, but the carnage caused by the live ones has GOT to be stopped. :angrymod:


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> THWACK! said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer to shoot dead cans to begin with.
> ...


You've got a point there - they're like whistleblowers, spillin' the beans...


----------



## muddog15 (Aug 15, 2012)

Witch end should the taper be tied onto, the fork or pouch?


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

The pouch, Mr. Muddog.


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

muddog15 said:


> Witch end should the taper be tied onto, the fork or pouch?


Please refer to "The Wizard of OZ" for witch end.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

THWACK! said:


> muddog15 said:
> 
> 
> > Witch end should the taper be tied onto, the fork or pouch?
> ...


*Thwack!*


----------



## muddog15 (Aug 15, 2012)

THWACK! said:


> muddog15 said:
> 
> 
> > Witch end should the taper be tied onto, the fork or pouch?
> ...


Damm spell checker. I need to remember to read what I type before I post it. Lol.


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

muddog15 said:


> THWACK! said:
> 
> 
> > muddog15 said:
> ...


Sorry guy, I just couldn't resist that one. Given a "straight line", I'll respond to it as if I were speaking from within a strait jacket, it's my nature. See that? "straight" isn't "strait"! It's wiggly!!

Thanks for having a healthy self-defecating sense of humor.

Your fellow Floridian (transplanted New "Yawker")


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

*Self defecating. Hah!*



Hey Mel, think this thread has gone awry? (Sorry, man.)


----------



## muddog15 (Aug 15, 2012)

THWACK! said:


> muddog15 said:
> 
> 
> > THWACK! said:
> ...


99 percent of my computing is done on my tablet or cell phone, I have a Windows laptop but I hardley ever use it. You know how the spell checkers are. Anyway we need to get this thread back on subject. Take care.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

Dayhiker said:


> @Aussie Allan: Haha. Well I guess I'm no gentleman, Allan. Did you happen to notice the little  after what I said to Charles? This means I'm not really serious when I say he's full of it. It's my guess that he understands the subtleties of my wording because it would be pretty much out of character for me to address him so in earnest.
> 
> @Old Spook... This is a case of "Live" shooting I'm talking about here. As I tried to make clear, it's not the same as "hold time". When you put it to practice and start putting marbles through steel cans with single .030 latex bands the way Darrell does, you will understand.


Make no mistake, I do understand. Hold time is hold time, if there is no hold time, hold time is then zero, call it whatever you want. I know why he can shoot marbles through cans. I just explained it in a way that is different from your own.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Yes OldSpook, the key is shooting with a band already in motion as opposed to shooting with a band that is not in motion... I would say that it isn't even "zero" hold time, it's more like minus 1 or something like that. But my other point is that the difference has to be quite a bit more than 10%.

But I don't want to quibble about it. I think we are in basic agreement.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

Dayhiker said:


> Yes OldSpook, the key is shooting with a band already in motion as opposed to shooting with a band that is not in motion... I would say that it isn't even "zero" hold time, it's more like minus 1 or something like that. But my other point is that the difference has to be quite a bit more than 10%.
> 
> But I don't want to quibble about it. I think we are in basic agreement.


The difference is about 30% according to the measurements I linked in my graph...

This medium truly does suck for communications.

As I have written elsewhere in this thread, my measurements suggest that an 10 inch x .5 inch, straight taper, TBG band drawn to 40 inchs will deliver about the same energy as a 13 inch x .5 inch, straight taper TBG band drawn to 52 inchs... IFF the hold time of the former is 0 seconds and the hold time of the later is 3 seconds.


----------



## THWACK! (Nov 25, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> *Self defecating. Hah!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ruthiexxxx (Sep 15, 2012)

Dayhiker said:


> Yes OldSpook, the key is shooting with a band already in motion as opposed to shooting with a band that is not in motion... I would say that it isn't even "zero" hold time, it's more like minus 1 or something like that. But my other point is that the difference has to be quite a bit more than 10%.
> 
> But I don't want to quibble about it. I think we are in basic agreement.


Actually that makes sense to me. I have noticed that when I draw fully (I don't hold to aim...maybe it would be better if I did!)if I tweak the bands back a little further as I release I seem to get better speeds


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Finally Darrell has gotten back to me. He doesn't want to say anything, but he gave me the links to these videos of his. This is what I was talking about. I think it shows how technique can really change the numbers...






In Video #3 he generates more power than expected, I believe. This is using "live" shooting. There was another video where he explains it better but neither of us can find it.


----------



## muddog15 (Aug 15, 2012)

I like all of the vids, I wish there were more of a tutorial about how to shoot like that, he's definatly one of the best shooters I've seen.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Okay, Charles. Independent of the mystery of penetrative power, let's see some action. I think the concept of "thrust" has some importance here.
> 
> I want you to put your money wher your numbers are. All that convinces me are results. Put some marbles thru some steel cans.
> 
> I hope Darrell comes on here and you two standardise the cans. ... Until then I stand by my own personal experience and say you are still full of sh*t.


Just for you, DH:






We of the Internal Scatalogical Brotherhood salute you ... and we hereby bestow upon you the title of Maxime Credula Excrementum. :wave:

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2013)

Charles said:


> Dayhiker said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, Charles. Independent of the mystery of penetrative power, let's see some action. I think the concept of "thrust" has some importance here.
> ...


But Charles you have just proven his point... oh and I think that ball was .25 not .375... but whatever you did not hold for much time at all. You two are arguing about the effects of hold time.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

OldSpookASA said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > Dayhiker said:
> ...


That ball was 3/8 ... no question about it.

