# Fork width and speed - two different test results?



## DaveSteve (May 16, 2012)




----------



## BC-Slinger (Jan 6, 2013)

Very interesting topic I would have to go in favour of the phyisics aspect of this. :naughty: I will try some testing tomorrow with my crony to see if I get differing results.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

The force that the bands exert is proportional to the extent to which they are stretched. To understand this experiment, it is NOT just the draw length that matters ... that is, the distance from the pouch to the middle of the fork. One must also consider the extent to which the bands are being stretched by the two slingshots.

To determine the extent to which the bands are being stretched, what IS important is the distance from the pouch to the fork tip. So to maintain constant force from one slingshot to another, one needs to draw each so that the pouch to fork tip distance is the same in each case. Then if elementary physics still operates, the wider fork width will yield slower velocities; consider the force vector along one band as being resolved into 1: a component from the pouch to the middle of the fork tips, and 2: a component perpendicular to the first, along a line from the middle of the forks to the tip to which the band is connected. The wider the fork, the greater 2 will be and the lesser 1 will be. It is 1 that actually drives the ammo. In other words, the wider your forks, the more band power is being wasted.

As a graphic illustration of this point, suppose in the extreme case you made the fork tips of the wider slingshot so wide that the bands were stretched to the draw length of the narrower slingshot. Then to keep the band stretch the same for the two slingshots, you would not be allowed to draw the pouch back at all. Hence, the ammo would go nowhere ... zero velocity. All the force in the wide slingshot would be directed along vector 2.

However, if you always use the same draw length, then the bands on the wider fork are actually being stretched more than the bands on the narrower fork. That extra stretch will mean the bands will exert more force on the ammo, although a bit of it will be wasted along vector 2. If the extra stretch outweighs the loss due to vector 2 above, then the wider forks might indeed give higher velocities.

In Bill's case, he was using the same draw length each time, so the bands on the wider fork were being stretched more than when the same bands were on the narrower fork.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Charles said:


> The force that the bands exert is proportional to the extent to which they are stretched. For this experiment, it is NOT the draw length that matters ... that is, the distance from the pouch to the middle of the fork.
> 
> What IS important is the distance from the pouch to the fork tip. So to maintain constant force from one slingshot to another, one needs to draw each so that the pouch to fork tip is the same in each case. Then if elementary physics still operates, the wider fork width will yield slower velocities; consider the force vector along one band as being resolved into 1: a component from the pouch to the middle of the fork tips, and 2: a component perpendicular to the first, along a line from the middle of the forks to the tip to which the band is connected. The wider the fork, the greater 2 will be and the lesser 1 will be. It is 1 that actually drives the ammo. In other words, the wider your forks, the more band power is being wasted.
> 
> ...


.

.










.

too much science and over thinking for me . im a hobbiest, not an engineer . to each their own .


----------



## CAS14 (Jul 17, 2012)

Physics rules the world.........well, sometimes chemistry........which one might argue must obey the laws of physics.


----------



## Crac (Mar 3, 2013)

*sighs* the words I'm looking for are "fair* test please"

It is as Charles has put it...

A wider fork, increase the draw distance, but the cosine of the angle times the new distance remains the same... no gaining something for nothing.

Hence what REALLY happens? Firstly strain has increased (so more distance!) and (gee) because it's coupled* the force has ALSO been increased, so more energy being put in.

FORCE:

Before:

13Kg*constant/(2*30mm*t)=stress of strain... say 2.513 (SR)

-Stress of strain is going to a something erm something 'nasty'

After:

Increase the strain and solve for force: 2.513*1.05 (say 5% more strain)

Force is now 13.5Kg

-Trust me it's a curvy function... good luck.

DISTANCE:

Before:

800mm/(1+SR) = 227.7mm

After:

227.7=828.6mm/(1.05*SR+1)

'POWER': (ok I tried a little harder too)

Before:

(800mm-227.7mm)*13kg*9.80665N/Kg = 73 J (if force could be constant)

=>

25.535J @ 73.497 m/s using 16mm steel

After:

(828.6mmm-227.7mm)*13.5kg*9.80665N/Kg = 79.55J (again "if only")

=>

27.874 @ 76.790 m/s using 16mm steel.

End.

A higher average force should mean higher speeds (equal and opposites and all that)... The truth is there are only a few variables to control or understand, oh "and it's more complicated than that..."

*This coupling holds great speed, power and wealth to those who understand it


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Crac said:


> . . . to those who understand it


i wish i understood :iono: , :question: im actually envious of those that do . :shakehead:


----------



## Crac (Mar 3, 2013)

I got it to work the other way, a great design VS a great design over cooked...

28.263 J @ 91.635 m/s (good set 9/16" steel used, 14.29mm this is well damn close to where I'd put it just add a little more force)

27.276 J @ 90.020 m/s (larger ammo is needed here... This is maxing speed but not the band so more force does not always yield more speed!)

Quite a bit of magic later... 30.179 J @ 88.024 m/s using 15mm steel -If in doubt *bigger* and for comparison 79.902 m/s for 16mm steel. The higher strain used in this set is where the difference in performance can be found.

But the differences are still pretty small, and I swear you can compensate through 'correct' ammo size... but the efficiency has decreased since it is strain related.

Maybe its about right? 13kg VS 13.5kg and 80cm VS 82.86cm... very small change.

I'd hate to go on opinion but band drag and ammo selection? Seems to me if you can put more power in then you must be able to get some of it back out?

please discuss.


