Slingshots Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 152 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Here is a video showing exactly what I said, but this time I took all possible ability to manipulate the results, either intentionally or unintentionally, away.

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

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

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

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

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

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Great video and a great piece of equipment.

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

·
HOBBYIST-SOPHOMORIC-JACKA$$
Joined
·
8,259 Posts
yup, that settles it. when you use the same length bands, tie to tie, at the same draw, the wide is a touch faster. (i think thats what ive been trying to say all along).
 
  • Like
Reactions: studer1972

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
yup, that settles it. when you use the same length bands, tie to tie, at the same draw, the wide is a touch faster. (i think thats what ive been trying to say all along).
Yes and that conclusion was evident on the first thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is kind of ugly.

So let us cut to the chase then...

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

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

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

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

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

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Actually OldSpook, I don't see any problem with what you posted and it is indeed correct.... however I do take objection to those that have repeatedly claimed they get 1/3 greater speed by simply using a narrower fork versus a wide fork.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Bill. :)
 

·
Member, Brotherhood of Slingshot Nutz
Joined
·
11,245 Posts
In the last thread about this, I guessed that the reason for the opposite result between John's and Bill's experiment probably meant that wider was faster, but only to a point. There is a law of diminishing returns, a point at which adding width yields no advantage or even slows it down. You can go back there and see.

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

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

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

·
Member, Brotherhood of Slingshot Nutz
Joined
·
11,245 Posts
Bill, I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone claiming a 30% increase in speed due to narrow forks. I think that claim was put forward in the "live-shooting" argument in the tapered bands thread.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
The claim was made by DGUI in the newbie questions thread while at the same time he tried to make it seem as though I had somehow manipulated the results of previous tests by holding back on certain shots to skew the outcome in favor of a predetermined desired result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·
Resigned
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
Bill, I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone claiming a 30% increase in speed due to narrow forks. I think that claim was put forward in the "live-shooting" argument in the tapered bands thread.
Right, I did not make a claim that narrow or even no fork shooting will increase speed of ammo out of the pouch by being narrow. It is in combination that must include Live Active One Motion Shooting rather than static dead shooting.

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

·
Resigned
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
The claim was made by DGUI in the newbie questions thread while at the same time he tried to make it seem as though I had somehow manipulated the results of previous tests by holding back on certain shots to skew the outcome in favor of a predetermined desired result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT right now I'm trying to stay as accurate as possible and not get into the flipping habits that will throw a shot off sometimes.... These guys in the contests are really making me have to stay on my toes if I want to have any sort of a prayer shooting against them in the big finale.
The automatic law of cause and effect dominates the slingshot but if you work within these laws you can work with the out come by Live Active Shooting which is a One Motion Shot by releasing the ammo while the bands or tubes are still storing the heat generated by the pulls so if it is simple narrow forks work in harmony with a rapid release and this produces up to a 1/3rd increase in feet per second and power released.

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

·
Resigned
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
This is what I posted on old spooks topic with regards to your shooting experiment.

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

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,889 Posts
I want to see on a Chronograph a 1/3 increase in speed. I've pulled and shot every type band on every fork width you can find. Releasing really fast, not so fast and slow and don't get 1/3 increase or decrease in my chrony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
How much difference is pre stressed vs stressed in power. not challenging just wondering power wise?
 
1 - 20 of 152 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top