And that was certainly NOT the so-called "live shooting" that Dayhiker and Dgui were talking about. The Draw-Aim-Fire involved a static hold of about 2 or 3 seconds. I see NO evidence for some super velocity as a result of "live shooting", at least not as indicated by ability to puncture a can. For pity sake, I was using bands cut from disposable gloves ... not even using Tex's tubes. But True Believers will carry on in spite of the evidence, I suppose.

I have never denied that there is some loss of velocity as you lengthen your hold time. That was never the dispute between us. However, I still have seen NO evidence for the extravagant claims that there is any super velocity that results from so-called "live shooting".

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2013)

Charles said:


> OldSpookASA said:
> 
> 
> > Charles said:
> ...


My friend. I have never dealt in superstition and I find it interesting that I can link my measurements in several places in the forum and nobody ever seems to read the graphs, you included by the way...

I am going to say this exactly one more time and then I am never going to say it again. "My measurements strongly suggest that a band of any given dimensions, drawn to 400% elongation and released immediately will deliver AS MUCH ENERGY as a band 1.3 times as long, of the same dimensions, drawn to the same 400% elongation if that second band is held for three seconds before release...

I DONT KNOW HOW MUCH SIMPLER I CAN MAKE IT LADS. The graphs are there. I have linked them and linked them. The evidence is there. The vids are there....

There is no magic here.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2013)

There is a passage which some would not want quoted here... It involves gnats, camels, and swallowing... We are all arguing about gnats. Nobody has quantified this issue, well except, maybe me and to be honest my pitiful measurements were rather paltry. Maybe we should really quantify this issue? Jus' sayin' maybe we should?


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Here is what I suggested to DH:

"I invite you, or anyone else, to do an empirical test under controlled conditions that does not depend on human intervention and uses a chrony to measure the velocity."

For some reason, DH seemed to take objection to that. He seems to be an advocate of some mysterious force which manifests itself when the bands are released while still in motion ... to quote DH: " the key is shooting with a band already in motion as opposed to shooting with a band that is not in motion... I would say that it isn't even 'zero' hold time, it's more like minus 1 or something like that. But my other point is that the difference has to be quite a bit more than 10% ..." Apparently DH did not base this claim on his own experience. Rather, he took as evidence of this sort of claim the fact that Dgui shot through a steel can ... the video he posted showed Dgui using a 3/8 in steel ball. He also said he did not see other folks doing that.

Personally I do not believe there is such a force. I do believe there is some loss of velocity as a result of lengthening hold time. Middleton tested this, and his results show the loss to be generally less than 10%, for reasonable hold times ... say less than 5 seconds. I do not know what sort of test procedure Middleton used. I have also indicated that I think it is possible that personal beliefs can subtly, perhaps unconsciously, alter the outcomes. Hence my suggestion that the test shooting must involve no human interaction, in so far as that is possible ... so for example, a mechanical release triggered at precisely measured distances is a must. We also know from Middleton's work that velocity will vary on subsequent shots, depending on the time between shots. And on, and on. There are a TON of things for which one must control. For all of these reasons, whole sequences of tests must be repeated many different times in order to get reliable results. This is a highly non-trivial task that would be very, very time consuming.

What is trivial is shooting a 3/8 inch steel ball through a steel can using a "static" draw-aim-fire sequence. And my bands cut from disposable gloves were hardly comparable in power to Tex's tubes or to .03 latex.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Charles, I stopped reading after you said "empirical test under controlled conditions that does not depend on human intervention," because I don't really care about what you did in a laboratory. Everything most of us are going to do with our slingshots is not under controlled conditions and certainly does depend on human intervention. This is why I said that since slingshots aren't made of numbers we should not be taking what the numbers tell us too seriously.

By the way, I still think you are misunderstanding live shooting. There is nothing mysterious about it. You can watch Darrell do it in the last video. I have used a laboratory instrument that more closely resembles what happens when I actuallyshoot. Following Darrell's prescriptions, the instrument I used was my own body and my own brain -- and voilà! It worked. I generated more speed and power. Lots more than the charts and graphs indicated I could get. (I thought.)

The reason I think you are misunderstanding, Charles, is the video you did. (1) You used a steel ball and not a marble. (2) You used an outre material for propulsion when I was talking about a specific set of bands like the kind that show up on charts. (3) You still did not shoot with the bands moving: the most critical part of live shooting.

This thread is beginning to remind me of an ongoing argument that occurred a while ago on this forum between a college kid from London, England who insisted on the basis of his equations that you could not kill small game with such and such bands and ammo. Several hunters came on and showed that they were indeed killing game with even less power than the student thought was required. But it was to no avail. It took x amount of joules to kill a rabbit and that was that, he insisted, no matter how many dead rabbits you showed him.

You know Charles, I tweaked you a little with that "full of ...." remark because I was trying to break the conversation out of "stodgy" mode. I hope you weren;'t offended. But I don't think most of the folks here are going to read a whole lifeless dissertation about the acedemics of mathematical analysis. That's why Darrell's demos are more effective than Old Spook's charts.

So my basic point about all this stands. The charts are the rough guides, but experience is the more exact and useful. Not the other way around.

EDIT: I think I am more concerned with how, but you are more concerned with "why" and since you can't say, you call it "mysterious". The answer is to do the right experiments.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Charles said:


> Here is what I suggested to DH:
> 
> "I invite you, or anyone else, to do an empirical test under controlled conditions that does not depend on human intervention and uses a chrony to measure the velocity." . . . .