----------



## bullseyeben! (Apr 24, 2011)

Put simply, bands on a narrow fork can be drawn longer easier, wider forks will stress the rubber harder sooner.. the test needs to be done so the bands on both size forks are pulled to the absolute limit, that would mean the narrow frame will gain slightly more draw length..


----------



## ruthiexxxx (Sep 15, 2012)

I'm SO glad I found Slingshot Forum ...these discussions are a real pleasure to read and very informative !


----------



## jazz (May 15, 2012)

Hi Charles,

thank you for your explanation, I learned a lot.

jazz


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

The thing you guys might be missing is, the same draw length is used... and that's what I said in the video as well.

If one were to pull to the band's maximum pull length, the narrower fork will do slightly better. But and it's a very big BUT, almost nobody ever pulls to the end of the elastic's stretch potential.

Therefore under normal shooting circumstances the wider fork will shoot faster... and the reason is quite simple really... more band stretch at your normal draw and the elastic contraction continues closer to the fork as well.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Yep, yep, yep ... I agree completely with you, Bill.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## studer1972 (Mar 17, 2013)

So why was John getting slower results? I thought he was using a consistent draw length, too?


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

studer1972 said:


> So why was John getting slower results? I thought he was using a consistent draw length, too?


I think it was because John was pulling to the bands maximum length, while Bill was pulling to a set draw length for both.

As Bill stated "If one were to pull to the band's maximum pull length, the narrower fork will do slightly better. But and it's a very big BUT, almost nobody ever pulls to the end of the elastic's stretch potential.

Therefore under normal shooting circumstances the wider fork will shoot faster"

So both videos are correct

Ian


----------



## ash (Apr 23, 2013)

Agreement all over the place, especially with Ian. Both videos are correct, but under different circumstances, which are not thoroughly described.

A more complete analysis of the effects would need to include ammo drag and mass and perhaps to match them to the experiment to eliminate any non-linear response. Band drag. The non-linear relationship between draw length and energy conversion, especially approaching the elastic limit.

Pretty tough to do by hand and by feel. A job for Charles' machine perhaps?

Bill's test could be made an order more comprehensive by doing the same again with slightly shorter and slightly longer tubes to see how the proximity to the elastic limit affects the results. The longer the bands (given a fixed draw length) the more linear the response.


----------



## studer1972 (Mar 17, 2013)

So if a shooter is using a set of bands cut to their drawn length and strength of draw (getting to maximum useful stretch) there is no advantage to a wider fork?


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Something so simple to understand is muddled with technical mumbo jumbo. Watch. You adjust the tubes or the flatbands to accomodate your choice of forks in combination with the hold time. Narrow forks with speed of release will knock the snot out of anything else out there. Im certain I will be railed on for this simple truth.

Heres a tip. The ammo leaves tbe pouch at a different point with wide vs narrow. So you go figure the rest out now.


----------



## AZ Stinger (Aug 30, 2012)

Strike one up for the PFS...


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

dgui said:


> ?........ You adjust the tubes or the flatbands to accomodate your choice of forks in combination with the hold time......... Narrow forks with speed of release will knock the snot out of anything else out there.....
> Heres a tip. The ammo leaves tbe pouch at a different point with wide vs narrow. So you go figure the rest out now.


Not trying to rattle you, unless I am misunderstanding you...

If one adjusts the tubes/flatbands to accommodate your choice of forks, I am lead to believe that the proper set up would knock the snot out of an improper one, and it wouldn't matter the width between the forks???

Which is better, I believe, would be determined on the style and taste of the shooter.

LGD


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Ok lets see if I can make it abundantly clear, the answer to the subject of same band length on both wide forks and narrow forks is at the point where the ammo leaves the pouch with the same pull release point. These 2 are different and also since the wide forks are not a direct pull but are in opposition to the energy applied are rather a percentage of energy that is applied to the forks and not to the pouch where it belongs. With the narrow forks as with The Original Pickle Fork Shooter the energy is in line with the pouch and directly concentrated to the ammo and this produces unadulterated application of the bands or tubes placing the total release of energy to the pouch and then to the ammo. The wider forks produces Hand Slaps for a good reason and it is due to left over energy because of the forks being too wide causing a misdirected energy. Inline pull and release is more desirable than an oppositional side to side pull and release. The wide forks produce a loss of energy and all of this shows that a direct line produces a maximum energy thrust of energy.

The additional information in my previous post was to reveal how to get the most out of a slingshot. You can make all of this very scientific but the actual workings of the slingshot is still in the field and you do not need to measure speeds to know that there is an increase in impact and speed so test your results on a can a hard can not a thin wall dog food can unlease it is a science diet can.

The scientific numerical experts will likely not make it simple and easy to understand the how to part which is the important point to get good or better results. The Slingshot is a Simple working device so make it simple rather than complicated. Be advised, you can be very educated and have plenty of the Wrong education.


----------



## lightgeoduck (Apr 3, 2011)

As for me, I am clear as to what you are say Dman. I am also clear with all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo too, and though I find it a good read, I am more of a trial and error kind of guy. You are right on the fact that the Slingshot is a simple working device.

Based off of your previous post, I was pointing out, on how I see it to be.. I could be wrongly educated, but honestly most of my figuring is from my own experiences and thought process.

Here is how I see it.

1. an extremely wide fork, might not represent to be a good example, but the differences in width of the "average" slingshots being used. I will still stick with proper set up for the used slingshot.

2. If we are to set up factoring in draw length and fork width, setting the science of it aside, this is what I believe would occur.