 :mellow: that scientific mumbo jumbo wording just lost me. . . i quit reading at that point. :blink:


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

I get a rubbery one over charts and experimentation findings, and a similar movement about what I experience when experimenting first hand in my catch box. Let's not get into different camps here, we need both personal, and homogenous based opinions as well as hard data from experimentation. Even if an experiment is deemed invalid, it teaches us about the experimentation process and gives us more data to mull over - if you're so inclined.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

All Buns Glazing said:


> I get a rubbery one over charts and experimentation findings, and a similar movement about what I experience when experimenting first hand in my catch box. Let's not get into different camps here, we need both personal, and homogenous based opinions as well as hard data from experimentation. Even if an experiment is deemed invalid, it teaches us about the experimentation process and gives us more data to mull over - if you're so inclined.


Buns, I'm in no camp. All I'm asking is for a little perspective. For example, once I know that the speed of my shot is inversely proportional to the hold time, what more do I need to know? To what tolerance do I have to know it? To what tolerance CAN I know it? At what point do the numbers become purely academic?

There is a reason why the mechanic who maintains the engine of a professional race car isn't also the driver. They hire a driver. Darrell is like a good race car driver -- he can drive the car better than the engineers and mechanics. It's just how it is. No camp. Just tryin' to keep it real.


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

Until we know how much it affects the effect of the affected bands, how can we effect the affect effectively?


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

All Buns Glazing said:


> Until we know how much it affects the effect of the affected bands, how can we effect the affect effectively?


Easy. Do the right experiments. Shoot slingshots. But, again, at what poing does it all become purely academic?


----------



## Crac (Mar 3, 2013)

All Buns Glazing said:


> Until we know how much it affects the effect of the affected bands, how can we effect the affect effectively?


Newton's law of cooling?

But IMO I think that DH nailed it here:



Dayhiker said:


> once I know that the speed of my shot is inversely proportional to the hold time, what more do I need to know?
> 
> ...


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

Here is another video posted some years ago at this forum about intuitive & active shooting. A member translated it to english. I shortened/summarized his translation.

"Release while IN MOTION. Slingshot front hand has forward motion as the pouch/ammo rear hand﻿ has backwards motion upon release. As you are 'in motion', you are sighting the target. Look & focus at the target beyond the 'front top' fork tip. If you try aiming by pausing too long, the power & energy of rubber is lessened. When you release, the pouch/ammo rear hand pulls 'further back' and at same time the front hand gripping slingshot, has forward flipping motion"

This shooter in video below uses different style than Dgui. He shoots, not turning the pouch and he finishes with flipping motion. ... BUT ... both he & Dgui using the technique, physics, principle or whatever you want to call it ... of *active shooting*. Even Rufus Hussey form is also different than Dgui's, but you see Rufus using same active shooting principle (drawing & releasing while in motion, no long aiming pause).


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

There is aiming, but it's done while the bands are still moving. Also there is no pause at all when Darrell does it. But this is still a good video, and it's the way I shoot most of the time.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

People's subjective impressions about how much power or how much velocity they are getting from their slingshots are often not in accord with reality. That is why we require documented measurements for Power Rangers and Speed Freaks.

Almost every aspect of your modern technological existence depends essentially on laboratory tests under controlled conditions ... your automobile and its performance, the road surface over which you drive, the bridge over which you pass, and even your house construction. Relying on subjective impressions about the strength and utility of materials is a recipe for disaster. Without those lab tests, you would not have your smart phone, your computer, or the internet over which you are communicating. Your Kindle would not exist.

DH, you complained: " (1) You used a steel ball and not a marble. (2) You used an outre material for propulsion when I was talking about a specific set of bands like the kind that show up on charts. (3) You still did not shoot with the bands moving: the most critical part of live shooting."

Yep, I used a steel ball instead of a marble precisely because that is what Dgui used in the video that you posted. Your challenge was to reproduce what Dgui did ... and I think I have done that.

Yep, I used bands cut from a disposable latex glove ... in part because I do not have the material you mentioned, which was not what Dgui used in that 3rd video you posted. I used that stuff because it was so obviously less powerful than the tubes or the latex flats. Do you really think that super thin glove material has the same propulsive force as the latex flats you mentioned or the tubes that Dgui actually used???

And I am SO glad you noticed that I did NOT use your so-called "active" shooting technique. That was the whole point of the video, my friend! You were suggesting that without using that technique it was not possible to do what Dgui did ... shoot a 3/8 inch steel ball through a steel can. You were suggesting that if one paused to aim then one could not do what Dgui did. Well, well ... you were dead wrong. I used the standard so-called "static" procedure of draw-aim-fire ... and surprise, surprise ... that steel ball went through the can.

Different folks develop different methods of shooting ... fair enough. I do not care how anyone else shoots. I chimed in on this because I think that very unrealistic claims are being made about velocities from one technique rather than another. I suggested testing those claims in an objective, repeatable way. But you would have none of it ... the only thing that would satisfy you was shooting at a steel can. So I have done that. Now in True Believer style you want to object to what I have done ... how very sad that is.

You have elsewhere complained that you are not a very good shot. One can understand why that is the case if you insist on adopting the "live shooting" mythology. I would suggest that if you take a second or so to aim, you might have a lot more success. Just have a look at the match lighting and card cutting competitions on this forum. If you really do believe what you said: "I don't really care about what you did in a laboratory. Everything most of us are going to do with our slingshots is not under controlled conditions and certainly does depend on human intervention." If you really believe this, then you should start taking a second or so to aim ... the "in the field" results of the large number of aimers on this forum ought to serve as ample evidence for you.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

I don't know why you are now switching to accuracy when the original subject was speed/power of bands?

If you are saying that a two-by-four and a couple of clamps is a more reliable source of information than a skilled and experienced shooter, then have at it, hoss.

By the way your scientific methodology doesn't seem so scientific to me. First of all, you said yourself that there is a difference between can thicknesses. So you'd have to be shooting a Campbell's Soup can like Darrell did. Second, you know full well that a marble and a 3/8 steel ball have different size-to-weight ratios. So why didn't you use a marble? (You hadn't seen the video yet). Third, Darrell has done the same thing with the .030 latex flats that I mentioned; we just couldn't find the video. So why didn't you use the same rubber I mentioned?

I never said you couldn't use put a steel ball through a thin-walled steel can with thin tubes when pausing to aim. That's a general statement that is true for some shooters and false for some shooters. But I'll grant that it is probably true most of the time with a 2x4 and some clamps.

What I'm saying, Charles, is not that science and lab-testing is caca del toro. That's ridiculous. What I'm saying is that you can collect all the data you want. It's the interpretation of that data that makes the difference. It's also not even possible to put certain data into any practical use.

If you want to be a little more scientific, now that you have seen the third video above, use a marble, some Tex tubes, and a Campbell's Soup can. Then see if you --not the rig -- can blow through the can without using some special technique.

I am a firm believer in science and logic, Charles. Which is why I believe in drawing the correct conclusions from the data. Or at least trying to. A human shooter can overcome the "shortcomings" of a bandset that may seem apparent from lab data by using certain techniques is all I'm saying. It's not an attack on science and engineering.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Hey DH ... YOU claim to understand the "live, active" shooting ... and to use it yourself. Why don't YOU post a video of YOU shooting a marble through a steel can???? As someone recently put it ... put your money where your mouth is .... YOU are the advocate of the alleged huge power increase YOU get by this method, sooooo ... let us all see YOU in action. Just remember: "Until you have driven a marble through a tin can with a set of single .030 latex bands, I think you are full of sh*t." How about it, DH?

The reason I did not use a Campbells Soup can is that it costs twice as much as a can of dog food of the same size ... and my dog can eat the dog food after I shoot the can. Are you seriously suggesting that somehow I cheated by searching around to find a thinner can!!! Hey ... I bought that can here in Victoria, not in California ... maybe all cans sold in Victoria are super thin ... Ahhh, the True Believer syndrome at its finest ... Maxime Credula Excrementum

I'll tell you what. YOU send me the band material YOU want me to try, and YOU send me the can YOU want me to shoot, and YOU send me the marbles YOU want me to use. YOU post a video of YOU shooting through the same type of can with the same band material and the same size marble, and then I will do the same. Belly up to the bar, my friend.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Haha! Charles, I'm talking about interpreting the data that you guys present. You show me experiments and data. Old Spook shows me charts. Darrell shows me videos. I try to make sense of it all. I say numbers don't tell us much about the actual experience of the sport. They have their place, but there is a lot more to it. Likewise testing with "scientific" equipment. It has its place, but a piece of lab equipment is a far cry from a human being.

When Darrell demonstrates that he (and maybe you and I) can shoot with way more than a 10% difference in power by using the right technique, why do I have to demonstrate it myself when he already did?

It's actually humorous that you would suggest that I would accuse you of cheating with the cans. Number one, neither you nor I ever even saw the can before you did your irrelevant experiment, so how could you look for a thinner one? It was you who mentioned that steel-cans can be thinner or thicker, not me. So, once the video showed the can, didn't it occur to you that your experiment might not have been so "scientific" after all. (If it had been me, I'd have retracted my experiment.)

And can we dispense with the latin? It isn't me who is showing the trademarks of a true believer.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Hey Imperial, does a reasoned argument look like throwing excrement to you?


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Dayhiker said:


> Hey Imperial, does a reasoned argument look like throwing excrement to you?


hmm, good point. but you guys are like the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. one is using science, one is using experience. ive already forgotten what the original discussion was about. . . as you guys were, carry on. :king:


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

'Live shooting' mythology???

This is a very informative video which many of you may have seen. It goes into 'physics' of *cooling bands & losing energy *.... also good info about 'tapered bands'....






Ladies & gentlemen of the jury .... I rest my case B)


----------



## TimR (May 22, 2011)

I have a practical question on tapering.

I just cut a set of bands from Target Embark exercise bands, the heavy resistance one. I guess it's close to TB Black. Other people talk about doubling this thickness.

I use 6 inch active length (I draw 30) and tapered them 1.5 inches to 1.0 inches.

Is that better, worse, or the same as doubling a .75 inch to .50 inch taper?


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

You know what we're going to ask, right?

*pauses for dramatic effect*

What ammo are you using?!


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

All Buns Glazing said:


> You know what we're going to ask, right?
> 
> *pauses for dramatic effect*
> 
> What ammo are you using?!


Not what he's asking, Buns. He's looking for a comparison between taper ratios.


----------



## ruthiexxxx (Sep 15, 2012)

TimR said:


> I have a practical question on tapering.
> 
> I just cut a set of bands from Target Embark exercise bands, the heavy resistance one. I guess it's close to TB Black. Other people talk about doubling this thickness.
> 
> ...


I would avoid having such thin bands as wide as an inch and a half. I think multiple narrow bands are safer and more manageable....perhaps using something like loose-ish rubber 'O' rings to keep them together I've had two nasty RTS from several wide bands of TTB . I think the ball just got caught up in the folds on send-off.


----------



## Crac (Mar 3, 2013)

TimR said:


> I have a practical question on tapering.
> 
> I just cut a set of bands from Target Embark exercise bands, the heavy resistance one. I guess it's close to TB Black. Other people talk about doubling this thickness.
> 
> ...


With the same rubber amount of rubber... Wouldn't it be similar?

Technically I think the flapping out getting it all neat would mean a tiny loss due to setup in addition trying to cut thin pieces of a material KNOWN to stretch is :rofl:

I repect Ruthie's call however... don't go over board with the the width.... IMO that is what the different thickness of material are for.