The ideal stretch for a wider fork would provide less of a stretch at the same draw for a narrow fork

The ideal stretch for a narrow fork would provide more of a stretch at the same draw for a wider fork.

How these set ups effect the outcome is, I guess, depending on the intended amount of energy intended to initially use.

The science of it is always a factor, no matter what scientific device you use to measure it.. whether its a chrony, fish scale, or the puncturing a can.

I don't think this old thread is flawed at all,,, both tests have value in one way shape or form even if it may or may not seem to be necessary. What may be flawed is to think that these tests is the be all and end all to "slingshot science".

My point is, in general, the fork width range that most people use can knock the snot out of a can (or what ever) if properly banded up.

LGD


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Yep, The truth is made plain, all will choose to believe what they want on the subject or wide or narrow and Jimmy Crack Corn and I dont care.

Thats all.


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

I don't like complicating things with too much thinking either. When I looked at the two tests, the thought that arose in my mind was that the super-wide fork that John used was quite outside the norm of anything any of us would really want to shoot with. (Not only because of the size, but I think that we'd intuitively know it wouldn't shoot too fast.)

That fork pretty much constitutes a sort of halfway point between letting a machine do the testing (which yields low-value information) against testing it the way it is actually used, i.e., by a human (which yields high-value information).

Due to the extremely complex dynamics of a shot, maybe we are missing something simple here. Maybe a wider fork does increase speed as Bill's effort shows. But maybe there is a law of diminishing returns at work here and John's experiment shows that beyond a certain point widening the forks works oppositely to decrease the speed?

That's what I thought might be happening anyway.


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

If we look at most commercial slingshots they don't have very wide forks and that's probablya good indication of the optimum

fork size perameters. In John's video the wide fork was over exaggerated and I think a slingshot like that would be impractical.

With all the different band types out there I'm sure there are good bands to fit all size forks, so I think if you just get a frame that

you like the feel of and a set of bands you like the feel of then the job is done.

I'm only sorry John and Bill didn't add a Stickshot in to compare too. :naughty:


----------



## Dayhiker (Mar 13, 2010)

Malleus said:


> If we look at most commercial slingshots they don't have very wide forks and that's probablya good indication of the optimum
> 
> fork size perameters. In John's video the wide fork was over exaggerated and I think a slingshot like that would be impractical.
> 
> ...


Well if, as you speculated, most commercial slingshots would give a good indication of the optimum fork-width parameters, and if dgui and John are correct, then most commercial slingshots would indeed be stickshots, wouldn't they? :koolaid: Or if it went the other way, we'd all be shooting marbles out of longbows.


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

Dayhiker said:


> Malleus said:
> 
> 
> > Well if, as you speculated, most commercial slingshots would give a good indication of the optimum fork-width parameters, and if dgui and John are correct, then most commercial slingshots would indeed be stickshots, wouldn't they? :koolaid: Or if it went the other way, we'd all be shooting marbles out of longbows.


In theory that's probably correct, but Stickshots are more difficult for a beginner to use and Longbows use the flexiblity of the frame and aren't that pocketable.There is an old saying that in theory theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're not.

I find this thread very interesting and would love to see more comparison videos, but at the end of the day I prefer a small slingshot

that I can put in my pocket and I'm sure some prefer a wide fork. In fact lately I do most of my plinking without a fork.

I think whatever fork you prefer you can find bands and ammo suitable for it.

Ian


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

The smaller Forks are way more Slammin. In my opinion.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> so test your results on a can a hard can not a thin wall dog food can unlease it is a science diet can.


The can used in my video is the same wall thickness as those used for soup, canned milk and for canned vegetables.

Cheers .... Charles


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Charles said:


> dgui said:
> 
> 
> > so test your results on a can a hard can not a thin wall dog food can unlease it is a science diet can.
> ...


I like this comment Charles. Heres the deal. You might not plow through both sides of a hard can which is a Campbells Soup Can and not an ordinary can even a bean can might give you trouble to break one side but the can you used with the Hygenic Latex Glove was a thin walled dog food can I used to have does so I am very familiar with the can you tested . The latex gloves are from Hygenic which is the same company that produces Thereaband and the tubes and flat bands that Tex sells. That is why you managed to band through one side but if you had got the shot off faster it would likely have penetrated both sides.

Thats All.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

* Campbells Soup cans are the hardest to penetrate. Give it a try both Wet and Dry. *

*



*


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > dgui said:
> ...


My micrometer says it is the same wall thickness as all the other cans. And the only reason it did not go through the back side is that it hit the rolled edge, and it split even that. Here is my challenge to you ... same one I gave to Dayhiker. You send me the cans, one full, one empty, exactly as you are going to shoot them. You send me exactly the bands you are using, and the pouch. Send me the ammo you are using. You make your video, and I will do the same. Or, just come on up and we can shoot together. That way there will be no whining about thin versus thick cans.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT SCIENCE MUMBO JUMBO EITHER!!!! ESPECIALLY THE ONE CALLED GRAVITY!!!!!

WAIT, LOOK, I AM FLOATING !!!!! NO, NOW I AM FLYING!!!!

I can't wait! I am not gonna believe in cell degeneration next and I am gonna live forever!!! I am going to be immortal! I can't believe it was this easy to ignore science all this time...no scienceno scienceno science.