Mr. DH can you run the numbers for me? ("2/3" or "66.66%)


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

Dayhiker said:


> All Buns Glazing said:
> 
> 
> > You know what we're going to ask, right?
> ...


You're right, now I think about it, I'm no sure if it makes much difference! My gut tells me double thin bands.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Crac said:


> TimR said:
> 
> 
> > I have a practical question on tapering.
> ...


I agree, Crac. The same surface area and the same taper should yield the same energy, but I don't know of any formula that will discern a difference between singles and doubles. All I know is there are some very experienced shooters with differing opinions on which is better.

Flatband (Gary) doesn't like doubles but doesn't give any mathematical reasons. And I'm told Jack Kohler's book, "Slingshot Shooting"

(which I have but haven't read yet) says something about it. Maybe somebody who's read it can come on and tell us?

Don't understand the question about .66%. (I have a small brain.)


----------



## Crac (Mar 3, 2013)

The taper ratio:

1 inch / 1.5 inch = 0.666

or as Crac see's it

"2*(1/2) / 3*(1/2)" .... then take out the common "1/2"

VS

0.5 inch / 0.75 inch = 0.666

Again as Crac see's it

"2*(1/4) / 3*(1/4)" .... then take out the common "1/4"

The 1/2 or 1/4 is not important, since we cancle them out... leaving the ratio of the coefficients.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

I think your math is a little messed up.

My understanding is this: The original poster halved the measurements of first bandset, and made it into two bands instead of one. Am I missing something? (Seriously. I'm not kidding when I say my brain is small.)


----------



## Crac (Mar 3, 2013)

That coefficient doesn't matter in this case...

1*[1 inch] / 1*[1.5 inch] = 0.666

or as Crac see's it

" 1 [2*(1/2)] / 1 [3*(1/2)] " .... then take out the common "1/2" and the common 1 of the single layer

VS

2*[0.5 inch] / 2*[0.75 inch] = 0.666

Again as Crac see's it

" 2[2*(1/4)] / 2[3*(1/4)] " .... then take out the common "1/4", and the common 2 for the double layer

.... Now it might start to look like complex science :drinkup: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I guess if we wanted to we use 1/4 in the top example... but I fear having to explain it's origin repeatedly.

I choose the fractions since I find it easier to group and multiply the coefficients rather than splitting every decimal.

Is this erm any help at all?


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Haha! Charles, I'm talking about interpreting the data that you guys present. You show me experiments and data. Old Spook shows me charts. Darrell shows me videos. I try to make sense of it all. I say numbers don't tell us much about the actual experience of the sport. They have their place, but there is a lot more to it. Likewise testing with "scientific" equipment. It has its place, but a piece of lab equipment is a far cry from a human being.
> 
> When Darrell demonstrates that he (and maybe you and I) can shoot with way more than a 10% difference in power by using the right technique, why do I have to demonstrate it myself when he already did?
> 
> ...


Hey DH. Thank Zeus, you finally recognized that someone shooting at a tin can does not constitute a scientific experiment ... That was my original point, after all! Certainly I did not claim that my video constituted a rigorous scientific test. You say it is irrelevant. But you are the one who kept saying I should do it. I did it and demonstrated to you that is was possible to shoot through a steel can without adopting the so-called "active" or "live" shooting technique that you and Dgui set so much store by. I did it using the so-called "static" or "dead" technique that YOU and Dgui claim is so deficient in power.

And here is your claim "Darrell demonstrates that he (and maybe you and I) can shoot with way more than a 10% difference in power by using the right technique". I said at the beginning, and I will say it again here: Darrell's video does not demonstrate any such thing. Darrell's video that you posted used a 3/8 inch steel ball, NOT a marble. I did the same thing (shooting through a steel can with a 3/8 inch steel ball) WITHOUT using the so-called "live" or "active" shooting technique. I did the shoot at your insistence.

I am the one who suggested a true scientific test to see just how much power difference there is. YOU are the one who objected to any such test.

As for your question "why do I [Dayhiker] have to demonstrate it myself": Because YOU are the one making the extravagant claims about the vast increase in power ... YOU are the one who insisted that I must shoot through a steel can ... YOU are the one who said I was "full of sh^t" if I did not do the shoot YOU insisted that I do ... YOU are the one who tried to cast aspersions on the video that I posted in response to your insistence ... YOU are the one who objected to an objective, scientific test of your claims ... YOU are the one who claims to understand and use the "active" shooting technique ... THAT is why YOU should do as I suggested: send me the materials that YOU are going to use and post a video of YOU using them; I will do the same, but I will be using the "draw, aim, fire" sequence that you claim is so deficient. YOU have flopped around on this issue worse than a beached salmon ... time to show your stuff.

As for dispensing with the Latin ... si calceum convenit, portem

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

A long pause does indeed drop the velocity, very easy to verify in practice (more noticeable in the cold), so when you use about the same pause this drop will not be noticed by elevation correction, Bill Hayes recommend to release while still pulling further, a non statically anchor instead a dynamic pulling anchor, is what I try to do and it works !

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Charles, Dear God... The only reason I asked (challenged) you to repeat what Darrell did was to see if you would not change your opinion of how much power could be generated by technique. I thought that if you were honest, you'd say it was significant. I thought that if you were honest the experience would lead you to go back to your "experiments" and try to account for it.

I never claimed to understand why live shooting works. (although you humorously averred that I did claim to understand it). I don't claim to understand why the sky seems blue rather than red either. But I did imply that numbers in energy charts and your "scientific" events -- I won't call them experiments -- don't account for its obvious effects. Or to put it another way: the information in your research is incomplete. It doesn't explain enough about the sport to be of any more consequence than "dumb ol' Darrell's" experiential forays into the field.

Anyone who has tried to put a marble through a campbell's soup can will be pretty amazed by what Darrell did with what he used. *Most *anyone, including Bill Herriman who actually is the wise-old-man of slingshots that you pretend to be, instead of the charming old geezer you really are.

Most reasonably intelligent people will, after observing the phenomenon, at least admit of its significance. Most reasonably intelligent people would not turn to a book about bullets or whatever and say, "Well the book says, 'This thing', that I just saw and tried, 'is far less significant than it appears subjectively.' The subjective and the objective appear at odds here. But they are not.

When I want to learn about the physics involved in speed and accelleration or the mathematics pertaining thereto, or if I want to understand how to design an experiment or device, I will consult Isaac Newton or Bucky Fuller. Not Gyro Gearloose. (That's you, Charles, in case you miss the subtlety.)

You want to profess an understanding of why live shooting works? Fine. Do it.

For me, I don't understand it, but I don't deny it, or refuse to admit it influences the act of shooting by a ridiculous 10% or less. If your book seems to say otherwise, either the book is wrong or you don't understand the book.

One other thing: You should get up to date about modern science, which says "competence precedes understanding, not the other way around." -- paraphrasing Neumann. . . . once you've absorbed this idea, you will see why Darrell's exploits precede Gyro Gearloose's experiments. A machine can be extremely competent at doing mathematics without understanding what it's doing.


----------



## TimR (May 22, 2011)

ruthiexxxx said:


> TimR said:
> 
> 
> > I have a practical question on tapering.
> ...


Okay, makes sense.

I've never tied a doubled band (been shooting mostly chained bands until recently, but flat bands have a lot more zip at similar pull). Of course with the wide band it's folded once anyway, just to be able to tie it at each end.


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

I must of missed a video - I thought when DGUI put a round through a steel can, he used a 3/8th steel ball and dankung tubing, and not a marble. I remember one video of him doing that with singles, and he was surprised in the video (as I was). I remember that DGUI's extreme band elongation (100%) plays a strong factor in the power he achieved, which is certainly a valid way to get power!

I'll have to go and find this video where he puts a marble through a bean can - my terrible marbles I have would shatter on impact


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

And I thought I had a temper tantrum the other evening... :neener:

I am watching two of the most venerable gentlemen on this forum arguing about something they both actually agree upon. It is the quantification of the energy preserved or lost due to hold time which seems to be the issue here. It seems to be the definition of hold time is also at issue.

So lets talk about hold time first: Suppose that I draw a slingshot with constant velocity to 32 inches and then release as soon as the ball is passing 32 inches. One gentleman would call that "live shooting", another would call it "zero hold time", both would be correct. Suppose you put a ten thousand frame/second camera on that shooter? If there was any drawing movement at all during the last frame of the release, that would qualify for a "live release" and it would also qualify for "zero hold time". So there is no argument there.

Now with respect to energy preserved or lost: This can be quantified. This can be measured and there is absolutely no reason not to do it. A shooting machine, a chrony, and voila finished. We can figure it out by measuring it on a machine. All we have to do is build a machine that lets us hold the ball while drawing it fully and releasing it with various hold times... oh, wait! I already did that. I already made a set of measurements in that regard. I already linked the graphs in this thread.

Gentlemen read the links, and tell me what more you want measured and I will measure some more. I am between contracts. I have hours to burn.

But please, don't let the children see you fighting. You are our heros. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

:neener:


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

All Buns Glazing said:


> I must of missed a video - I thought when DGUI put a round through a steel can, he used a 3/8th steel ball and dankung tubing, and not a marble. I remember one video of him doing that with singles, and he was surprised in the video (as I was). I remember that DGUI's extreme band elongation (100%) plays a strong factor in the power he achieved, which is certainly a valid way to get power!
> 
> I'll have to go and find this video where he puts a marble through a bean can - my terrible marbles I have would shatter on impact


anyway 15mm marbles CAN penetrate a steel can ... done before switching to steel ...









Cheers

Arturo


----------



## All Buns Glazing (Apr 22, 2012)

Art, you could probably penetrate a tank with your butterfly shooting


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Old Spook, I try hard not to be venerable. I usually do pretty well at it, too. -_-

But my guess is that in order to account for the results of live shooting, one could *maybe* do it better than the thought experiment you suggested above with a mathematical solution. Whatever the equations are that yield the speed of the projectile could be adjusted for bands in motion by not always starting from zero. It is my uneducated guess that whenever the bands are in motion, they should not be equated at any time with zero. (Except for extremely sensitive measurements a moving object should never be considered at rest.) In order to do this mathematically, all you have to do is assign a non-zero number to the release point. Since we know that the speed is inversely proportional to the hold time, and we know we are getting more speed than we would at zero, that number will have to be less than zero. (-1 would be faster than 0; -2, even faster, etc.).

Now how you would go about finding the right number would be difficult, but I think it would be equally difficult to gain any predictability from the experiment you suggest. The only way that might work is to have the same shooter (not a machine) shoot many many times, then measure him and use an average. After that you may be able to extrapolate for different-sized shooters. (I know I have probably greatly oversimplified here. Just trying to make a point.)

Again I'm no scientist, so you are certainly free to just laugh at my guesses. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't be interested in the numbers if you did find them. It wouldn't change anything for me.

If anybody is still reading my b.s., thanks 4 your patience. If anyone actually understands it, please explain it to me. . . . . And thank you Old Spook for your concern. :cookie:


----------



## libel (Jul 1, 2013)

Reading this whole thread in one sitting gave me a headache. I see no harm in investigating the properties of rubber on its own; independent of the shooting style or technique. I don't think anyone is arguing that the way you use it doesn't make a lot of difference. It does but perhaps people that are 10 or 20 steps behind the top shooters as far as their technique goes can get some benefits out of a simple tweak that could be easy to add to what they're doing at the moment.