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

Sure, there are fundamentals in science that are agreed to but throughout history to present, science can be embroiled in controversy, egos, bias, politics, etc.. Perhaps I'm going off topic here. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program! :lol:


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

ZorroSlinger said:


> Sure, there are fundamentals in science that are agreed to but throughout history to present, science can be embroiled in controversy, egos, bias, politics, etc.. Perhaps I'm going off topic here. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program! :lol:


ALL CANS ARE NOT THE SAME LOL.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Just how much galvalum is in a dog food can it varies.


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

If its a steel can then I would've thought industry would use a standard i.e dog food peeps get the same can as soup peeps....it seems logical Jim

[edit] What I meant by that it would be same steel used,NO?


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Tube_Shooter said:


> If its a steel can then I would've thought industry would use a standard i.e dog food peeps get the same can as soup peeps....it seems logical Jim
> 
> [edit] What I meant by that it would be same steel used,NO?


I dont know how it is in BC where Charles lives and the availability of hard cans and perhaps their cans are all the same but not here in the states. The top of the line for the hardest can is a Science Diet Dog food can then the second hardest is Campbells Soup can. An ordinary bean can is third for hardness and the easiest can to plow through full empty wet or dry is an ordinary dog food can. It is more difficult to shoot through both sides of an empty can cuz you got to be going Fast.


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

dgui said:


> Tube_Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > If its a steel can then I would've thought industry would use a standard i.e dog food peeps get the same can as soup peeps....it seems logical Jim
> ...


Ok its just that any food canned in the UK uses same steel for all canned food,the only difference is there are 3 piece or two piece cans and of course different sizes but the steel used is the same through out that's why I asked


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

dgui said:


> * Campbells Soup cans are the hardest to penetrate. Give it a try both Wet and Dry. *
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Wait, so now Campbells soup cans are second hardest? Do they know that they fell in the rankings in just 7 posts? Lol.
Dgui, you sure can shoot a close range slingshot a million times better than I can, but your logic is a moving target for a guy who has read all of your posts here.


----------



## VillageSniper (Jan 22, 2013)

Here is the issue that concerns me. And I don't raise this question to prove anyone right or wrong, or to join sides. We are all on the same side, at least I think.....maybe in regard to intellectual pursuit?

Pretend that I walk into a slingshot shop, as I would an archery shop, looking for a new slingshot. Due to physical constraints or my ability and techchnique to shoot comfortably and accurately, I ask the store owner to show me various slingshot frames and I am interested in testing these frames ,seeking a setup that will generate an 18lb draw weight at 28", for example. To simplify, the slingshot frames will use the same type and size of rubber/ bands and tapers, they will both be equally comfortable and accurate....state of the art. The frames may elongate the bands to different states naturally. And the bands may end up being different lengths in order to fulfill my desire for an 18lb draw at 28" that I have become so fond of , having shot similar setups my entire life. Which frame width will prove to be the most efficient? Maybe he was able to setup a 12" wide, an 8" wide, a 4" wide and a 2" wide. "Which will shoot the flattest at 25 yards?", I ask as I begin to pick the shop owner's brain, contemplating my purchase. For they all look nice and feel nice, and all are accurate and all were setup to produce an 18lb draw weight at 28", just as I asked.

As shooters we are only able to input a few variables in the shooting equation. Outside of build materials and design, draw weight and draw length are paramount. As we all have specific weights and lengths that we enjoy shooting. Release time is a very static, personal variable as well. Through training we all develop our own release time as we try to consistently aim and acquire our targets. I don't think most shooters vary their release time by much at all. So as I am standing in the store owner's shop, drooling over the assortment of frames before me, I patiently wait for the answer to my question.

VS


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> Tube_Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > If its a steel can then I would've thought industry would use a standard i.e dog food peeps get the same can as soup peeps....it seems logical Jim
> ...


And I am sure you have some documentation for this ... how about sharing it with us all.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Charles cuz I live in the USA where the shopping has the potential to pimp out anything and everything. There are actually 4 different Luxury cans with differing metal hardness to choose from now you have not said if Campbells Soup cans have made up to your place yet but if so please have a go and you shall see these babies is on the tought side and not like an ordinary flimsy dog food can. Gohead give it a Go by whatever means I feel like giving it a go too.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

dgui said:


> Charles cuz I live in the USA where the shopping has the potential to pimp out anything and everything. There are actually 4 different Luxury cans with differing metal hardness to choose from now you have not said if Campbells Soup cans have made up to your place yet but if so please have a go and you shall see these babies is on the tought side and not like an ordinary flimsy dog food can. Gohead give it a Go by whatever means I feel like giving it a go too.


And what is your source for this information about the cans and their hardness? As I suggested above, by all means, send me samples of your cans.

Cheers ..... Charles


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Can anyone explain to me what the pluperfect hell the thickness of steel cans has to do with meaningful tests of slingshots. This is absurd!


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Henry in Panama said:


> Can anyone explain to me what the pluperfect **** the thickness of steel cans has to do with meaningful tests of slingshots. This is absurd!


I agree ... but it seems to be the only method some folks will accept for comparing slingshot velocities. Perhaps a chrony is just too suspect a piece of equipment.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> Can anyone explain to me what the pluperfect **** the thickness of steel cans has to do with meaningful tests of slingshots. This is absurd!


Henry, do you think I should stop building my suit of armor out of science diet dog food cans then?


----------



## Bill Hays (Aug 9, 2010)

Very simple Henry... the thicker the can that proves stuff!