Myself, I think there are a lot of simpler things one can implement. If you need a pause to aim you need a pause to aim. Eliminating it seems a lot harder than just adding a couple of inches to your bands and increasing your draw distance.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

libel said:


> Reading this whole thread in one sitting gave me a headache. I see no harm in investigating the properties of rubber on its own; independent of the shooting style or technique. I don't think anyone is arguing that the way you use it doesn't make a lot of difference. It does but perhaps people that are 10 or 20 steps behind the top shooters as far as their technique goes can get some benefits out of a simple tweak that could be easy to add to what they're doing at the moment.
> 
> Myself, I think there are a lot of simpler things one can implement. If you need a pause to aim you need a pause to aim. Eliminating it seems a lot harder than just adding a couple of inches to your bands and increasing your draw distance.


I see no harm in it either. It is when someone draws the wrong conclusions from the data that the harm is done. But the harm is nothing serious. This argument became a contest between one man who thinks there is little difference to be gained from live shooting and another who thinks there is a lot of difference. It was not about finding the simplest way to increase speed.

It eventually morphed into me trying to say that if you're attempting to explain something in a precise and scientific way (which I wasn't) then you ought to be precise and scientific. Otherwise you are misleading people rather than enlightening them. As I said previous to this thing about live shooting, numbers and charts are a rough guide and one should not read too much into them.


----------



## TimR (May 22, 2011)

I would note that Middleton found it very difficult to measure the pull force of bands, because of how fast the weight drops off when held. He used a spring scale and tried to read it while drawing.

I tried to measure the pull I was shooting some time ago. Based on what I read here, I clamped the fork to a step ladder, put a yardstick next to it, and added weight to a bucket until the band stretched to my 30 inch draw. I know now that those readings were completely wrong because of the cooling effect. I got some fairly low readings, no surprise now but I didn't know that then.

Rubber heats as it is stretched. It cools at a rate determined by the area exposed, the temperature differential between the rubber and ambient, and of course there's a coefficient involved.

It starts cooling immediately. So if you drew very slowly, it might never rise in temperature, and hold time might be immaterial. On the other hand, if you drew very rapidly, cooling essentially starts only when you come to full draw. And of course there's a range of speed in between.

But, what if the rate of stretch affects the amount of heat rise? Does stretching rubber very quickly make it hotter? Or just leave less time for cooling?


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Okay Guys.... you do realize don't you that the experimentation on this subject was done some time ago.. right?

Here's a couple of videos that demonstrate the whole thing....











I found through experimentation that you can indeed get quite a bit more power with active shooting... but I also found that TTF setups are far more consistent in shot to shot performance which leads to greater accuracy. Basically if you reduce variables you reduce possible mistakes and misalignments. Active shooting has more variable than static shooting.

The thing is, so long as you are shooting at a speed that is fast enough to get the "job" done, and you're accurate enough to take care of "business"... it doesn't really matter which system you use.

That being said... because active shooting does create more power, you can use weaker elastics to get the job done... and when you use weaker elastics that means your draw weight is reduced thus allowing a little more accuracy due to less stress... So it's all a trade off in the end, one way or the other... if you can cut a card and puncture an EMPTY soup can with your setup then use it...


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Bill Hays said:


> Okay Guys.... you do realize don't you that the experimentation on this subject was done some time ago.. right?
> 
> Here's a couple of videos that demonstrate the whole thing....
> 
> ...


Now Bill, you shouldn't interrupt a good nit-picking argument with reason, facts, and documentation. :rofl:


----------



## libel (Jul 1, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> Bill Hays said:
> 
> 
> > Okay Guys.... you do realize don't you that the experimentation on this subject was done some time ago.. right?
> ...


I agree. Derailed the whole wheel re-invention process. We don't need your education we don't need your thought control. :werd:


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Thank you Bill. The growing limitations on my ability to pull heavy bands or to shoot butterfly is what made this an important issue for me.

@Henry: it wasn't nit-picking to me. It made a big difference in the power and accuracy I could maintain. Had I listened to what Charles was saying, before I tried it, I'd have thought live shooting wasn't even worth trying.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Dayhiker said:


> Thank you Bill. The growing limitations on my ability to pull heavy bands or to shoot butterfly is what made this an important issue for me.
> 
> @Henry: it wasn't nit-picking to me. It made a big difference in the power and accuracy I could maintain. Had I listened to what Charles was saying, before I tried it, I'd have thought live shooting wasn't even worth trying.


I didn't intend any offense. I thought you two were arguing just for the fun of it, because it seemed to me you were using different words to say pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Henry in Panama said:


> I didn't intend any offense. I thought you two were arguing just for the fun of it, because it seemed to me you were using different words to say pretty much the same thing.




We weren't. And I don't take offense. I know that when people who get into arguments on the internet -- right or wrong -- they look like a-holes. But since I am an a-hole in some ways it doesn't bother me too much.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

Bill Hays said:


> The thing is, *so long as you are shooting at a speed that is fast enough to get the "job" done, and you're accurate enough to take care of "business"... it doesn't really matter which system you use.*
> 
> So* it's all a trade off in the end, one way or the other...* if you can cut a card and puncture an EMPTY soup can with your setup then use it...


Thank you, Bill. Emphasis added ...


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Just for grins, I took my Chrony outside and fired off a few rounds. With no hold time, shooting looped 1745 and .44 lead, velocity averaged about 218 fps. One second aim time gave about 205 fps. 3 seconds hold dropped to mid 190s. Taking time to aim will definitely reduce power.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

Disregard.