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Charles said:


> dgui said:
> 
> 
> > Charles cuz I live in the USA where the shopping has the potential to pimp out anything and everything. There are actually 4 different Luxury cans with differing metal hardness to choose from now you have not said if Campbells Soup cans have made up to your place yet but if so please have a go and you shall see these babies is on the tought side and not like an ordinary flimsy dog food can. Gohead give it a Go by whatever means I feel like giving it a go too.
> ...


It comes by shooting them over and over and over again. I can tell by how they react by getting the marble treatment.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

*Enjoy.*

*



*


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

I have to say, your videos/presentations are always interesting & grabs one's attention. Even though other's may disagree with you, I'm sure they are lurking & watching too ... LOL :lol:

P.S/Edit - Just realized, Dgui using standard plain ol' Daisy F-16 slingshot with stock tubes with its limited draw length! No special high powered band/tube setup. I just tried similar in my backyard using my Scout SS withTrumark rrt red tapered tubes. With 3/8" steel ball at about 10 feet or so short distance ... I could *not *penetrate a hole through an empty bean can, with repeated shot attempts!


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

VillageSniper said:


> Here is the issue that concerns me. And I don't raise this question to prove anyone right or wrong, or to join sides. We are all on the same side, at least I think.....maybe in regard to intellectual pursuit?
> 
> Pretend that I walk into a slingshot shop, as I would an archery shop, looking for a new slingshot. Due to physical constraints or my ability and techchnique to shoot comfortably and accurately, I ask the store owner to show me various slingshot frames and I am interested in testing these frames ,seeking a setup that will generate an 18lb draw weight at 28", for example. To simplify, the slingshot frames will use the same type and size of rubber/ bands and tapers, they will both be equally comfortable and accurate....state of the art. The frames may elongate the bands to different states naturally. And the bands may end up being different lengths in order to fulfill my desire for an 18lb draw at 28" that I have become so fond of , having shot similar setups my entire life. Which frame width will prove to be the most efficient? Maybe he was able to setup a 12" wide, an 8" wide, a 4" wide and a 2" wide. "Which will shoot the flattest at 25 yards?", I ask as I begin to pick the shop owner's brain, contemplating my purchase. For they all look nice and feel nice, and all are accurate and all were setup to produce an 18lb draw weight at 28", just as I asked.
> 
> ...


If I were the shop owner I would do my best to put you in a Brand New Original Pickle Fork Shooter with small diameter tubes with a medium length working length and a Super Sure Super Pouch also a tutorial on dvd so you could watch how to Turn and Tweak the pouch along with soft shooting to start off with. I would also let you go with a parting word, Technique. You would then be most delighted at the results you would get.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Am I the only one who thinks someone is trying to get a deal with a sporting goods manufacturer for a product whose packaging will have a big "33% MORE POWER WITH THE SECRETS IN MY DVD!!!" on the cover? Just a hunch over why certain performance claims have been so vociferously defended... (I could be wrong but posting spurious info does not seem to be a problem around here).

If I was as great a short range shooter as some people, I would not feel the need to overpad my ego with mythological powers that bend the laws of physics.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

handing someone a pfs as thier first slingshot is a guaranteed 33% more chance that the person will become dissatisfied with slingshots and give up . if you dont believe me, just remember the posts in different threads in which people have tried pfs and given up for good after a couple of hand hits. and most werent even first time slingshot users.


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

SmilingFury said:


> Am I the only one who thinks someone is trying to get a deal with a sporting goods manufacturer for a product whose packaging will have a big "33% MORE POWER WITH THE SECRETS IN MY DVD!!!" on the cover? Just a hunch over why certain performance claims have been so vociferously defended... (I could be wrong but posting spurious info does not seem to be a problem around here).
> 
> If I was as great a short range shooter as some people, I would not feel the need to overpad my ego with mythological powers that bend the laws of physics.


'Mythological powers'? You're exaggerating or over-stating to make a point. I understand. As for spurious info, you are focusing on recent debate going on. Apparently in slingshot circles and in this forum, in the past, there are/were other claims that could classified under subjective interpretation. OldspookASA forum member here, posted a summary of some of those ....

Comprehensive Questions about Establish of the Elastic Properties of Slingshot Bands by Michael Erskine


----------



## ZorroSlinger (Dec 12, 2012)

Imperial said:


> handing someone a pfs as thier first slingshot is a guaranteed 33% more chance that the person will become dissatisfied with slingshots and give up . if you dont believe me, just remember the posts in different threads in which people have tried pfs and given up for good after a couple of hand hits. and most werent even first time slingshot users.


Yeah, I would agree. My experience, I stumbled with PFS but I did not give up and now even having success with beginning bare back shooting! Took practice to get to this point. With PFS having practically no forks, the bands/tubes are so close to hand and there is much less margin of error, if one is not focused on the *technique.* This could be discouraging to beginners that may not have the patience. With that said, this is not a criticism of PFS. I enjoy PFS concept very much and an optional choice for slingshot enthusiasts! Also, I do not always do intuitive but sometimes use combination method with PFS .... I partial 'Aim' with it and quickly release when I'm on target. If it's original OPFS with the small V opening, that serves as a good sight/aim reference. So perhaps, beginner might find it easier using a PFS that way.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

ZorroSlinger said:


> SmilingFury said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who thinks someone is trying to get a deal with a sporting goods manufacturer for a product whose packaging will have a big "33% MORE POWER WITH THE SECRETS IN MY DVD!!!" on the cover? Just a hunch over why certain performance claims have been so vociferously defended... (I could be wrong but posting spurious info does not seem to be a problem around here).
> ...


To be fair, my wording may be strong, I will give you that, however from what I have read there are measurable factors with measurable results that all add up to a 20-25% ncrease in power under absolutely perfect conditions. Any other assertions are, in my mind, a myth.

The article you posted is very interesting. But it has nothing to do with my statement of what I would and would not feel the need to do. Look, It just seems odd to me that the idea of measuring things with cans, rather than a chrony, is an attempt at being obtuse on purpose. 
It is misleading to neophytes to the sport such as myself. I do wish to practice as well as study the sport from all angles and this kind of thing just sets me back. 
If my use of the word "mythological" seems exaggerated to you, imagine how recent claims seem to me.

No offense was intended to anyone, so no one has to tell me to "go fork a pickle" or anything.


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

So today I banded a tapered band set 22mm to 16mm active length 6 1/2" drawn 42" and pierced through both sides of a steel can now my question is do I get a stinking badge? :rofl:


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Tube_Shooter said:


> So today I banded a tapered band set 22mm to 16mm active length 6 1/2" drawn 42" and pierced through both sides of a steel can now my question is do I get a stinking badge? :rofl:


"CAN-KILLER" BADGE!! Or it is a badge that says "RECYCLER!" I am actually working on developing Can-o-graphy equipment and I have actually discovered that if I blink while releasing the pouch, I can shoot through both sides of a 55 gallon drum filled with motor oil!!
I swear! Try it, but if it does not work for you, you are doing it wrong, ok?


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Imperial said:


> handing someone a pfs as thier first slingshot is a guaranteed 33% more chance that the person will become dissatisfied with slingshots and give up . if you dont believe me, just remember the posts in different threads in which people have tried pfs and given up for good after a couple of hand hits. and most werent even first time slingshot users.


ha LOL ! if weren't first time slingshot users they must be grateful of their wide deep forks who cares them from their clumsiness ! PFS's are sophisticated ladies that bites if not well cherished LOL ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## studer1972 (Mar 17, 2013)

Those Daisy Powerline bands are *stiff* but they do seem to hit hard. My father in law sure likes them.

The tougher the can, the more impressive the penetration. May as well get as many different demonstrations of a given fork width/bandset/ammo combos performance. More data is good data. Out of the canned food I buy, it seems the Progresso Soup cans have the best solidity and heft, but I'm still trying not to be a hazard before I start testing. Chrony is the most objective, but I think the data from can impacts and heavy hanging target knockback is good to know, too.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

ZorroSlinger said:


> I have to say, your videos/presentations are always interesting & grabs one's attention. Even though other's may disagree with you, I'm sure they are lurking & watching too ... LOL :lol:
> 
> P.S/Edit - Just realized, Dgui using standard plain ol' Daisy F-16 slingshot with stock tubes with its limited draw length! No special high powered band/tube setup. I just tried similar in my backyard using my Scout SS withTrumark rrt red tapered tubes. With 3/8" steel ball at about 10 feet or so short distance ... I could *not *penetrate a hole through an empty bean can, with repeated shot attempts!


Zorro you Just proved the main point with the proper technique you can turn any slow moving sub standard slingshot into a High Powered Slammin Shooter. I would have rather used my opfs but for the point of Technique thats why the slow moving hard pulling Daisy F-16. I was very surprised it was able to send 3/8 steel through both sides of a Campbells Soup can. At the moment I am thinking if I can be quick enough on the pull draw it will launch a 3/8 steel through both sides of any empty can. Trying to go through both sides of an empty can is the most difficult.

I appreciate you doing your own shots like this and hope others will too. Hope other fellow shooters will see that I am trying to share something here that could benefit their shooting. Just think if you need to you can Dial Up The Power at any thime and not mess with various bands or tubes, its that easy.

Dgui / pfshooter


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

The various threads on this have become very jumbled but having read them

it's my understanding that the following points are undisputed. Can someone

clarify that these points are correct/

1. Wide forks will give more power than narrow forks if drawing to a specific anchor point?

1a. If so this is simply because there is a little more stretch in the bands?

2. "Live Shooting" gives more power than drawing and holding the bands before release?

2a. If so the percentage of power increase is dependent on temperature and possibly other factors?

2b. If so is this the same for all band types and sizes, does it work better for light or heavy or flats or tubes?

3. Flipping the hand also increases power?

3a. If so does that work for both live and static shooting?

Thanks

Ian


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Malleus said:


> The various threads on this have become very jumbled but having read them
> 
> it's my understanding that the following points are undisputed. Can someone
> 
> ...


The understanding depends on who you want to ask. You might ask who you specifically want to answer your questions.

Dgui


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

dgui said:


> Malleus said:
> 
> 
> > The various threads on this have become very jumbled but having read them
> ...


I understood that these points weren't disputed, that's what I understood from reading the threads on the subject.