----------



## alfshooter (May 11, 2011)

Hola

Me gustaría opinar sobre este tema .

primero quería decir que entiendo y respeto todas las posturas que aquí se exponen y para mi ha sido muy constructivo.

Soy una persona inquieta y me gusta experimentar y a la vez progresar de esta manera , solo utilizo un 10% de ciencia , un 80 % a la comprensión de la causa y efecto en el campo de tiro y dejo un 10 % al poder del universo .

Para competir utilizo una parada en mi anclaje de no más de 3, 4 segundos, mi mano esta firme y estable , mi sensación de hacer un buen tiro , la tengo en las yemas de los dedos , en cambio cuando practico el tiro intuitivo ( mira al objetivo y suelta ) , todas las sensaciones de control y efectividad pasan por la acción de mi mano , las yemas de mis dedos están pasivas ,con esta técnica siento la expulsión mas rápida a diferencia de la suelta mas pasiva , esta es mi sensación personal ( supongo que las leyes físicas actuaran al respecto )

Esta vez no usare traductor , perdonen las molestias , no todos aprendemos y experimentamos de la misma forma , lo importante es disfrutar siendo uno mismo y destrozar muchas latas .

Muchas gracias Maestros y ponentes , mi interés por la ciencia y materiales a crecido.

Siento gran respeto y admiración por el Señor Darrel :bowdown: , me considero alumno suyo .

Cheers ,,,,, Alf :wave:


----------



## Deltaboy1984 (Jun 14, 2011)

Great Thread love learning about all this.


----------



## Aussie Allan In Thailand (Jan 28, 2013)

Dam got halfway through typing this reply, and my computer crashed, so try again.

Graphs, charts, and perfect experimentation, have their place for certain; although mostly for newbies.

The rest of us develop a style from watching others, and experimenting ourselves; and what works for one, will never most likely work for us all.

So we do our best, and often become exceptionally good at it.

Occasionally there are the gifted ones, whom excel in certain areas.
To which the rest of us can but aspire.

Although to quibble over whose method is superior; lowers us as a group to playground children.

Given it is alternative methods, and techniques, which leads to real progress; or we would all still be sitting around a fire dressed in furs, throwing rocks and spears.

As an all rounder, I doubt there would be much objection, to that currently goes to Mr Hays.
For while he can do his trick shots, he is also exceptionally fast, and hunts with the best of them.
In fact with a slingshot, I have not seen anything he cannot do right up there with the best of the others.

Maybe some food for thought, among the disagreements, as you all take a long earned breath.

Cheers Guys and I respect each and every one of you. Allan


----------



## ruthiexxxx (Sep 15, 2012)

Bill Hays said:


> Okay Guys.... you do realize don't you that the experimentation on this subject was done some time ago.. right?
> Here's a couple of videos that demonstrate the whole thing....
> 
> 
> ...


Ah...THAT'S where I got the idea from. I had forgotten its origin. Thank you Bill !


----------



## Aussie Allan In Thailand (Jan 28, 2013)

Yea well we can try to rewrite an old story a million ways; BUT IT IS STILL AN OLD STORY, HEY.

And of course the Esteemed Mr Hays as is so often the case, seems to be the first to explain it in a way even a dumb cluck like me can understand....YEA.

So why the **** try to over complicate it all with physics formulae, and scientific stuff, that one would most likely need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand fully. Not that does not have its place for those of interested in those thing, which I personally am, by the way. Even though I doubt it will ever affect my shooting style to any significant degree.

Cheers Allan


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2013)

Aussie Allan In Thailand said:


> *Although to quibble over whose method is superior; lowers us as a group to playground children.*
> 
> *Cheers Guys and I respect each and every one of you. Allan*


Emphasis added. Thank you, Allan.


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

libel said:


> Reading this whole thread in one sitting gave me a headache. I see no harm in investigating the properties of rubber on its own; independent of the shooting style or technique. I don't think anyone is arguing that the way you use it doesn't make a lot of difference. It does but perhaps people that are 10 or 20 steps behind the top shooters as far as their technique goes can get some benefits out of a simple tweak that could be easy to add to what they're doing at the moment.
> 
> Myself, I think there are a lot of simpler things one can implement. If you need a pause to aim you need a pause to aim. Eliminating it seems a lot harder than just adding a couple of inches to your bands and increasing your draw distance.


NO headaches here  . A spirited debate, like when having a few 'drinks' and it maybe gets a little loud. Always good to revisit topics as a refresher course. Aiming is fundamental & foundation to the sport. Just everyone has different technique & style ... can be intuitive, aiming, or combination of both to different degrees. Also, the many variables of slingshots designs & elastic set-ups. I now have a deeper understanding of my rubbers elastics! :naughty:


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

"Although to quibble over whose method is superior; lowers us as a group to playground children."

"So why the **** try to over complicate it all with physics formulae, and scientific stuff, that one would most likely need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand fully. Not that does not have its place for those of interested in those thing, which I personally am, by the way. Even though I doubt it will ever affect my shooting style to any significant degree."

-- Aussie Allan

I'd just like to make a note here that it was never me who was trying to over-complicate anything with science. It was my stance throughout that some people take numbers and charts too seriously. And that some people draw the wrong conclusions from what they read. I thought this was a classic example of it. I didn't want to but I also felt compelled by the way the discussion turned to say that if you're going to do "science" you should do it right.

You may call it quibbling, and maybe it was. So I guess the next time someone teaches misinformation I will just let it go. And I apologize for lowering the group to the level of playground children. Not what I was trying to do. All I ask is that you do not put me in a class with the scientists here on the forum, for I am an artiste!


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

ruthiexxxx said:


> Ah...THAT'S where I got the idea from. I had forgotten its origin. Thank you Bill !


? Your welcome I guess?


----------