I deduced that the only point of contention was the percentage of power increase, which isn't important to me at

this point.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

ok fine here are some facts. Heat is generated when the elastic is pulled and the quicker the release the more speed the ammo will travel at. Narrow forks like The OPFS sends the ammo with greater more direct power to the target. I dont know about flip shooting, this is not what my technique is so I cannot answer that one. A one motion shot is what is my technique which is what Rufus did so you might study all his videos, he in my opinon was one of the greates slingshot shooters of his time and of our time also, he was also the pioneer of active shooting. What ever else you will likely pickup by experience.\

Dgui


----------



## Malleus (Jul 25, 2013)

dgui said:


> ok fine here are some facts. Heat is generated when the elastic is pulled and the quicker the release the more speed the ammo will travel at. Narrow forks like The OPFS sends the ammo with greater more direct power to the target. I dont know about flip shooting, this is not what my technique is so I cannot answer that one. A one motion shot is what is my technique which is what Rufus did so you might study all his videos, he in my opinon was one of the greates slingshot shooters of his time and of our time also, he was also the pioneer of active shooting. What ever else you will likely pickup by experience.\
> 
> Dgui


Ok thanks for the reply, I will check those vids out.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

dgui said:


> ok fine here are some facts. Heat is generated when the elastic is pulled and the quicker the release the more speed the ammo will travel at. Narrow forks like The OPFS sends the ammo with greater more direct power to the target. I dont know about flip shooting, this is not what my technique is so I cannot answer that one. A one motion shot is what is my technique which is what Rufus did so you might study all his videos, he in my opinon was one of the greates slingshot shooters of his time and of our time also, he was also the pioneer of active shooting. What ever else you will likely pickup by experience.\
> 
> Dgui


your still not getting the point of his test. your talking about something else entirely that was not the focus of his tests. rewatch his video and pay attention to the first few minutes of it.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

dgui said:


> Narrow forks like The OPFS sends the ammo with greater more direct power to the target.


That is not a fact, it is your opinion. At least two members have submitted video tests that show the opposite to be true.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Previous definition for OPFS : original pickle fork shooter
Current definition for OFPS: Oh Please F#%king Stop


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

just give DGUI his own subforum to where only he can post in it. ill even name it for him- DGUI propaganda and misconceptions on slinghshot theory and opfs. (reads 30% faster than regular forum)

i respect his skills but question his claims. until i see his video with videoed chrony to back him up, with all due respect- put up or shut up. and if he proves it right, then i will apologize if i or he wants me to.


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Imperial said:


> just give DGUI his own subforum to where only he can post in it. ill even name it for him- DGUI propaganda and misconceptions on slinghshot theory and opfs. (reads 30% faster than regular forum)
> 
> i respect his skills but question his claims. until i see his video with videoed chrony to back him up, with all due respect- put up or shut up. and if he proves it right, then i will apologize if i or he wants me to.


I predict you having to apologize at exactly never o'clock on the 45th of september...


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

Henry in Panama said:


> dgui said:
> 
> 
> > Narrow forks like The OPFS sends the ammo with greater more direct power to the target.
> ...


that's has to be proven yet, the only thing that has being proven is at SAME DRAW LENGTH which is apples to oranges (or 2 a variables cocktail), not a magic property of the frame, but "looks logic", in fact Bill recognized that there is a point where wide forks are slower = cosine ! of course GameKeeper noticed the same ! let's be serious gentlemen ... assure me SAME STORED ENERGY and I will be the first to cheer this new discovery !

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

I will give a hint gentlemen ... the only way to conduct this experiment correctly is determining EACH draw length with a dynamometer at equal force, then correct the forces by cosine law to know the exact elongation in each case and only then start measuring with a crony, the draw length for the wider fork should be less than the calculated by a simple geometric exercise which happens to be almost equal for 2" or 3" ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Arturito said:


> I will give a hint gentlemen ... the only way to conduct this experiment correctly is determining EACH draw length with a dynamometer at equal force, then correct the forces by cosine law to know the exact elongation in each case and only then start measuring with a crony, the draw length for the wider fork should be less than the calculated by a simple geometric exercise which happens to be almost equal for 2" or 3" ...
> Cheers
> Arturo


Sr. Arturo, 
Your argument has always stayed consistent and has actually been accounted for by Mr. Hays when he acknowledged the unequal stretch when measuring to the same anchor point. I do not disagree with your 2"-3" estimation, nor do I find it unbelievable. 
I am curious to know if you actually think ,without a flip, and without any extra length added during "live" shooting, a 33% increase in power is possible? I mean if the bands are stretched to what you yourself would call equal amounts after adjusting for the "wide fork 2-3". Under those conditions, would you hypothesize an estimate of a 33% increase in speed? Would you truly put your name behind that number?


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Arturito said:


> that's has to be proven yet, the only thing that has being proven is at SAME DRAW LENGTH Arturo


your half right on what hayes did. he did same draw length, but also same band length from tie to tie. he used the same band. the only thing that changed was the forks width, which he did with his slingrifle(?). use the same band lengths with the same draw length on a pfs and then put them on a wider fork , then on an even wider fork and youll see the difference of what he and charles came up with. people are missing the same band set up part. the only way the narrow forks are shooting faster is because you adjusted the band length to your draw length. hayes and charles never adjusted the band length from tie to tie and used same hold time.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

SmilingFury said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > I will give a hint gentlemen ... the only way to conduct this experiment correctly is determining EACH draw length with a dynamometer at equal force, then correct the forces by cosine law to know the exact elongation in each case and only then start measuring with a crony, the draw length for the wider fork should be less than the calculated by a simple geometric exercise which happens to be almost equal for 2" or 3" ...
> ...





Imperial said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > that's has to be proven yet, the only thing that has being proven is at SAME DRAW LENGTH Arturo
> ...


Sirs I will answer this night, I am just starting a trip to other city, I will be careful to NOT add more steam because I know here are personal issues and I would not like my opinions to used in one or other way ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Arturito said:


> Imperial said:
> 
> 
> > Arturito said:
> ...


dont worry bout steam. your comments are respectful not belittling . your comments/opinions are far from personal insults.


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

So today I grunted on release and was surprised at the extra power it gave,if I add all the other elements I may attain a 40% increase in power :rofl:


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Tube_Shooter said:


> So today I grunted on release and was surprised at the extra power it gave,if I add all the other elements I may attain a 40% increase in power :rofl:


a trucker hat and bib overalls can add about on average 40% more accuracy.


----------



## Tube_Shooter (Dec 8, 2012)

Imperial said:


> Tube_Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > So today I grunted on release and was surprised at the extra power it gave,if I add all the other elements I may attain a 40% increase in power :rofl:
> ...


With regard to accuracy I could do with all the help I can get...... trucker hat and bib overalls I'm on it


----------



## Jacktrevally (Feb 14, 2011)

Lots of threads going on and to be honest I haven't been able to follow all due to time.

I started a few calculation to understand wider vs narrow fork.

Vectorwise a narrowerfork gives a greater force vector in the direction of the shoot. This started to joggle my mind as it there should be a scientific way to prove that.

To cut lonng calculation short, the wider fork with a fix anchor as demonstrated in a sling rifle get more stretch ratio than a narrow width. Simply because the bands when unstretched on a wider fork is nearer the fork tip due to the angle between the 2 bands. I've tried to calculate the gain in stetch ratio which is fairly easy to get if you keep a few variable as constant in both cases.

When I tried to move further in the calculation to prove that the gain in stetch ratio was more consequent than the force vector is where I got thinking! If bands are straight cut you can plot the hysterisis loop to get the energy stored which is a bit more complex if the bands are tapered.

But here is the complexity at his stage. I'm still thinking of how to guess a way or calculate the energy released to get the hysterisis graph knowing that a band speed is about 700fps. I still believe that bands will depend on thier mass and section ratio for the same amount of pull. This is where I got stuck.

Well I'm no qualified enough to debate more on the topic. Let get back to shoothing a Y frame.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

studer1972 said:


> Those Daisy Powerline bands are *stiff* but they do seem to hit hard. My father in law sure likes them.
> 
> The tougher the can, the more impressive the penetration. May as well get as many different demonstrations of a given fork width/bandset/ammo combos performance. More data is good data. Out of the canned food I buy, it seems the Progresso Soup cans have the best solidity and heft, but I'm still trying not to be a hazard before I start testing. Chrony is the most objective, but I think the data from can impacts and heavy hanging target knockback is good to know, too.


Hey Studer do me a solid and get either an empty bean can or an empty Campbells soup can and at a bout 10 or 15 feet see if you can plow on through either one or both sides of an empty can oh and be sure to get one of those Daisy F-16s to do it with and use a 3/8 steel give it all you got and if you can shoot video and post it. I would but im tied up at the moment.


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Jacktrevally said:


> Lots of threads going on and to be honest I haven't been able to follow all due to time.
> 
> I started a few calculation to understand wider vs narrow fork.
> 
> ...


dont over think it or add science to it, just grab a slingshot, some ammo and shoot away. the slingshot is better understood when you just use it. enjoy the simplicity.


----------



## dgui (Jan 12, 2010)

Cronograph, The worm has turned. LOL.

Boy and I got some stuff planned for that Cronograph.

Someones going to be sorry. LOL

Can of shaving cream whoop and a crony, A bean cann whoop theres a crony, Campbells Soup can whoop theres a crony.

Crony.


----------



## Arturito (Jan 10, 2013)

SmilingFury said:


> Arturito said:
> 
> 
> > I will give a hint gentlemen ... the only way to conduct this experiment correctly is determining EACH draw length with a dynamometer at equal force, then correct the forces by cosine law to know the exact elongation in each case and only then start measuring with a crony, the draw length for the wider fork should be less than the calculated by a simple geometric exercise which happens to be almost equal for 2" or 3" ...
> ...


Regarding 2" to 3" difference running a fairly accurate numeric model (that's all I have on hand) based on ZDP's and Dustin (a NASA guy) I did time ago when Jeorg presented his famous video






the difference between 2" and 3" is meaningless even with the same anchor, the difference of 5% is not explainable solely by the slight geometric difference between 2" and 3" unless very short bands (like 3" or 4") which is not the case, on very wide forks the efficiency decreases, Bill and GK agrees and the model also agree, I would recommend repeating the experiment with a mechanic release adjusting at millimetre scale for same elongation (which may differ from the draw depending on fork width) and checking equal bands temperature before the shoot ... on the other side the 33% claimed by dgui I assume it's his personal estimation, it's qualitative data (can penetration takes account of an effect that may reflect more power but it's not a quantity), personally I would not put a "number" to report this even it appeared so evident to me, the way dgui shoots also can't be reproduced as a "laboratory" experiment to derive meaningful measured data ... that said on basis of honesty and good faith that I don't doubt of 2 reputed members here and letting aside any personal issues between them that I will not judge and don't want to ... this will be my last post on this thread ...

Cheers

Arturo


----------



## SmilingFury (Jul 2, 2013)

Sr. Arturo,
You set a fine example and I will follow your example. I think that I may have let myself get a little too hyped up with regard to an argument that I did not see a proven basis for, other than personal issues. I also will not make any more comments regarding this topic and I will refrain from throwing anymore barbs regardless of what I now think of people I actually don't know. It is sometimes too easy to type a wisea$$ comment. 
I just want to shoot marbles and little steel balls at stuff.

Be well,
SF


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Well, it seems everything worth saying has been said. I trust the sniping will stop as well.


----------

